Abby Wambach to campaign for Hillary Clinton

Eric Scatamacchia January 5, 2016 285
After saying farewell to soccer, Abby Wambach is set to begin the next phase of her life. (Photo Courtesy of Arianna Grainey Photography)

After saying farewell to soccer, Abby Wambach is set to begin the next phase of her life. (Photo Courtesy of Arianna Grainey Photography)

In her first public appearance since retiring, U.S. soccer star Abby Wambach is set to campaign for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire this week.

On Friday, Wambach will appear with actor and writer Lena Dunham at a “Women for Hillary” event in Portsmouth. She will then hold individual events across the state over the weekend.

[MORE: 2015 Year in Review: U.S. women’s national team]

With the New Hampshire primary about a month away, Wambach and Dunham will look to rally the women’s vote for Clinton, who, according to the latest CNN/WMUR poll of New Hampshire, is trailing Bernie Sanders among women 48 percent to 42 percent.

Clinton and Wambach have a mutual respect for one another. Following Wambach’s final match in December, Clinton paid tribute to the star’s career.

Abby Wambach’s record speaks for itself: 14 years, 255 matches, 2 Olympic gold medals, and 184 goals scored—the most of…

Posted by Hillary Clinton on Thursday, December 17, 2015

There has been much speculation as to what the all-time leading international goal scorer would do once she hung up her cleats. Always a vocal leader on the field, it appears Wambach is taking her on-field persona into the next phase of her life off the field.

Wambach has expressed her desire to make a difference in the world, citing her goal to establish equality for women’s sports. Before the World Cup, she was among a group of players that filed a lawsuit against FIFA for holding the tournament on artificial turf.

Wambach spoke out for equal treatment in women’s sports throughout her career and that has not stopped now that she is retired. With a lot more free time on her hands, perhaps Wambach will use politics to enact the changes she is seeking.

  • Guest

    *SIGH*

  • Steglitz49

    Who will campaign for Trump?

    That would trump this story [groan, groan — I know, but I could not resist].

    • Tom F

      “Who will campaign for Trump?”

      floozy, hot looking East Euro models wanabees?

      • Steglitz49

        Which NT players are you referring to?

        • Tom F

          naw, I was referring to his wife

          http;//www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMCvWD5PUIw

    • NYRick

      The most famous American athlete Tom Brady has been lambasted for even a mild association to Trump. Trump and Pats owner Bob Kraft are best friends and Brady has been in their company many times. But he is backing away from this right now for fear of backlash. It would take massive guts for any big athlete or celeb to put his name next to Trump. The media will make them pay and the youth in social media will kill their street cred.

      • Steglitz49

        Thank you. I still remember Tom from that fabulous season of his for SB in 2002, Snowbowl and all.

        • NYRick

          Trump is on record a few years ago trying to fix up his daughter Ivanka with Brady before Tom married Gisele. He felt she belonged with a real “winner” in life. You can look it up, this story is true.

          • Steglitz49

            Can’t blame him for not trying though Posh and Becks don’t seem to have lasted …

          • NYRick

            Tom might have been getting the better in that deal. Ivanka is no slouch and she is also a smart, articulate and well educated woman. Trump puts her in the highest regard. Even over his two sons for their businesses. How is that for women’s rights folks?

          • Steglitz49

            I think the same may be true of Rupert Murdoch …

      • AlexH

        The beauty of Trump though is that he is destroying the whole fear of backlash thing by showing that you can survive, even thrive in, a media beatdown

        • NYRick

          A Trump vs. Hillary debate 1 v 1 in the early fall is must see TV. That will shatter Super Bowl viewing records.

    • Lorehead

      I’m guessing not Nadia Nadim.

  • Nicole C.

    So I don’t get to forget Abby?

  • D R Allen

    So – she goes from beloved soccer player to political sycophant of the most corrupt, incompetant government official in recent memory. Too bad – it looks like the Abster will just become another fond memory ruined.

    • Constant Weeder

      This forum has been pretty civil. Let’s stick to soccer and keep it that way.

      • Steglitz49

        The truth hurts?

      • No Fan Of Abby

        Abby opened herself up to ridicule and the Equalizer introduced this topic.

        The cat . is out . of the bag.

        Hillary Clinton is the biggest fabricated lie ever invented in politics. She is incompetent and corrupt. She is a media creation, a product of propaganda.

        Trump will demolish her in a debate, because he doesn’t care and will call her out. He has no respect for fake humility. Humiliation might do her good, might be a cleansing for her. She has to know what she has become. It has to be horrible living a lie.

        • NYRick

          Hate to break it to you but Hillary WILL BE the next US president. The Dems (really any candidate, you can run Ronald McDonald) pretty much have the electorate just about sewn up before any election now. They usually just have to battle for 2 swing states (Penn and Ohio), both heavily labor so that always makes it a toss up for those states. The US election is a now a cruel joke.

          • Steglitz49

            I respectfully disagree. Mrs Clinton would be a liability against a well prepared Republican candidate, not least if too much of the past is dragged up and chewed over.

            The Democrats must find a less divisive candidate. Someone who has been forged in the bull-pit of political mudslinging. More important, one with charisma and perceived warmth, who can reach through the TV screen and grab you. And, a big dose of humor!

            With a good campaign manager, Condi Rice could be at Mrs Clinton.

            Whatever happened to the Mayor of Chicago — or is he in gaol?

          • NYRick

            Steg, than this November in between discussions on the US victory OG tour I can simply say “I told you so.” You can mark this comment for proof.

          • Steglitz49

            W’s daughter. The lighthearted one who got married. She could probably beat Mrs Clinton. The serious one, not so sure.

          • NYRick

            If Hillary didn’t want to run, I would bet the Dems would prop up Chelsea Clinton as their candidate. They are going on the basis that the Clinton name will win this election no matter what. I think they are right.

            BTW, you or I have a better chance than Bernie Sanders of getting the Democratic nod. Hillary is running against no one. That’s the way it was positioned from the start. Especially once Biden was wishy-washy on his decision to run or not.

          • Steglitz49

            It is a repeat of 2008. The difference is, that then taking the WH was a walk in the park for the Dems. Not so this time round. Thus, no quality Dem candidate will run, just to lose ultimately.

            Mrs Clinton is no more a politician than Ike was. The difference is that it is almost 2 generations later.

            Just like Obama 8 years ago got the nomination, so a bright hopeful could get this one. I presume someone is keeping her or his powder dry.

          • guest

            lol Steg

          • justsomedude

            Trump is going to demolish Hillary that is a fact. Look at what he did to Jeb Bush, who was chosen to be the republican nominee. He basically demolished everyone. Hate him or love him, he is going to be president.

      • D R Allen

        -> I <- wasn't the one who put an article discussing a personal
        POLITICAL decision (that has NOTHING to do w/soccer) on this website.

        Over
        the years I have been defending her (in the comment section of this
        site) against the MANY personal attacks on her playing ability and find
        it ironic that I am being chastized for the ONE time I criticize her.

        But if she choses to use her fame (gathered through women's soccer) to further the political aspirations of a politician who enabled the depradations of a serial rapist, and willingly appear on the same stage as a second woman who is a KNOWN perjuror who has spoken (w/out shame) of having sexually assauting an infant, I WILL comment. This could do ENORMOUS damage to women's soccer in America (and I am astonished that Ms. Wambach would associate w/hateful non-athletic people like those two – I'd thought she'd associate more w/Sarah "Barracuda" Palin,

    • dw

      You lost me at beloved soccer player…

  • GT

    How about campaigning for the NWSL?

    • Kelli Stanek


      ❝my neighbor’s mate is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      3jrg…….
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPlay/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  • STT

    Wow, I’m not exactly a Hillary fan myself, (I really wish Biden had been in a position he would’ve felt comfortable running, I don’t want her as the Dem candidate and Sanders is too old and too left for me,) but I’m shocked at how just the mention of Hillary has brought out such a vitriolic response, especially considering the general WoSo audience. Then again, the most spun-up posts seem to be from people who don’t come around here often anyway, but still.

    • Steglitz49

      Slick Willie was the real McCoy. This one is a pale imitation. I can’t see why American women lap up her spiel.

      • AlexH

        It remains to be seen if they actually will. She seems to be ahead in the polls but Bernie Sanders is close and we won’t know if people will actually go out into the snow and vote for her until the primaries and caucuses actually start. I would not be surprised if she lost both IA and NH, although I would be surprised if she did not get the Democrat nomination.

        • Steglitz49

          Provided the Republicans find even a moderately competent candidate, they will beat the ex-first-lady.

          • AlexH

            Donald Trump is an exceptional candidate. I have my doubts about him as an actual president, but as a candidate he is superb.

          • Steglitz49

            Against Mrs Clinton, possibly; against a grass-roots Democratic politician, doubtful.

      • Tom F

        guess we can always have George Dubya back
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dhHNFSuyOU

        • Steglitz49

          Judge Alito?

    • D R Allen

      HRC is one of the most duplicitous people active in today’s political landscape – you have GOT to understand that there is going to be a certain amount of dismay when fans learn that one of THE leaders of WoSo for the past decade has joined her camp! :-O

      [NOTE: I don’t know if your are referring to my post when you say “spun-up”, but I visit this site EVERY day – I just don’t post very often].

      • Steglitz49

        Do you think Alex is keeping her powder dry for some hispanic candidate?

        • D R Allen

          I haven’t the slightest clue – I had so carefully reseached and typed a reply when I realized that you sais ALEX not A-Rod! My brain heard the word “Hispanic” and A-RODriguez popped into my mind (she has Cuban grandparents) :-O

          It’s possible Ms. Morgan might prefer a Hispanic candidate since her husband Servando Carrasco (who while born and attended school and Uni in the US) DOES have a Hispanic background. She ALSO spent time during her Junior year Spring semester in Spain – besides studying, she played pick-up games w/guys in Madrid.

          This might incline her towards Hispanic candidates, it might DISincline her – I haven’t heard the slightest thing about her views on the subject. 🙂

          • Steglitz49

            ARod is the NT’s Hispanic player. Now that she is stepping out again, they need to find another one!

        • Lorehead

          I seriously doubt that would matter to her one way or the other. If she’s a supporter of Barack Obama, however, it’s unlikely that she also would support either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.

    • mskillens

      Any mention of politics apparently brings a bunch of random trolls out of the woodworks.

  • AlexH

    I don’t get why this is an issue. Celebrities campaigning for candidates is commonplace and did anybody seriously think Abby would be campaigning for, say, Ted Cruz?

    • justsomedude

      she can do whatever she wants, but she is campaigning for someone who silenced the women who bill clinton raped.

  • NYRick

    If Abby did her homework (which I’m sure she didn’t) she would understand that Hillary does not have a great record (sans what the liberal media reports) when it comes to women’s rights and the support of women in general. Check her record (behind the many veils) of the Clinton foundation and see the massive donations from the Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia (anyone care to look up their record on women’s rights?) to know the true story. It’s sad that so many American women are hoodwinked by Hillary and Bill. It’s a shame the Democratic party can’t front a better candidate then she.

    Hate to make this political because 1) I really don’t care 2) I respect anyone’s political beliefs, they are usually for their own welfare etc., but…this site CHOSE to make a political based article for some crazy reason. What are we supposed to do? We can ignore it or comment on it. I chose to comment on it. Sorry to offend anyone.

