She's the best of both worlds. Fiscal neo-liberal, foreign policy new-con.kalm wrote:Yes they did and so did Hillary. Sorry to burst your bubble.Ivytalk wrote: No, they didn't. Read the list again. Her donors paid for access and specific favors, not TPP and balanced budgets.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-3 ... ed-hillary
kalm wrote:Yes they did and so did Hillary. Sorry to burst your bubble.Ivytalk wrote: No, they didn't. Read the list again. Her donors paid for access and specific favors, not TPP and balanced budgets.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-3 ... ed-hillary
All your link proves is that Hillary was a lousy SOS. It doesn't show that she or her donors backed fiscal austerity( 
) , greatly reduced federal spending ( 
) , free trade ( ), deregulation ( ), or privatization ( ).Evidently retirement makes one intellectually lazy....Ivytalk wrote:kalm wrote:
Yes they did and so did Hillary. Sorry to burst your bubble.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-3 ... ed-hillary
But it makes one more attuned to off-base links.kalm wrote:Evidently retirement makes one intellectually lazy....Ivytalk wrote:
Either you didn't read it or you dont understand globalism and Clinton's ties to the IMF and World Bank. Again, I'm sorry.Ivytalk wrote:But it makes one more attuned to off-base links.kalm wrote:
Evidently retirement makes one intellectually lazy....
I give up. I read your link in full. You refuse to confront the issues presented by the sentence I quoted. Have a nice evening.kalm wrote:Either you didn't read it or you dont understand globalism and Clinton's ties to the IMF and World Bank. Again, I'm sorry.Ivytalk wrote: But it makes one more attuned to off-base links.
I'll give you two more shots. Explain the Clinton non- neo-liberal stance on Guatemala or Bill's love affair with the committee to save the world.
Hmmm...let's see. You said "Hillary supported none of those things" from JSO's neo-liberal definition. I assume these are the issues here:Ivytalk wrote:I give up. I read your link in full. You refuse to confront the issues presented by the sentence I quoted. Have a nice evening.kalm wrote:
Either you didn't read it or you dont understand globalism and Clinton's ties to the IMF and World Bank. Again, I'm sorry.
I'll give you two more shots. Explain the Clinton non- neo-liberal stance on Guatemala or Bill's love affair with the committee to save the world.
Fiscal austerity: She sided with the IMF and World Bank on Greek austerity as SoS. She did the same with Argentina.
Deregulation: Yeah...she was going to be tough on Wall Street. Bill was wrong for signing the CFMA and Graham-Leach Bliley...Of course, these were just the populist sentiments that Clinton knew she needed to utilize in order to deceive organized labor, and the working class in general, that she was an ally, rather than a devout worshiper at the altar of the god of neoliberalism.
After Obama became president and appointed Clinton Secretary of State she immediately reverted to being the great champion of free trade. Indeed, in her position as America’s top diplomat Clinton traveled the world preaching the gospel of free trade. And by this point she had a new holy scripture to tout: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Clinton unabashedly lied during Democratic national debates on the issue of the TPP, saying that she now opposes it, despite having been in favor of it as late as 2012 when she said the TPP “sets the gold standard in trade agreements.” While she now masquerades as a protectionist opposing a deal that would be bad for working people, she has demonstrated her unflagging support for this type of so called free trade in the past.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/10/ ... beral-lie/
Glad you pulled an all-nighter to come up with that!kalm wrote:Hmmm...let's see. You said "Hillary supported none of those things" from JSO's neo-liberal definition. I assume these are the issues here:Ivytalk wrote: I give up. I read your link in full. You refuse to confront the issues presented by the sentence I quoted. Have a nice evening.
Fiscal austerity: She sided with the IMF and World Bank on Greek austerity as SoS. She did the same with Argentina.
Greatly Reduced Federal Spending: No one will ever "greatly reduce" it, but that hardly disqualifies somebody from being a "neo-liberal" these days. Greenspan (perhaps the most notable neo-liberal of the last 40 years warned the Bush administration of the dangers of too much budget surplus lying around. He literally approved of deficit spending at that time and Cheney reminded us that Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
And her husband certainly did as good a job as any of keeping federal spending in check.
