Hillary Fixes the Housing Crisis

Hillary Clinton is extremely concerned about Americans who lost their homes. Well, she’s particularly worried about one: herself. The home she used to live in, of course, is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Hillary, solving the housing crisis one person at a time.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditDigg thisShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

11 thoughts on “Hillary Fixes the Housing Crisis

  1. Now, Ted, your bias against Ms Clinton is showing. If she gets to occupy the White house for a number of years, thus solving her immediate housing problem, perhaps she and William Jefferson could rent out their home in Chappaqua, thus solving someone else’s housing problem. And if they could convince Chelsea to come and live with them again, that would enable her to let her humongous New York City flat out to yet another person, thus solving his or her housing problem. See – three housing problems solved already, and Ms Clinton hasn’t even been elected/appointed ! I’m sure that Ms Clinton’s trickle-down approach to the US housing crisis would solve the problem in a trice !…

    Henri

  2. Exactly Alex – and she is convinced that she can bluff her way to the Presidency, while the sad truth is that so many people cannot see her for what she is.

    • You can bluff in poker. This isn’t poker. You can’t bluff past a certain point in an election. Her “I’ll look into it” when asked point blank if she’ll release those speeches? If it were poker, that would be called (ironically) a “tell.”

      It was a twitch. And once you start twitching, you don’t stop. …

  3. Has anyone else noticed the biggest difference in the two campaigns? It’s like a Goofus/Gallant thing from Hilights:

    Goofus: Everyone’s been ganging up on me for years. I can take it. I’m just that self-sacrificing. And I’m a woman, but I don’t want this to be about me being the first female president. But, as the first female president, I can get things done. Look at, um, well, not at the transcripts of those Goldman, Sachs speeches. Look at my accomplishments: wages still stagnant, job security drying up, not one Wall Street banker in prison for all the crimes they committed, still millions of people unemployed, college tuition costs a fortune. I. Can. Get. Things. Done. Me. Me. Me.

    Gallant: The economy is rigged. You’re sitting in at a poker game where the other players all tell each other what they’re holding, they own the machine that makes the chips, and they decide what cards you’ll be dealt. We’re all in this together. I need your help to stop it.

    Clinton’s campaign is all about her; Sanders’ campaign is all about the people.

    • Excellent commentary, Alex. I would add only that 99.9% of political campaigns are “all about me” as well.

      Anybody here read the Divergent series? People are divided into factions, the Abnegation faction values the needs of others above the needs of oneself. And that is the faction in charge of running things. Does that make sense or what? How many politicians can you name who put the needs of others above their own?

      Arthur C. Clarke wrote a great essay once, suggesting that Americans are stupid for electing a president who wants the job badly enough to run for office. The guy we really want is a shy political science professor who has to be drug screaming and kicking into office, but will do a great job in hopes of earning an early release.

      • Douglas Adams says it better:

        “The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
        To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
        To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.”

      • Why is it that the Brits have a better grasp of US politics than the US citizens themselves?

      • I hardly think Adams’ solution is a great improvement. But people will always be the main stumbling block. If you create a position with enormous power and prestige there’s no way that anyone worth doing it (and many that aren’t) *woudn’t* want it and there’d always be ways of finagling their way into it.

  4. While this woman does have a lot of experience in a lot of areas, the simple fact is that she is an asshole. There is no way she should even occupy any high-level office in consideration of her past performance. But, I”m preaching to the choir here, so I can’t add anything more to what Ted’s cartoon illustrates except that she should be cast out – to walk upon the stones of her life’s accomplishments, and never more be referred to as a Politishan. 🙂

    • A nice point. But even if she’s an asshole, that’s not the problem. The problem is her incompetence. Put up the chart in your head: Asshole/not an asshole vs. competent/not competent.

      I’ve worked with all four groups. My preference? I prefer competent non-assholes. However, secondly, I would take a competent asshole over an incompetent non-asshole. (Jeez, I hate the guy. He’s such an asshole. But Christ Almighty, he got that project done under budget and had it in my hands three days before deadline.) Lastly, I’d tolerate an incompetent asshole only with the least possible grace.

      Hillary Clinton, despite her regurgitated talking points, is not competent. Do I think she’s an asshole? Yeah, kind of. But she could be a goes-up-to-11 asshole and I’d support her IF she actually did anything useful.

Leave a Reply