Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her

[dafame]

On a monumentally historic evening. An evening that despite who wins the Presidency will be something that our grandchildren learn about in history books. A night when the first African American has been elected by either of the two major political parties as their representative to compete for the highest position in the world. This was Barrack Obama's night. This was also a night for Hillary Clinton to plant the seeds of healing with her supporters. It was a time for her to get behind Barrack and urge her supporters to do the same. Instead she chose to do the exact opposite. She has decided to make an attempt at high jacking the VP spot. This is a woman that has completely lost her mind and my view of both Hillary as well as Bill Clinton has been dramatically changed after their behavior during this entire process.

[AZ15]

Why does everything have to be about race?

[dafame]

Why does everything have to be about race?

When did I make it about race? I simply pointed out the historical importance of the night.

[Ben]

Who will be paying Hillary? (http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/who_will_be_paying_hillary/)

As the former secretary begins a speaking career, we'll learn a lot from her corporate client roster:

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/who_will_be_paying_hillary/

[Ben]

Krystal Ball Urges Hillary Clinton Not To Run in 2016 - MSNBC - 2-11-14 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQnfr4ZArqw)

[Ben]

Activist Put on Police Harassment List for Turning Back on Hillary Clinton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQHwnReTOhg#aid=P9dFuV_SLCg

[Ben]

Hillary-The-Hawk Flies Again:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/16/hillary-hawk-flies-again

[buttslinger]

Obama kind of floated down into the Oval Office, Hillary has had to elbow, kick, and push her way through the crowdiest Crowd in American Politics.
I'd say it's possible she uses nuclear weapons, but don't worry, if she does it will only be used against bad people.

You can bet she's got a book on everybody who has ever crossed her.

I'm going to vote her, I hope she kicks ass bigtime, here and abroad.

[Stavros]

I was struck by this remark which Odelay made in the thread on Cuomo/Rubio and as it relates more to Democrats and Mrs Clinton than Republicans I post some of it here:

Despite Republican struggles over the last 2 years, from Bridgegate to Cantor's surprise defeat, and despite an inexorable demographics trend working against the Republican Party, I've never been one to believe the hype from some in the Left that Democrats have some kind of lock on the White House. All it takes is for the GOP to nominate a decent candidate and many people in the middle and even some on the left will migrate back to the GOP ticket......
Hillary looks like a 95% probability of running and I don't believe there will be any serious challengers for the Dem nomination. But as Hillary triangulates away from the Left, as the Clintons always do, it opens up a possibility for someone like Paul to peel away a significant layer of Obama's and the Democrat's natural constituency. That would turn the election into a true horse race.

It will be said by many, but this election will be Hillary's to lose, and I do believe she is capable of fucking it up, Clinton-style.

Living in the UK means we don't get the nuances of day-to-day reporting in the media here -the only report I can think of in recent times on the Republicans was in the press a week or so ago and concerned the view some in the US have that Mitt Romney might stand again, whereas with Mrs Clinton the 'will she, won't she' question is aired a fair amount, as recently too there has been some publicity surrounding her book Hard Choices.

As I am not an American I am in the happy position of saying that I would never vote for such a political weasel, and in the (unlikely) event of meeting her face to face would urge her not to run for the Presidency, but I do believe that there are Democrats who think the Republicans are still too divided and that they will not be able to find a candidate who has both charisma and credibility for those moderate voters in the 'centre ground'. And I think they have decided it is time for a woman to be sent to the White House, which is why Mrs Clinton is such a hot favourite for the nomination. Judged by her book, she wants the USA to return to its former position of military intervention here, there and everywhere -'when necessary' of course. I don't know if Americans want a return to what is in essence the foreign policy of George W Bush.

What puzzles me is that in a country in which a President is supposed to demonstrate a belief in God and Family, Mrs Clinton, who I assume believes in God, does not appear to have a 'normal' family. What precisely is her relationship with Mr Clinton? If she were to be elected, would he be in any way involved in policy making -will he even live in the White House with her? If it is going to be a dirty election, I think she may have a hard time answering personal rather than policy questions and most of them related to her 'husband'. Or maybe America is ready for a Presidential Madam who is all but in reality divorced?

[buttslinger]

I'm mentally retarded, but I can assure everyone that Hillary knows a thousand times more about Politics than anyone on this forum.
She is a Cold Fish, and she's stuck with her past. But you can bet your bottom dollar she knows what she's doing and she'll be the next President.
I'm probably one of a handful of Americans on this forum that remember Kennedy and Camelot, and reporters gathering around the President laughing.

