1984Echoes Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said: Do you think it is a bad look though for Democrats to both embrace the allegations from and story of E. Jean Carroll while not acknowledging all the women Clinton allegedly violated while in positions of power? No, not at all. It's called "recency bias". Whatever heavy baggage Clinton carries around is old enough for it to be pretty foggy in most memories. Or to not even register at all. Trump's crimes against Democracy, the Constitution, humanity, and women, are FRESH is everyone's minds. In fact, it's the ONLY thing that matters. Not to be rude but... I could give a FLYING **** about Clinton's sordid history. I JUST DON'T CARE. I don't know if that answers your question properly... you seem to be extremely sensitive over Clinton's sordid history... so, not to repeat myself but: I JUST DON'T CARE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.TaterSalad Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 I know you care that Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll. It's my belief that if one (you, me, anyone) cares about Ms. Carroll than they should show concern for Juanita Broadrick and what Clinton allegedly did to her. There are many people out there who could be good, useful, surrogates and fundraisers for Joe Biden. Bill Clinton shouldn't be one of them given his alleged baggage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigeraholic1 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) Speaking of donations, I have not heard of one Democratic elected official from the 2022 cycle offer to return any dirty money that Sam Bankman-Fried stole and gave to them (37.6 Million to be exact). I would love some great MSM journalists to stick a microphone in some of these folks faces and ask them though. BUT it would not fit the narrat...Sorry almost used thar dirty word again. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors Edited March 29 by Tigeraholic1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 The irony is Juanita Broadrrick is Trumper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 3 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: Speaking of donations, I have not heard of one Democratic elected official from the 2022 cycle offer to return any dirty money that Sam Bankman-Fried stole and gave to them (49.5 Million to be exact). I would love some great MSM journalists to stick a microphone in some of these folks faces and ask them though. BUT it would not fit the narrat...Sorry almost used thar dirty word again. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors Probably should pay more attention. Candidates backed by FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried pledge to donate campaign cash (nbcnews.com) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Just now, Motown Bombers said: The irony is Juanita Broadrrick is Trumper. Broderick couldn't persuade as sympathetic an ear as Ken Starr to take up her allegations - so they remain that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: I'm not one of them, but I have no argument with the political strategy. Images of continuity with 30 yrs of history/tradition is a good tack if many of the people you need to sway are anxious about a society with too much change too fast. The political strategy overrides Tater's agitation. As for the Love of Bill Clinton... I don't believe I am one of them either... although I would say the following: I am a champion of centrism. I am an adamant opponent of extremism from the left (communism) or the right (fascism). I am not afraid of so-called socialism, especially when it actually advances capitalism (I can expound on that at a later time), but if socialism gets locked in on itself and forgets the capitalist side (Chavezism/ welfare-state) I run away. There were loads of mistakes Clinton made, policy, as well as personal. But I do have some hero worship for Clinton that he pulled the Democratic Party away from a swirling downward spiral of hard left socialism and into the middle - with lots of both good and bad consequences - starting with the balance budget deal that he signed off on with the Republicans of the day. That (mostly) yanked the Dems out of the "Tax-and-Spend" pigeonhole that Republicans were successfully tagging Dems with even if that ended up with the modern Corporate Dems contingent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigeraholic1 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Probably should pay more attention. Candidates backed by FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried pledge to donate campaign cash (nbcnews.com) Said they would but did they? The article states about 6K was pledged to be donated. What about the 49 million remaining? I would love to see them with the big giant checks in front of their favorite charity. I wish somone could point to those kind of give backs. Talks cheap or so they say. Edited March 29 by Tigeraholic1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 7 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: But I do have some hero worship for Clinton that he pulled the Democratic Party away from a swirling downward spiral of hard left socialism and into the middle yes - It's only fair to concede that none of the downside consequences of 'Reagonomics' were yet visible and the Dems faced the choice of getting on board or getting run over in the face of overall positive economic momentum. Tim Wu, who recently left the Biden admin,wrote a column for the NYT describing Biden's efforts to pivot away from "new democrat" economic theory. I'm in nearly complete agreement with what he lays out, but nobody would have though any of this was important in 1992. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/25/opinion/biden-trump-economy-election.html?searchResultPosition=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 45 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: ... Clinton's bigger problem was that he was just co-opted by the really big US economic interests into falling for what became the 'new democratic' economic theory i.e. globalism and comparative advantage - republicanism lite ... I don't consider globalism a problem. So I don't assign that to Clinton at all. The bigger problem that Clinton beget IMO is beholden to Big Corporate money. But... In order to compete against Big Money Republican Donors... I guess what was needed was Big Money Democrat Donors. Which bothers me mostly in the sense that: if policy is beholden, or written, adverse to the needs of the country. Obama & Biden have both pushed further left than the Clinton Centrist Corporate Dems... Which doesn't bother me one whit. But to yours and mine other points on Democratic Party corporatism: In order to compete: Bill Clinton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: ... Tim Wu, who recently left the Biden admin,wrote a column for the NYT describing Biden's efforts to pivot away from "new democrat" economic theory. I'm in nearly complete agreement with what he lays out, but nobody would have though any of this was important in 1992. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/25/opinion/biden-trump-economy-election.html?searchResultPosition=1 Thanks but... don't have a NYT subscription. Summary, or highlights? On the importance of 1992, without even knowing what Wu is spelling out, I am going to agree with your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigeraholic1 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Full disclosure, I volunteer on a board for a NFP. We count on about 20-40% of pledges as actual dollars. Companies love to pledge but since a pledge is non-binding when we go to collect you end up with a ton of voice mails never returned. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.TaterSalad Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 17 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Broderick couldn't persuade as sympathetic an ear as Ken Starr to take up her allegations - so they remain that. If it was just her lone allegation, I'd likely be more skeptical than I am of the allegation. But when you couple what she alleged Clinton did to her, rape, with what he did or is alleged to have done to other women like Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinsky, I begin to see a pattern. I think there are lots of great, useful, campaign surrogates that Joe Biden has to chose from. Including a former President in Barack Obama. There are dozens and dozens of federal, state, and locally elected surrogates he could use as well. I don't care in this instance what Clinton did on policy. I'm not even bringing up his grifts as Governor (Whitewater, cattle source future trades) or President (1996 campaign finance concerns). I do care about the moral fiber of the people representing and raising money for our candidate Joe Biden. Clinton isn't morally a good person and shouldn't be out there representing Biden or any Democrat. I want Biden to succeed and he doesn't need Bill Clinton to be successful and win re-election. Nor does he need George W. Bush. I've already blown this thread up enough with my Clinton talk. I won't weaponize my comments to create any further mass destruction in this thread by commenting on Bush being a potential surrogate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 32 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: Thanks but... don't have a NYT subscription. Summary, or highlights? On the importance of 1992, without even knowing what Wu is spelling out, I am going to agree with your point. Quote Unlike short-term economic dissatisfaction, which lends itself to tinkering with interest rates and budgetary trade-offs, long-term dissatisfaction suggests a deeper, structural problem with the economy that requires more drastic measures. It is perhaps the signature achievement of the Biden administration that it has recognized this problem — specifically, the increasingly centralized, unbalanced nature of economic power in the United States over the past four decades — and is trying to address it.... To appreciate the novelty of the Biden administration’s approach to the economy, it is worth remembering that over the past 40 years the orthodoxy on the center-left has been a tax-and-transfer strategy. It has meant tolerating or even encouraging corporate consolidation and profit while maintaining the expectation that those profits would be redistributed in the service of the less powerful and less well-off. The popular metaphor of a national pie suggested focusing first on growing the pie and then on dividing it up equitably...... .... The Biden administration, in a break with center-left orthodoxy, seeks to address economic inequality not through taxation and transfers but through policies that allow more people and businesses to earn wealth in the first place. That is the meaning of the somewhat