Hillary Clinton Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stinkcat_14 said:
There is a real concern about her ability to govern if she is elected. She does not have experience working with divided government and she does not have the political skills of her husband.
Click to expand...
Her husband will be around to advise her. I don’t think Trump, Cruz, or Kasich, or have any better political skills than Hillary does. And none of them would bring Bill to the White House.
 
hotair.com/archives/2016/04/19/hillary-on-shameless-pandering-to-black-voters-is-it-working/
During an appearance on “The Breakfast Club,” a morning radio show on Urban/Hip Hop radio station Power 105.1 in New York, Hillary Clinton (D-NY)said she always carries hot sauce with her wherever she goes.
Click to expand...
The radio hosts immediately responded with giggles and snorts of recognition. You see, the suggestion that she carries hot sauce in her purse was immediately recognized as the lowest form of pandering to the radio program’s African-American audience.
Click to expand...
 
_Abyssinia said:
Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood campaigned with Hillary Clinton today, and Richards had something to say about women who vote for Cruz:

weeklystandard.com/planned-parenthood-president-women-voting-for-cruz-are-like-chickens-voting-for-colonel-sanders/article/2002016
Click to expand...
Interesting comparison she’s trying to make.

Colonel Sanders butchers chickens and sells their body parts for money. Cecil Richards does the same, but to babies.

Seems she didn’t think that analogy through very well.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Her husband will be around to advise her. I don’t think Trump, Cruz, or Kasich, or have any better political skills than Hillary does. And none of them would bring Bill to the White House.
Click to expand...
No one needs to be reminded of Bill being in the White House. I wonder if Hillary is going to feel comfortable sitting at THAT desk.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I would argue that the reason many lottery winners go bankrupt is mainly due to their personality type, more than anything else. They tend to be risk loving, which increases the chance of bankruptcy. If I won a million or ten in the lottery I would probably never go bankrupt. But then again, I don’t play the lottery.
Click to expand...
They go bankrupt because they’ve never handled large amounts of money before, and don’t know how to control it or themselves. They don’t know how to say “no” to all the sycophants, they don’t know how to handle the pressure and stress of that much responsibility.

A person walking into a gym for the first time doesn’t put 300lbs on a bar and try to bench press it. They have to slowly work out with smaller weights to get strong enough to control the weight and handle it. It is the same with money. If you suddenly have a huge sum of money fall into your lap, you will most likely be crushed by it. It takes a lot of training to handle such large sums of money.
 
sallybutler said:
Perhaps you could offer to drive your neighbor to and from work or help fix his car. As for the equipment, perhaps the business owner could finance part of it and then give his 10 employees a share of the increased profits that came from the increased productivity.

Think outside the box. There are almost always multiple solutions to problems and not all of them scary and doomsdayie.
Click to expand...
But do those who want to confiscate wealth think “outside the box”? It doesn’t seem so to me. It has seemed to me, here as elsewhere, that it’s a vague ideological concept that has no real thought behind it. What person on the left is actually calling for some person making $250,000 to give his neighbor a ride to work as part of “social justice”? And what person who advocates confiscation and redistribution has any idea what it might mean to some small manufactory to borrow money with which to pay his employees? Do any of those advocates know what the profit margins are, or what borrowing would do to those margins. Presently, businesses are very slow to borrow for any reason, and rightly so.

And how many really realize that full employment generally means higher wages? How many on the left do you see really analyzing how full employment might be achieved? No, it is always “tax the rich”, as if somehow that would solve the present and serious problems of unemployment and underemployment.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
It’s a simple question, and it’s not a false dilemma. The facts are: there are very rich people in this country, and in the world, and there are people without food, shelter and basic medical care in the world and in this country. The question is is that a morally acceptable state of affairs? I think Pope Francis I has given his answer to it.

But the fact is that extremes of wealth are socially destructive. If you want to talk economic policy, it has been shown that money spent by the middle or lower classes has a much more productive long term effect on the economy than money spent on luxury goods by the rich. This is known as the “multiplier effect”.
Click to expand...
It is a false dilemma because it assumes wealth is a static quantity, which is manifestly untrue. If it was true, we would still be scrabbling around to redivide the wealth of 1776.

I’ll grant that extremes of wealth can REFLECT social injustice. There are many poor countries in which a handful of people control all the wealth through force. That does not mean increased wealth in any country must be divided in a particular way in order to ensure that people have a decent living. Income is much more important than wealth in that regard, and income depends on gainful employment.

The “multiplier effect” is socially neutral. Money spent on a yacht goes to the carpenters, providers of materials, fabricators and their employees, technicians, etc, just the same as money spent on a Chevrolet does. And anymore, the Keynesian concept of the “multiplier effect” is not taken as gospel. Obama’s “stimulus” proved that, if nothing else did.
 
zz912 said:
They go bankrupt because they’ve never handled large amounts of money before, and don’t know how to control it or themselves. They don’t know how to say “no” to all the sycophants, they don’t know how to handle the pressure and stress of that much responsibility.

A person walking into a gym for the first time doesn’t put 300lbs on a bar and try to bench press it. They have to slowly work out with smaller weights to get strong enough to control the weight and handle it. It is the same with money. If you suddenly have a huge sum of money fall into your lap, you will most likely be crushed by it. It takes a lot of training to handle such large sums of money.
Click to expand...
One has to wonder at least a bit about this.

It’s pretty well established that wealth generation is fundamentally premised on living below one’s means over a significant period of time. Some do that, and some don’t. The question is why. As mentioned previously, there is no particular correlation between income and wealth accumulation. Many who make the “big bucks” spend them all and more on consumer goods of one kind or another. Some who make modest incomes surprise everyone at death when their estates are discovered to be a million dollars or more.

I do think “practice” matters in all of that; good habits of life. But isn’t “practice” at anything dependent on one’s state of mind and his character?
 
zz912 said:
No one needs to be reminded of Bill being in the White House. I wonder if Hillary is going to feel comfortable sitting at THAT desk.
Click to expand...
I think she will be VERY comfortable at that desk. She has had a lot of experience selling influence for money, and the Oval Office will give her opportunities much larger than she has had in the past. She’s good at it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I think she will be VERY comfortable at that desk. She has had a lot of experience selling influence for money, and the Oval Office will give her opportunities much larger than she has had in the past. She’s good at it.
Click to expand...
She might even let Bill continue to use the Butler’s pantry
 
Ridgerunner said:
One has to wonder at least a bit about this.

It’s pretty well established that wealth generation is fundamentally premised on living below one’s means over a significant period of time. Some do that, and some don’t. The question is why. As mentioned previously, there is no particular correlation between income and wealth accumulation. Many who make the “big bucks” spend them all and more on consumer goods of one kind or another. Some who make modest incomes surprise everyone at death when their estates are discovered to be a million dollars or more.

I do think “practice” matters in all of that; good habits of life. But isn’t “practice” at anything dependent on one’s state of mind and his character?
Click to expand...
Living below one’s means can be a way of wealth generation, but it is not the only way of wealth generation. I am not sure that Bill Gates became wealthy because of steady habits of spending less than they earned. Mainly they took big risks and hit it big. In that aspect, they are not that different from lottery winners.

In addition, nobody has established that there is no correlation between income and wealth. You have speculated that there is no correlation, but nobody has presented any data one way or another. Part of the problem is the question of how does one define income.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top