I heard Nixon's "I am not a Crook" speech on the car radio, I had one of those moments of clarity that the hot line between God and the White House was severed forever, if you're under 40 and American all you've ever heard from the White House is pure Political Propaganda Bullshit, because before you become the leader of the free world you have to WIN. The 2000 election was when I officially became pissed.
My brother heard a Republican Congressman on the PBS Lehrer Report late in the Bush Administration say the Republican Party didn't even bother to hide all the stealing they were doing! They're not above the law, they are the law, elected by the People. Any flaws in the system will be exploited.

[Ben]

Jeb Bush v. Hillary Clinton: the Perfectly Illustrative Election:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/17/jeb-bush-v-hillary-clinton-perfectly-illustrative-election/

[Yuengling]

Hillary Clinton stinks! She better not be the next president!

[trish]

Better than another Bush.

[Yuengling]

Not thrilled about another Bush either. But Hillary is the worst. What do they call those….Fucking Repulsive Liberal Bitch or wahtever.

How about Rand Paul!

[trish]

They call them women who are smarter than you.

[fred41]

Better than another Bush.

I have to disagree with you on this one. So far...I'd much rather see Jeb than Hillary...even though I don't think he'd get the nomination anyway so...

Maybe neither one will get it...the landscape is changing for the Democrats also.

[fred41]

Interestingly enough - from what I read quite recently - Jeb Bush's stance on education, and more important - immigration, would probably kill his chances at the nomination from the hardcore right wing.

[Ben]

Not thrilled about another Bush either. But Hillary is the worst. What do they call those….Fucking Repulsive Liberal Bitch or wahtever.

How about Rand Paul!

The president has too much power. That's the problem. All concentrated power leads to abuse of that power.
So, Rand Paul or Clinton or Bush. The problem isn't necessarily the person. It's the office; it's the extreme power of that office, of that position.

[trish]

The president has too much power. That's the problem. All concentrated power leads to abuse of that power.
So, Rand Paul or Clinton or Bush. The problem isn't necessarily the person. It's the office; it's the extreme power of that office, of that position.

Yes and No, Ben.

How much power does a president have when after six years in office he still can't get half of his appointments approved? How long have we been without a Surgeon General? It was only after the Ebola scare (that the Republicans trumped up for the midterm elections) that Dr. Murthy was finally approved (despite the vociferous protests of the powerful gun lobby). Speaking of the gun lobby, how come Obama has taken away our guns yet...or at least signed legislation curtailing the civilian use and ownership of assault weapons, high capacity magazines etc.?

On the other hand, Congress has abdicated it power to declare war on a regular basis since the Korean War. Apparently it's better, for the purpose of getting re-elected, to appear to be a war monger than to actually be responsible for a declaration of war ('cause all wars become a shit-slide sooner or later). In every administration the executive accumulates more power because of the unwillingness of the legislative branch to live up to its Constitutional responsibilities.

[trish]

The president has too much power. That's the problem. All concentrated power leads to abuse of that power.
So, Rand Paul or Clinton or Bush. The problem isn't necessarily the person. It's the office; it's the extreme power of that office, of that position.
Moreover, I take some exception to the assumption that “all concentrated power leads to abuse of that power.” This is true over time. As the power is transferred from person to person it becomes more and more likely that it will eventually be held by one of corruptible character. This is why we need checks and balances.

In spite of all the trumped up charges, I really see no evidence that Hillary, nor Paul, nor Jeb are particularly corruptible or prone to the abuse of power (say as compared to Chris Christie). George W Bush wasn’t particularly corrupted either by the power he wielded. He was just not particularly smart and he put his trust in the wrong advisors. On the other hand Cheney, who had W’s trust, was bent from the get go. Thanks to the Supreme Court the amount money now flowing into campaigns from private and from anonymous sources will only enhance the influence of the candidates ‘friends and advisors.’

I don’t see myself voting for Jeb, but not because of any character issues, rather it would be because he and his friends are too conservative for my taste regarding most issues. Hell, for my tastes, Obama has been too centrist and too willing to compromise with the conservatives on most issues, especially Health Care (which should’ve been single payer, Medicaid for All).

[trish]

I far as the thread topic goes, I first respected Hillary for her personal involvement with the attempt to establish a national healthcare system during her husband’s presidency, although I was in my teens then and not paying a whole lot of attention. It seemed to me at the time that the country was wildly polarized over the Clinton presidency: there were accusations of murder, endless investigations and finally a silly impeachment over a blow-job. (Whitewater turned out to be nonsense and a huge waste of money by the vindictive prosecutor Ken Star who couldn't bare to see a Democrat in the White House and a First Lady with real intelligence and spunk. Impeaching the leader of the Free World over a blow-job astounded the whole world and had them laughing at our American prudishness. Of course it wasn’t really about the blow-job, nor about lying about a blow-job. It was an attempted coup d’etat).

