She changes her position like most change their sox. Voters, particularly those of The Left are not the policy brainiacs we wish all voters were. Instead they follow the leader to whatever brave new world of emotional satisfaction they perceive. Did voters elect Obama for his unknown policy positions? Hardly. Hope, change, not Bush and of course the racist choice of voting for him because of his race combined to bring us to this pass. Similarly, they will vote for Mrs. Clinton not for her policy nor her proven incompetence, but because it's time.
Anything that strengthens her own power is her unchanging policy. Therefore, shifting positions on issues is meaningless to her overall design. She is a Leftist, a Statist, a would-be Catherine the Great, but, most of all, a political harlot who will perform any degrading act to achieve power. I could think of quite a few things that she has "evolved" from in the grand scheme of things.
Although I thought Bill was a decent president she would most likely carry her baggage in one hand while the other was on the bible making another false statement.
That's some intellectual and moral superiority complex you've got brewing there Maggot.
I don't see it the same way, but not because I don't think you're a brainiac or anything; just a matter of different perspectives.
If Carson gets elected, I don't think it will be because The Right somehow all decided it's time for a 100% black man.
And, if Fiorina gets elected, I don't think it will be because The Right somehow all decided it's time for a woman.
And, if Rubio or Cruz gets elected, I don't think it will be because The Right somehow all decided it's time for a Hispanic.
I'll think it's because he/she did the best job appealing to voters and the electoral for a variety of reasons, same as if Hillary Clinton wins.
P.s. "political harlot"
(09-27-2015, 09:10 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Voters, particularly those of The Left are not the policy brainiacs we wish all voters were.
...and those on the right are? 
I'm not laughing at you, Maggottyboo, I'm laughing at the thought that many on the right are policy brainiacs. That's hilarious.
More problems for the Hellbitch, LOL
Quote:The U.S. Defense Department has found an email chain that Hillary Clinton did not give to the State Department, the State Department said on Friday, despite her saying she had provided all work emails from her time as secretary of state.
ARTICLE
Quote:Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told a federal judge that she has turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department after a judge requested she do so, a state department spokesman confirmed to CNN on Sunday.
Clinton signed a declaration obtained by CNN, which said "While I do not know what information may be 'responsive' fr purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done."
ARTICLE
Can someone look up the penalties for perjury? I am too busy laughing my ass off.
(09-28-2015, 09:47 AM)pyropappy Wrote: [ -> ]Can someone look up the penalties for perjury? I am too busy laughing my ass off.
Pfft. Like Hillary is going to go to the slammer for perjury. Hahaha! That IS funny.
You continue to not take into consideration exactly who you are dealing with. You're not the only one.
(09-28-2015, 09:59 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]You continue to not take into consideration exactly who you are dealing with. You're not the only one.
I see, in your opinion is she above or exempt from the law?
When people break the law they are charged, right?
She might be charged with perjury when the investigation concludes, but I'd be very surprised.
Perjury is often really difficult to prove. I think it would be extremely difficult to convict her of perjury in this case because to prove perjury one must produce evidence that there was willful intent to lie.
I understand that she left it to her attorney to do the sorting and turn-over of the records. So, even if she was well aware that a batch of emails was not being turned over, without a statement indicating that Clinton herself directed those emails to be held back (or knew and approved of them being held back), perjury wouldn't be provable.
She only certified that, based on information told to her, she believes all of the emails that qualified as federal records (or potentially qualified as such) were turned over. Her ass is well covered, legally, in my opinion.
Still, to me, the fact that personnel related emails between she and Petraeus were not handed over looks bad. At worst, it makes her and her team look as if they believe they're above the law and have something to hide. At best, it's (yet another) case of shortsightedness and carelessness in Clinton's governmental record-keeping.
I find nothing to be argumentative with in that post. 
You're always fair & impartial, Hot D. Thank you for that.
Hillary Clinton: Shameless Panderer or Appropriately Progressive?