    • Steglitz49

      Verily and forsooth.

      At least Condi supports the Browns and plays golf well enough to be elected to its Holy of Holies in the US.

    • guest

      If you actually understood the political history of the US, the smoke around your head would clear.

  • Steglitz49

    Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, Filippa Angeldal, one of the Swedish lasses who won U19 Euro-15, is moving from AIK to Hammarby ladies. She is a great organizer of the midfield, with fine technique, great vision and a brilliant shot.

    • NYRick

      Is she for Hillary or Trump? That’s the key question.

      • Steglitz49

        The story from Sweden is that a 9 year old girl wrote to the Prime Minister asking why Sweden’s lady players were not paid the same as their men. She thought it was wrong.

        The Prime Minister answered her, in the way top politicians always do, but finished by stating that his party had always fought for equal pay for equal work.

        Seeing that the Swedish WNT has a better record than the men over the past 20 years …

        • justsomedude

          ok but do the women generate as much money as the men do?

          • Steglitz49

            The Prime Minister cleverly sidestepped that issue, which was to be expected because you don’t get to the top of the greasy pole without being able to field such questions with aplomb.

          • justsomedude

            some lady asked trump if he was gonna pay women the same as men and his answer was pure gold “If you do as good of a job”

          • Steglitz49

            This is a google translator version
            Thus wrote Emilia to the Prime Minister:

            “Hi Stefan!

            I wonder why girls and boys don’t get equal salary in football and floorball. The boys get the more than girls. They should receive just as much, because I want to become a professional soccer player when I grow up. I wonder if it is possible to change that.

            Greetings Emilia Öhberg. I am nine years old.”

            — And this was the PM, Stefan Löfven’s, answer:

            “Hi Emilia.

            Thanks for your letter. It’s fun to read that you want to become a professional soccer player, that I did too when I was little.

            You wonder why guys get more in salary than girls in football and floorball, and if it is possible to change that. I agree with you that it is very unfair that girls and boys earn different amounts, even though they work in the same fields. The Government of Sweden is a feminist government, which means that we keep focus on gender equality in everything we do. Gender equality means that girls and boys have the same opportunities. Equal pay for equal work is an important part of our work on gender equality.

            Thanks again for your letter and good luck with your sporting life!

            Best wishes

            Stefan Löfven. “

          • justsomedude

            thats one way to dodge a question. he basically recapped what she asked and then agreed with her that women need to be paid the same, and that they are working on it lol.

          • Steglitz49

            He was polite. He took the time to answer. It got him media exposure, positive to boot.

            I told you that he sidestepped your issue. Why did you not believe me? What had you expected?

          • justsomedude

            ofcourse i believed you, it was funny for me to see how he obviously didn’t respond to the question.

          • Steglitz49

            What had you expected?

          • justsomedude

            I expected exactly what I thought, but when reading the letter it made me laugh at home cleverly the man avoided the question. i think there might be some miscommunication going on

          • justsomedude

            and what do you mean by “your issue”

          • Steglitz49

            “do the women generate as much money as the men” — to which the answer is a resounding no in soccer.

          • justsomedude

            well of course I know that they don’t get paid the same, but it is rightly so. If they generated the same amount of money that the men do then I guarantee you that they would be getting paid the same if not more.

          • Steglitz49

            Why do you think the two expansion teams are MLS? Subsidy by another name.

          • Ethan

            I’d be more supportive of your point if women weren’t prevented or heavily dissuaded from playing football in those early days. If equal support and training had been given to female players throughout the history of football, then I think the difference in level of play between male and female players would be notably less today. Consequently, women would likely be generating a significantly larger amount of money.

          • justsomedude

            I agree with you

  • AlexH

    I suppose if Trump is worried about losing the vast woso vote in the wake of Abby’s announcement, he can always just search the couch covers for loose change and buy a woso team. He can then search through another couch and double everybody’s salary to boot.

    • Steglitz49

      Now, if his campaign manager or spiritual advisor reads and acts on this, the Hilary brigade will eviscerate you

      • AlexH

        I think Trump buying a woso team would be the greatest thing for women’s soccer, just the greatest. It would be so great that people would forget about all of those other loser sports. The only risk would be that the greatness would be so great that people would tire of all the greatness!

        • Steglitz49

          He could buy the whole NWSL. He can afford it.

        • AlexH

          They could be called the “Trupettes”

          • Steglitz49

            Trompes l’oeils

        • NYRick

          Let’s put it this way. If Trump owned SB, getting 5k at Yurcak would be a walk in the park.

          • Steglitz49

            in the park indeed. He would erect a Jumbotron in Central Park so Manhattanites would not need to travel.

        • NYRick

          Trump’s Art of the Deal: Alex, Press, Hope, Brunn and Pinoe play on my team. Or else I just go home and say no.

          • Steglitz49

            Alex is enough.

          • NYRick

            Not for Trump she wouldn’t be. He stacks the deck in his favor at all times. That’s why him even running and making it this serious is so amusing to the American public.

        • smallchief

          Maybe Trump is the reincarnation of Dan Borislow?

          He’ll call his team Trumpets

    • MurderOnZidanesFloor

      He’ll build a team.
      Nobody can build a team like he can.
      And Mexico will pay for it.

      • AlexH

        Nice.

      • NYRick

        There will be a giant wall around the playing field that people will have to climb over to get in to see the matches.

        • dw

          It’ll be HUUUUGE.

          • NYRick

            He also is quite loved by Mexican people and has many Mexican friends as he is quick to point out. Many are under his employ for his businesses, and by now owning an NWSL team he can add Mexican national players on the team and surely give them a much better opportunity to play than the USSF-NWSL allocation originally allowed.

          • Steglitz49

            Isn’t one of the Bushes married to a Hispanic (maybe not of the Mexican variety)?

          • NYRick

            I believe that Jeb’s wife is of Mexican ethnicity. I could be wrong on that, but I think so.

          • Steglitz49

            His past and one of his daughters would probably hamper him.

          • good one

            So about as informed as an athlete or celebrity.

          • guest

            no chill

        • Breakers fan

          …certain people…

    • Lorehead

      Thirty years ago, Donald Trump bought a whole gridiron football league, and set out to make it bigger than the NFL. You’ve probably noticed that the NFL is still around. But what happened is still interesting.

      • justsomedude

        I actually read his book The Art of the Deal, and there were many owners in that new league, so it was not Trump by himself, if he was the sole owner of every team i strongly believe he was gonna succeed.

      • NYRick

        I think you made a comparison of Borislow and Trump somewhere regarding similarities between the two with the USFL and the WSL and I think that’s kind of accurate and interesting. Both were bullying personalities with their respective leagues and a nightmare for the other owners to keep in line. The key player for Trump was Herschel Walker, fresh from his Heisman Trophy at Georgia and the plum pick for the NFL draft. Trump got him to play for his NY Generals team and then scored another coupe by getting the popular Doug Flutie to be the QB. It was all about showmanship but it was really following a script that Sonny Werblin had done with the NJ Jets in 1965 getting and paying a king’s ransom for the time for Joe Namath away from the NFL for the AFL Jets and essentially breaking the monopoly of the NFL for top college players, which was one of the building blocks that forced the merger of the two leagues.

        But by the time Trump was in this arena with the USFL, the NFL was far too big to be greatly affected, so Trump lost interest and the league soon folded.

        • Lorehead

          I don’t recall having compared Borislow to Trump, and Trump wasn’t really the same kind of micromanager. (Borislow, at one point, wanted to moonlight as the coach.) He also wasn’t clashing with the other owners the same way. The USFL was also mortally wounded in a legal battle, though. Trump had been able to talk the other owners into playing at the same time as the NFL, instead of in the offseason, and trying to compete directly. That did not work out.

          Their last gasp was to sue the NFL, with the goal of forcing it to merge with them like it had with the AFL. Then Trump would get what he really wanted: the biggest team in the biggest league in the world. It woulda been uuuuge! And the jury did find the NFL liable—for $1 in damages. The judge, ruling that the NFL had done it on purpose, tripled the award, and with accrued interest, the NFL ended up paying Trump’s league $3.76. He didn’t want to stick with a minor league after that, and keep playing spring football, so it shut down.

  • weltmeister

    ariane hingst is new co-trainer at vfl wolfsburg

    • NYRick

      Any chance can we get Ariane to coach Sky Blue instead? I really dug her. She was the best WC announcer in the studio. Quite a player in her day for the German team too.

      • Steglitz49

        Give Sasaki a call. He works miracles. Or, cheaper, invest in a white teddy bear, not a blue sky one.

  • Anson

    Nothing to see here, time to move on!

  • Paul Klee

    I do believe that the Democrats are more likely to equalize pay between men and women. Unfortunately, they will do that by bringing men’s compensation down to that of women’s.

    • Steglitz49

      Reagan put the first lady on the Supreme Court.

      Slick Willie made Madeleine Albright Secretary of State but W trumped that with Condi Rice.

      As far as I can tell, Mrs Clinton has not put herself out on Women’s issues.

  • Guest

    Whatever Abby. I lost my respect for you when you chose not to play in the nwsl.I’m just glad you’re off the team so we can all move forward now.
    By the way How much is Hillary paying you to campaign for her because I’m sure you’re getting a little something

  • East Gano

    FYI: Alex tweeted major support for Obama yesterday. Regardless of if you agree with their political beliefs, I think it is impressive they are standing up for issues and with individuals they believe in in this contentious climate.

    • NYRick

      Actually I just wish athletes and celebs would keep their political viewpoints to themselves. Most are truly uninformed and have no concept of the real world due to the financial advantages and perks they enjoy daily.

      There is really a simple rule to this that works just about 95% of the time:

      1. Anyone under 30 is Democrat and Liberal. This pertained to me and I’m sure anyone on these boards. In comes with the territory of going to US colleges and being brainwashed really by socialist professors who hate America and all it stands for, but don’t mind their cushy jobs, high pay and sleeping with co-eds.

      2. Anyone over 30 who has actually lived in the real world and become awakened (think the first Matrix movie here when Keenu saw the batteries hooked to people), had real jobs, worked for a-hole bosses and understands how the world works in general tends to be more Republican. Important note here: All these same people were liberal dems before age 30 then reality hit them.

      3. Athletes and celebs are 99% extremely liberal and Democratic. It is due to mostly money and ridiculous privilege guilt that this happens. They are so freakin fortunate and can’t believe how lucky they are to live the lives they have that they have to get behind causes. Any causes or liberal politicians. Many of which they have no clue on the facts or as to why they are even behind them. Just sounds cool and will play well with their young social media fanbase. The ironic thing is that people in their tax bracket should by sheer common sense be Republican, and their agents and handlers privately handle their business that way without them even knowing or caring. But in public they portray the liberal democratic viewpoint out for the common man/women of the world and to make things right. Second real irony is that these people are anything but common. If you told any one of them to give up their money, fame and trappings for their “cause” they would hit you with a baseball bat most likely. Not kidding.

      • Reality

        Well, EQ has just opened a Pandora’s box by bringing in Wambach’s post-soccer political career. Here’s another point of view…

        A just and well run government is the only force that can balance the economic, political and social Darwinism which has become the new norm since Reagan. The elite minority who hold the reins of power whether they be Democrat or Republican have failed us because they are beholden to wealthy interests who have bought them out. They no longer represent the best interests of the majority.