I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary in part because I remembered how polarizing Hillary was eight years prior (through no fault of her own). I thought it that would make it difficult for her to get anything done. Boy was I wrong. I should’ve known a Black man in the White House was a hell of a lot more polarizing than any Clinton could be.

My current respect for Hillary mostly derives from the way she handled herself as Secretary of State. (Yeah, yeah...I know... Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. Please give nonsense a rest) She held the office during particularly difficult times, as we all know from watch the world seethe in turmoil on the nightly news. She reformed the State Department, established the The Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, increased the number women ambassadors, played integral roles in designing, implementing or smoothing the way for a plethora of treaties and agreements between nations (e.g. The Turkish-Armenian Accord) and was quick to offer aid and comfort to nations hit by tragic events (e.g. The Peshawar Bombing of 2009).

Because of her service as Secretary of State, her credentials for the Office of the Presidency are impeccable. Better than anybody else’s. I think she is far less polarizing than she once was...largely because she has demonstrated her competence and authority and because the old fogies who are still mad that Bill took the White House two times in a row last century (indeed stole it from one term president G.H. Bush) are slowly fading away.

Will I vote for Hillary in the primary? Depends, on whether she's running and who she’s running against. Did I mention I really like Elizabeth Warren?

[Ben]

Big Backers of Clinton Foundation Found in Leaked Swiss Bank Files: Report:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/10/big-backers-clinton-foundation-found-leaked-swiss-bank-files-report

[Ben]

The unelected dictatorship of money...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5h63F7Mcvg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5h63F7Mcvg)

[Ben]

A Radical Agenda for Hillary Clinton:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/04/10/radical-agenda-hillary-clinton

[Ben]

A recipe for endless war...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO-jQFKyeeI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO-jQFKyeeI)

[Ben]

8 Things You Need to Know About Hillary Clinton and Climate Change:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/04/12/8-things-you-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-climate-change

[Stavros]

I am surprised there has not been much of a reaction here to the official announcement that Mrs Clinton is running for the White House. Perhaps people are busy. Although I think it is time for a woman to become President, I don't think Mrs Clinton is the one, to my mind she is more aggressive than Obama, particularly on foreign policy, and from what I have read has a short temper which may make her management of the Oval Office a torrid affair for those she chooses. Apart from the problem of being American royalty, a problem for Jeb Bush if he also runs, is that the vitriolic abuse Mrs Clinton is likely to suffer from the Republicans may swing voters her way for non-political reasons, and may also be generated by poor competitors resorting to grubby tactics. I don't know much about the Republicans other than their names and that Rand Paul is seen as more moderate than Marc Rubio. I wonder if there is a sound Democrat -male- who will surprise the Clinton campaign? It is early stages, but I think the next six months will be interesting for an outsider to watch. For what its worth I read an article a month or so ago about the collapsing infrastructure in the US, bridges that can barely stand up, highways in poor condition, etc -perhaps re-building America should take precedence over military engagements overseas....?

[Ben]

Hillary Clinton Officially Begins Her $2.5 Billion Presidential Campaign:http://gothamist.com/2015/04/12/hills_hills_hills.php

Hillary Clinton Cannot Be Less(er) Evil Than Anyone:http://warisacrime.org/hillary

833228

[Ben]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3b01APnGgY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3b01APnGgY)

[fred41]

I am surprised there has not been much of a reaction here to the official announcement that Mrs Clinton is running for the White House. Perhaps people are busy. Although I think it is time for a woman to become President, I don't think Mrs Clinton is the one, to my mind she is more aggressive than Obama, particularly on foreign policy, and from what I have read has a short temper which may make her management of the Oval Office a torrid affair for those she chooses. Apart from the problem of being American royalty, a problem for Jeb Bush if he also runs, is that the vitriolic abuse Mrs Clinton is likely to suffer from the Republicans may swing voters her way for non-political reasons, and may also be generated by poor competitors resorting to grubby tactics. I don't know much about the Republicans other than their names and that Rand Paul is seen as more moderate than Marc Rubio. I wonder if there is a sound Democrat -male- who will surprise the Clinton campaign? It is early stages, but I think the next six months will be interesting for an outsider to watch. For what its worth I read an article a month or so ago about the collapsing infrastructure in the US, bridges that can barely stand up, highways in poor condition, etc -perhaps re-building America should take precedence over military engagements overseas....?

