It's official now - she is the Democratic candidate. It has been interesting to listen to women discussing this. Older women feel the history of the moment. But younger women, not so much. They've taken it for granted all along that a woman could be elected now. I was giving a female friend a bad time and said it is exciting to see Bill Clinton's wife get nominated! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Seriously...Hillary or Trump? It is quite embarrassing that these two are what the American people have "decided" are the best candidates for President. Honestly, it seems like a very poor reflection on the current mindset of the American people...
Your initial post was empty. However flippant my reply to it, it still was an invitation for you to clarify some position. You avoided doing so and merely hinted you had something relevant to say in forwarding a question with the remark of the poor mindset of the American people. I think it is you to proffer an apology to the forum for having no content in the first place.
I find that if I anticipate disappointment I am always happy with the results. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It is interesting the Democrats, worked so hard to fix the deck of history cards, to favor a woman who has a very low trust factor. It would have made more sense for the first woman to be more universally trusted. The president has been sort of the Patriarch of the country. The first female president will be the Matriarch of the country. What do you have, when the matriarch of a family can't be trusted by 2/3 of the family? That means she will favor some of her children and pit them against the others, using lies and manipulation. This will be a very dysfunctional family, if it is able to stay together. It might be good for soap opera entertainment, but not a good legacy for women. It may take generations to try again. I would have preferred Condoleezza Rice or Carly Fiorina. The democrats may not like them, out of principle, but they would have a higher trust level, which translates to less dysfunction as the Democrat children get used to step mom.
Not much will change overall from the executive branch perspective. Her platform isn't so different from Obama's.
Minimum wage at $15.00.. Gun control laws.. Free college.. Free healthcare.. Infrastructure improvement.. Appoint a liberal judge to the Supreme court.. Make it illegal to fire someone because they're gay or transgender.. Stomp out ISIS.. Path of citizenship for illegal immigrants.. Campaign finance reform.. Bank regulations.. Mental health facilities.. Lowering age for Medicare to 55.. Equal wages for women.. Paid medical leave.. Stay the course of Obama's legacy... Much of this depends on getting a majority of dems in the House and the Senate..
So are Republicans. Only more so: http://www.occupy.com/article/expos...states-rights-label-gmos#sthash.i6EX26Ry.dpbs A vote for any major Republican politician is a vote against environmental protection via corporate regulations of any kind.
One of the many senators who voted against what would seem to be commonsense and non-radical, Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) says that labeling GMO foods runs counter to what we “know” about them. This knowledge, she says, is that GMO foods are safe, no more dangerous than their “conventional counterparts.” - See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/expos...ghts-label-gmos#sthash.i6EX26Ry.7jJWO7WR.dpuf Progressives BETRAYED! Democratic party official platform is now pro FRACKING, pro Monsanto, pro TPP, anti GMO labeling from: http://www.naturalnews.com/054786_fracking_democratic_party_official_platform.html Earlier this month, Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow announced they'd reached a deal1 to create a national labeling standard for GMOs using voluntary "Smart Labels" (so-called QR codes2) rather than clear labeling. This despite the fact that polls show 88 percent of Americans have said they do NOT want to be forced into using a smartphone app to find this important information. The bill, S. 2609, which amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 with a national bioengineered food disclosure standard,3,4 is now more or less a done deal. On July 14, the U.S. House passed the bill, 306 to 117, and President Obama has already indicated he will sign it.5 from: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/07/26/monsanto-gmo-subsidies.aspx Clinton is one of the most pro-Monsanto and pro-GMO candidates in recent memory, but she will face stiff opposition from Sanders activists and supporters at the convention in Philadelphia on July 27, as several thousand people are expected to protest outside the Wells Fargo Center downtown. from: http://www.march-against-monsanto.c...-pro-gmo-labeling-rally-at-philly-convention/ The list of Your Monsanto Senators includes these "liberals" and "progressives": Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) — 202-224-5653 Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — 202-224-3841 Al Franken (D-MN) — 202-224-5641 Tim Kaine (D-VA) — 202-224-4024 Amy Klobushar (D-MN) — 202-224-3244 Jean Shaheen (D-NH) — 202-224-2841 Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) — 202-224-4822 from: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread...ats-attempt-to-kill-vermonts-gmo-labeling-law .................. A vote for Clinton is a vote against the environment!