Free Trade: “I think that everybody is in favor of free and fair trade, and I think that NAFTA is proving its worth.” - HIllary Clinton.Deregulation: Yeah...she was going to be tough on Wall Street. Bill was wrong for signing the CFMA and Graham-Leach Bliley...Of course, these were just the populist sentiments that Clinton knew she needed to utilize in order to deceive organized labor, and the working class in general, that she was an ally, rather than a devout worshiper at the altar of the god of neoliberalism.
After Obama became president and appointed Clinton Secretary of State she immediately reverted to being the great champion of free trade. Indeed, in her position as America’s top diplomat Clinton traveled the world preaching the gospel of free trade. And by this point she had a new holy scripture to tout: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Clinton unabashedly lied during Democratic national debates on the issue of the TPP, saying that she now opposes it, despite having been in favor of it as late as 2012 when she said the TPP “sets the gold standard in trade agreements.” While she now masquerades as a protectionist opposing a deal that would be bad for working people, she has demonstrated her unflagging support for this type of so called free trade in the past.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/10/ ... beral-lie/
Privatization: Probably her weakest neo-lib street cred as she has some strong statist tendencies but she also supported policies that rewarded privatization like three strikes laws and overtures to the success of charter schools. But, hey...no one is perfect. That's why labels are tricky in that there are inconsistencies and hypocrisy in all politicians. Duh.
Hillary has supported a top-down crony capitalist approach to domestic financial policy and foreign policy. Again, this was perfectly encapsulated in her treatment of the Guatemalan coup. She's not perfectly neo-lib (neither was one of the all time neo-libs, Greenspan) but you're original comment that she supported "none of these things" is simply wrong and my comment that here supporters do is right.
Hope you had a nice evening as well!
She lied on every point in the 2016 election! 1). I slept in till 5:00 this morning. Got around to the reply about 6:45.Ivytalk wrote:Glad you pulled an all-nighter to come up with that!kalm wrote:
Hmmm...let's see. You said "Hillary supported none of those things" from JSO's neo-liberal definition. I assume these are the issues here:
Fiscal austerity: She sided with the IMF and World Bank on Greek austerity as SoS. She did the same with Argentina.
Greatly Reduced Federal Spending: No one will ever "greatly reduce" it, but that hardly disqualifies somebody from being a "neo-liberal" these days. Greenspan (perhaps the most notable neo-liberal of the last 40 years warned the Bush administration of the dangers of too much budget surplus lying around. He literally approved of deficit spending at that time and Cheney reminded us that Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
And her husband certainly did as good a job as any of keeping federal spending in check.
Free Trade: “I think that everybody is in favor of free and fair trade, and I think that NAFTA is proving its worth.” - HIllary Clinton.
Deregulation: Yeah...she was going to be tough on Wall Street. Bill was wrong for signing the CFMA and Graham-Leach Bliley...
Privatization: Probably her weakest neo-lib street cred as she has some strong statist tendencies but she also supported policies that rewarded privatization like three strikes laws and overtures to the success of charter schools. But, hey...no one is perfect. That's why labels are tricky in that there are inconsistencies and hypocrisy in all politicians. Duh.
Hillary has supported a top-down crony capitalist approach to domestic financial policy and foreign policy. Again, this was perfectly encapsulated in her treatment of the Guatemalan coup. She's not perfectly neo-lib (neither was one of the all time neo-libs, Greenspan) but you're original comment that she supported "none of these things" is simply wrong and my comment that here supporters do is right.
Hope you had a nice evening as well!
And nobody gives a rat's arse about Guatemala anyway.
Pushing for fiscal austerity is fine for Greece and Argentina but it doesn't mean that Hillary would push for it in the USA which would be the required to be a neo-lib. Her record would make it much more likely that she would be a free spending neo-con just like Dubya and Obama.kalm wrote:Fiscal austerity: She sided with the IMF and World Bank on Greek austerity as SoS. She did the same with Argentina.
