Hillary the Populist

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/hillary-clintons-keynote-speech-requirements

Hillary Speaking Fees

I am shocked, shocked that there is hypocrisy in politics.

Or like FDR is she a traitor to her class?

LOST said:
...
Or like FDR is she a traitor to her class?

Hillary's "class" are ruthless Ivy League-trained lawyers believing themselves above the law (with good reason) and willing to say and do absolutely anything for money and power. She is a role model for her class.

I don't know. The country still thinks there is "Magic" in the Clinton name. Chelsea was paid $600.000 a year for her first job out of college. We are sliding into our third generation of the Kennedy ,Busch , Clinton autocracy.

And we elect them again and again.

author said:
I don't know. The country still thinks there is "Magic" in the Clinton name. Chelsea was paid $600.000 a year for her first job out of college. We are sliding into our third generation of the Kennedy ,Busch , Clinton autocracy.
And we elect them again and again.

Chelsea is also being paid big money for speeches, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year primarily from Jewish groups. She's earning more than $1 million/year as a bribe conduit to her parents, with Hillary a strident hawk for Israel and Likud's preferred candidate.. The cash makes the Bush kids look like Americorps volunteers in comparison. Hillary will win the highest percentage of Jewish votes ever, and this makes her unbeatable not just in the primaries but in the general election as well. There is no winning map for the GOP without Florida, New Jersey and Illinois, let alone California and New York.

Yeah. She sucks. But still 100 times better than any Republican running.

Bernie!

drummerboy said:
Yeah. She sucks. But still 100 times better than any Republican running.


Bernie!

Some good commentary on tjis phenomenon here: https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc

I think it really belongs on the super long GL2 thread, but it makes sense here too.

Conifers said:

author said:
I don't know. The country still thinks there is "Magic" in the Clinton name. Chelsea was paid $600.000 a year for her first job out of college. We are sliding into our third generation of the Kennedy ,Busch , Clinton autocracy.
And we elect them again and again.

Chelsea is also being paid big money for speeches, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year primarily from Jewish groups. She's earning more than $1 million/year as a bribe conduit to her parents, with Hillary a strident hawk for Israel and Likud's preferred candidate.. The cash makes the Bush kids look like Americorps volunteers in comparison. Hillary will win the highest percentage of Jewish votes ever, and this makes her unbeatable not just in the primaries but in the general election as well. There is no winning map for the GOP without Florida, New Jersey and Illinois, let alone California and New York.

Given the current political climate and relation between Israel, Jews and the current political parties, I don't know how you can say that Clinton will "win with the highest percentage of Jewish vote ever." And the Jewish vote is a small percentage, even in the states mentioned. Nationally, Jews are 2.1% of the population. In NY, it's 8.9%. But she will win NY, a reliably blue state, anyway. Same for NJ and California. In fact, there are no states where the Jewish vote will likely make a difference. Because states with "high" percentages of Jewish voters are generally Blue anyway. Will the 0.6% of the population in Texas that is Jewish swing that state? Maybe Florida could be impacted by the Jewish vote. But even that state is only 3.3% Jewish.

But I seriously doubt Clinton will receive the "highest percentage of the Jewish vote ever." Roosevelt got 90% of the Jewish vote. Eisenhower got 82%. Even Bill Clinton got 78-80%. I'd be surprised if Hilary bested all of these.

ParticleMan said:

Roosevelt got 90% of the Jewish vote. Eisenhower got 82%. Even Bill Clinton got 78-80%. I'd be surprised if Hilary bested all of these.

Keep in mind that even modern exit polls have their statistical limitations. The figures above have been widely circulated, but how voting breakdowns could be determined with any accuracy 60 or 75 years ago, I don't know.

Have there been (statistically significant) improvements in statistics in the past 75 years?

DaveSchmidt said:

ParticleMan said:

Roosevelt got 90% of the Jewish vote. Eisenhower got 82%. Even Bill Clinton got 78-80%. I'd be surprised if Hilary bested all of these.

Keep in mind that even modern exit polls have their statistical limitations. The figures above have been widely circulated, but how voting breakdowns could be determined with any accuracy 60 or 75 years ago, I don't know.

I used this as my source. It uses data collected for this book.

dupe

ParticleMan: Yup, saw those sources. Couldn't find anything explaining how someone originally came up with the figures, though. Just a peccadillo of mine -- numbers that connote some sort of authority when their provenance is not so clear. In this case, I think the statistically small sample of Jewish voters over all and, yes, the less sophisticated polling (or whatever) methods of yore militate against taking those percentages at face value.

In short: Feh.

