What can Team Hillary do to excite the youth and black vote in 2016?

If the pub committee still has that one brain they share between themselves they'll realize paul polls best against hillary and get him on the ticket at least. Though that is a bit of a stretch I grant you since they lost that brain awhile back (cough palin cough)

I'm honestly surprised everytime I hear of anyone wanting to vote for hillary. I'm disgusted when I hear their general reasoning which mainly consists of total bull(*)(*)(*)(*) like she's for equal pay for women (when she pays hers less) or she'll help minorities (when she helped put up the mandatory minimum guidelines with bubba etc). It essentially boils down to : Its her turn, shes a woman, she's gonna get the nod and I vote partyline because I don't have a brain. (to be fair the pub partyliners fall along similar lines. See romney, mccain etc)

 

Every voter must compare the nominees, and answer that for herself, of course.

If the nation again goes with a Democrat as current match-ups indicate, you can respect the decision of the American electorate, just keep kvetching, and/or try seceding again.

That, too, is entirely your choice, of course.

 

It was YOUR statement not mine, so you were just blowing smoke again?

 

He polls best. He alone amongst Repubs attracts younger voters and minorities. I look forward to his nailing Jebby et al on the Iraq fiasco (that he would employ against go-along Clinton as well if he were given the chance.)

I can readily understand most Americans opting for Clinton if the alternative is one of the characters most likely to get the seal of approval from the GOP bosses. The relentless hysterical demonization of her preached on ideological entertainment media is not taken very seriously by most folks, and, unfortunately, the fat cats that bankroll elections calculate that she would only hurt corporate interests and Wall Street sleaze bags ever so slightly more than would another Bush.

 

Um..... pass out free Swishers?

 

Yeah thinking about the debates gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Most of what is said about clinton SHOULD be paid attention to. She SHOULD be in jail for the private server, multiple email accounts bit. And the lying about it (only 1 email.... we meant 2). She (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up benghazi and allowed a false narrative to be peddled. Then you have the Clinton Foundation. Then you have her hypocrisy (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about CEO pay when she makes 300k an appearance (which reminds me she's speaking at my university tomorrow and I need to FOIA them about what they paid her ass to show up when they still owe my class 250 a piece, about 40k all told), same with equal pay for women when she pays less. ETC.
The bs from the tabloids about her being a drunk are just that: bs. That psycho couldn't relax if her presidency depended upon it.

 

Can you give me some examples of this "hysterical demonization"?

 

Don't kid yourself. Hillary is Lyndon Johnson in drag. She's all about the military industrial complex. Defense spending will increase under Hillary, trust me. There is zero possibility that Hillary would ding our defense establishment.

What she'd do to the banks is anyone's guess. My take is she'll try to "regulate" them, which to a liberal means endless reams of idiotic government paperwork.

But what'll really happen is she'll listen to her daughter who will "communicate" things to her from her bosses.

And then when something goes wrong, Hillary will lie about it just like she lied about Benghazi.

Natty, we don't need another Lyndon Johnson. Even you can agree with that, can't you?

 

She could do a martini first. Anyway, with Hillary, it all depends on how the campaign is going and how much she needs the youth vote. It she doesn't need it, she'll jettison it.

 

The best way she could excite the voters would be to withdraw from the election and stop her Obama imitation. After all, the first female president is actually MO. You think he makes a move without her permission?

 

so please list what republicans stand for that goes against what the younger generations beleave? I know of only one issue that goes against the younger generations beliefs and that is gay marriage

 

She's been opposed to it this whole time. She's only flipped so far on immigration/amnesty. And she pretty much hasn't spoken in well anything since then.

 

You missed drug prohibition as well. The younger generation also reacts poorly to anyone proselytizing from the public pulpit. Not in having beliefs but in constantly harping about them or justifying a position from a public office based on their personal religious belief. They also don't campaign in minority areas (with the exception of rand Paul who surprise surprise is getting good results from that).

 

Well, we know Ronnie never made a move without Nancy and her psychic hotline pal.

