By asserting that she can take money from these groups, including honorary fees to spend as she sees fit for personal rather then political benefit, and that she has not been even slightly influenced by all this largess, she has disavowed the corrupting influence of money in politics far beyond anything contained in Citizens United. Money corrupts the typical politician, she seems to be claiming; but she alone is a person of such moral probity that, like Marlow venturing into the jungle in Heart of Darkness, she can escape unchanged — even when companies such as Goldman Sachs are cutting checks to her personal account. Does Clinton honestly believe it would be more corrupting if, rather than paying off Clinton directly, Goldman instead sponsored TV ads in support of her candidacy? Of course not — the very idea is ludicrous.
We will probably never know whether Secretary Clinton’s assertion at the debate of Sanders’s “very artful smear” was rehearsed, or spontaneous. What is beyond doubt is that Secretary Clinton just gutted the basis for her long opposition to the Citizens United decision.
The unmitigated arrogance and hypocrisy of this woman never ceases to amaze me.
Second of all, I’d actually take the exact opposite view of Steinem’s: I’d say that the liberal women who support Bernie are actually more politically knowledgeable than those who support Hillary. They’ve been paying enough attention to know that Bernie has been fighting for gay rights since the ‘70s while Hillary didn’t support gay marriage until 2013, and that the head of Goldman Sachs said Bernie’s candidacy “has the potential to be a dangerous moment” while Hillary has taken tons of money from the firm for paid speeches. You know, to name a couple of things.
Albright’s comments were even more ludicrous than Steinem’s. During a rally for Hillary in Concord, New Hampshire on Sunday, Albright said that “there’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help each other.”
But it totally is. First of all, feminism is supposed to be about women being able to make choices for themselves. Second of all, is Albright saying that Hillary should be sent to Hell? After all, the way that she actively worked to ruin the lives of women who accused her husband of sexual assault hardly qualifies as her giving her “help” to them. Or maybe there’s an exception for “bimbos?” That would be, of course, very feminist.
Personally, I would never support Hillary. She’s a hawkish, lying, corrupt, untrustworthy woman. She cares about nothing except money and her own political prowess, and will destroy anyone who dares to get in her way.
two thoughts: 1. Never waste time killing some one busy committing suicide (Dick Army) and 2.) the left can not handle dissent- when unable to defend their ideas they simply find ways to insult and demean any opposition
Cruz stood against the ethanol special interest and still won Iowa.
Rubio was smoked by Christy for sounding simplistic and scripted. But I remember a 45 minute unscripted interview from the Miami Herald in 2010 when he was unheard of and given no chance against the entrenched Charlie Crist. I remember it because he had such an impressive command of the issues and it exposed his depth. You can watch it here:
The debates are too many and unrevealing. They are all about ratings. They play to zingers and gotchas, not illumination or revelation. I would prefer to have a panel of diverse media interview a single candidate for an extended period- at least thirty minutes. There would be less room for sound bites and more room for depth.
I read a good bit of American history and I cannot recall any president approaching this office with the ethical baggage Hillary brings.
I do not like the populist vacuum of Donald Trump, but I am more concerned about the millennials’ acceptance and embrace of Bernie Sanders. Socialism and central planning, treating citizens like cogs in an economic machine is the worst idea to come out of the 20th century. Perhaps the youth did not learn this in an education system more concerning about feelings and equality that history and basic economics. Perhaps they just do not like their alternatives. Wealth creation is foreign to them . Chickens come from supermarkets, not a farm.
I heard a killer line from Greg Gutfeld on The Five. “Voting for Hillary because she is a woman is like drinking anti-freeze because it looks like Gatorade.”
The GOP will focus as the field withers. So far Santorum threw his support for Rubio. Trump is unlikely to get such support. Cruz has burned too many establishment bridges. Rubio and the governors stand to gain. The caveat is a Trump / Cruz coalition. But I have been so wrong in assessing the Trump phenomena that I may be overdue for getting one right.
I wonder how much of the support for Bernie is the appeal of his ideas and how much is just how repellent Hillary is.
The biggest and most important development has been the massive support among the new generation of voters for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and his open embrace of socialism. In Iowa’s Democratic caucuses, which ended with Clinton and Sanders in a virtual tie, young people opted for Sanders at an almost inconceivable rate of 84-14. In 2008, Barack Obama won this segment, claiming only a 57 percent majority.
So we are seeing the embrace of an openly socialist septuagenarian by a generation that, within a decade, will dominate our electorate and outnumber baby boomers as soon as 2020. That should put more conventional politicians, and business, on notice. Whether you are a Republican, a free-marketer or, even a Democratic-leaning crony capitalist, be afraid – be very afraid.
For the first time since labor leader and presidential candidate Eugene Debs in the early 20th century, Americans are flocking in big numbers to a politician who rejects the efficacy of capitalism and seeks to create a new, notionally fairer, system. Now, as then, the reason to support socialist ideas – some of which were implemented during the New Deal – lies with the palpable failures of capitalism. Polls of millennials show consistently that economic issues, such as jobs and college debt, are their dominant concerns.
The new generation’s lurch toward socialism would have been unimaginable at any previous moment in the past half century. A recent yougov.com poll found some 36 percent of people ages 18-29 favor socialism compared with barely 39 percent support for capitalism. Support for socialism drops precipitously, to 26 percent, among people ages 30-44, tumbles to 24 percent support among those ages 45 to 64 and hits 15 percent among those over 65.
This is an excellent analysis of the sociology of the gun problem in America, and should be read in its entirety. It is a bit long, but it is worthy with no wasted words.
In the October 2015 special issue on “gun violence prevention,” Preventive Medicine featured the latest and most thorough attempt to treat the NCVS as the gold standard for measuring defensive gun usage. The study, by Harvard’s Hemenway and Sara J. Solnick of the University of Vermont, broke down the characteristics of the small number of DGUs recorded by the NCVS from 2007 to 2011. The authors found, among other things, that “Of the 127 incidents in which victims used a gun in self-defense, they were injured after they used a gun in 4.1% of the incidents. Running away and calling the police were associated with a reduced likelihood of injury after taking action; self-defense gun use was not.” That sounds not so great, but Hemenway went on to explain that “attacking or threatening the perpetrator with a gun had no significant effect on the likelihood of the victim being injured after taking self-protective action,” since slightly more people who tried non-firearm means of defending themselves were injured. Thus, for those who place value on self-defense and resistance over running, the use of a weapon doesn’t seem too bad comparatively; Hemenway found that 55.9 percent of victims who took any kind of protective action lost property, but only 38.5 percent of people who used a gun in self-defense did.
Kleck thinks the National Crime Victimization Survey disagrees so much with his own survey because NCVS researchers aren’t looking for DGUs, or even asking about them in so many words. The survey merely asks those who said “yes” to having been a crime victim whether they “did or tried to do” something about it. (You might not consider yourself a “victim” of a crime you have successfully prevented.) Kleck surmises that people might be reluctant to admit to possibly criminal action on their own part (especially since the vast majority of crime victimizations occurred outside the home, where the legality of gun possession might be questionable) to a government surveyor after they’ve given their name and address. And as he argued in a Politico article in February 2015, experienced surveyors in criminology are sure that “survey respondents underreport (1) crime victimization experiences, (2) gun ownership and (3) their own illegal behavior.”