Constant pandering and waffling on key issues is a sign of weakness in a leader and causes me to doubt his/her ability to execute.
But, it doesn't put me off if politicians change their views over time; society and times change. I also don't think it's problematic that some politicians wait to take a firm stance on some social issues until they have data as to public sentiment; they are, after all, supposed to representing "the people". Leaders, like everyone else, should move forward; being stuck in the past and keeping ones heels dug in is much more worrisome in a leader, to me.
Some people view Hillary Clinton as a "panderer", others see her as "progressive".
Below are some of the key issues towards which her stance has changed or advanced since she ran back in 2008.
Hillary Clinton's Changes of Stance
Criminal Justice Reform
2007-2008: Clinton released an anti-crime agenda that focused on making communities feel “secure and safe.” She advocated for putting 100,000 new cops on the streets, taking on “the menace of meth” and halving the murder rate of certain cities in a section of the plan dedicated to “restoring order” to communities. But her plan also emphasized preventing at-risk youth from resorting to crime, reducing the size of the prison population, combating recidivism and reforming mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenders.
2015: In a year when numerous police killings of unarmed black people have given rise to the Black Lives Matter movement and a national conversation about police militarization and racial disparities in the criminal justice system, any plan from a Democrat that included calls to “restore order” and fund more police would be seen as out of touch. Accordingly, Clinton has released a plan to “end the era of mass incarceration” and said she supports body cameras for officers. She also released a plan to combat drug addiction and the national opioid epidemic by supporting medication-assisted treatment.
Social Security
2007-2008: Clinton criticized Obama’s proposal to lift the cap on the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax, which was $97,500 at the time. She characterized lifting the cap as a tax increase that would hit middle-class earners. She said she wanted to put “fiscal responsibility” first, and convene a bipartisan commission that would come up with way to ensure Social Security's solvency in the future.
2015: As Democratic members of Congress back expanding Social Security benefits, rather than just maintaining the status quo, Clinton has expressed a willingness to consider raising the cap on earnings subject to the tax, which is $118,500 this year. “We do have to look at the cap, and we have to figure out whether we raise it or whether we raise it a little and then jump over and raise it more higher up,” she said at a campaign event, according to The Washington Post.
Hillary Clinton's Changes of Stance (cont'd)
Immigration
2007-2008: Though Clinton supported comprehensive immigration reform, she said she would not support driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, and that she did not support the efforts of then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) to authorize such licenses in that state, which Clinton then represented in the Senate. (She did, however, say in a 2007 debate that Spitzer's plan "makes a lot of sense.")
2015: This cycle, Clinton has said that she supports “state policies to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants.” She still backs comprehensive immigration reform, and has said that she would go further than Obama in making deportation relief available to people who are undocumented.
Student Debt
2007-2008: Clinton proposed increasing a tuition tax credit from $1,650 to $3,500 and giving $500 million in grants to community colleges.
2015: Clinton has put forth a plan to tax the rich to help working students attend college without incurring debt for their tuition costs. She also wants to eliminate tuition for community colleges.
Marriage Equality
2007-2008: Clinton supported equal benefits and civil unions for same-sex couples, but did not support same-sex marriage. Then again, none of her rivals for the Democratic nomination supported same-sex marriage, either, and less than half of Americans did. In a questionnaire she filled out for the Human Rights Campaign, Clinton said she supported repealing the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that prevented the federal government from providing benefits to same-sex couples in states that recognized their marriages. But she advocated a state-by-state approach to the issue, “letting states maintain their jurisdiction over marriage.”
2015: Two years after Clinton announced her support for marriage equality in a video for the HRC, she praised the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. A majority of Americans now agree with her.
Ref:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hill...e8b0d184a2
So... The question is: where does one draw the line between "pandering" and "progressive?"
(09-29-2015, 04:06 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]So... The question is: where does one draw the line between "pandering" and "progressive?"
I think that's subjective and a matter of personal opinion.