If it's any more palatable, they started their dynasty - he from a broken home; she from the middle-class. Bushes are generations of blue bloods.

Speaking of which, heard W address grads at some school (with low self-esteem). He ends with "Even a C student can become president," as if his presidency were something other than a disaster which killed thousands of our kids.

Conifers said:

author said:
I don't know. The country still thinks there is "Magic" in the Clinton name. Chelsea was paid $600.000 a year for her first job out of college. We are sliding into our third generation of the Kennedy ,Busch , Clinton autocracy.
And we elect them again and again.

Chelsea is also being paid big money for speeches, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year primarily from Jewish groups. She's earning more than $1 million/year as a bribe conduit to her parents, with Hillary a strident hawk for Israel and Likud's preferred candidate.. The cash makes the Bush kids look like Americorps volunteers in comparison. Hillary will win the highest percentage of Jewish votes ever, and this makes her unbeatable not just in the primaries but in the general election as well. There is no winning map for the GOP without Florida, New Jersey and Illinois, let alone California and New York.

Oh, dear me. Jewish groups! How awful.

Oh, right, she is married to a hedge fund multimillionaire who just happens to be Jewish---hmmmmmm.

Funny how you don't seem to mention that she also speaks to a lot of environmental groups, as well as a lot of campus groups and often speaks on women's issues. No cabals there, so I guess they are less important to cite.

And you don't cite all the free speeches she gives, and that all her speaking proceeds go to the Clinton Foundation (where she is Vice Chair).

Look, I am no fan of Likud or Bibi (you can look that up on MOL), and I have my doubts about HRC (although I will still support her over anyone in the GOP field at this point in time, should she be the Democratic nominee). But I do not see why it is so important to cite all this "Jewishness" about Chelsea as if that were prima facie evidence of her doing something unseemly.

Not to mention that Jews are a tiny fraction of the US population and do not vote in blocs, other than in some Orthodox communities (an even smaller subset), or a historical predilection to support liberals (although that is changing as well these days, cf Adelson).

I mean, does it upset you when Jeb Bush's handsome son speaks to Catholic groups and gets a fee? Because there are a whole lot more Catholics out there than there are Jews. How about when he speaks to Latino groups--in Spanish even! And he does this a lot--he is listed as a featured speaker with the American Program Bureau (alongside Jimmy Carter and Bill Maher and Shirley MacLaine, btw).

I'm with mfpark. Conifers's interest in objecting to Jews doesn't seem relevant.

I'm just happy the gal got herself a job after college at a reasonable salary. Geez, those wacky Jews.

Chelsea should earn whatever salary/stipend/honorarium folks will pay her. That's capitalism. It's only hypocritical when libs earn those big numbers.

I'm no fan of Hillary. And nothing about her suggests she has any real populist inclinations. She appears to be a tool of the rich and powerful. But that said, the fact that she demands huge speaking fees and first class travel arrangements isn't the proof that she's not on the side of working people. Why not stick to the positions she's taken, votes she's cast, and where she's getting her funding. There's enough meat there to come to conclusions without spurious arguments based on the fact that she makes a lot of money.

When Hillary Clinton was free to tell the world who she was, she told us she was a Republican who preferred the vile anti-black racist Barry Goldwater to Lyndon Johnson. Then, political opportunism in the form of Bill led her to claim she was a "Democrat" and the rest is history. Clinton is accepting millions from Wall Street banks as bribes for when she is in office. Not once in her life has Clinton stood for anything but herself.

Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of political corruption. She is the problem. Goldman Paid Bill Clinton $200,000 For Speech Before Bank Lobbied Hillary Clinton

Goldman Sachs paid former President Bill Clinton $200,000 to deliver a speech in the spring of 2011, several months before the investment banking giant began lobbying the State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, federal records reviewed by International Business Times show.
Goldman’s objective in lobbying the State Department could not be immediately discerned. The lobbying disclosure filings note only that Goldman sought to “monitor deficit reduction issues” -- specifically, a bill known as the Budget Control Act -- and the bank declined to answer questions about the precise nature of its interests.
Three days after Bill Clinton accepted Goldman’s money to make a speech in New York City, Hillary Clinton delivered her own address at the State Department in Washington: She lauded the investment bank’s participation in her department’s campaign to boost the numbers of American students who study in China.
According to an ethics agreement governing Hillary Clinton’s tenure as an Obama administration Cabinet official, all of her husband’s paid speeches while she was secretary of state required the prior approval of department officials. Bill Clinton’s 2011 speech to a conference full of Goldman clients gathered in New York gained the blessing of State Department officials, documents obtained by Judicial Watch say.
The discovery that Bill Clinton accepted a six-figure payday from Goldman Sachs just before the bank sought the ear of his wife’s department seems certain to intensify scrutiny of the Clinton family’s often overlapping personal, philanthropic and official business interests.
In the two weeks since she formally declared herself an aspirant for the presidency, gaining status as the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton has been dogged by allegations that foreign governments and well-connected investors have used generosity to her husband and their family’s philanthropic empire, the Clinton Foundation, as a means of seeking to influence policy at her State Department.

