Republican financier Koch says Clinton might make better president (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, a key source of financing for conservative Republican causes along with his brother, said Democrat Hillary Clinton might make a better president than the candidates in the Republican field.

I am still picking my jaw up off the floor. If you are a Republican presidential candidate, and Charles Koch says that Hillary Clinton might be a better president than you, then you'd better take a serious look in the mirror, because there is something seriously wrong with you. America already knows it. Too bad you don't............. Yet!!

Article is here.

 

[NeverTrump]

I am still picking my jaw up off the floor. If you are a Republican presidential candidate, and Charles Koch says that Hillary Clinton might be a better president than you, then you'd better take a serious look in the mirror, because there is something seriously wrong with you. America already knows it. Too bad you don't............. Yet!!

Article is here.

I think Trump probably does, and laughing all the way to the bank and in our collective (mostly republican) faces. I for one never got on the train.

It's All An Act!!!!!!

 

[ajn678]

The Clintons have always been Moderate Republicans. To think they are anything else is simply not being honest with their collective work in the government.

 

[danarhea]

The Clintons have always been Moderate Republicans. To think they are anything else is simply not being honest with their collective work in the government.

Then let the Republicans and Democrats merge and become the Republicrat party. Their mascot can be a donkey's ass sticking out of an elephant's ass.

 

[iguanaman]

The Clintons have always been Moderate Republicans. To think they are anything else is simply not being honest with their collective work in the government.

If you are talking about Republicans like Eisenhower you are not far off. Republicans today are not at all like they used to be. They have gone off the deep end and into oblivion.

 

[ajn678]

If you are talking about Republicans like Eisenhower you are not far off. Republicans today are not at all like they used to be. They have gone off the deep end and into oblivion.

Well yes, obviously calling someone like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump a Rebublican is as laughable as thinking Clinton is a Liberal Progressive.

 

[ajn678]

Then let the Republicans and Democrats merge and become the Republicrat party. Their mascot can be a donkey's ass sticking out of an elephant's ass.

Would be an interesting logo that they would have at least.

 

[coldjoint]

Well yes, obviously calling someone like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump a Rebublican is as laughable as thinking Clinton is a Liberal Progressive.

If liberal progressives have the money that is exactly what Clinton is. And last time I checked liberal progressives have quite a bit.

 

[FieldTheorist]

If you are talking about Republicans like Eisenhower you are not far off. Republicans today are not at all like they used to be. They have gone off the deep end and into oblivion.

It's pretty laughable to even compare Eisenhower to Clinton --Eisenhower was far more to the far, far Left of the Clintons on essentially every economic issue.

Well yes, obviously calling someone like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump a Rebublican is as laughable as thinking Clinton is a Liberal Progressive.

Yeah, that's pretty accurate, although I disagree on Cruz. Cruz was the inevitable eventuality of the Fox News, spin-cycle, ideological, fact-free indoctrination that the Republican loved. Trump, contrarily, is not a Republican. He'd make a great 1920's Democrat though --pro-racism, pro-some-but-not-much social safety nets for whites, tolerates the idea of unions, etc.

 

[FieldTheorist]

If liberal progressives have the money that is exactly what Clinton is. And last time I checked liberal progressives have quite a bit.

That's not a coherently expressed thought. Would you mind explaining what that is supposed to mean, an argument for why it's defensible, etc?

 

[chromium]

well what can they do, return all that $ he gave them?

or he'll start giving to hillary in exchange for her newfound vow to undo roe v wade and obergefell. Wouldn't at all put that past her

"the duo and their affiliated organizations have spent more than $86 million in support of elected officials, presidential nominees and organizations who do not support abortion rights or same-sex marriage. Over that same period, the review found just over $86,000 spent in support of eight current officeholders who support both abortion rights and marriage equality"

(thinkprogress)

pretty hilarious that they pretend to be "social libertarians" when they throw over $300,000 at an anti *contraception* group and another $200,000 at the hate group FRC

wow, i think we have discovered why republicans are such unrelenting bigots

 

[Hawkeye10]

So a human says that he does not know all, and someone is flabbergasted.

Well DAMN, that human can only be either Jesus or one of them Koch Brothers!

Glory Be.

 

[Utility Man]

 

[FieldTheorist]

I am still picking my jaw up off the floor. If you are a Republican presidential candidate, and Charles Koch says that Hillary Clinton might be a better president than you, then you'd better take a serious look in the mirror, because there is something seriously wrong with you. America already knows it. Too bad you don't............. Yet!!

Article is here.

Well yeah, that's sort of obvious. If/once Hillary takes the nomination and if Trump however unlikely takes the nomination, they're going to be giving to her through proxies (or maybe just openly, we'll see) like crazy. To quote Martin O'Malley, "Hillary Clinton is the candidate of Wall Street." You can add "Big Oil" to that list.

