A Hillary Clinton Coronation Will Pave the Way for a Scott Walker Presidency
http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/04/17/a-hillary-clinton-coronation-will-pave-the-way-for-a-scott-walker-presidency/
While Clinton has been marketed as a progressive, and while her campaign announcement video has clearly tried to brand her as a woman of the people, she has a long record as a hawkish, Wall Street-friendly, fossil fuel-supporting proponent of the security state who embodies crony capitalism and an out-of-touch establishment. So far, major media outlets have ignored the lefts criticism of Clintons record in favor of pushing a narrative of a popular candidate catering to middle-class voters (with a decidedly milquetoast economic populist agenda).
In one of two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs that brought HRC a cool $400,000, she was introduced by one of the bankers emceeing the event as someone who could bring us out of the wilderness. During the speech, which has not yet been made available to the public, she is purported to have made remarks criticizing politicians who bash Wall Street as unproductive and foolish. As Zaid Jilani reported in Alternet, Clinton also gave a paid speech to the Biotechnology Industry Organization in which she simultaneously praised genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in food and advocated cutting corporate taxes, which already make up a record-low percentage of overall U.S. tax revenue. In case voters are still unclear on HRCs position on GMOs, the Ready for Hillary PAC picked a Monsanto lobbyist as one of the leaders of her Iowa campaign team.
Hillary Clinton is also vilified among environmentalists around the country and the world for her support of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in which jets of water are injected with hundreds of chemicals into the ground to break up natural gas deposits, and often lead to natural gas contaminating local water supplies. In the U.S., fracking is one of the industries chiefly responsible for Californias water crisis by burning through 70 million gallons of water last year alone. This Mother Jones report explores how, as President Obamas secretary of state, Clinton aggressively introduced fracking to Eastern European countries. Many of these fracking projects were handled by companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron, which made millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I mean between the amazingly low rates, the loopholes, and the subsidies, we're already paying them taxes, essentially, so, what else is there?
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Bankruptcy lawyers are hitting gold, this year...
Bankruptcies Suddenly Soar Across Corporate America, Worst First Quarter Since 2009 by Wolf Richter
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/04/16/bankruptcies-soar-across-corporate-america-not-just-oil/
PRIVATIZE THE GAINS, SOCIALIZE THE LOSSES....IT'S THE AMERICAN CORPORATE WAY!
(See our daily expose of the worst that the economic actors have to offer on the Stock Market Watch and the Weekend Economists threads, here at DU, and in the Economy Group in general)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)To move us ever more firmly into private companies being paid out of the public purse, for governments having the gall to actually try to create legislation to protect the environment or workers.
CrispyQ
(38,299 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)That's the case already, by default, even though the toxic industries don't pay the taxes required to support it.
Something in a TPP, for instance, that makes gov'ts beware of enacting environmental regulations and responsibilities, to fix this problem, lest they get sued for endangering profits.
Something like that isn't outside the realm of science-fiction.
jomin41
(559 posts)She's had an exorcism. All good now.
Welcome to DU!
marym625
(17,997 posts)I knew about the speeches but I had the impression they were not that recent. I only skimmed the article but I didn't see a date.
Thanks for the post!
eridani
(51,907 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)I will check them out. Haven't really looked at too much in GD of late.
No matter what happens, I just can't believe we would elect someone that doesn't even have a college education and has run his State into the ground.
What am I saying? I guess I live in a dream land
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)The media is controlled. Hillary is... uninspiring, to put it nicely. Walker can outspend Hillary with the Koch coffers. Yeah it doesn't look good.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...I've said in previous posts that he's well-banked and well-backed. He's also relatively young, and with the right media handling, can potentially appeal to younger voters if he pivots sufficiently to their more "libertarian" beliefs (re: pot, the war on drugs, etc.).
Don't take him lightly.
TBF
(34,348 posts)the fact that he was able to hoodwink the residents of a formerly progressive state like Wisconsin should give all pause. We know Hillary is beatable - many of us worked for Obama for that reason (we knew HE could win - we weren't sure about her). I hold the same view now on that as I did in 2008. We'd be smart to put up someone with less baggage but unfortunately the party seems hell-bent on running her. Bad move imo.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Hopefully we are wrong.
marym625
(17,997 posts)The only thing in slow motion is actual wrecking. The wreck already happened
marym625
(17,997 posts)I hope you are wrong.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)But that's up to US.
GOTV!!!!!
marym625
(17,997 posts)We need to use social media like it was used in the 2008 election. Even smarter than at that time
marym625
(17,997 posts)And he lost. But, Walker isn't running against the likes of President Obama. Best orator so far this century
merrily
(45,251 posts)that Scott Walker might be the nominee because he has no negatives.
