A message from Elizabeth

Nope, Germany is currently in a manpower shortage so they are training them.

On the contrary. Brexit will have a massive negative effect on British exports, which they deserve for their stoopidity.

She's just trying to minimize the damage.

They'll be back within 5 years, and until them they are seeking the same relationship with the EU that Norway presently has. Meaning, to protect Britain's exports to the EU.

Which she exploded against nobody.

More blah, blah, blah.

Moving right along ...

 

Is this thread officially yet another excuse for why Hillary Clinton lost a slam-dunk election ???

As even Paul Ryan pointed out.... "Wisconsin is actually a nice place to visit in the Fall."

 

No, I don't want a woman president just to see how well a female can do in the role.

When we elect our first female president I hope it is because she is the best choice, not because we thought it would be "nice" to see, or because we thought we were showing "balls" by electing her.

 

Where is our Maggie Thatcher? When she comes along we will elect her.

 

Well we can't use that word ignorance here anymore so I will deal with your lack of knowledge.

Her entire history is made up of reproachable aspects from her days in Arkansas to the White House and even today. Trying to blame her own failures on men is laughable at best.

A plan that not even a single Democrat would vote and a commission that had very questionable beginnings and dealings as with everything with Clinton.

"
WASHINGTON — White House aides raised questions about how to structure and describe then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s role in the 1993 attempt to overhaul the health care system, including whether she would be considered a government employee and whether the group’s work could be kept secret, documents released Friday show.

The lawyerly exchanges among aides in President Bill Clinton’s White House include suggested talking points to back up the administration’s position that Hillary Clinton could head up a task force on health care reform without triggering a federal open-meetings requirement.

Scores of documents about the failed health care effort were among about 10,000 pages of documents released Friday by the Clinton Presidential Library — the last batch in a series released over the past eight months. The trove of unclassified memos, correspondence, phone logs and other papers initially withheld by Clinton charts his administration’s responses to a series of scandals and setbacks.

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/10/...s-reveal-how-white-house-dealt-with-scandals/

And don't get me started on her role in WhiteWater/Castle Grande

Which of course is a total misrepresentation of any American's point of view.

 

THE ETERNAL MACRO-ECONOMIC QUESTION

Maggie Thatcher who? I'll grant that Maggie did a lot for Britain, but Britain needed a lot done. Particularly in the privatization of businesses that had been swallowed by the government in WW2. But, that's about all - she just reworked history. And that is not what America needs today.

I'd rather a German Chancellor (like Merkel) who knows how to "lead" without a monstrous DoD-budget swallowing almost half the Discretionary Budget in the US. See here:


The eternal macroeconomic question "Guns or Butter? Guns or Butter? Guns or Butter?"

 

All Maggie did was to sell-off state enterprises. BFD. (The UK had it coming, she had the balls to do it.)

That and kiss Ronald Regan's ass any time he wanted, wherever he wanted ...

 

Like all of those who call for more women in politics, what you really mean is more women as long as they aren't conservatives.

 

Wow. You're one hell of a debater.
Your idol lost to a rookie (Obama) and then she lost to a total novice (Trump). She did manage to beat someone no one had ever heard of (Lazio R) for a senate seat in NY. She beat an unknown Republican in New York. You're right - she is awesome. And that campaign slogan was just killer "Vote for me. I have a vagina'.

 

LIFE EXPECTANCY VS HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURE

Pure bollocks and of no consequence whatsoever. You forgot to mention that she was also a Secretary of State, btw.

She has governmental experience and her hallmark was to put-together in 1993 a National Health Care Bill that would have saved millions of lives since then had it been passed during the Clinton Administration.

But no, after a stoopid "Harry & Louise television campaign", the bill was defeated. Which resulted since then in the deaths of far more people than had the bill been adopted because they did not receive the necessary health-care. Also, people like you are ignorant of the fact that the US has the highest per-capita Health-Care Cost of any nation resulting in a life-span 3-years less than European nations WITH a National HealthCare Service.

See that sad fact demonstrated here:


How stoopid can a country get? Very! And America is a prime example when it wants to be ... !

 

Typical democrat appeal based on gender. No details or policies just feminist rhetoric with a pinch of class envy to distract from such a lack of policy.

Sad that candidates have to rely on such tactics in order to avoid debating the real issues of the day.