 

No you don't! He was sensitive to his wife's advice, but he was the decision maker.

 

But he was at least successful and accomplished. Can you truthfully say the same for Hillary?

 

He wouldn't even meet Gorby without the psychic's approval.

 

I guess, then, we should leave ALL the decisions of state to Jeanne Dixon.

 

I question the veracity of that! You have to remember, Reagan had a sense of humor, something you libs are sorely lacking!

 

You call the guy that established tickle down garbage successful??? Yeah, successful at destroying the middle class I suppose.

 

"Trickle Down" works well when the clamor for more welfare does not interfere. "Santa Claus" governing creates a vicious cycle and national debt like we have now.

 

You make things up and its silly. The failure of trickle down voodoo bull (*)(*)(*)(*) had everything to do with how money and wealth are purposely funneled up to the top. This funneling interferes with income equality, education, job opportunities and host of other issues that make for a strong and thriving middle class. A middle class is not a natural occurrence in society; it needs consistent polices that nurture it. Educate yourself. A wealth of knowledge is at your fingertips...

The Reagan policy of trickle down was the beginning of the end. After forty plus years of it's obvious failure, only a moron would expect it to work any differently

 

QUOTE=Phoebe Bump;1065070861]I guess, then, we should leave ALL the decisions of state to Jeanne Dixon.[/QUOTE]

Well, if you say so go for it. Could not be any worse off than we are now.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems that we still have a middle class, although it is shrinking under democrats, especially Obama.

 

It's more complicated than that, PT. Your first paragraph is pretty much spot on, but there's more to it. Look here - don't believe the fools like Krugman who want to tell you it's an "either-or" choice. It's not. Our economy is a dynamic system, it works on checks and balances just like our politics do. The short answer is, you need both, any healthy economy needs both. Yeah you're right, in the form it was sold to us by Reagan and others, trickle-down was a sound bite and not a sound economic theory. But it was never intended to be a permanent theory, it was only intended to be a temporary fix, in other words, the original intent was to make a small temporary adjustment to the dynamic system, in order to restore it to its proper equilibrium. It's what happened after that, that's the important part. The short story there is the bankers glommed onto it, and the verticalization in that industry has been mainly, almost exclusively, for the purpose of funding large loans, like corporate loans and hedge-fund-size loans. Don't let anyone sell you on the politics of the economy, the truth is that money trickles up and it trickles down, and in a good healthy economy the relative amounts of those trickles should be approximately equal. (Do we agree on that?) What we have seen lately is the opposite, with an accumulation of wealth at the top, and part of that has been simple things like the tax structure, but another part has been a lot more complicated and penetrates the very structure of our economic system. All these trade agreements for one thing, y'know... anytime the government names something you can be sure it does the exact opposite, so like the Patriot Act, and all these "free trade" agreements - none of those are free, they're full of corporate protectionism and cronyism and all kinds of horrible stuff - and this becomes our economic system, and therefore is it any wonder that money ends up trickling up? It trickles straight into the corporate coffers, which is why the banks love it so much. The single worst disaster in our economy other than the Bush meltdown has been the signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill. Bill Clinton signed that one, and I'll bet he got a heckuva lot of money for signing it. The bankers were trying to push that one through for fifty years and no one was dumb enough to pass it or sign it.... until Bill. What that did is it institutionalized the trickle-up portions of the equation, so now if we want to make "minor adjustments" to our economic equilibrium we can no longer just do it, we actually have to change the law. You need to check out this legislation carefully to see exactly what it does. It's worse than pandering to the bankers, a lot worse. Anyway.... the selling of economic theories in the guise of politics is never a good idea. Y'know.... Obama got a Nobel Prize, and Krugman got a Nobel Prize.... it's a farce. Robert Mundell got a Nobel Prize too, and he's working for the Chinese now. (He's an important guy, if you don't know who he is you can google on his name).

 

She could not run at all. The world will be a better place with out Hillary and Scott Walker. America needs a grass roots President. Joe Schmoe from Kansas city would be a better option then any of the high born Royalty the American sheepeople love to worship.