“According to Pew, “38% of social networking site users have discovered through their friends’ postings that their political beliefs were different than they thought.” And 18 percent have blocked, unfriended, or unfollowed people who have differing political beliefs. Many of those people are relatives or high-school acquaintances. But some, presumably, are real friends. As Pew notes, “friends sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.” That’s exactly what the Hillary divide illuminated for me — just how easy it can be to go searching for a “sometimes disagree” moment.”
This map has infuriated Democrats across the United States and lead to a heavy campaign push toward voter registration and turnout for the upcoming 2016 election.
“I am shocked and appalled,” said Clinton campaign organizer Martin Rook, “This is a disturbing trend and one we intend to combat through education, awareness and a grassroots campaign into the heart of the American landscape. This map cannot be allowed to persist, it cannot be the state of our nation or our nation’s future, and we will see that it does not become our future, for it is a mentality locked in the past and that’s where it needs to stay.”
Which is all sort of a weird comment because the map is about which states like Fruit Punch and Berry Blue Hi-C. I’m not sure why they care about such things.
Hypocrite Hillary Clinton paid female workers 72% of what males got paid
The point posting this article is not to tell Hillary Clinton how much she should pay anybody. I believe she should be at liberty to pay whomever whatever they’ll agree to work for. However, the point I would like to make is that Clinton’s self-righteous finger pointing for “equal pay” for women is pure hypocrisy.
from Washington Free Beacon:
The Hillary Clinton campaign has confirmed the accuracy of a Washington Free Beacon analysis that showed that women working in Clinton’s Senate office were paid just 72 cents for each dollar paid to men.
The campaign told FactCheck.org it does not dispute the accuracy of the report, which analyzed the office’s publicly available disbursement forms from fiscal years 2002 to 2008 and found that men working for Clinton had a median salary $15,708.38 higher than women.
The Clinton campaign says, however, that a study using private salary data provides a more accurate (and more favorable) story.
The campaign provided FactCheck.org with what it claimed to be a list of the “name, gender, title, and annual salary of every full-time person employed in Clinton’s Senate office between 2002 and 2008.”
Miraculously, the median annual salary for men and women based on this campaign-provided list was found to be an identical $40,000. Unfortunately, the salary numbers that were used have not been made available to the public.
FactCheck.org opted not to publish the data provided by the Clinton campaign and declined to share it with the Free Beacon due to concerns that the former “employees probably would prefer not to have their salaries posted online.” Congressional salary data is publicly available.
The data provided by the campaign also cannot be compared with the disbursement data made available for every Senate office. FactCheck.org notes that the Clinton campaign provided data separated by calendar year, which makes direct comparisons to the publicly available data, which is separated by fiscal years, impossible.
The campaign-provided list of offered annual salaries also does not take into consideration each employee’s actual take-home pay—the amount of time each employee actually worked and any bonuses they may have received are neglected.
The Census data used to form the Democratic talking point that women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, which has been used by Clinton herself, also only takes into account only employees who worked for an entire year.
Again, here’s where I’d like to partially defend Hillary. She (and any other employer) should be at liberty to pay any employee whatever amount they contractually agree upon. Also, an analysis like the one the Washington Free Beacon came up with is precisely the kind of apples to oranges comparison Democrats use for the “equal pay” talking points all the time. It’s just the average of all men’s pay vs all the women’s pay without taking into account any other factors such as job title, how long they’ve been employed, job performance, education, job history, etc.. Any pay comparison that does not take these kinds of factors is completely worthless. I repeat: completely worthless.
But here’s the rub: Hillary Clinton uses this kind of worthless analysis all the time! Not only that, she wants to use worthless analysis to justify giving the Federal government more power to control who businesses can and can’t hire and how much they get paid. This is not something the government should have any say in whatsoever. A contract of employment should be a private agreement between two parties, and the government should stay out of it.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to stay out of it. She wants to insert the government between you and your employer, and she doesn’t care if she kills your job in the process. And for that reason: Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite.