Greatly Reduced Federal Spending: No one will ever "greatly reduce" it, but that hardly disqualifies somebody from being a "neo-liberal" these days. Greenspan (perhaps the most notable neo-liberal of the last 40 years warned the Bush administration of the dangers of too much budget surplus lying around. He literally approved of deficit spending at that time and Cheney reminded us that Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
And her husband certainly did as good a job as any of keeping federal spending in check.
Free Trade: “I think that everybody is in favor of free and fair trade, and I think that NAFTA is proving its worth.” - HIllary Clinton.
Deregulation: Yeah...she was going to be tough on Wall Street. Bill was wrong for signing the CFMA and Graham-Leach Bliley...
Privatization: Probably her weakest neo-lib street cred as she has some strong statist tendencies but she also supported policies that rewarded privatization like three strikes laws and overtures to the success of charter schools. But, hey...no one is perfect. That's why labels are tricky in that there are inconsistencies and hypocrisy in all politicians. Duh.
Hillary has supported a top-down crony capitalist approach to domestic financial policy and foreign policy. Again, this was perfectly encapsulated in her treatment of the Guatemalan coup. She's not perfectly neo-lib (neither was one of the all time neo-libs, Greenspan) but you're original comment that she supported "none of these things" is simply wrong and my comment that here supporters do is right.
No. I enthusiastically opposed Donald Trump. His selection as the representative of the Republican Party as well as his election as President diminishes the probability of all of those things more than the election of Hillary Clinton would have in the long terms. The fact that Donald Trump is now perceived as the champion of the "conservative" movement totally destroys the credibility of the "conservative" movement.Ivytalk wrote:And you enthusiastically backed Hillary Clinton, who supported none of those things.JohnStOnge wrote:Well, I looked up "Neoliberalism" and I don't think it's what most people think of as "liberalism."
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp
Then you could have voted Johnson. LA wasn't a contested state- Trump won by almost 20. (58.1 to 38.4).JohnStOnge wrote:No. I enthusiastically opposed Donald Trump. His selection as the representative of the Republican Party as well as his election as President diminishes the probability of all of those things more than the election of Hillary Clinton would have in the long terms. The fact that Donald Trump is now perceived as the champion of the "conservative" movement totally destroys the credibility of the "conservative" movement.Ivytalk wrote: And you enthusiastically backed Hillary Clinton, who supported none of those things.
Nobody except progtards "perceives" Donald Trump as the "champion" of the conservative movement. He is no conservative. Your conclusion of "fact" doesn't follow from the erroneous premise. Why don't you make your transformation complete and become a registered Democrat? I fart in your general direction.JohnStOnge wrote:No. I enthusiastically opposed Donald Trump. His selection as the representative of the Republican Party as well as his election as President diminishes the probability of all of those things more than the election of Hillary Clinton would have in the long terms. The fact that Donald Trump is now perceived as the champion of the "conservative" movement totally destroys the credibility of the "conservative" movement.Ivytalk wrote: And you enthusiastically backed Hillary Clinton, who supported none of those things.
What Guatemalan coup are you talking about, Mr. Worldly?kalm wrote:Hmmm...let's see. You said "Hillary supported none of those things" from JSO's neo-liberal definition. I assume these are the issues here:Ivytalk wrote: I give up. I read your link in full. You refuse to confront the issues presented by the sentence I quoted. Have a nice evening.
Fiscal austerity: She sided with the IMF and World Bank on Greek austerity as SoS. She did the same with Argentina.
Greatly Reduced Federal Spending: No one will ever "greatly reduce" it, but that hardly disqualifies somebody from being a "neo-liberal" these days. Greenspan (perhaps the most notable neo-liberal of the last 40 years warned the Bush administration of the dangers of too much budget surplus lying around. He literally approved of deficit spending at that time and Cheney reminded us that Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
And her husband certainly did as good a job as any of keeping federal spending in check.
Free Trade: “I think that everybody is in favor of free and fair trade, and I think that NAFTA is proving its worth.” - HIllary Clinton.Deregulation: Yeah...she was going to be tough on Wall Street. Bill was wrong for signing the CFMA and Graham-Leach Bliley...Of course, these were just the populist sentiments that Clinton knew she needed to utilize in order to deceive organized labor, and the working class in general, that she was an ally, rather than a devout worshiper at the altar of the god of neoliberalism.
