Jump to content

Today,Hillary said something I agree with


ExPDXer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Washington - Hillary Clinton, in her first public speech since last week's crushing presidential loss:

 

"I will admit, coming here tonight wasn't the easiest thing for me," Clinton said. "There have been a few times this past week where all I wanted to do was curl up with a good book and our dogs and never leave the house again."

 

I totally agree - she should never, ever leave her house again, but which one?

 

This one:

Clinton Washington DC house - Estimated value $5,600,000.00

 

or

 

This one:

Clinton Chappaqua, NY house - Estimated value $2,400,000.00 with membership to Trump's Golf Club at Westchester.

 

We should all feel sorry for her week-long episode of discomfort. The good news is that she's over that now, and back to making speeches. Girl's gotta make a living wage in these difficult economic times.

Another broken promise.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully, we are well rid of the economically elitist influence of Hillary and Bill in the Democratic Party. The coming dark days could see the rise of economic as well as socially progressive dominance in our party.

 

Newsweek - ‎12 hours ago‎
After Senator Charles Schumer of New York was elected as the new leader of the Senate Democrats earlier on Wednesday, he gave both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren leadership roles in the upcoming first Congress under President-elect Donald ...

Progressive Democrats have never been more galvanized. There are already Berniecrats in congress and many more getting into politics. It's very hard to pry power from politicians who are on the take. They fight hard to keep the gravy coming. But there are examples, like the fall of Tammany Hall in New York.

 

We have the shining example of FDR who took back the government for the ordinary people. It can be done.

 

Everyone is trying to guess what the Trump administration will look like. As much as it would be useful to know just what we are fighting, we have to wait until some kind of pattern develops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully, we are well rid of the economically elitist influence of Hillary and Bill in the Democratic Party.

You may be rid of the Clintons, but you will never be rid of rich elitists in government. Here's why: People of ability are the ones who rise in political parties; people of great ability rise to near the top. People of ability inevitably do well for themselves and their families, and people of great ability become rich.

 

It will always be a meritocracy. We can only hope that some in the meritocracy do some good for the ordinary people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be rid of the Clintons, but you will never be rid of rich elitists in government. Here's why: People of ability are the ones who rise in political parties; people of great ability rise to near the top. People of ability inevitably do well for themselves and their families, and people of great ability become rich.

 

It will always be a meritocracy. We can only hope that some in the meritocracy do some good for the ordinary people.

 

Hope? We can do a lot more than hope. We can elect people like Tulsi Gabbard, Sherrod Brown, Maxine Waters, Al Franken, Ralph Ellison, Kirsten Gillibrand, Carolyn Maloney, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

 

Ability and greed are not synonymous. We can have a Meritocracy without Plutocracy. A glance at the Democratic Socialist countries, around the world, make this undeniable.

 

One hint as to which politicians will be elitist is an overly acquisitive is lifestyle. Those that ostentatiously flaunt extravagant lifestyles and extraordinary privilege are more likely to be scornful of ordinary people and the environment.

 

As ExPDXer pointed out, the Clinton lifestyle is a demonstration.

Clinton Washington DC house - Estimated value $5,600,000.00

 

or

 

This one:

Clinton Chappaqua, NY house - Estimated value $2,400,000.00 with membership to Trump's Golf Club at Westchester.

 

 

But someone like Trump puts the Clintons to shame when it comes to ostentatiously wasting resources to flaunt one's position. Trump not only exaggerates the amount of his wealth verbally, but demonstrates it with obscene golden icons of himself, everywhere he can.

 

More modest lifestyles by the extremely wealthy tend to demonstrate a higher degree of maturity and less need to impress others. And they use up far fewer resources, unnecessarily. Modest Vs extravagant lifestyles result from values and beliefs that run deep in society. In the Democratic Socialist countries, wealth is flaunted much less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be rid of the Clintons, but you will never be rid of rich elitists in government. Here's why: People of ability are the ones who rise in political parties; people of great ability rise to near the top. People of ability inevitably do well for themselves and their families, and people of great ability become rich.

 

It will always be a meritocracy. We can only hope that some in the meritocracy do some good for the ordinary people.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the Peter Principal. Consider in a large corporation how promotions happen. The concept says someone gets promoted based upon merit. They may get promoted again based on merit. Once they attain their level of incompetence, they are no longer promoted. The result is you get all levels of management who are incompetent. Now look again at how they promote. Since they are incompetent, they promote based upon people who have characteristics most similar to themselves, essentially they promote people who are incompetent. I have been in numerous large corporations and it happens that way in every one of them.