 

The things she talks about ARE the real issues of the day. The vast majority of us don't even know any immigrants let alone see bashing them as government's main purpose while skyrocketing health care costs threaten our bankruptcy, our retirement funds are empty and college for our children become an impossible dream. Voting for Republicans is voting for our own poverty and enslavement to cabals of billionaires, the end of the American dream for everyone

 

When four conservative women run and 400 liberal women do the same.....there will be an obvious discrepancy.

 

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY IDEAL

Simplistic response because none other of any real consequence could be found?

It's not her femininity that makes Warren presidential-timber, it's her intelligence. But, you apparently are too ignorant yourself to understand what she says.Otherwise - had you spent time to to so, you'd understand she is spot-on-true.

Bernie was saying the same damn things in highly cogent arguments, and they flew right over the heads of most Americans. Had more of them understood, he'd be PotUS today.

Which typifies America's problem presently. As a people, we haven't the foggiest notion of what consists a Social Democracy. Which is why I leave below its definition:

 

There is no popular vote for the president. The president is chosen by the electors from the states.

Since you're not an American, you might not know this, but the system of electors, like the senate, was part of the treaty between the several sovereign American states when they constituted their general government. It was meant to ensure that the most populous states could not dominate. Without it, many states would not have joined.

 

Wouldn't you be in your own kind of company on a message-board? Go for it! This is a debate-forum, and all you have to post is vulgar innuendo. (Yeah, go look-up the meaning of the word ...)

 

Bollocks again. You're effing around with history.

The south was scared out of its wits that the north would make slaves entirely illegal*. Importation had already been made illegal by Congress. From Wikipedia:

Slaves were key to the cotton industry based in the south, and southerners were very concerned that it would be made illegal and the slaves freed. (Which did not happen until the Civil War, but was probably the key reason that provoked it.)

Fast forward two hundred years and we have new, modern slave-trade. It's the bare subsistence that a Minimum Wage of $7.50 an hour permits someone to barely exist.

From here (June 2017): No full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a 2-bedroom apartment in any US state - excerpt:

*Which is why - for signing the Constitution - the southern states had exacted that the PotUS be elected by an Electoral College that could be manipulated to give southern states more votes to offset the larger population of the northern states.



PS: I am a Yank from Massachusetts. Eat your heart out ...

 

So you're aware that the president is chosen by electors appointed by the several sovereign states, not by a popular vote. Which is what I said.

 

Here'a more:

 

Elizabeth Warren is exactly right in identifying this problem, but her identification of the cause and solution are way off. Sure, the average cost of a house in up 1000% from the 60's relative to average income, making it impossible to pay or even get a mortgage on minimum wage. However, the cost of housing is waaay up compared to just about everything else as well. Inflation certainly plays a part, but the overwhelming cause of housing costs is the result of real estate investment- people buying property as a source of income instead of as a source of residence. Land has become money more than housing.

Raising the minimum wage will not fix this. So long as housing is an investment opportunity, any method of infusing more money into the economy will infuse more money to the people who invest in housing, increasing its value. Has Elizabeth Warren described exactly how she intends to decentivize the use of housing as an investment?

 

I don't know why a 15 year old burger flipper needs to be able to pay a mortgage. Beyond that, the subject of minimum wage is pretty much irrelevant. If you can hold a job for 2 months, you will not be making minimum wage. In fact you would have to look pretty hard to find a job that starts at minimum wage. Almost all start you higher than that.

The second issue is that both parties have worked very hard to drive up the price of housing. That is the purpose of Freddie and Fannie and low interest rates, and homeowners love it. Makes it tough on home buyers, but if they look at the horrific price and think they can sell it for twice that in 5 years, OK, sign the papers.

 

It is a nice graph but you left out the much larger part that contains all the butter. The non-discretionary spending.

Here is a more honest graph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending.png

 

Well, so is voting for Democrats.

But I am surprised to hear the "vast majority of us don't even know any immigrants." I've known plenty, mainly from working in IT which has lots of Chinese and Indian immigrants who work well and cheaper than the native born.

 

Yup. You have to ask yourself, does importing thousands upon thousands of Chinese and Indian immigrants benefit your kid who just graduated HS, or the "cabals of billionaires?" And which side is in favor of that?

 

Until she releases her DNA test results there's the question of if you can believe a word she says without that test proving her claimed heritage there's a dark cloud over her ethics!