        I’m in agreement with people who criticize government. But while their critique is focused on government in general, I am focused on the current irresponsible political forces that are perverting and undermining responsible governance. These forces use their great wealth to diminish and weaken government so they can “drown it in the bathtub” and thereby gain untrammeled power to preserve their control. Once government is corrupted by these creatures, the average person has no protection from their depredations. That’s why the middle class is failing in this country and the poor are forgotten and despised.

        The virtues of working hard and independence are not qualities that only white Republicans possess. Given a choice, the vast majority of people would prefer to have that option. But, unfortunately, our society no longer possesses upward mobility except perhaps for those who were born with golden spoons in their mouth. Their wealth allows them to advance to greater wealth. But most people over the past 35 years have been frozen in time re: real wages and capital accumulation. They have actually lost ground which sharply defines the inequality in our society. And the attitude toward being poor is to blame the victim. Being poor is regarded as a sin in our culture which is perhaps our greatest fault. Our real sin is the lack of compassion, empathy and understanding for those less fortunate than ourselves who are condemned by the inequalities in our system. This vicious cycle will only get worse as our government is undermined and corrupted by these wealthy parasites.

        The only hope to restore an equitable society is for conscientious, well informed, clear headed and well balanced individuals to seek public office and replace the incompetent, ignorant and paid for fools who supposedly are representing us. Unfortunately, there are No Teddy Roosevelts on the horizon to lead that charge and even if there were, they would be subject to horrific opposition by the current establishment. Campaign finance reform is an absolute necessity in order for a more level playing field to be established.

        However, I cherish some hope insofar as the age of the “Robber Barons” was eventually brought down through the awakening of people to the injustice being perpetrated upon them. The “occupy” movement was a start by far sighted individuals who saw the danger into which we have fallen. It will take more pain and time before a greater uprising can occur. If it does not, then our system of governance will have failed and we will deserve the result.

        Hopefully, EQ will not bring up an article on a player’s religious beliefs.

        • mockmook

          “weaken government”

          You’re hilarious.

        • NYRick

          Well articulated my friend. Although I don’t necessarily agree with some of what you wrote, I respect it and appreciate the presentation of the argument.

          I think in theory anyway America was based and developed more on capitalism. With that, the have and have nots are going to develop but with the hope that I believe Reagan had put it “trickle down economics” would occur. Of course has eroded that theory with money being the root of all evil as always. My feeling though for what it’s worth is that the world in general is better place with a strong American that leads. Right now we are not doing that and the world beyond the seas to shining seas has gone to hell in a hand basket. We need the great statesmen or stateswomen to revive us. Where are the Patrick Henrys? Or Alexander Hamiltons? Men with courage and vision who didn’t foresee our future on weak compromise or pretending problems would simply go away.

          But I digress. Back to athletes and celebs on world politics. They would do themselves all a favor to just shut up for once. We don’t care. I don’t need Abby pontificating to me about how the world should be. Someone said below she should just be campaigning for the NWSL instead. Athletes have their own agendas to advance at all times.

          • Lorehead

            It’s interesting to see a conservative remember Reagan as calling it “trickle-down economics,” because at the time that was the unflattering nickname its opponents gave it. Same with “Star Wars” missile defense. In science, “the Big Bang” was another one of those names that was supposed to make it sound stupid, but it caught on.

          • Steglitz49

            Reagan put the first woman on the Supreme Court. Sandra O´Connor. One of the great judges.

          • Reality

            Wambach can have a positive influence for women’s soccer. The question becomes whether she has an ambition to enlarge that goal into some kind of wider political agenda. Advocating for the NWSL, playing conditions, salaries, and the general advancement of Woso are all needed and worthy goals. It will be interesting to see if she attempts to go beyond just advocacy and perhaps run for political office…

          • Lorehead

            It’s unfortunate that athletes so often think the only other careers that give them as much popularity are acting and politics. I don’t think I’d want someone who took Dan Borislow’s money instead of standing up for her more vulnerable teammates representing me in Congress.

          • Reality

            An excellent point. The insidious influence of celebrity in our society leads those who are infected by it to believe that they have a license to pontificate in areas where they lack experience and qualification. Such hubris can be disasterous for them and depending how influential they become can also prove to be harmful to many others.

          • Steglitz49

            Unless spectators turn up and spend money, where will the money come from?

          • Tom F

            I do believe the two political parties are drifting further & further apart/At one hand you got the ‘Angry White Male’ who seems to dominate political discussions on the internet. They tend to be republican/conservative and obviously make up big supporters of Trump/Cruz,
            Last election, white males voted overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney(67%), And yet look at end the results; Obama won comfortably with over 100 electoral votes.
            That’s because the ‘Angry White Male’ with all their huffing & puffing, keeps forgetting that this is a multi dimensional country, they’ll keep loosing the Presidential election.

          • Steglitz49

            Two of America’s greatest President — Lincoln and Truman — were elected with <50% of the popular vote.
            Thank goodness for those results.

          • D R Allen

            Umm … he didn’t win all that comfortably – in a nation of 320M people (IIRC, ~186M were old enough to vote in 2012), he only won by 250K in the 11 “Swing States” – given the number of military votes that were “lost” in plane crashes, the number of precincts w/150+% voter turnout, and the number of former election officials that are currently in prison because THEY voted for him 5-10 times each, I was AMAZED a recount wasn’t demanded!

            You Yanks are wierd – you ignore what few laws you have re: voting, but expect everyone else in the world to dye their thumbs in indelible ink! :-O

          • Tom F

            not sure what your talking about; Obama won the 2012 election by 6 million votes, and by 4%(51-47). He won most importantly, by over 100 electoral votes, at a time when our country was still digging itself out of a depression.
            If not impressed; think about how George Bush Sr won rather impressively the Gulf War in 1991, but still manage to look horrible in loosing the following year’s election, only garnering 37% due to the dire recession we had.
            The worst robbery in our political history was done by George W when we lost the popular vote by over 250K, but still managed to win somewhere the electoral vote by 8 because of the Florida debacle where he won the state by a mere 300 votes.
            George W’s re election in 2004 wasn’t anything to be proud of either; despite no American president ever loosing an re election campaign during a time of war, he managed to squeak out a 1 million vote/23 electoral victory against a opponent with a stiff personality like John Kerry

          • Lorehead

            You believe a number of urban legends. No, there wasn’t significant voter fraud, Democrats didn’t do more of it than Republicans, and certainly not the hundreds of thousands of votes it would have taken to flip Florida plus Ohio plus Virginia. That’s wishful thinking.

            A lot of Democrats went through the same sort of denial in 2004 that they could really have lost. The other side must have cheated! Only, they didn’t. Democrats won in 2006, 2008 and 2012. And Republicans won in 2004, 2010 and 2014. Nobody just forgot to steal the half of elections the other side won.

          • guest

            Obama won fairly decisively by today’s standards. He has much more political capital than Mr. Bush after 2004.

        • Lorehead

          EQ has done an article before about Evangelical girls who took up soccer. I thought it was interesting.

          • Reality

            Articles about politics and religion on a soccer blog can certainly inspire whole new vistas of commentary.

          • Lorehead

            Granted, the comments that time didn’t veer off into why people thought their religious beliefs were wrong.

          • Reality

            That is certainly a feature of discussion in politics and religion that it polarizes and devolves into simplistic right and wrong. I have even observed that here in discussions about harmless subjects such as soccer. However, it is gratifying if dialogue can be nuanced with more detailed shades of grey instead of Twitter like comments of black and white.

          • Steglitz49

            Whom does Christen Annemarie support? Or, is she smart enough to hide her light under a bushell?

          • NYRick

            You just love to bait don’t you? I’ll answer your question instead for the entire USWNT or let’s say the 30 or so women in camp right now. I would bet serious money that ALL 30 are liberal Democrats in their belief and their voting preference and ALL would be 100% behind both Obama and Hillary. It just comes with the territory and the fact that none would want to make themselves an outsider anymore than they have to in essentially what is an all-girls power club.

            But ask yourself just for argument’s sake, who is the more intelligent, accomplished, articulate and better candidate, Carli Fiorina or Hillary? Both women. This myth that Carli Fiorina wouldn’t support women’s rights and advance women in this country is pure hogwash. She started as a secretary and worked her way up to CEO in one of the most powerful corporations in America. Can you imagine the boys school BS she had to put up with to get to the top? She is a breast cancer survivor and working mother for crying out loud. Why wouldn’t strong intelligent and educated women get behind her? As a matter of fact, if she was the Democratic candidate and not Hillary I would think they would then have a real candidate to go toe to toe with Trump or Cruz or Rubio. Not a media charlatan.

          • Steglitz49

            The litmus test may be: which of the WC winners and the current camp would play a round of golf with Condi Rice? — granted that it would not be on Augusta National.

          • rkmid71

            My bet would be Morgan Brian. She seems to march to her own drummer (Adidas vs. Nike?). And why not Augusta? Brian is from Georgia. BTW — Condi Rice switched from Democrat to Republican at age 28.

          • Steglitz49

            Any golfer worth their salt would sell their souls to play at Augusta National. Abby would be first in line. If it was just Brookline or Summit, it would be a tougher challenge to show your true colors.

            Didn’t Reagan start out as a Democrat too?

          • rkmid71

            Yes, Reagan started out as Democrat. But remember he said that he didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left him. I’m not sure Augusta would allow Wambach on the course — she would gouge too many divots. Brian would be smooth as silk and glide around the course and she’s a southern girl to boot.

          • Ethan

            You’re making very bold claims that I’m definitely not sure about in your first paragraph.

          • Lorehead

            All of them have to be at least comfortable sharing a locker room with lesbians, but several are devout Christians. I have no idea what Tobin Heath’s political opinions are, but if, hypothetically, one of the Thorns were pro-life and thinks her taxes should be lower, it’s good for her popularity in Portland that she keeps those thoughts to herself.

          • Ethan

            Yeah, I know several of them are devout Christians. I didn’t want to make any assumptions though.

          • Steglitz49

            What would happen if a devout muslim lass made the grade?

          • Lorehead

            Same thing as when devout Muslims play any other pro sport?

          • Steglitz49

            Good.

          • Steglitz49

            Everyone wants their taxes to be lower, not just in a high taxing country like the US. The Europeans feel the same, bless their socks.

          • Lorehead

            The U.S. is a low-taxing country, in comparison to Europe. And yes, that example is a mainstream view.

          • Steglitz49

            An American payslip show the taxes paid. It also shows all those other deductions like your health and dental premiums and your pensions payments and any life insurnace your employer helps you with etc

            Once you include all that plus your local taxes, there is not much difference to European taxes.

            One difference is that Sales Tax (VAT, TVA, Moms etc) is generally higher in Europe than America though it varies from country to country. Another is that hidden employment costs, that is costs to the employer, are higher in Europe than in USA.

          • NYRick

            ” if one of the Thorns were pro-life and wanted her taxes to be lower, it’s good for her popularity in Portland that she keeps those thoughts to herself.”

            Is this fair to that player? Why can’t that player have those beliefs without repercussion? That’s really the problem with both a democratic and republican stance on any issue. You can’t be yourself or have your own belief system. You have to cater to the status quo you find yourself in, whether that be at the workplace, with family or in public in general.

          • Steglitz49

            OK. How would the USWNT team and USSoccer handle an outstandingly able young lady who happened to be a devout muslim and would want to play in the attire that FIFA has OKed.