After Obama became president and appointed Clinton Secretary of State she immediately reverted to being the great champion of free trade. Indeed, in her position as America’s top diplomat Clinton traveled the world preaching the gospel of free trade. And by this point she had a new holy scripture to tout: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Clinton unabashedly lied during Democratic national debates on the issue of the TPP, saying that she now opposes it, despite having been in favor of it as late as 2012 when she said the TPP “sets the gold standard in trade agreements.” While she now masquerades as a protectionist opposing a deal that would be bad for working people, she has demonstrated her unflagging support for this type of so called free trade in the past.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/10/ ... beral-lie/
Privatization: Probably her weakest neo-lib street cred as she has some strong statist tendencies but she also supported policies that rewarded privatization like three strikes laws and overtures to the success of charter schools. But, hey...no one is perfect. That's why labels are tricky in that there are inconsistencies and hypocrisy in all politicians. Duh.
Hillary has supported a top-down crony capitalist approach to domestic financial policy and foreign policy. Again, this was perfectly encapsulated in her treatment of the Guatemalan coup. She's not perfectly neo-lib (neither was one of the all time neo-libs, Greenspan) but you're original comment that she supported "none of these things" is simply wrong and my comment that here supporters do is right.
Hope you had a nice evening as well!
What Guatemalan coup are you talking about, Mr. Worldly?kalm wrote:Hmmm...let's see. You said "Hillary supported none of those things" from JSO's neo-liberal definition. I assume these are the issues here:Ivytalk wrote: I give up. I read your link in full. You refuse to confront the issues presented by the sentence I quoted. Have a nice evening.
Fiscal austerity: She sided with the IMF and World Bank on Greek austerity as SoS. She did the same with Argentina.
Greatly Reduced Federal Spending: No one will ever "greatly reduce" it, but that hardly disqualifies somebody from being a "neo-liberal" these days. Greenspan (perhaps the most notable neo-liberal of the last 40 years warned the Bush administration of the dangers of too much budget surplus lying around. He literally approved of deficit spending at that time and Cheney reminded us that Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
And her husband certainly did as good a job as any of keeping federal spending in check.
Free Trade: “I think that everybody is in favor of free and fair trade, and I think that NAFTA is proving its worth.” - HIllary Clinton.Deregulation: Yeah...she was going to be tough on Wall Street. Bill was wrong for signing the CFMA and Graham-Leach Bliley...Of course, these were just the populist sentiments that Clinton knew she needed to utilize in order to deceive organized labor, and the working class in general, that she was an ally, rather than a devout worshiper at the altar of the god of neoliberalism.
After Obama became president and appointed Clinton Secretary of State she immediately reverted to being the great champion of free trade. Indeed, in her position as America’s top diplomat Clinton traveled the world preaching the gospel of free trade. And by this point she had a new holy scripture to tout: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Clinton unabashedly lied during Democratic national debates on the issue of the TPP, saying that she now opposes it, despite having been in favor of it as late as 2012 when she said the TPP “sets the gold standard in trade agreements.” While she now masquerades as a protectionist opposing a deal that would be bad for working people, she has demonstrated her unflagging support for this type of so called free trade in the past.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/10/ ... beral-lie/
Privatization: Probably her weakest neo-lib street cred as she has some strong statist tendencies but she also supported policies that rewarded privatization like three strikes laws and overtures to the success of charter schools. But, hey...no one is perfect. That's why labels are tricky in that there are inconsistencies and hypocrisy in all politicians. Duh.
Hillary has supported a top-down crony capitalist approach to domestic financial policy and foreign policy. Again, this was perfectly encapsulated in her treatment of the Guatemalan coup. She's not perfectly neo-lib (neither was one of the all time neo-libs, Greenspan) but you're original comment that she supported "none of these things" is simply wrong and my comment that here supporters do is right.
Hope you had a nice evening as well!