For me, Clinton's changes in stance on criminal justice reform and gay marriage are probably simply indicative of keeping up with current society and moving forward accordingly.
In regards to the changes in stance on Social Security caps and tuition-free community college, that's probably an attempt not to lose liberal votes to Bernie Sanders. And, may also be an attempt to combat some Democrats' complaints that she's more like a Republican when it comes to catering to the rich.
As for immigration, Clinton's always been moderate. I imagine she's swung further to the left, at least in part, to pander to the large Hispanic voter base.
(09-29-2015, 05:09 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2015, 04:06 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]So... The question is: where does one draw the line between "pandering" and "progressive?"
I think that's subjective and a matter of personal opinion.
For me, Clinton's changes in stance on criminal justice reform and gay marriage are probably simply indicative of keeping up with current society and moving forward accordingly.
In regards to the changes in stance on Social Security caps and tuition-free community college, that's probably an attempt not to lose liberal votes to Bernie Sanders. And, may also be an attempt to combat some Democrats' complaints that she's more like a Republican when it comes to catering to the rich.
As for immigration, Clinton's always been moderate. I imagine she's swung further to the left, at least in part, to pander to the large Hispanic voter base.
Very much so, and the only person that truly knows isn't going to admit to it so to me it's kind of moot. I put it in the same perspective as I do campaign promises.
(09-29-2015, 05:40 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]Very much so, and the only person that truly knows isn't going to admit to it so to me it's kind of moot. I put it in the same perspective as I do campaign promises.
I feel more optimistic than I have in a long time about politicians trying their very best to make good on their campaign promises; as much as possible considering they need others to buy-in in most cases.
The American public has given "all-talk, no action, sell-out to the special interests" politics a big old "fuck you!" and put politicians on notice. In the race for the Republican and Democratic nominations, a significant percentage of the population has rallied behind outsiders who don't represent the "establishment" (with which both sides and Independents are generally fed up).
I'd be surprised if the election isn't between two career politicians a year from now. Still, they'll have weathered some serious battles to get there and the political climate will have changed substantially. A very good thing, in my opinion.
Just in: Clinton is rallying against the "Cadillac Tax" portion of the Affordable Health Care Act (Obama Care).
That's a big deal. Looks like Hillary is pushing for reforms to Obama Care as part of her platform now.
![[Image: 560b07de1900002f00fdeb76.jpeg]](http://img.huffingtonpost.com//asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/560b07de1900002f00fdeb76.jpeg)
Abolishing the Cadillac Tax would result in giving up $90+ billion USD revenue for the Fed (from businesses).
That will likely rub the Fed way wrong, but make Unions and Employers happy, if she succeeds in repealing it.
Clinton insiders say she has a way to make up for the lost revenue. Well, alright -- lay it on us.
Story:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-dr...c=rss&_r=0
She wants to re-name it Hillarycare I just know it. But the Cadillac tax is screwing up teachers because they get insurance for basically free and it would create a burden on city and town budgets to call their health insurance a Cadillac tax. Either way somebody is going to pay and its usually the ones that have no coalition or the everyday person.
Reading is Fundamental...
After she and her record were criticized repeatedly again in the second Republican Primary Debate, Hillary Clinton felt that the participants should be educated on her actual record. She mailed each of the Republican candidates a copy of her 2014 book.
Along with each book, Clinton sent a personalized letter. "I understand that you and your fellow Republican candidates for president were questioning my record of accomplishment at your last debate, so I thought you might enjoy reading my book," the letter read.
Hard Choices was published in 2014, following Clinton's four-year term as secretary of state. Clinton's letter was addressed to each GOP hopeful's formal name:
John E. Bush
Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., M.D.
Christopher J. Christie
Rafael E. Cruz
Cara C. Fiorina
Lindsey O. Graham
Michael D. Huckabee
Piyush Jindal
John R. Kasich
George E. Pataki
Randal H. Paul, M.D.
Marco A. Rubio
Richard J. Santorum
Donald J. Trump