            Let’s make it easy and say she votes both ways but does not swing in that fashion.

          • Lorehead

            Probably not. It would be nice if we didn’t let politics influence our opinions of professional athletes, but I think that it would.

          • Steglitz49

            Are straight ladies as bothered by lesbian team-mates as men seem to be by homo males?

            Being a lesbian was never illegal in the UK because Queen Vic refused to sign that part of the legislation. She only outlawed male homosexuals. Fascinating.

          • Ethan

            Well, I haven’t really come across any major issues in women’s football. So, the answer might be no. However, the bigger issue might be media reaction and perception for male players. It seems like it’s less of an issue in men’s rugby.

            Note: There are other orientations outside of straight and gay, unless you’re suggesting that teammates of those orientations don’t bother their straight teammates.

          • Steglitz49

            The Swedish alpine skier Anja Pärson has described how worried she was that it might leak out that she was gay. Her team-mates never gave her away.
            Once Anja retired, she came out and the Swedish people shrugged their shoulders.
            A bit after she mentioned in an interview that she was expecting a baby. Then people asked: do you swing both ways? — No,no! said she. It is my partner who is pregnant. Best wishes, said the great unwashed.
            Last season at the Alpine WC, Anja was an expert commentator with Pernilla Wiberg. Because she and Pernilla was going to do a ski-stunt together, Anja explained that she was now pregnant. The people did not even bat an eyelid.

          • D R Allen

            There is a reason for that – Queen Victoria was VERY pious, VERY well-educated, AND the leader of the Church of England. If you read the Book of Leviticus carefully, you’d see it isn’t homosexuality that it forbids, but Sodomy (which, as our current HIV/AIDS crisis demonstrates, is a DANGEROUS, self-destructive activity). Lesbians don’t have the organic plumbing needed to perform the act, so they were no threat to Her Majesty’s Empire.

            There s a lot of hard science wrapped up into what appeared (for centuries) to be a lot of religious dogma. But in recent years, advances in Science have demonstrated that G_d provided those ancient Hebrew nomads with sound medical advice nearly four THOUSAND years before our own medical research (into genetics and germ theory) uncovered WHY it was good medical advice.

          • Steglitz49

            please see my reply to Lorehead. Quenn Vic was more on the money than she is given credit for.

          • Lorehead

            Urban legend. Victoria did not have that kind of authority, and her signature was a mere formality. It is true that only male homosexuality was illegal during her reign, but not because she changed the act.

          • Steglitz49

            Politicians try to avoid constitutional crises. We don’t know what Queen Vic told the Prime Minister between 4 eyes. He could have understood that she would not sign such a proposal. The account is as old as the hills.

            Queen Vic took a number of ground-breaking steps. She insisted on anesthesia for her childbirths once ether had started to be used. Thus she cut off the arguments that women should suffer during delivery.

            The developments of her relationships to Gladstone and Disraeli also showed fine tuning of her sensibilities. She caused a constitutional hiccup when she wanted to attend Disraeli’s funeral — in the end she did not go — and later visited his grave and laid some wild-flowers on it that she had picked by the wayside. This was consider scandalous at the time.

          • Lorehead

            There was only one time when she stood up to the Prime Minister and forced a constitutional crisis, and it wasn’t over her supposed disbelief that lesbians even exist, although it was about the Queen’s Ladies of the Bedchamber. It happened when the Tories won an election, early in her reign when she was still a teenager. At that time, Lady-in-Waiting to the Queen was considered a political patronage job, so when the Tories beat the Whigs, the new Prime Minister wanted to fire her attendants and replace them with the female relatives of his own supporters.

            Queen Victoria did not see it that way: those women were her closest personal friends. So, election or no election, she refused to appoint a new Tory prime minister.

          • Steglitz49

            With that background any politician worth his salt would have sounded out the Queen about as sensitive legislation as we discuss here.

            Queen Victoria initially was dominated by Gladstone and was dubious about Disraeli but she came to appreciate Disraeli and despise Gladstone.

          • Lorehead

            She was a constitutional monarch, who never vetoed legislation.

          • Steglitz49

            She did not need to. Smart politicians made sure there was no conflict.

          • Lorehead

            As is so often the case, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Steglitz49

            Maybe you could go back to explaining the difference between a subsidy and a marginal profit.

          • Steglitz49

            Hear hear!

          • NYRick

            I said I would bet serious money on it. That does not imply that it’s fact or a claim of any kind.

          • Ethan

            Okay, I had problems with your longer post earlier in the thread. Regarding that post, can I say you made some very bold claims that I’m not sure about? I will say that I think my reading of your previous post did impact my reading of the post to which I responded.

            Edit: Yes, I do think “95% of the time” is a bold claim.

          • Steglitz49

            NYRick would help himslef by taking a spoonful of reality from time to time.

            “Just a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down, medicine go down …”, sang Mary Poppins aka Julie Andrews.

          • NYRick

            That’s fair. You are entitled to your opinion and critique of anything on here by me or anyone else for that matter.

          • NYRick

            The 95% of the time was about the above previous comment on 3 simple rules on political viewpoints for most people, which I will stand behind as yes, a bold claim. As for the entire USWNT being Democrat, that was not a claim. That was something I would just bet money on, nothing more.

          • guest

            Actually, research shows that most people develop their political ideologies in their early 20s, and it remains fairly unchanged throughout their lives. So, no, people don’t become Republicans when they venture out into the “real world”.

          • guest

            A nice chunk of the team is also gay, so…

          • lolz

            Lol mate, Fiorina was a terrible CEO at HP.

          • Steglitz49

            Can you be evangelical about soccer but not fundamentalist? Are there heathen evangelists of WoSo?

          • Lorehead

            MLS in the ’90s were evangelists, yet heterodox in their practice.

        • FlyingSquirrel42

          If anything, I have found myself drifting further to the left on socioeconomic issues since turning 30 and leaving the academic world (both of which occurred around the same time). Not that I was ever an economic conservative, but I used to be more sympathetic to the generally moderate approach of the Democratic establishment on those issues.

          Lately I’ve come to fear that we’re sliding down a pretty scary Social Darwinist slope, and I’m not sure that the split-the-difference centrism of many leading Democrats is enough to stop it. Plus, half-measures (such as the watered-down economic stimulus) only produce half-results, and it’s difficult to build sustained political momentum based on half-results.

          • Reality

            While we historically have one of the most enlightened systems of government in terms of values and freedoms, much of the implementation of it is mired in 18th C. institutions and mechanisms. Our political process has become bogged down and undermined not only by extreme partianship but also by the increasing control exerted by the leverage of money through lobbying and campaign finance. Because of modern computerized gerrymandering of legislative districts, the current composition in Congress does not reflect the will of the majority of the people but rather a minority of the ideologically driven who are beholden to monied interests. To engage in compromise is considered to be weak and wimpish. The fanatical opposition to everything that Obama has attempted or accomplished reflects this dangerous state of affairs. The best and brightest of us are not attracted to serve in government because it has been demonized and rendered dysfunctional. While younger people nowadays want to see positive change, the mechanisms to achieve this are elusive. As usual, it will probably take some great crisis to shake up the inertia in our society so that the status quo can be improved for all instead of the few.

          • Steglitz49

            Age shall not weary them. Mrs Clinton will be 69 by the time the election comes around while Donald Trump will be 70.

            Ronald Reagan was 69 when he was elected, while Bush Sr was “only” 64, the same age as Harry Truman when he won in ’48.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            Apathy of the electorate is equally worrisome in a supposed representative democracy. Very few people take an active interest in the legislative or executive activities of the candidates they vote into office.

            How many people are familiar with their representative’s voting record? How many even know his/her contact address or ever muster the gumption to attempt to communicate with him or her on specific matters of sufficient import? Very few. What has become established as convention, unfortunately, is that voters elect a candidate, implicitly commend their hopes and expectations to his or her service, and continue with the urgent business of enjoying the bountiful prosperity that America offers.

            Mechanisms exist to recall underperforming or comatose candidates, yet there are never exercised. Indeed the question of calling office holders to account ever arises in times of prosperity, with the masses distracted as they are with the numerous material diversions America offers. Who cares whether candidate X voted against the wishes of his or her constituent when a trip to the nearest Casino tugs more urgently than ones responsibility to oversee one’s representatives? In times of economic turmoil though, the people do make a perfunctory effort to hold their governors accountable, but the efforts are generally tepid.

            America provides effective opportunities for structuring the terms under which the people will relate to authority, but no one ever explores them. Many representatives and authority figures ignore the realization that they are public servants, working at the pleasure and discretion of the voting public. How many cops today really think they are ultimately responsible to the public, or that the public wields more power than their unions? What politician feels obligated to regularly poll his or her electorate with a view to obtaining their pulse on the issues?

            The people have the power. If they decide instead that dashing off to Las Vegas to put $50 on number 12 red should carry a greater priority than their obligation to oversea their elected agents, that’s not the fault of the people in government.

          • Reality

            Part of the disturbing situation we are experiencing today in our country is indeed a withdrawal of citizens from participating in the political process. Low percentages of voters are not unheard of in the past but today there is a particularly hellacious combination occurring as regards our society. There is a great deal of anger and frustration out there due to a lack of upward mobility, inequality, and general pessamism about the future. People feel that there are no longer the same opportunities to achieve a secure middle class existence. Those who have achieved it are fearful they may lose it. This state of mind lends itself to a vulnerability to demagogues who prey upon these fears and appeal to the LCD of them. The government is often the scapegoat. There are factions who have done everything possible to diminish government and then label it as the problem. Unfortunately, mainstream media on both sides of the liberal – conservative spectrum exploit this phenomenon which makes it worse. Being knowledgeable about current events so as to make well informed decisions becomes quite difficult in this atmosphere.

            People can only have power when they have channels and mechanisms to express it. The purpose of good government is to facilitate the people’s will. However, with government being undermined and rendered dysfunctional by those who seek power and wealth, there is no longer an equilibrium between the public sector which should represent the people and the private sector where only the fittest may flourish.

            There needs to be a rebalancing of power and influence in our political process where the wealthy are restrained and the great majority of our citizens can participate in a meaningful way in our democracy.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            “However, with government being undermined and rendered dysfunctional by those who seek power and wealth”

            I wonder whether you are alluding to America’s de facto status as an oligarchy where the expectations of the people has been intercepted by the owners of wealth. As to how I feel about the fact that only the rich and connected have true access to the elected officials, that’s the real world at its starkest and most matter-of-fact. The people who own the wealth will always dictate terms. And I find that quite tenable actually. After all, life is good in America because the powerful corporations make, manage or distribute things that make life good. Shouldn’t they be expected to have a prominent say in the management and administration of society?

            Shouldn’t their influence be more prominent than that of, say, Joe Six pack whose contributions to the material development from which every great country ultimately draws its significance, consists of far less critical contributions near the end of the production or distribution chain?

          • Reality

            Actually no. While the unfortunate Citizen’s United decision enabled the wealthy to have an even greater say than they already have in our, as you say, oligarchic society, that does not mean that these “economic royalists” have the best interests of the average person at heart.

            The wealthy have corrupted the institutions within government and subverted them to serve their power and wealth. As FDR said in 1936…”The economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power.” Top CEOs make 373 times the average U.S. worker in compensation. This huge discrepancy does not reflect their relative worth in contributing to society since that can be measured in many ways.