Hillary, who makes $250k per speech, attacks CEO salaries
Oh, this is rich (pun intended). Hillary Clinton, who makes 5 times more money per 90-minute speech than the average American worker makes in a year, is complaining that CEOs make too much money. Isn’t that cute?
From Reuters via Yahoo! (which somehow manages to studiously avoid mentioning this glaring hypocrisy):
Hillary Clinton, under pressure from the left wing of her Democratic Party to aggressively campaign against income inequality, voiced concern about the hefty paychecks of some corporate executives in an email to supporters. Striking a populist note, Clinton, who announced on Sunday she was running for president in 2016, said American families were still facing financial hardship at a time “when the average CEO makes about 300 times what the average worker makes.” In a tightly scripted campaign launch in which there were few surprises, the comments were unexpected, at least by progressives, who saw them as an early sign she may shift away from the centrist economic policies pursued by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. “I definitely see the push from the left wing, which I think is great,” said Jared Milrad, a Clinton supporter who appeared in a video launching her campaign for the presidency. Milrad said he saw the populist rhetoric as a sign that Clinton “has been listening” to backers such as himself who want her to embrace some of the economic policies pushed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, a hero of liberal Democrats. Warren favors tighter regulation of big banks and a bolstering of the social safety net.
I could go on and on and on. The Clintons are the 1% that progressives are always whining about.
Of course, I don’t begrudge her a bit for making that kind of money. If a college (or book publisher or someone else) is stupid enough wants to pay her six or seven figures for some unknown reason, it’s none of my business. I say good for her. Our society needs rich people for business and philanthropy. But here’s the thing: She’s a hypocrite. Why hasn’t she been speaking on college campuses without charging them? To my knowledge, she deposited every one of her publishing checks. Why would she do that? Doesn’t she “have enough money”?
Here’s the rub: This isn’t about income inequality. It’s about pandering to ignorant voters who think that income inequality is a real problem and that it can only be fixed by big government. That’s it. She knows that government policies that attack high wage earners will often lead to a greater income disparity (one need look no further than the last 6 years) but the low-information voters she’s targeting don’t know that. And as long as they don’t know, the Hillary Clinton class warfare rhetoric will be alive and well.
A word on Hillary Clinton, the presidential candidate
Feminists, Hillary Clinton isn’t the “right choice” just because she’s a woman. Supporting her based solely on her sex is shallow thinking. It is great that women have come far enough in this country that a woman has a real chance of being elected president. I can appreciate that Clinton has worked very hard throughout her life, defying the odds to become successful, but that’s pretty much the only way in which she is a feminist role model. Feminists should not champion someone who supports coercive power structures. However, it’s also not her job to be a feminist role model just because she is female. Sex should be entirely irrelevant in this election. I will defend Clinton when she is being attacked on the basis of her sex. Sexism is intolerable. It is her policies that deserve to be ridiculed.
Hillary Clinton, the politician, the presidential candidate, is awful.
They’re all awful.
Her policies and viewpoints are destructive. She is not elevated above all the other male candidates because of her “girl power,” though she will exploit it to win your vote. In fact, power, female or otherwise, is the problem. True liberation, for men and women, would be to break from this corrupt, excessive power structure that is the United States government, and government in general.
This election season, dare to think for yourselves. Dare to think outside the box, outside of the accepted social and political constructs - government, the voting system, the election process, the two party system, the presidency, domination, control, nationalism, gender roles. No one denies that politics consists of facades, lies, power struggles, and lots of money. We all know you have to play dirty to win and to stay the victor. Why then, do we continue to put it all on a pedestal? As if it is a natural part of life? It all relies on your obedience and devotion. There are other ways - government is not God. Don’t be another pawn in their game. Break free from this mold!
“Some women are concerned that Hillary Clinton is usually referred to by just her first name, which they say wouldn’t happen if she were a male candidate. They think it shows a lack of respect. ‘You sure about that?’ said Oprah, Madonna, Cher and Beyoncé.”