Hillary Clinton is currently expecting a landslide victory over Donald Trump. Her lead so big the Democrats even have a decent chance of recapturing the Senate. But she hasn’t campaign on a single signature issue. There isn’t a single major program that she has pushed for. So what would she do with her mandate?
A Mandate for Nothing
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
28 Comments. Leave new
It is tragic that the most important reason that we “need” a woman president is to to be SURE that she is not Trump.
Vote for Dr. Jill Stein.
She’s a woman, and she isn’t Donald Trump!
😀
I intend to and I especially like the fact that I have not heard her once say that I should do so because of her gender!
test
For HRC to do ANYTHING, she will:
1. Have to have permission from the corporates who own her.
2. Have to win a supermajority Senate and House. And that means a supermajority that will vote as a bloc. Not one of these “well, he’ll vote for X if we let him attach an anti-abortion rider to Y” situations. It simply won’t happen.
Anyone expecting anything out of HRC is — this is a highly technical term used in political circles — a chump. But it’s all part of the bait and switch gimmickry that runs politics. Here’s an example of what I expect from a Wall Street-HRC presidency. She will nominate a Supreme Court justice. That justice will be a moderate because, work across the aisle, etc. (we all saw how well that worked the last five or six times it was tried; but this time, it’ll be different because HRC is so well-loved and respected by the RIght). The Court will incrementally advance protections for women who want to get abortions safely and legally, and the Senate and House will introduce bills that will make it impossible for those women to actually GET to abortion clinics to take advantage of those “improvements.”
Happens all the time.
Given the track record of presidents lately, maybe it would be a good thing to not have an agenda. I sill won’t vote for Killary, but here are the top ten reasons to do so.
1) No agenda
2) Break glass ceiling
3) not Trump
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
😀
Vote for Dr. Jill Stein!
If you’ve not already seen it, mein verehrter Lehrer, I suspect that you will find this link of interest….
La lotta continua….
Henri
Thanks!
I signed.
🙂
Saddest of all is that nothing is what HRC’s supporters expect. They aren’t even hoping for a few more crumbs.
That’s correct, dex.
The tagline from Melancholia: “Nothing is too good for you.”
Meaning: You don’t deserve anything, even nothing is too much for you.
The worst time for Obama was when Democrats had control of Congress immediately after his election in 2008.
Obama had a whole bunch of campaign promises to keep, and great expectations to live up to and…no Republicans to blame for his failure to accomplish anything noteworthy.
Apathetic and disenchanted voters failed to show up at the polls in 2010 and left the Democratic Party with big loses, thus providing the cover of Republican opposition to blame, cover that Democrats thrive on in their work of ignoring the will of the people and putting the blame for their apparent failures on others.
I’m sure crooked Hillary learned well from the master, and should she ever actually promise anything, she knows it’s only the promise that matters, not the fulfillment, that keeps their voters insanely repeating the same action at the polls with the expectation of a different result.
Obumma was able to overcome his party’s massive congressional majorities by resorting to pathological bipartisanship, thereby alienating his former supporters and keeping them from the polls in 2010 – a census year no less!
Best guess: President Clinton will have a Senate with 51 – 55 Democratic Senators, and a Republican House for two years. She MIGHT be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court justice, depending on whether she can get enough Republican moderates to override one of the new, faux ‘filibusters’. She can veto any changes to the ACA. But that’s about it domestically.
When it comes to foreign policy, however, the president has the only real say, no one else has any authority to restrict what the US president can do about foreign policy.
I read a news article that St Hillary said that Putin will meekly back down when faced with a tough president instead of a wimp, and will hand Syria over to a good Salafi who will cleanse Syria of all its problems, such as infidels, heretics, and pagan atrocities that tempt people to idolatry, as the US-supported unarmed, peaceful protesters were trying to do in Palmyra until they were murdered or forced to abandon their beneficent work by the evil Russians.
Facing St Redbeard, Putin will also hand the Crimea back to the Ukraine.
And if he doesn’t, he’ll find that he’s no longer facing a wimp, but someone who will teach him a lesson he’ll not soon forget.
I’ll concede that the Generalisssima will bluster as loudly, while spraying as much spittle, as any neo-con of the opposite gender.
Here’s an interesting article on the general topic:
tinyurl.com/z2nfgv2
Alas, falco, I failed to open that URL Can you post one that works ?….
Henri
@ mhenriday –
I didn’t have any trouble opening the link. I won’t say I read it, but I opened it. (It was as long as my leg!)