            The main point is that our country was not founded as a royalist oligachy. It was originally designed to create a greater equality of opportunity especially in regard to the political process. Since that time we have continued to progress in that philosophy through the abolishment of slavery, the enfranchisement of women, and the creation of a middle class which was largely accomplished by the union movement. Unfortunately, reactionary elements in our society supported by the wealthy have sought to undermine much of this progress. Racism is still rampant and now we have wage slavery. This does not represent what America stands for nor should it be tolerated by the people.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            Unfortunately the best intentions of humans are often undermined by by self interest. Certainly no one relishes the excesses Corporate management figures benefits from, but what is the solution?

            I am a staunch believer in judiciously regulated capitalism, I think socialism and its variants are suitable for very small, close-knit societies. So if wealth creation is indispensable to our standard of living, and that those who create wealth have the right to control it, how do we make corporations responsive to the wishes of the masses without breeding in the masses a sense of entitlement, or rendering them oblivious to the fact that private wealth is ultimately just that – private, and therefore not subject to potentially predatory or confiscatory initiatives?

            How do we impress on Corporations holding private wealth which they have the right to utilize as they please, their duty to elevate their environment through responsible corporate behavior? Is such an aspiration even moral or fair? Doesn’t that infringe on the right of individuals or entities to do with their wealth as they please? Wouldn’t Corporations be justified in countering that the taxes they pay and the regulatory constraints under which they operate more than satisfies their obligations to their communities?

            This is why I highlighted the problem of voter apathy and the lukewarm attitudes of the electorate towards accountability and transparency. In the case of Corporations we could add consumer apathy. The masses could easily compel Corporate responsibility through their pocketbooks, for instance. But we must be honest in acknowledging that this strategy is potentially problematic as many of our livelihoods depend on the financial vitality of the corporations. Corporation X gave its CEO $20 million and a Rolls Royce you say? Then let’s boycott Corporation X’s offerings right? Well what if the Corporation employs 25,000 people? What if a reduction of the taxes paid by said corporation might impair its host city’s finances considerably in future years?

            So we must of necessity revert to that which conflicts with our natural tendency to pursue our basic needs while entrusting our fates to the forces we assume to exist in the shadows, the forces who somehow manage to make everything work while we enjoy the most comfortable lives that uninterrupted power supply, indoor plumbing, affordable food and efficient waste disposal provides – we must start observing the goings on in government. We must abandon this practice of electing candidates to office (those of us that bother to vote that is) and making to efforts to monitor their performance.

            All this would require more education about the way society works. At the very least the average individual should have a better than rudimentary understanding of economics and the various parts of the city, state and national governments. How many state bureaus are there? Are any new ones being contemplated? What are the salaries and bonuses of the employees of the various government agencies like. In Carlifornia, newspapers and radio talk show hosts have been at the forefront of the citizen oversight role I am proposing. In recent years, they’ve brought attention to the obscene salaries of municipal officials, some of whom worked in cities barely large enough to merit that designation.

            I am equally saddened by what appears to be a regression in some aspects of moral life. The increase in racism you mentioned is troubling. And so is the explosion of the homeless population, drug use and often shocking illiteracy even in today’s world where you can now carry computers with computing ability their predecessors couldn’t have dreamed of, around in your pocket.

            Finding solutions would task even seasoned sociologists and political scientists. But whatever the answer is, I suspect it would involve a recommendation to individuals to become proactive in overseeing the actions of the leaders of their society.

          • Reality

            Given the still “underdeveloped” state of human nature, I would agree with you that the best method at this point for equality in society is “judiciously regulated capitalism”. However, the definition of that phrase leaves a lot of room for interpretation. We have been through many upheavals in our history where the pendulum has swung back and forth between who is doing this judicious regulation and who’s ox is being gored. I would argue that we have been undergoing a new “Robber Baron” age reminiscent of the late 19th C. where the wealthy have the upper hand by controlling the levers of power in the government through “judicious” bribery. They have gained control of the political process and implemented deregulation that benefits their interests but harms the middle class and devastates the poor.

            The only entity that can effectively counterbalance these economic royalists is a government that can impose the necessary regulation of the natural Darwinian excesses of capitalism. These Barons are well aware of this and their solution has been to undermine government, buy it out and thereby control it to protect their ill-gotten gains. The result is the current situation in our society where the average person is angry, confused and frustrated by their inability to get ahead. But the true genius of the current Robber Barons is that they have managed to divert these intense feelings away from their actions and direct them toward the government which they have rendered largely dysfunctional. The irony of this is immense.

            I also agree with you that the average citizen nowadays is ill informed and because of this is in a quandary as what the problem is much less what to do about it. We are in a paradoxical age of more information than any one person can possibly process. Confusion is often the result. Then you add to this brew, demagogues who prey on these fears and offer simplistic answers with no substance, what is created is a perfect storm in which the wealthy and powerful can manipulate the masses. It is hardly a new phenomenon. But is still appalling nonetheless.

            There was once a time when the teaching of history and civics was considered essential to produce an educated person. Our educational system has succumbed to the attention deficit disorder of this digital age and individuals often do not have the ability to write coherently which implies that the thought process also lacks continuity. When the citizens of any state can no longer assess and act appropriately to preserve their best interests, then the society will succumb to predators who will take advantage of this.

          • Jesus Gambino

            You are so wrong. The 18th century system was a system of Laissez Faire Capitalism. That means unregulated markets, zero income tax and many other things. We haven’t had unregulated markets and zero income tax since the last 100 years. Government is involved in everything you do. Don’t blame the problems of the present on the institutions of the past, they are dead, they don’t exist.

          • Reality

            You misunderstand my reference to 18th C. institutions and mechanisms. There is no such thing as unregulated capitalism or the so-called free market. The real question is who has the governing power and makes the rules of regulation. Look at what England attempted to do with us re: 1767 Townshend Revenue Act, and the 1773 Tea Act. They were taxing us without representation in order to pay for the expenses incurred during the French and Indian War. Their type of regulation was not something that appealed to us and a War of Independence was the result.

            Government is necessary to prevent anarchy and if it is done properly, it promotes more equality since it is the only entity capable of representing the people properly to protect them from the depredations of oligarchic capitalism where the foxes rule the hen house. So regulation is always present. The question is who is doing the regulating and how are they doing it. Good government that represents the interests of the people and not the wealthy 1% is what America should be.

          • Jesus Gambino

            “There is no such thing as unregulated capitalism or the so-called free market.”
            I disagree with this. If you go back to the 1800s, they had next to no regulations. People were free to do stupid things, but they alone had to bear the consequences of their actions. There were no bailouts either. There may be exceptions, but you really have to look at the big picture, identify the essentials and discount the outliers. It really was a very close approximation of an unregulated free market. And indeed, this was the period when people’s lives improved the most in a small amount of time. This was a direct consequence of people being left free to use their minds, take risks in a competitive free market, and keep what they achieved.

          • Reality

            It depends on how you define regulation. If you are just referring to restrictions imposed by the government to restrict excesses in the market, then there certainly less in the 18th C. However, what was happening then was the regulation that was occurring at that time was actually formulated to benefit capitalism. Alluding to my previous example, the British East India Company was granted a monopoly on tea sales in the American colonies.

            Governments of that day often gave favorable regulations to business. Some people benefited but others suffered. It was dependent on who you knew and how ruthless you were prepared to be. Naturally this type of regulation created inequities in these societies since it was slanted toward those who had influence and wealth.

            There has to be a balance of regulation which limits the excess of free markets but allows entrepreneurship, creativity and development. This cannot happen if government is castrated since it is the only entity large enough to represent the interests of the people. What must be guarded against is the balance being disturbed by either entity, government or business, from becoming too powerful.

          • Jesus Gambino

            Yes, I define regulations as government restrictions against private entities engaged in commerce. I think the government has a role to punish fraud, theft and contract violations, but all other forms of restrictions fall under the category of regulation and I am opposed to all regulations.

            The government (British) granting a monopoly to the East India company is in fact an example of regulation, and I oppose it on principle. The government should not outlaw entry to a given market to any participant.

            But, my premise goes unchallenged. I was referring to the US government since its early days of founding, i.e. the late 18th C and the 19th C. The US government for the first 100-150 years was a system of unfettered capitalism (more or less), and that worked quite well. So, please do not blame our present problems on our roots in capitalism. Capitalism is not the source of our present problems, we haven’t had true Laissez Faire capitalism since the past 100 years.

          • Reality

            Your premise is challenged insofar as we disagree about the definition of what constitutes so called “Laissez Faire capitalism” and regulation. Regulation is just another term for whom is favored in the market place. And since there is always some form of government in any state, then favors will be distributed according to the balance of power at any given time. Consequently, this ideal free market not only never existed but could not exist.

          • Jesus Gambino

            Laissez faire means the government keeps its hands off unless someone commits fraud, theft or contract violation. We had a government like this in the 18th and 19th C, more or less, and it did not favor one group over the other. This is fact. Again, the government, more or less, kept its hands off, i.e. no favoritism.

            How can you do favors if you keep your hands off?

          • Reality

            I think we can safely agree to disagree. The discussion has been interesting insofar as it has illuminated differences in the interpretation of the government and market forces. Thank you for your time in setting forth your argument.

          • Jesus Gambino

            🙁
            I was hoping we would continue.
            You have not once voiced an opposition to a government which keeps its hands off, and does not do anyone favors, i.e. a government of laissez faire capitalism, i.e. no taxes, no regulation, and no welfare state, no bailouts. Can I assume that you are sympathetic to the idea of laissez faire capitalism, but opposed to the idea of crony capitalism (I like to call it cronyism, since there is nothing capitalistic about it)?

          • Reality

            If you wish…I have already implied that the ultimate result of ill-regulated capitalism is economic and social Darwinism in society. Those who have won the lucky sperm contest have particular advantage. It is just another version of a feudal society where royalty becomes the dominant factor either through inheritance or conquest.

            IMO, government’s primary role is to promote equality through curbing the natural excess to which capitalism is prone. Government should represent the majority of people not a privileged minority. So I am certainly opposed to crony capitalism…who isn’t except the crony capitalists. But beyond that, good government is necessary to provide for the common good through funding all the necessities of modern civilization including infrastructure, law enforcement, safe water and food, economic security, and supporting on a national scale research and initiatives designed to benefit all and not just the few.

            All these projects require broad based support in the society as expressed through good government where responsible people are not beholden to wealthy interests but to the common good. This requires taxation where everyone takes responsibility for the common good by contributing their fair share. So what I support is a judiciously regulated capitalism that benefits the greatest number.

          • Jesus Gambino

            Why do you deny the possibility that a government that does zero regulation could ever exist? It’s a simple concept, just like we have separation of church and state, we can easily have separation of state and economy.

            You believe that the regulations could be either good or bad, but that they will always exist. Why? Why can’t we make them disappear? We got very close to this ideal in the 18th and 19th C.

            Just to clarify, theft, fraud and contract violations would still be punished, as these represent a violation of one’s individual rights.

          • Reality

            Going back to my earlier comment…we disagree. You have your opinion and I have mine. At this point, we have both expounded our arguments well. I have no wish to go around in circles with the topic.