 

I have pointed this out on occasion and typically the answer is, I had a group to pick who gets promoted, and the person I chose was the only one I could afford to lose. An outright admission that incompetence gets promoted. There is also the issue if someone competent gets promoted, then that competent person is in competition with the promoting manager for the next promotion.

 

From my point of view, the management of most corporations is clearly incompetent. This is not a meritocracy.

 

People of great ability rise to the top?? I couldn't disagree more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be rid of the Clintons, but you will never be rid of rich elitists in government. Here's why: People of ability are the ones who rise in political parties; people of great ability rise to near the top. People of ability inevitably do well for themselves and their families, and people of great ability become rich.

 

It will always be a meritocracy. We can only hope that some in the meritocracy do some good for the ordinary people.

 

Too bad that a totalitarian insists on throwing red dots when his reasoning fails. You're right.

 

I'll clean you up later.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hope? We can do a lot more than hope. We can elect people like Tulsi Gabbard, Sherrod Brown, Maxine Waters, Al Franken, Ralph Ellison, Kirsten Gillibrand, Carolyn Maloney, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

 

Ability and greed are not synonymous. We can have a meritocracy without Plutocracy. A glance at the Democratic Socialist countries, around the world, make this undeniable.

 

One hint as to which politicians will be elitist and overly aquisitive is lifestyle. Those that ostentatiously flaunt extravagant lifestyles and extraordinary privilege are more likely to be scornful of ordinary people and the environment.

 

As ExPDXer pointed out, the Clinton lifestyle is a demonstration.

 

But someone like Trump puts the Clintons to shame when it comes to ostentatiously wasting resources to flaunt one's position. Trump not only exaggerates the amount of his wealth verbally, but demonstrates it with obscene golden icons of himself, everywhere he can.

 

More modest lifestyles by the extremely wealthy tend to demonstrate a higher degree of maturity and less need to impress others. And they use up far fewer resources, unnecessarily. Modest Vs extravagant lifestyles result from values and beliefs that run deep in society. In the Democratic Socialist countries, wealth is flaunted much less.

 

Maxine Waters (local to me) is well-known to be among the most corrupt members of Congress. Not the example to choose if you're looking for an exemplar of non-greediness.

 

FYI.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maxine Waters (local to me) is well-known to be among the most corrupt members of Congress. Not the example to choose if you're looking for an exemplar of non-greediness.

 

FYI.

 

Bill

 

I looked it up and you're right. Cross her off the list then. There are plenty of other examples of progressive Democrats who are not greedy in their lifestyles, including the rest of those I mentioned.

 

A lot of the rap against Waters may be the coming from the Right Wing Noise Machine. An investigation yielded no evidence.

California Rep. Waters cleared of ethics charges - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...waters.../75d346c2-03f3-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e19...

Sep 21, 2012 - A House ethics panel has determined there is no evidence that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) violated congressional rules when she called ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hope? We can do a lot more than hope. We can elect people like Tulsi Gabbard, Sherrod Brown, Maxine Waters, Al Franken, Ralph Ellison, Kirsten Gillibrand, Carolyn Maloney, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

 

I say "hope" because you can elect anyone who says one thing, and then when the realities of governing America and engaging the world become apparent, they do something different than what they claimed they could do.

 

That's not saying the people you cite (Or Obama or Clinton) are liars. They're not, they're well-intentioned, good people. It's just that governing this America, with it's place in the world and its checks and balances, will never be a straight forward act. That means we will be dissatisfied with everyone we elect.

 

Even the damn stupid tea party will end up unhappy with the abomination that is Trump. Eventually reality will sink in and limit what the Orange Thing can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you are not familiar with the Peter Principal.

 

From my point of view, the management of most corporations is clearly incompetent. This is not a meritocracy.

 

People of great ability rise to the top?? I couldn't disagree more.

 

I am familiar with it. We're not talking about corporations here, we're talking about politics.

 

In politics the ability to speak well and convince people of whatever it is you're selling is the quality that's needed. That intelligence and speaking ability makes a person a valued speaker. Bill Clinton at his prime was great to listen to. I don't begrudge him the money he made any more than I begrudge a great surgeon get paid for surgical ability.