😀
Very interesting article. The official US version, which every decent, patriotic American accepts without question, is that no nation can stand up to the US, the US can (and should, according to the Chicago Tribune) initially destroy the Russian retaliatory capacity with a War Day attack, then march in and force regime change, transforming Russia from an impoverished dictatorship into a peaceful and prosperous democracy (when a puppet government is installed by the US president, that makes it a legitimate, democratic government, since the US president was elected).
Thanks very much again for the first URL, falco, and for the link to the article on Ms Clinton’s exceptionalism speech, which I had in fact read ; indeed, I’d say that Consortiumnews is «indispensable» for those attempting to understand political life in the heart (?) of the Empire, were it not for the fact that its use by people like Marie Jana Korbelová Albright had rendered the adjective almost unusable, at least in polite company. I strongly recommend the site….
Henri
Well, Michael, perhaps it’s time that that nasty Vladimir Vladimirovich got his comeuppance – and with him that equally nasty Mr Xi as well….
Henri
henri:
try this:
popularresistance.org/a-thousand-balls-of-flame/
Put the standard htt .. w. in front.
If I do so the comment function holds it until a moderator (TR) OK’s it.
Thanks, for your kind response, falco ; the second time ’round, inspired by mein verehrter Lehrer, I managed to get the tinyurl to work….
I found the article interesting, but disagree with the conclusion – a war between the US and Russia (and/or China) would, I suspect, lead to Armageddon and the destruction of us all. That is what makes the prospect of a Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton presidency so frightening….
Henri
M. Henri,
It’s not clear to me if you understand the difference between ‘Armageddon’ and ‘crickets’.
‘Armageddon’ is a Christian term for the end of the world. ‘Crickets’ is a secular term for a world with no living creatures more advanced than crickets.
I’ve heard that, after the holocaust, we’ll have plenty of arthropods, including crickets and cockroaches.
***
I have been accused of sarcasm, when I am, in fact, a rabid Republican who wants to see the Greatest Republican Ever, St Hillary, finally put an end to the evil Syrian and Russian dictators and replace them with peaceful and prosperous democracies, the same beneficence St Hillary bestowed on Iraq and Libya.
And anyone can see that St Redbeard will NOT suffer the fate of the German who preceded her: she cannot possibly get bogged down in Stalingrad, since it is not on any map!
Hello Henri,
My pleasure. Glad you found the article.
I suggested it only because it presents a glimpse of Russia that the VAST majority of citizens of “the West” have never seem and probably will never see. (The reasons for this have been covered ad nauseum.)
I won’t bother to parse Armaggedon v. crickets, but do not think there can be anything resembling a “rosy” result of an exchange of nuclear weapons. This untenable claim is something we may well hear from HDRC as she escalates her provocation of Russia.
I have the same profound fear of a HDRC presidency as you have. Have you read of her recent, cringe/puke-worthy “exceptionalism” speech?
Link:
consortiumnews.com/2016/09/03/hillary-clintons-exceptionalist-warpath/
or
tinyurl.com/hd6bz37
or (maybe a “hot” link if it works)
Exceptional
> do not think there can be anything resembling a “rosy” result of an exchange of nuclear weapons.
Every mushroom cloud has a silver lining:
1) Nuclear winter to counter global warming
2) Mitigation of overpopulation
3) New recipes for cockroaches and annoying neighbors
As I recall, Michael, the insects that have generally been used to represent the survivors when we mammals bring ourselves to extinction via a thermonuclear conflagration are those members of the order Blattodea, such as cockroaches, rather than members of Orthoptera, such as crickets. Be that as it may, I am not, alas, enough of a theologian to have an opinion as to whether the planet such creatures inhabit would also be destroyed at the battle prophesied to take place at Har Magiddô which would signal at least the end of the human world…..
You will no doubt to be pleased to hear that I have always regard you as «a rabid Republican[,] who wants to see the Greatest Republican Ever, St Hillary, finally put an end to the evil Syrian and Russian dictators and replace them with peaceful and prosperous democracies, the same beneficence St Hillary bestowed on Iraq and Libya.»
Henri
Interesting ——
http://us-newsweb.com/2016/08/29/the-dnc-rules-are-suspended-it-is-still-possible-for-u-s-senator-bernie-sanders-to-be-our-next-president/
Tis a consummation. Devoutly to be wished….
But I’d not suggest betting the farm on it coming about….
Henri