          • Jesus Gambino

            So far, you have only stated that a government will always impose some regulations. You have never explained why a government that does not impose any regulations could ever exist. To enact a regulation, it has to be added to the federal register. Imagine a government with an empty federal register. Simple.

          • Jesus Gambino

            Or, how can a government do any favors if it keeps its hands off? You never addressed this.

          • Reality

            You may also peruse my interchange with F0OtballNowAnd Always for further clarification on my point of view.

          • Lorehead

            No we didn’t. To take just one example, the government of Virginia required all tobacco to be sold in a standard container called a hogshead and had government inspectors certify that each hogshead was the right weight and not adulterated. From 1713, tobacco sellers were required to use one of forty public warehouses, for the convenience of the government.

          • Jesus Gambino

            It was Laissez Faire, more or less. There were exceptions, especially in the south.

          • Lorehead

            Not really. To take a few more examples whose consequences we’re familiar with today, the Post Office is a private corporation with a government-enforced monopoly: sticking mail in mailboxes yourself is a crime. That used to be a lot more common. And the standoff in the bird sanctuary here in Oregon is basically over the fact that all the land in the West was owned by the federal government in the 19th century, then some of it was given out as land-grants, but a lot of it has continuously been leased out by the government since before the western states were states.

            The government didn’t even enforce any contract signed by a married woman or allow her to own property until the late 19th century.

      • guest

        Actually, Rick, your generalization is completely inaccurate, just like most of your other claims on this site. You’re not as brilliant as you think you are. Look at the research, mate.

    • justsomedude

      Athlets and celebs who show public support for their candidates are really dumb from business side. Now some of her fans are not that big fans because she chose sides, and they will not buy her merchandise.

  • mskillens

    Great! There was this underlying fear that I thought she might support Trump. But thankfully that’s not the case.

  • smallchief

    Well, since everybody else is commenting on a political subject—

    Hooray for Abby! Would any woman with a mind of her own support a Republican?

    • Steglitz49

      Why would any woman with a mind of her own support a politician who does not give a fig about women’s issues?

      • smallchief

        Clinton may or may not “give a fig about women’s issues”, but she is not medieval on women’s issues as are the Republicans.

        • Steglitz49

          W tackled Trafficking but Congress did not support him.

    • justsomedude

      why would any woman with a mind of her own support Hillary after she silenced women who came out stating that bill raped them. I guess only justice for some women.

  • let’s stick together

    Why didn’t Abby take her girl power to the Carli campaign?

    • NYRick

      Well we are to assume you mean Fiorina and not Lloyd.

      This is a great point and really courageous to bring it up. But the answer is simple and quite controversial: a powerful, famous gay woman in America would never back or vote for a Conservative Republican candidate. Never. That is the only issue of true importance to them personally. The candidate that backs them on that (the myth being that only a liberal Democrat is in favor of both women’s and gay rights) will get their vote even if they are evil and incompetent on 10 other pertinent issues both domestic and abroad concerning the state of the country or election in general. Just the way it is and every knows it.

      Ever also wonder why Oprah (perhaps the most powerful woman in America) chose to back Obama and not Hillary in 2008? I mean Hillary would have been the first female president then. Wouldn’t that have been a big deal for women’s rights and shouldn’t the most powerful female in the country with her media power and celebrity not wanted to make that happen? Instead she chose ethnic background for an inexperienced candidate and strongly backed Obama and left Hillary out to dry. This swing had a great impact on the Democratic nomination because Oprah wielded great power to white American women (her primary audience). This is why the celebrity endorsement can never be taken seriously. They have their own agendas which they manipulate at all times.

      • Steglitz49

        I can’t see Oprah and Mrs Clinton having much in common except 2 X-chromosomes and that was not enough.

        • NYRick

          Initially Oprah was backing Hillary strongly in 08. But once Obama emerged as a legitimate candidate she swung her support to Obama and was basically a turncoat to Hillary. Having the first black president was more important to her than having the first female president. Agendas like I said. I truly don’t know why American women love Oprah so much. With the opportunity for women’s rights at the historical doorstep (first American female president) she turned her back on women. The ultimate irony since women made her rich and famous. Now I’m sure Oprah will back Hillary in 16 because it suits her agenda. A make up thing. Kind of like LeBron going to the Heat to be with Wade and win championships, now with that accomplished he can and has gone back to Cleveland to appease his legacy and loyalty to the Cleveland fans. Agendas.

          • Lorehead

            You’re making extremely uncharitable assumptions about her motives. Why do you think she couldn’t have supported Barack Obama for the same reasons most other Democrats did, including me? Why have I never heard anyone make the logical inference that, since most white men supported the black man over the white woman in that race, that proves that women vote on the issues while men only see gender? When Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ran for President, black voters did not all vote for them in the Democratic primary and they did not come close to the nomination; isn’t that empirical evidence against the claim you’re making?

            In the Republican race today, isn’t the conventional wisdom that Ted Cruz’ base is Evangelicals, who vote as a bloc just as much as black people do, and more than Latinos? Didn’t they support Huckabee and Santorum loyally? And don’t we call Irish Protestants and Catholics, Iraqi Arab Sunnis and Shias, and Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks “ethnic groups” defined by religion?

          • NYRick

            Obama’s 08 campaign was based on extreme deception. He had positioned himself more center-left which made him an appealing candidate. His policy decisions during his presidency can easily be described as far left fringe. Had he positioned himself in this manner (say kind of like Bernie Sanders is doing and he has zero chance because of it), then he would have never even gotten the Dem nomination over Hillary. The media backed and continues to protect him because they so desperately prefer any Democrat to a Republican.

            Also, were Jackson and Sharpton ever considered real candidates for the actual presidency? Bill Clinton over Powell is a far more plausible argument but in the end Powell bowed out so we will never know how that would have turned out.

            As for uncharitable assumptions regarding her motives, I think my point on Oprah siding with Obama over Hillary is a fair one for her ethnic motives. And she is entitled to do so, just pointing out the obvious since she was an early strong Hillary backer and then shifted dramatically when she realized Obama may have a chance.

          • Steglitz49

            My memory of Obama and Mrs Clintons primary struggle was that they were neck to neck but he inched ahead. She resuscitated her campaign in NH with a lot of help from the ex-President her hubby and her daughter.

            Obama’s great asset was oratory. His skill was grasping the nettle of what became the affordable care act, still under attack from various quarters but so far the Supreme Court has ruled in its favor, quite an achievement. Obama’s misjudgment was not to be more aggressive with his affordable care act but he did not expect Kennedy to die so fast and then for D to lose his seat.

          • NYRick

            Obama sees the world from a highly educated Harvard view and not from any semblance of reality or how the world actually is. He acts like some disappointed parent with us (the US citizens) being his kids when we dare disagree with him.

            Personally, I think he hates America and all that it stands for. I haven’t the foggiest why such a man would actually want to ascend to the presidency other than to do damage and change the fiber of America and it’s position in the world. All that can said is that the next president, whether that be Hillary or any of the Republican candidates who get the nomination have a major mess and catastrophe on their hands. The worse of any US president in our country’s history. Godspeed to that person.

          • Lorehead

            Rick, he does not hate America. Please stop attacking the motives of everyone who disagrees with your politics. It poisons the well.

          • guest

            Do you really expect anything less from Rick?

          • Lorehead

            Yes, although I think talking politics tends to bring out the worst in people. You’ve been leaving a lot of content-free personal insults in this discussion; I’d also like to ask you to stop.

          • Steglitz49

            Wellesley and Yale Law school.

            Wellesley — Madeleine Albright’s alma mater.

            Yale Law school — Judges Alito, Sonia Sotamayor, Clarence Thomas + her hubby and Gerald Ford

          • guest

            i’m not saying obama was the best, but obama is worse than george w bush? i would like to know what his accomplishments were.

          • guest

            Why so angry, Rick? You still have a white penis in America.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            I think Mrs. Clinton initially had the President on the ropes at the beginning of the campaign. The President only bounced back later.

          • Steglitz49

            Obama won the Iowa Caucuses.

            Obama won 38% of the delegates being awarded in the competition. Mrs Clinton took 29.5 % but was 3rd behind John Edwards (philanderer slate), who got 29.8%.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            By the time of the Iowa caucuses, it was too late for Mrs. Clinton. But initially, she had the upper hand in the polls, just like the lead Donald trump enjoys today.

          • Steglitz49

            Time will tell. Let’s watch the show and enjoy the ride.

          • Lorehead

            So, that’s one example consistent with your hypothesis, three that refute it, and I don’t see any response to my point that you aren’t holding men in the Democratic primary or Evangelicals in the Republican primary to the same standard.

            Obama’s governance has been center-left, and he’s taken a lot of flak from his own party for it. He hasn’t governed noticeably to the left of Reagan in most ways: both presidents had a recession early in their first terms, which they blamed on their predecessors, and tried to deal with it by passing a large tax cut. (The biggest component of the stimulus of 2009 was a payroll-tax cut, and it doesn’t currently suit Republicans to remember their support for Bush’s Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.) Both didn’t think the deficit was nearly as much of a concern, but later passed a tax increase in order to reduce it. (In Reagan’s case, that was TEFRA.) As a percentage of the size of the economy, Reagan’s deficits were larger than Obama’s, and larger than his predecessor’s rather than less than half the size. Obama repeatedly has offered congressional Republicans a grand bargain, which would reform entitlements in exchange for a tax increase, but they ruled out any compromise whatsoever. In contrast, congressional Democrats frequently had to reduce the excessive spending in Reagan’s budget requests. Reagan was begging the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates when inflation was more than five times higher than today, and it remained more than twice as high as today throughout his second term; this counts as a presidential decision because Obama reappointed Ben Bernanke, an inflation hawk. Reagan signed an amnesty for illegal immigrants, and not only that, when Congress didn’t pass a bill he wanted that would have spared the spouses of legal residents from deportation, he implemented it unilaterally by executive action. (George H. W. Bush would later do the same for their minor children.) Both supported gun control. Both supported free-trade agreements. Reagan signed a moratorium on offshore drilling in 1988, reluctantly. Obamacare was based on center-right proposals for health-care reform in the ’90s; its relationship to Romneycare is well-known. Cap-and-trade derives from the first Bush’s plan to fight the pollution that causes acid rain. Et cetera.

            The major difference between then and now was that, in the early ’80s, Speaker Tip O’Neill was willing to let bills that most Democrats supported come up for a vote in the House, and Senate Democrats didn’t filibuster absolutely everything just because they could. It was a conscious political strategy of the Republican party to say no to absolutely anything he proposed.

            The insistence that Obama’s policies are far to the left of Bill Clinton’s or George H. W. Bush’s is bizarre and objectively delusional.

          • NYRick

            Not far left?

            First off, I’ve always viewed you to be an intelligent and well informed guy/girl and I have told you that many times. If we disagree as we have in the past, it’s simply that we disagree and nothing more. Neither you or I knows all the true workings behind the scenes of ugly American politics.

            But let me at least come back with the following. You say Obama has not been far left in his policies during his two terms and I feel the Democratic party has swayed more far left during this time than in their previous history. Do you not consider these to be far left views: universal health care in the US, same sex marriage, immigration reform, loose borders, sanctuary cities, legalizing pot, anti police and lowest military spending, a crackdown on Wall St., college campus’ running amok with safe zones and literally run by students that administrators truly fear, race relations maybe at our worse point since the 60s riots and this doesn’t even begin to get into the fiasco of world politics and US’s position as leading from behind or basically remaining as invisible as possible and hope ISIS and the unrest throughout the world all magically goes away.