mysterious liberal catchphrase “growing from the middle out.” The goal is not the redistribution but the predistribution of wealth, to use a term popularized by the political scientist Jacob Hacker. This approach calls for a different kind of capitalism — one that opposes the centralization of economic power and favors a market in which wealth can be earned by people and businesses in a broader set of regions, drawn from a wider array of social classes and involving a more diverse set of industries.... These efforts are usually discussed and understood separately. But they share an underlying logic: All are aimed at leveling imbalances of economic power, and all assume that the economy works better for most Americans when it is more competitive and when earning power is more broadly distributed. excerpted from Tim WU - NYT Edited March 29 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 You know what other President started out as a Bible salesman, right? Stephen King nailed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hongbit Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 3 hours ago, Motown Bombers said: According to the Charity Watchdog, 76% of donations to the Clinton Foundation goes to charity and it has a B+ rating but whatever. I’m surprised the on the books numbers they share publicly aren’t even higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 minute ago, Hongbit said: I’m surprised the on the books numbers they share publicly aren’t even higher. Ohh now we're into conspiracy theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hongbit Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Nope. I know a few people, who I trust, that are more familiar with the organization than you, me, or the fine, fine people at CharityWatchdog.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 25 minutes ago, Hongbit said: Nope. I know a few people, who I trust, that are more familiar with the organization than you, me, or the fine, fine people at CharityWatchdog.com Believe me, people have been saying… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hongbit Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Believe me, people have been saying… Believe whatever you would like. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’ve taken a live and let live approach with other people’s ideas and styles. Edited March 29 by Hongbit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 I don’t think we will see Bill or Hillary Clinton out campaigning. Like was said…this is fundraising. One reason will be his age. He sounds and looks really old. Like Richard Lewis on Curb old. You don’t want him and Biden representing today’s Democratic Party. Biden is fine doing it since he is the President. Clinton can use his magic on the behind the scenes financiers to convince them it will continue to be ok. Trump is not going to have that network out on his behalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) 7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: From reading that - and thank you - I can give a much shorter version: The Reversal of Reaganomics. Long overdue... Edited March 30 by 1984Echoes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 18 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said: Full disclosure, I volunteer on a board for a NFP. We count on about 20-40% of pledges as actual dollars. Companies love to pledge but since a pledge is non-binding when we go to collect you end up with a ton of voice mails never returned. I super hate that kind of thing. It’s a form of gaslighting: “I’m going to tell you I’m pledging while you’re paying attention, I’m gonna welsh on you when you’re not, and I’m gonna get away with it all.” We need people like you, and thank you for your service, but that’s also why I prefer to deliver packages on the ground instead. You don’t put up with gaslighting garbage, and bonus, you meet the people, and they’re all super nice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 14 hours ago, oblong said: I don’t think we will see Bill or Hillary Clinton out campaigning. Like was said…this is fundraising. One reason will be his age. He sounds and looks really old. Like Richard Lewis on Curb old. You don’t want him and Biden representing today’s Democratic Party. Biden is fine doing it since he is the President. Clinton can use his magic on the behind the scenes financiers to convince them it will continue to be ok. Trump is not going to have that network out on his behalf. Agree. Clinton is definitely your father’s Democratic Party. Of course, so is Biden, but there are better proxies than Clinton, and Obama is one—although he might be close to hitting his sell-by date, too, so use him while you can. Trump doesn’t have Biden’s kind of network to tap into big money donors, but he does have networks like Fox, NewsMax, RSBN, OAN, etc., to tap into the rank and file. It might be interesting to see how it all comes out, but I feel pretty confident that the next seven months alone will cost Trump a ton of votes. I think the biggest challenge at that point for the Democrats will be to keep the danger of Trump high to avoid complacency (as opposed to apathy) among voters and still get them to the polls. One way they can maybe do it: gamify it. “Let’s run up the score and show Trump just how much America does NOT want him here.” That would be a tricky message to get across well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.