The coup involving Quetzalzacatenango of course! Surprised you and Ivy didn't know about it.CID1990 wrote:What Guatemalan coup are you talking about, Mr. Worldly?kalm wrote:
Hmmm...let's see. You said "Hillary supported none of those things" from JSO's neo-liberal definition. I assume these are the issues here:
Fiscal austerity: She sided with the IMF and World Bank on Greek austerity as SoS. She did the same with Argentina.
Greatly Reduced Federal Spending: No one will ever "greatly reduce" it, but that hardly disqualifies somebody from being a "neo-liberal" these days. Greenspan (perhaps the most notable neo-liberal of the last 40 years warned the Bush administration of the dangers of too much budget surplus lying around. He literally approved of deficit spending at that time and Cheney reminded us that Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
And her husband certainly did as good a job as any of keeping federal spending in check.
Free Trade: “I think that everybody is in favor of free and fair trade, and I think that NAFTA is proving its worth.” - HIllary Clinton.
Deregulation: Yeah...she was going to be tough on Wall Street. Bill was wrong for signing the CFMA and Graham-Leach Bliley...
Privatization: Probably her weakest neo-lib street cred as she has some strong statist tendencies but she also supported policies that rewarded privatization like three strikes laws and overtures to the success of charter schools. But, hey...no one is perfect. That's why labels are tricky in that there are inconsistencies and hypocrisy in all politicians. Duh.
Hillary has supported a top-down crony capitalist approach to domestic financial policy and foreign policy. Again, this was perfectly encapsulated in her treatment of the Guatemalan coup. She's not perfectly neo-lib (neither was one of the all time neo-libs, Greenspan) but you're original comment that she supported "none of these things" is simply wrong and my comment that here supporters do is right.
Hope you had a nice evening as well!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My score was fairly close to this. I'm a centrist.93henfan wrote:I'm a centrist:
Wow...you just perfectly described the Freedom Caucus.JohnStOnge wrote:Well, I looked up "Neoliberalism" and I don't think it's what most people think of as "liberalism."
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp
Neoliberalism has been used by various scholars, critics and analysts, mainly referring to an upspring of 19th century ideas connected to economic liberalism that began in the 1970s and 1980s. These ideals advocate for extensive economic liberalization and policies that extend the rights and abilities of the private sector over the public sector, specifically the shutting down of state and government power over the economy. Neoliberalism supports fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, privatization and greatly reduced government spending.
I thought I smelled elderberries.Ivytalk wrote:Nobody except progtards "perceives" Donald Trump as the "champion" of the conservative movement. He is no conservative. Your conclusion of "fact" doesn't follow from the erroneous premise. Why don't you make your transformation complete and become a registered Democrat? I fart in your general direction.JohnStOnge wrote:
No. I enthusiastically opposed Donald Trump. His selection as the representative of the Republican Party as well as his election as President diminishes the probability of all of those things more than the election of Hillary Clinton would have in the long terms. The fact that Donald Trump is now perceived as the champion of the "conservative" movement totally destroys the credibility of the "conservative" movement.
Skjellyfetti wrote:I got Libertarian Socialism.
That befits you. Complete whack job. 
http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... 4#p1123199kalm wrote: 1). I slept in till 5:00 this morning. Got around to the reply about 6:45.
2). Your a lawyer and a conk which means you're more in love with your own ideas than most as well as decently narrow minded so a bit of extra due diligence was required to educate you.
I'm satisfied with the results.
I'm more just laughing at the idea of you sitting there carefully choosing the answers you thought would give you that result.89Hen wrote:As suspected and I'm sure will piss off a lot of you...
Economic Axis: Centrist - 50.6%/49.4%
Diplomatic Axis: Balanced - 51.1%/48.9%
Civil Axis: Moderate - 51.9%/48.1%
Societal Axis: Neutral - 46.1%/53.9%
Closest Match: Centrist
Favorite ice cream: vanilla89Hen wrote:As suspected and I'm sure will piss off a lot of you...
Economic Axis: Centrist - 50.6%/49.4%
Diplomatic Axis: Balanced - 51.1%/48.9%
Civil Axis: Moderate - 51.9%/48.1%
Societal Axis: Neutral - 46.1%/53.9%
Closest Match: Centrist