At this point, what difference does it make?!?!

Conifers said:
When Hillary Clinton was free to tell the world who she was, she told us she was a Republican who preferred the vile anti-black racist Barry Goldwater to Lyndon Johnson.

You mean when she was a teenager, like 16-17?

Hillary Clinton is and has always been a mainstream moderately liberal Democrat. If the choice in November, 2016 is between Hillary Clinton and one of the current GOP candidates I'll vote for Hillary. She will not be as viciously anti-immigrant as most Republicans, her SCOTUS appointments will be more like Sotomayor than Alito and she may be influenced by the Left of the Democratic Party, i.e. Sanders, Warren.

If one wants to withdraw completely from politics to remain pure I understand. I've been there. But the revolution is not coming and life under Hillary for the most vulnerable will be slightly better than under a Republican.

Let's all name our heroes from our teen years...wait; no, it's embarrassing. Hey, I was young and naive.

I definitely preferred Jim Morrison to Johnson.

GL2-

Or, you could name your fantasy heroes, since Hillary has become one to you.

Just be assured- she will never know your name, nor will she ever want to, nor would her security let you within 100 feet of her, since you are not a Wall Street tycoon.

Conifers said:
GL2-
Or, you could name your fantasy heroes, since Hillary has become one to you.
Just be assured- she will never know your name, nor will she ever want to, nor would her security let you within 100 feet of her, since you are not a Wall Street tycoon.

Well I guess we shouldn't vote for anyone if that's going to be a criteria.

That's quite a system we've evolved into.

Conifers said:
When Hillary Clinton was free to tell the world who she was, she told us she was a Republican who preferred the vile anti-black racist Barry Goldwater to Lyndon Johnson. Then, political opportunism in the form of Bill led her to claim she was a "Democrat" and the rest is history. Clinton is accepting millions from Wall Street banks as bribes for when she is in office. Not once in her life has Clinton stood for anything but herself.

And of course those Wall Street Banks are all controlled by Jews.

LOST said:

Conifers said:
When Hillary Clinton was free to tell the world who she was, she told us she was a Republican who preferred the vile anti-black racist Barry Goldwater to Lyndon Johnson.

You mean when she was a teenager, like 16-17?
Hillary Clinton is and has always been a mainstream moderately liberal Democrat. If the choice in November, 2016 is between Hillary Clinton and one of the current GOP candidates I'll vote for Hillary. She will not be as viciously anti-immigrant as most Republicans, her SCOTUS appointments will be more like Sotomayor than Alito and she may be influenced by the Left of the Democratic Party, i.e. Sanders, Warren.
If one wants to withdraw completely from politics to remain pure I understand. I've been there. But the revolution is not coming and life under Hillary for the most vulnerable will be slightly better than under a Republican.

Sad but true. What is the alternative? Bernie Sanders is spot on, from my point of view, and I would love to see him win the White House and use it as a bully pulpit. But the odds of him winning are long, and odds of him being able to actually pass legislation or enact orders that start fixing things, should he win, are even longer still.

Think of how neutered Jimmy Carter was when he first got to DC. He went outside the beltway for some of this key advisors, and the DC gentry shut their doors in their faces. Sanders would fare even worse were he to be in the White House.

The only way Sanders (or someone like him) could effectively run the nation would be for the Democratic Party as a whole to change its direction so that the majority of the Dems in the House and Senate were on board with the agenda.

I do not see this happening in the Democratic Party soon, but who knows--Gingrich was able to kick-start this in the GOP (after decades of tilling the soil by right wing GOP activists at the state and local levels), and it has taken fruit in the fruitcake Tea Party influence on the GOP today. Perhaps if liberal Democrats got busy electing like-minded folks to town councils and state houses then it could happen at the national level as well?

mfpark said:

Sad but true. What is the alternative? Bernie Sanders is spot on, from my point of view, and I would love to see him win the White House and use it as a bully pulpit. But the odds of him winning are long, and odds of him being able to actually pass legislation or enact orders that start fixing things, should he win, are even longer still.

If everyone who says that voting for Bernie is a wasted vote actually voted for him, we'd likely see some change and he might actually pull it off. I'm going to contribute and vote.