That was a surprise.
merrily
(45,251 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)In dumbing down America.
It was true decades ago that a person could have just a high school education and still be well educated. Now, even with a college education, many don't learn as much as used to be taught in high school
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:43 AM - Edit history (1)
Demeter
(85,373 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)she has this one sewn up six ways to Sunday! Just like 2008!
brush
(57,630 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)
The guy compares how he handled unions to handling ISIS not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
He's this election cycle's Rick Perry.
the_sly_pig
(748 posts)But honestly, it seems the country is being turned into an Idiocracy by a war on education. As such, we will certainly reap what we sew. I don't believe Hillary will make or break anything that happens. I do seem to remember that Hillary tried to enact national health care in the 1990's. I credit her with that.
I will vote for the Democratic nominee for President.
If we end up with Skank Wanker in four years then I guess due to unthinking idiots we will get what we deserve.
merrily
(45,251 posts)BrainDrain
(244 posts)that your post hasn't been banned by the DU purity jury, or purged for being anti-HRC.
I truly hope this kind of truth gets out more.....
Thanks and kicked and rec;ed.
mopinko
(71,836 posts)what on earth could bring you to that conclusion? anti-hill posts are half the feed here. i dont see them being locked.
argued forcefully, yes. locked? get off it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)BrainDrain
(244 posts)rilly
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)All of them get banned on the spot and you poor, noble, truth tellers must go underground and form your own resistance.
I swear, the martyrdom of the anti-Hillary crowd gets truly laughable sometimes.
Thekaspervote
(34,676 posts)Historic NY
(37,885 posts)and promoting anti-fracking. Of course at State she would have been promoting the Obama administrations policies not her own........but please proceed.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/02/hillary-clinton-says-fracking-carries-risks-in-conservation-speech
http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-hillary-clinton-fracking-propaganda/2D4EA567-7912-41AA-AFC7-FD6EABA58752.html
http://dailysignal.com/2012/03/23/house-members-ask-sec-clinton-not-to-showcase-fracking-propaganda/
Thirty-two members of the House of Representatives have asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to remove a factually inaccurate environmentalist documentary from the list of featured films at a State Department event showcasing contemporary American society and culture.
The documentary, Gasland, spread hysteria about the natural gas mining technique hydraulic fracturing, using numerous factual misstatements, exaggerations, and misrepresentations. Its inclusion in States event was first reported by Scribe last month.
The 32 House members accuse State of pursuing a radical environmental agenda, as evinced by its inclusion of Gasland in the event, and its role in blocking the Keystone XL pipeline.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)when they are challenged. If she did not, that is in her favor.
malthaussen
(17,679 posts)Oh, and probably sexual dysfunction. The power of a presidential nominee is awesome.
-- Mal
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)discussion.
This OP says that Hillary Clinton supports Fracking. However in a post in this thread, that claim is disputed, and with links, which is always a good thing.
The links seem to say that she has stated that Fracking can be risky. They also say that while she was at the State Dept, the documentary Gasland was available for viewing. That she was asked by over 30 members of Congress to remove it as it was causing 'hysteria' and harming the Natural Gas Industry.
This seems to contradict the OP, at least on the Fracking Issue.
What I do not know yet, is whether or not she complied with the request from the Pro-Fossil Fuel members of Congress.
Do YOU know what happened after that request was made?
I am hoping she did not comply.
malthaussen
(17,679 posts)... that claimed a vote for Carter was a vote for nuclear war. Do you really think Walker has a hope in hell of election? That would assign to the Koch brothers influence even their money would have a hard time buying. As I recall, early in the last election every new Republican nominee took first place in the polls after his announcement, but Romney was chosen anyway. I am thinking much the same thing will happen with Walker, who does not have the kind of national rep a presidential nominee needs. Much of course can still happen. Much as I dislike Hillary, though, I think it is hyperbole to declare that nominating her will ensure a GOP victory. Especially when the statement is made in April of 2015.
As for Gasland, so far as a quick survey of Google can reveal, the State Department endorsed the film. It doesn't much matter if they did or not, so long as they ignore the message.
-- Mal
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Didn't the former leader of Acorn assure us of that?
I am genuinely horrified at the thought of Hillary Clinton as President, only a little less horrified than I am of any of the possible Republicans in that office.
And it really is much too early to assume who the Republican nominee. Just as I hope it's too early to crown Hillary.