            Also please explain to me one Harry Reid. Probably the most vile character in US political history and really Obama’s lead henchman and gatekeeper in Congress.

            We really should start talking about soccer again. Who do you think the backline back-ups will be for the roster of 20 for the OG qualifiers?

          • Steglitz49

            The first major politician to put global warming on the map was the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher.

            The American people wanted health care reform in 2008. Mrs Clinton had failed to do the needful back when her hubby was President. Obama got it done.

            Same sex marriage? Is that a divider between what?

            Immigration Reform — both Ronald Reagan and W had a go. Whether Obama can sort it out?

            Gun control. W failed to renew some of the controls that Ronald Reagan had put in place. That was cowardly of W and a lot of Americans of all ages have suffered since.

          • Steglitz49

            Chelsea Clinton?

          • Lorehead

            I’ll talk about soccer after this, because I’d rather respond to your thoughtful, respectful and intelligent points about politics first and then leave it there than try to change the subject and then switch back. Thank you for the kind words.

            I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “far left.” Further to the left than previous presidents? Further to the left than most of his party? A small fringe of popular opinion? By any of those definitions, no, he’s not far left.

            Let me go through the examples, one by one.

            Universal health care: You mean Romneycare? As I mentioned previously, most of the ideas in the Affordable Care Act were originally Republican alternatives to Hillarycare, and he dropped the public option that most Democrats wanted. Universal healh care of some sort is popular, although the other provisions of the bill are not, and a plurality of the public has come around to his point of view on this. Republicans have stopped promising to repeal the bill.

            Same-sex marriage: A majority of Americans supports this. Even the three living former presidents have come around. Barack Obama didn’t even come out in favor until a critical mass of Americans already had, and he was often attacked from the Left for not supporting it.

            Immigration reform: Every president since Reagan in ’81 has supported this. The vast majority of Americans agree that there should be a path to citizenship for the Dreamers.

            Loose borders, sanctuary cities: Neither of these are things President Obama supports.

            Legalizing pot: President Obama does not support this, but libertarians do.

            Gun control: Most Americans support some form of this, as did Ronald Reagan. Only about one in five Americans is against any form of gun control, but they are against it vehemently, and with apocalyptic rhetoric. Which side of this debate is an extremist fringe?

            An obsession with climate change: Virtually all scientists and the majority of Americans agree that he’s right to be concerned, and that you are in denial of the plain facts. This might be a policy you, personally, disagree with, but it is not “far left” in 2016. It would be far more accurate to say that the only people who still deny climate change is real are American Evangelicals who describe themselves as very conservative.

            Anti police: President Obama is not anti-police.

            Lowest military spending: Military spending is not currently “lowest,” and President Obama is not in favor of making it lower. It was Tea Party Republicans who insisted on a debt-ceiling deal with only budget cuts and then refused to repeal sequestration. The latest budget deal raised military spending.

            A crackdown on Wall St.: President Obama bailed out Wall Street, and is frequently attacked by people such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for not cracking down on Wall Street.

            Campus activism: President Obama actively condemned this, and called those students “coddled.”

            Race relations: I have no idea which specific policies of his administration you consider “far left” here. He hasn’t said anything inflammatory.

            The fiasco of world politics: I don’t think there is one. Our relations with most of the world are better than when he took over in 2009. This is a separate topic, though, without much relevance to whether his policies are “far left.” But, let me ask you: what, specifically, do Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio want to do in Syria or Ukraine that he hasn’t already done?

            Leading from behind, invisible, etc. This is not an accurate description of what he’s done. For example, since you bring up ISIS, he’s been bombing ISIS and arming militias to fight ISIS. Does any Republican candidate want to send troops into Syria? No. Do they want to start bombing cities held by ISIS? No. Do they want to stop bombing ISIS? Maybe Rand Paul. What do they think we should do? Pretty much exactly what he’s doing.

            In short, Barack Obama is closer to the center of public opinion than you are.

            I have no idea what you want me to explain about Harry Reid. I take it you don’t like him personally, for some reason? That’s too bad.

          • NYRick

            Well nice long reply but I made my way threw it. Phew. But I think it’s one of things I like about EQ here is that people like yourself can paint intelligent and thoughtful retort to a variety of subjects. With that, I always view it as learning something or at the very least gives me a little more perspective on how to view a topic, so thanks.

            I hear you and see your side on some, and still respectfully disagree on other things. But really regarding world politics and generally the bombing or how we are dealing with ISIS, I think it more pertains to current administrative policy of kind of having our military fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Crazy rules of engagement that sometimes center around ecological damage if ISIS controlled oil fields are bombed seems maddening to me. Also, one general described the US air strike policy as mere pin pricks, with about 10-20 sortie missions a day. For perspective, the US ran 1,200-1,500 sortie bombing missions a day during the Gulf War to get the job done quickly and efficiently. Right now, Obama is centered on his legacy. Being the president that got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, closed Gitmo etc. without the consequences and really the faulty strategy that can mean for not only the US future or world stability in general. He wants to leave it for the next president, and that’s what I strongly disagree about.

            I also don’t think we have any power or influence (or what we have has been greatly weakened by this administration). That’s not to say that the Bush or Clinton or Reagan admin did everything right, but the world right now is a very dangerous and chaotic place for sure.

            As for Reid, simply look up what he did to Romney in 2012 right before the Pres. election to help Obama. On the Senate floor, he claimed Romney didn’t pay his taxes for 10 years with no basis or fact (I know that stuff is important to you) for the argument. Merely a source told him. A total smear that hurt Romney and one he couldn’t defend. When questioned about after the election, the deplorable and lying cretin that Reid is just laughed and said, “well it got Obama elected didn’t it?”

          • Lorehead

            I remember what Reid said about Romney. It was a low blow. Separately, and not to excuse Reid, Romney was wrong not to release his tax returns. It certainly gave the impression of something to hide. I’m almost sure it was one of those times when the real scandal is what’s legal. I’ve heard some plausible speculation about what tax dodges might have embarrassed him enough to take the hit.

            What we do know for sure, though, is that he ended up having to pay a lower tax rate than a working stiff making the minimum wage. See, of the 47% who didn’t owe federal income tax, 60% owed federal payroll tax. Which is technically not the same thing! Most of the people who were left were retired seniors, and those who weren’t are students, the disabled, troops stationed abroad, and people making less than $20K. But, thanks to his tax breaks, he ended up paying a lower rate than the payroll tax on the working poor. So he voluntarily sent in a little extra, so he at least was paying the same rate as them. In other words, even he thought the way the system favors billionaires over the poor was indefensible.

          • Lorehead

            I think I’m going to pass up the chance to respond to your points about foreign policy right now, but thanks for replying.

          • Steglitz49

            Romney should never have run for President except to cut a deal with the Party to step aside and support the preferred candidate. He totally misjudged the American people. This he failed in miserably. RIP.

            It is one thing to become Governor of a liberal state like MA but he ought to have asked himself how many Catholic presidents have there been (one, I think) and how many Jewish ones (none). As member of an unusual religious minority, that most Americans regard as an occult cult, his goose was cooked before he started.

            As for Obama’s legacy, he has his Nobel Peace prize, like Teddy Roosevelt before him, his affordable care act, and his action over gun control. Oh, and the US won the WC soccer under his leadership. That got us back to WoSo. Phew!

          • guest

            so the real Rick is finally coming out of the shed, I see…

          • Steglitz49

            From what I can tell, Oprah has a high opinion of Condi Rice. Maybe having had some involvement with Mrs Clinton, Oprah could assess Ms Rice’s achievement and interpret her.

            It is the ultimate irony that the current black Supreme Court justice is really quite conservative though he has made one or two exceptional judgements that to many would label him as a nanny-state Communist.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            I don’t understand how anybody can be conservative or liberal. Some issues require you to be conservative, and some demand a more liberal approach. Adhering to either persuasion just services too much rigidity for my taste.

          • Steglitz49

            I suspect that the GOP will ask Condi to help them. Condi will visit all the old friends of her mum and dad. She will visit others that she knows well. It won’t matter who is on the Dem ticket because those people will trust Mr and Mrs Rice’s daughter, the girl next door, the young lady who made it way above what they could have imagined.

            Why should any minority, man or woman, vote for Mrs Clinton? If it was her hubby, yes; herself, doubtful.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            “Why should any minority, man or woman, vote for Mrs Clinton? If it was her hubby, yes; herself, doubtful.”

            Hmmm, why not pray tell?

          • Steglitz49

            Because she is a phony and proven incompetent. She has never exerted herself on behalf of women.

            She has not gotten herself elected to Augusta National, even.

            What has this marvelous candidate actually done — except put up with the roving hubby? She has that in common with many women, I guess.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            NYRick, racial fellowship is part and parcel of the human condition. That is my strained attempt at a sociological conclusion. People have been supporting their own kind since the beginning of time. Does it excuse Oprah? No, it does not. I wish she could have risen above it. But let us not overlook the fact that she is not alone in that failing. There is not a single one of us who does not do it. If we want Oprah to stop doing it, we should all stop doing it.

          • NYRick

            I only bring up Oprah in this instance for the sheer hypocrisy of it. She is a women who got rich and famous from American women basically worshipping her. She owes just about everything to them, yet when push came to shove to chose for her own self interests before what was best for women, that, in my opinion would be the first female US president.

            I get the supporting your own kind argument and it has been around since the beginning of time and is done everyday in America. I just find the Oprah example as it relates to Hillary and Obama in 08 to be an extremely interesting example. Once again, she is free to chose who she preferred to back. That is not the issue. It’s just the hypocrisy of it all.

          • Steglitz49

            Stop calling her Hillary. Call her Mrs Clinton because that is what she is and it is from Slick Willie she has gotten everything in the political arena. Without him she is politically zero.

            Mrs Clinton failed to achieve health care reform when her hubby was in the WH. President Obama got it done. Live with it.

          • NYRick

            300 million Americans call her Hillary and I can’t call her Hillary. She wants the first name thing, trust me.

          • Steglitz49

            She is Mrs Clinton.

            Bill could run again if he felt like it. He would get the nomination in a walk and then the WH.

          • Breakers fan

            “Extra, Extra, read all about it!: Holiday has passed the torch!. Holiday has passed the torch!
            “Extra, Extra,,,”

          • Steglitz49

            Que?!

          • Breakers fan

            Think about it…..the context, right there, with you and Rick.It’s not exact, but it’s close enough.

          • Steglitz49

            I was hallucinating that you knew she was pregnant and a certain ex-president was involved ….

          • Breakers fan

            Haha..but nope. Do you have it yet?

          • Steglitz49

            It must have to do with Lauren, like Yuki, playing under her married name.

            Yuki had to fight for it, I gather, but for Lauren it was easy. ARod and HAO stayed with their maiden names.

          • Breakers fan

            Sort of – it’s just that thing of you chastising other posters for which names they use to refer to people. Not a big thing to me and the Holiday thing bugged me a bit too. Here, you applying the yardstick to Rick for his (very commonplace) use of “Hilary”.

          • Steglitz49

            Hillary is an attempt to give her an independent persona, something which she blatantly does not have.

            The labe “Mrs Clinton” allows everyone know where she comes from. Incidentally, she has dropped the Rodham caper for this campaign as far as I can tell.