Still, the sad thing is you're either faced with Trump who's an authoritarian, or worse, far more capitulating errand boys for corporations, which is the rest of the Republican party.

 

[iguanaman]

It's pretty laughable to even compare Eisenhower to Clinton --Eisenhower was far more to the far, far Left of the Clintons on essentially every economic issue.



Yeah, that's pretty accurate, although I disagree on Cruz. Cruz was the inevitable eventuality of the Fox News, spin-cycle, ideological, fact-free indoctrination that the Republican loved. Trump, contrarily, is not a Republican. He'd make a great 1920's Democrat though --pro-racism, pro-some-but-not-much social safety nets for whites, tolerates the idea of unions, etc.

So that is why Hillary's first toe into national politics was stumping for universal health care? That does not sound so right wing to me. There is no doubt that Bill Clinton caved to the Republicans too much but I think Hillary is past that. She will go to war with them before she will cave. I think we will have them where we want them after she beats Trump.

 

[coldjoint]

That's not a coherently expressed thought. Would you mind explaining what that is supposed to mean, an argument for why it's defensible, etc?

It means Clinton is for sale. Remember she(they) were broke when they left the WH.

 

[FieldTheorist]

It means Clinton is for sale. Remember she(they) were broke when they left the WH.

Yeah, but you used the term "liberal progressives." Not a term I'd traditionally associate to Hillary Clinton. (Of course, it depends on your definition of liberal.)

 

[coldjoint]

Yeah, but you used the term "liberal progressives." Not a term I'd traditionally associate to Hillary Clinton. (Of course, it depends on your definition of liberal.)

I don't see any distinction between them. They are collectivists and have created this divided society.

 

[FieldTheorist]

So that is why Hillary's first toe into national politics was stumping for universal health care? That does not sound so right wing to me. There is no doubt that Bill Clinton caved to the Republicans too much but I think Hillary is past that. She will go to war with them before she will cave.

That's a pretty interesting statement about your own fantasies. We know it's fantasy because we're still in the primaries, and Hillary already said she's not fighting for a public option, campaign finance reform, not fighting for a higher minimum wage, not fighting for substantial Wall Street reform, etc, and we have her entire history post 1994 to judge her from. Her current campaign platform can be best summarized by "If we don't lose every issue to Republicans, I'll count that as a win." If you can get over the demagoguery and actually read the facts, they don't paint a pretty picture.


PS: It wasn't even substantively a universal healthcare, it was a government mandate that required all employers to provide healthcare for their employees and dependents. That doesn't (and didn't) really address a lot/most of the critical healthcare issues.

 

[FieldTheorist]

I don't see any distinction between them. They are collectivists and have created this divided society.

That's a total farce, but well outside the scope of this OP.

 

[coldjoint]

That's a total farce, but well outside the scope of this OP.

You asked me to elaborate. That you think differently is no surprise.

 

[Crovax]

The Clintons have always been Moderate Republicans. To think they are anything else is simply not being honest with their collective work in the government.

Bill has but if you look at this cycle both of them have been forced by the increasingly extreme democrats to renounce all of thier major policy positions and achievements.

 

[Crovax]

If you are talking about Republicans like Eisenhower you are not far off. Republicans today are not at all like they used to be. They have gone off the deep end and into oblivion.

That is a pretty silly statement. Eisenhower wasn't really even a Republican. He was one of the most apolitical presidents we have had. Remember that the Democrats tried to get him to run in both 48 and 52. With even Truman willing to step down and by Eisenhower's VP. He only chose the republicans so that he wouldn't be tied down to having to defend FDRs policies and administration. His nickname wasnt the "middle of the roader" for nothing, he pretty much took both sides and split thier positions down the middle, that was never the mainstream republican platform.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I am still picking my jaw up off the floor. If you are a Republican presidential candidate, and Charles Koch says that Hillary Clinton might be a better president than you, then you'd better take a serious look in the mirror, because there is something seriously wrong with you. America already knows it. Too bad you don't............. Yet!!

Article is here.

Not surprising. Koch has been against Trump almost from the very beginning. Prolly because Koch knows Trump can't be bought like Hillary can.

Regardless of who gets elected this season though this country is in for some rough times ahead. Between Trump the Bigot, Hillary the liar/criminal, Sanders the Socialist, and Cruz the Religious Zealot and SCOTUS positions being opened up that could change just what is and isn't constitutional I don't see a bright future for freedom and independence for awhile.

 

[ajn678]

Bill has but if you look at this cycle both of them have been forced by the increasingly extreme democrats to renounce all of thier major policy positions and achievements.

Yes well, both parties have had uprisings in extreme positions that do nothing but hurt the country.