CrispyQ
(38,299 posts)I'm kind of friends with one of them. "You should be happy!" she said when she saw my expression. Why would I be happy that the democratic party is putting up a candidate that republicans like?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)I also think there is an enormous overestimation of a pent-up longing for a woman President. By and large, women do NOT cross party lines to vote for other women. If they did, Wendy Davis would be Governor of Texas, and Alison Grimes would be Senator.
merrily
(45,251 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)and insignificant in elections, why is HRC trying to become one of us?
merrily
(45,251 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)to get by Warren, and once that's accomplished she'll go back to being the corporatist war party Hillary we all know and love.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)If the fringe Left is insignificant, according to some DU'ers, why is HRC trying to become a Pretend Populist?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)still_one
(96,586 posts)another, that is what poll after poll indicates. I will be voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is.
merrily
(45,251 posts)still_one
(96,586 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)still_one
(96,586 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Your reply 34 was to eridani, not to me. In your reply 34, you stated--not asked, stated--
The polls seem to disagree with that assessment. That isn't me pushing one candidate or
another, that is what poll after poll indicates.
To that statement, not question, my Reply 36 was:
And you can't think of a single reason why the polls are that way?
Your "reply" to my question in #38 was:
Are the polls inaccurate?
So, no, I did not reply too your question with a question first. You were the only one who did that. And there is no irony whatever.
However, you did reply to my question with a question and you still have not answered the question in my Reply 36.
Do you think people can't read the thread?
Clearly, though, I'd be silly to expect either an apology from you for your untruth or an answer to my question.
BTW. This is not GD or the Hillary Group. In this group, we're supposed to be able to discuss non-reform candidates without these kinds of battles from Hillary's supporters.
still_one
(96,586 posts)certain way, my answer would be they represent a snapshot it time. That can change if taken at another time, but if enough polls are taken with periodic frequency a trend may emerge which is indicative of sentiment.
As to your pointing out that I was in a non-reform candidate group, I absolutely screwed up on that one also. I really thought it was GD. I have inadvertently done this before with another group, and whether you believe or not I really would not have gone in a special group forum to advocate for or against someone outside of that group. I do apologize for that also.
Incidentally, though my posts may indicate I am a Hillary supporter, the fact is I haven't decided, and won't until I see what challengers appear in the Democratic primary, and where they are on various issues.
I do appreciate you pointing out the group I was posting in was NOT GD.
Thanks, and sorry for the delayed response
aspirant
(3,533 posts)probabilities, estimates, guesses and are unverifiable.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Maybe a third party down the road, but definitely more disaffection.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Pure and simple. This is balderdash.
Nothing more, and nothing less.
And no. I am not a Hillary supporter. I am merely one who can smell balderdash from a mile away.
I have no dog in this (apparent) hunt. I am a mere Democratic partisan who sees both the most fervent Hillary supporters and Hillary haters -- the latter is only verb appropriate in this context -- both acting like two year olds here on DU.
It is over 18 months until the next presidential election. I am baffled by the apparent urgency of something which will not be resolved in such a time frame. And also by the venom being hurled towards good DUers both for or against a putative future president. Some are even posting that they wouldn't vote for Hillary in the general election! Well, such opinions would get you banned on the DU of past days.
This is Democratic Underground, not Third Way Underground, and not Liberal Underground.
Play nicely, people.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)there might be an attraction for the Hispanics for him.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)If Hillary is really going to try to raise $2.5 billion dollars for her campaign, the Koch Bros will match that and even donate more than that to get Walker in to the White House.
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)Seems he forgot that red meat base is not always the same as corporate elite
He is not that bright so the confusion on his part is justified
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)And will vote for her in the general if she gets the nomination.
I prefer someone more liberal, but to assume she won't win because of positions that 90& of the electorate are unfamiliar with makes no sense.
DU is not representative of the electorate, or the Democratic Party, or even liberal Democrats as a whole.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Yay alienation! We obviously need more of it.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)I am stating what I believe to be true, not that I am happy about it.
And here I believe you display what I think is a large problem today.
You made an assumption that was totally unsupported by what I said.
Lack of critical reading or analytical thinking skills.
eridani
(51,907 posts)That is the major difference. Were you suggesting that there are other reasons of significance?
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Your subject line is correct I believe. That doesn't mean I like it. It just its what it is.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Anyone can claim to be liberal. Some Clinton supporters here claim to be liberal. No liberal would approve of her economic plans, her foreign policy stands, and her closeness with Wall Street. No liberal could overlook her "mistake" in 2002 and the consequences.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)You are not the only one who gets to define it however.
For the record, she doesn't thrill me and I would prefer Bernie.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)participation with the Republicons in promulgating the Bush lies? IMO that alone disqualifies her as being "liberal". If you disagree, explain why.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She is typical Third Way. Liberal for social equality but not for economic equality. And a neocon foreign policy record.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the mortgage derivative bubble, the bailout, the settlement, and the Fed all but paying them to borrow all these years?
They got me at "wilderness." l have to recover before I can post about the rest of the stuff in OP.