 

Maybe the people that paid him to speak thought they were buying access to his wife. But remember, Reagan commanded much more money as a speaker when he was out of office, with nothing to offer.

 

Obama, once out of office, will have little political influence. Watch what he gets paid to speak. He'll take that money, as would anyone. It's a great gig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I looked it up and you're right. Cross her off the list then. There are plenty of other examples of progressive Democrats who are not greedy in their lifestyles, including the rest of those I mentioned.

 

A lot of the rap against Waters may be the coming from the Right Wing Noise Machine. An investigation yielded no evidence.

 

Like I said, Maxine Water is local. We've known her for a very long time. She is a "reliable" vote, but also very corrupt.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am familiar with it. We're not talking about corporations here, we're talking about politics.

 

In politics the ability to speak well and convince people of whatever it is you're selling is the quality that's needed. That intelligence and speaking ability makes a person a valued speaker. Bill Clinton at his prime was great to listen to. I don't begrudge him the money he made any more than I begrudge a great surgeon get paid for surgical ability.

 

Maybe the people that paid him to speak thought they were buying access to his wife. But remember, Reagan commanded much more money as a speaker when he was out of office, with nothing to offer.

 

Obama, once out of office, will have little political influence. Watch what he gets paid to speak. He'll take that money, as would anyone. It's a great gig.

I would have a hard time trying to convince anyone I know that bush and trump are examples of the smartest, most talented people the USA has to offer. As far as Reagan goes, I suggest the money he got for speaking after he was out of office was simply payback, for the money he funneled to those organizations when he was in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I say "hope" because you can elect anyone who says one thing, and then when the realities of governing America and engaging the world become apparent, they do something different than what they claimed they could do.

 

That's not saying the people you cite (Or Obama or Clinton) are liars. They're not, they're well-intentioned, good people. It's just that governing this America, with it's place in the world and its checks and balances, will never be a straight forward act. That means we will be dissatisfied with everyone we elect.

 

Even the damn stupid tea party will end up unhappy with the abomination that is Trump. Eventually reality will sink in and limit what the Orange Thing can do.

 

I have several big concerns. Near the top is economic justice.

 

I don't buy the idea that we are doomed to perpetual policies and corruption which funnel all the wealth to corporations and the very rich. The Democratic Socialist countries prove this and so did the FDR, Truman and Eisenhower administrations.

 

I acknowledge , without reservation, that campaign promises often crash and destruct on the rocks of ever changing realities. But Aristocracies of all kinds, including Plutocracies, have been overthrown, or voted out in favor of more egalitarian systems. The struggle goes on and there will most likely always be a tug of war between those at the top and all the rest. But the broad historical trend, especially in the modern era, has been toward more equality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be rid of the Clintons, but you will never be rid of rich elitists in government. Here's why: People of ability are the ones who rise in political parties; people of great ability rise to near the top. People of ability inevitably do well for themselves and their families, and people of great ability become rich.

 

It will always be a meritocracy. We can only hope that some in the meritocracy do some good for the ordinary people.

 

The very fact that you have rich elitists in government and the private sector is why we have to be ever vigilant and pressure them to pursue policies that lead to shared economic prosperity and safeguard democracy. We can't make light of the fact that wealthy commercial interests gained the upper hand in the Democratic Party and moved it away from policies ensure economic fairness. The now defunct Democratic Leadership Council along with Third Way and the Progressive Policy Institute are vehicles for centrists who don't question wealth/income inequality or corporate power which the Clintons and President Obama failed to do. This must change !

  • bullshit 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attacks on Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (and HRC) are untoward and unwarranted.

 

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama won the White House after decades of GOP victories. Attacks on liberals from the left is a defeatist strategy.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It will always be a meritocracy. We can only hope that some in the meritocracy do some good for the ordinary people."

 

What we have at the moment is difficult to define... But I would not say it is meritocracy, or democracy.

 

Perhaps one of these systems are a more accurate description:

aristocracy Government where power is controlled through family relationships
albocracy Government by white-skinned people, usually entailing discrimination against those of other colours
autocracy Government by one person with absolute power
corpocracy Government by Corporate governance
gerontocracy The system of government by old men
kakistocracy The government of a state by the worst citizens
pornocracy Rule by prostitutes
plutocracy Government by an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth
theocracy A form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognized as the king or immediate ruler

 

Probably a nasty cocktail of all of the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...