            She is one giant phony. At least her hubby was a highly skilled politician though I can’t for my life of it remember what he has done that ha lasted.

            I still remember Bill’s speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. I was in a hotel in DC getting changed for dinner. I just stood there and watched spellbound, having stepped out of the shower. The ultimate joke.

            Amazing connection with the audience. Here was a man who had abased the office of President more than anyone except possibly Nixon. Nevertheless, he held the nation in the palm of his hand on a TV screen!

          • Breakers fan

            I’m not going to get into politics on here but thanks for the anecdote.

          • Steglitz49

            I have a few more but I save them for later.

          • rkmid71

            I recall that Clinton undertook welfare reform and I think generally contained Gov’t expenditures — despite the normal Democratic spending tendencies. We had balanced budgets and I think even surpluses back then — thanks in large part to Bush Sr. increasing taxes prior to election. Remember Bush’s “read my lips”. But it was the right thing to do and he was willing to pay the political cost of losing an election rather than cynically wait until after. Clinton reaped the benefits.It’s Bush senior who was a favorite of mine. They thought he was near death recently and from his hospital bed, I think he requested to hear ZZ Top live over the phone. ZZT was glad to accommodate him. He subsequently got better, then he went sky diving. I’m agreement about Mrs. Clinton.It will be very disappointing if she is somehow elected.We must do better.

          • Lorehead

            Both Bush-41 and Clinton passed bills that raised taxes and cut discretionary spending: the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Acts of 1990 and 1993. Contrary to a myth invented years later to justify what the Tea Party wants to do anyway, the spending cuts happened. Republicans opposed OBRA-93 unanimously.

          • rkmid71

            I miss those days. I think both Bush 41 and Clinton were very competent Presidents — both seemed willing to take on the extreme elements of their parties, compromise and get things done. I don’t think we’ve had similar leadership since and things have degenerated. Unfortunately I don’t think Hiliary is cut from the same cloth as Bill Clinton.

          • Lorehead

            Her legal surname is Rodham Clinton, not Clinton. When she first appeared on the scene, she asked people to call her that, but there was such a backlash that she let it drop. She generally campaigns as “Hillary” these days.

          • Steglitz49

            She is Mrs Bill Clinton. Period.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            You point is well taken, to quote the amorous philosopher, Steglitz49. Perhaps one day we too could come to terms with our own remission in describing the President as Black. Surely, in 2016, the unsavory justification that made that possible should be a thing of the past. Man is born of a Black man and a White mother and you call him Black? And we do this in 2016 without batting an eye?

            Well, the President is called Black, as is Wesley Snipes. But the President sure doesn’t look like Wesley Snipes to me. Maybe one day we’ll evolve enough to acknowledge both ancestries of biracial children.

          • Steglitz49

            The key here is that America elected a mixed race male to the President ahead of and before a woman. Indeed, this president’s father was not even a descendant of American slaves. Instead, he hailed from Kenya.

            It reminds me of the curious fact that Benjamin Disraeli could become Prime Minister because his father had baptized him into the Anglican faith.

            Disraeli’s father had quarreled with the elders of his synagogue. A friend advised him that he must do something about his children, they had to belong somewhere, so Disraeli dad took his son and daughter and baptized them. He later returned to the synagogue so the other kids went into the Jewish faith as usual, but because Benjamin was Anglican he could get elected to Parliament.

            Disraeli never did anything by halves. he bought the Suez Canal with borrowed money and he created the Charitable Status, that makes charitable institutions tax excempt. He even arranged for his knighthood to be conferred on his wife!

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            The most interesting man in the world strikes again. Pretty interesting.

          • Steglitz49

            Thank you.

            Blake’s biography about Disraeli is well written and worth a read. Blake himself was a fascinating man. He was the chap who made the Rhodes Trust bisexual.

            Now we are back to Clinton because Slick Willie was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. Disraeli, like Churchill, did not go to university.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            I might check it out sometime, if I can pull my head out of all the geek tech stuff I do.

        • rkmid71

          Here’s what Oprah said in 2002: “In all my years of interviewing, I have never been prouder to spell my name w-o-m-a-n than after spending time with Condoleezza Rice.”.

          • Steglitz49

            Verily.

            Thank you for finding it.

      • Lorehead

        Look at this from a lesbian’s perspective. Would you, regardless of your other political views, ever go out of your way to support a party that recently wanted a Constitutional amendment to outlaw your marriage? Or that unanimously filibustered a bill that would have made it illegal to fire you for your orientation, while saying the law should uphold the “liberty” of everyone to refuse you service? Or that still complains, to this day, that it’s no longer socially acceptable to publicly call you an evil, immoral pervert who shouldn’t be allowed near children?

      • F0OtballNowAndAlways

        Hilary Clinton would have easily defeated Obama if her own racism, which she would never admit to in a million years, had not done her in. Deep down she, along with many others who also would never admit it, never thought America would actually elect a man with a Black father president. I believe that made her subconsciously take her foot off the pedal. She was the prohibitive favorite initially.

        And I think it is unfair to attach the ethnic tag to Oprah just because she backed a candidate with a similar paternal ancestry unless Oprah herself admits to that motivation. Otherwise, why shouldn’t any White individual who endorses a White candidate in an ethnically mixed field incur a similar charge? Are the endorsements of White candidates by mainstream newspapers, whose editorial boards are dominated by whites, tinged by racial considerations when these endorsements come in racially-diverse election races?

        By the way, I do think Oprah’s support was ethnically-tinged. But why single her out? What about all those Latino city council members in Los Angeles voted in by the Latino community? What about the Supervisor seat that was specially created to accommodate a Latino? You think Marco Rubio, or the other political figures in Florida earned the patronage of their supported through their sublime ideas?

        Race and ethnicity in inseparable from politics all over the world.

        If Hilary knows what’s good for her, she won’t make the same mistake twice, and I don’t think she is. I think she is taking Trump quite seriously this time.

        • Steglitz49

          How could Condi Rice get so far?

          She grew up in segregated Alabama and eventually became the first woman member of Augusta National (together with another white CEO).

          Condi supports the Browns because it was the only team they could watch on their TV at home.

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            And eventually joined the Republican party, a party in contemporary times, though not in the distant past, associated with racism and antagonism towards minorities.

            To your question, I have to say I have no idea. Perhaps she is a pragmatist. Perhaps, like I, she thinks the controversy about the confederate flag on government property is misguided. That it is often preferable, when a particular convention poses no direct threat to individual safety, like the confederate flag does, to thrust people to realize the error of their convictions and renounce them of their own volition, rather than trying to reform people statutorily.

            Maybe Condi Rice simply decided to approach the obstacles segregated Alabama confronted her with as challenges to surmount rather than succumb to. Some people wilt when subjected to trials and some thrive. Maybe she simply made a resolution to thrive.

            You’ve got to respect a woman with her background who had the fortitude to make a decision like joining the Republican party.

          • rkmid71

            I like your 3rd paragraph and think that’s it along with being a pragmatist. It’s about attitude. According to Wiki, her father instilled in her and other students that “black people would have to prove themselves worthy of advancement and be twice as good as non-minorities to overcome injustices built into the system”. It instilled in her determination in the face of adversity. Evidently, racial segregation also hardened her position on the right to bear arms. At the time, if registration had been mandatory, her father’s weapons would have confiscated by the segregationist Birmingham director of public safety leaving them defenseless against KKK nightriders. Also, she changed to Republican in 1982 partly because she disagreed with Carter’s foreign policy and also because of her father’s influence who was a Republican. Her father was a Republican because the Democrats of Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did.

          • Steglitz49

            The next head of FIFA?

          • F0OtballNowAndAlways

            Doesn’t look too shabby either.

  • Kelli Stanek


    ❝my neighbor’s mate is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    3jrg……
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPlay/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  • F0OtballNowAndAlways

    Shouldn’t all this time be spent encouraging little girls to play soccer, helping to grow the sport as she said she’d really like to do? What time does she have for politics?

    • justsomedude

      she don’t give a d a mn about improving soccer. she is a narcissist

  • justsomedude

    lol wow. hillary’s husband raped women, and hillary protected him by silencing those women. so much for women’s rights.

  • justsomedude

    Trump 2016!!! It will be fun watching trump destroy Hillary.

    • NYRick

      Trump has only one weakness in this political arena. His family. He can take all the dirt on himself and dish it back twice as hard and to his favor. But I think the media has a whopper of something on either his present wife or one of his kids or something. It will be something. And they will drop this bomb on him sometime this summer and he will bow out. The Clintons are dastardly and leave nothing to chance. Hillary is bitter over losing out to Obama the last time, and this time she is getting this presidency. Count on it.

      • Steglitz49

        I would not count on it. The American people can spot a phony a mile away.

        Bill? He could do it if he wanted.

      • justsomedude

        she is weak and low energy. they say that she also has a lot of medical problems. They already hit trump with everything they had, the democrats AND the republicans. He is a winner. She is not so much. To be honest as a Trump supporter I am more scared of Bernie Sanders than Hillary.

      • justsomedude

        if there was a bomb to drop, the republican establishment would have already dropped it themselves because they hate trump more than democrats. we will see im not saying there isn’t anything left

        • guest

          why does the republican establishment hate trump? is it because they don’t think they can control him?

          • justsomedude

            that, and because they will be out of jobs, like karl rove. They don’t like a free mind, only a mind that submits

      • F0OtballNowAndAlways

        There ain’t no dastardly about it. Politics is not for choirboys or girl guides. It has been contentious and acrimonious for a long time and there is no reason why it shouldn’t remain so. The stakes are way too high, the prospective power too exhilarating to even contemplate. Who would play nice with such incentives?

        Neither of them is nice or dastardly. That’s just the nature of the game. And I think you are right about Mrs. Clinton’s feelings about her previous loss, so they might very well be preparing a surprise which might work (like it did when the swift boat issue torpedoed John Kerry), or backfire like Clinton’s too-little-too-late attempts to overtake the President after he assumed the lead in that unforgettable summer of ’08.

  • smallchief

    There is a tendency in the United States to think of soccer fans as elitist. Anybody who peruses this thread will be dissuaded from that opinion.

    • AlexH

      I think that this is reflective of the fact that while many people on this site will eventually vote for Hillary, few people are genuinely happy about it. Couple that with the irony of Abby declaring that she is going to “change the world” and then declares her support for the most established political machine in the country and you get this lovely thread.

      • Steglitz49

        Provided the Democrat can find another halfway decent candidate, s/he will get the nomination.

        If Mrs Clinton becomes the Democratic candidate, any experienced Republican candidate will gain the White House.

        The Donkeys in the smoke filled room had better conjure up a candidate. They ain’t got much time left.

  • AlexH

    So now that this thread has become a de facto 2016 election commentary, I wanted to share the most pithy explanation of the Trump phenomenon that I found.

    “Trump is popular because he has made the right enemies.”

    Love him or hate him, I think the statement is spot on and I wish I had come up with it myself.

    • Jesus Gambino

      Trump is an enemy of the constitution. Republicans are such hypocrites for supporting Trump since they are opposed to Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders.

      My favorite candidate is Sanders. He will make sure that we all die of starvation and hunger, peace within a life time.

  • jlb74a

    I preferred Abby when she was a woman… she is now protecting rapist Bill Clinton.