There are always going to be 'firsts' in an election just as there are 'firsts' in the Oscars. There will be a first hispanic, asian, Jew, gay,etc...plus all the opposite gender 'firsts' to go along with it...perhaps a transsexual, hindu, buddhist...whatever. we have a tendency to celebrate 'firsts' forever... fuck all that, i don't believe firsts are that big a deal anymore; I think anyone can now get elected in the USA given the right circumstance...within reason.
So I don't think it's "time" for any particular gender or ethnic persuasion. A woman will get elected either now or at some point. I don't believe that's a barrier anymore. But right now we don't even know what other Democrat will run until they announce. The republican party is still pretty fractured at this point so that even if no other democrat ran, Mrs.Clinton would still have a very decent shot at beating them...but maybe not the best chance.
I believe she lost to President Obama in the primary because he was a fresh face who at least seemed to stand for certain ideals...and he was young and cool; not a bad thing when young people came out in droves to vote for change. She seemed like the typical machine politician, and she proved it when she used that "phone call' commercial against him.
I usually vote republican in most elections. I didn't vote for Obama...but I can honestly say I'm not dissappointed he won. Both times. I actually think when you remove all the nuance...he pretty much stood by his real (non political) convictions in the long run. I think what hurts him most is that he doesn't understand the importance of perception when it comes to foreign policy. I think he's tone deaf on that issue, but hey, most presidents stumble after trhis long a time in office...but Hillary....i honestly don't think she stands for anything. She could be good or bad...it all depends on which way the wind blows.

[broncofan]

I don't know much about the Republicans other than their names and that Rand Paul is seen as more moderate than Marc Rubio. .
I just looked at Rand Paul's positions on wikipedia. He is a modified libertarian. He is a libertarian when it comes to protecting private property rights and opposing regulations that he believes infringe on them, but somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to same sex marriage and abortion rights.

He is pro-life, he opposes the right of the epa to enforce environmental standards, he believes in a balanced budget (regardless of the programs that need to be funded), and a flat tax. Achieving a balanced budget with a flat tax would require an enormous reduction in all sorts of programs. I would need to see exactly how he plans to implement it but I can't imagine a flat tax doing anything but significantly reducing our tax base.

He opposes anti-discrimination legislation, including proposed and existing laws intended to protect against invidious discrimination in the workplace, in housing, and in places of public accommodation. He opposes all forms of gun control, claiming that they infringe on second amendment rights. That's a position that the Supreme Court does not take, but like his father he apparently does not view the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality but rather the Paul family. He wants to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act (Obamacare). He wants seniors who receive medicare to be more accountable for the entitlements they receive….I think that means that their benefits are slashed.

He thinks gay couples should enter into marriage contracts while maintaining the traditional definition of marriage for straight couples. This basically means that gay couples would be able to control by private agreement the financial consequences of their intimate relationship but would not have their partnership recognized by the state. One part homophobia, one part libertarian quackery. A marriage contract? Perhaps instead of a wedding they should have a signing.

He does not think the Federal Reserve should have the right to control money supply or set interest rates.

I think his foreign policy is probably more moderate than that of any of his opponents as he opposes the more invasive tactics of the NSA and CIA. He also takes more liberal stances with regard to enforcing drug laws.

[fred41]

I think his foreign policy is probably more moderate than that of any of his opponents as he opposes the more invasive tactics of the NSA and CIA. He also takes more liberal stances with regard to enforcing drug laws.

I only disagree with this last sentence. I don't consider Isolationists 'moderate'. They seem that way because they're usually against foreign wars...but so what? That's only because Isolationists generally want nothing to do with the rest of the world. No matter what happens, it's always going to be - "Not our problem."
I noticed though , that he's starting to take a step back from that stance, but I think that's just because of the upcoming primary.

[broncofan]

I only disagree with this last sentence. I don't consider Isolationists 'moderate'.
I agree with you there. I sort of lost sight of whether I was talking about being moderate (more progressive) or just different from the other Republican candidates. Rand Paul's father was an absolutist I think when it came to his isolationism. I've always thought that's a patently unreasonable stance.

[Stavros]

There are always going to be 'firsts' in an election just as there are 'firsts' in the Oscars. There will be a first hispanic, asian, Jew, gay,etc...plus all the opposite gender 'firsts' to go along with it...perhaps a transsexual, hindu, buddhist...whatever. we have a tendency to celebrate 'firsts' forever... fuck all that, i don't believe firsts are that big a deal anymore; I think anyone can now get elected in the USA given the right circumstance...within reason.
So I don't think it's "time" for any particular gender or ethnic persuasion. A woman will get elected either now or at some point. I don't believe that's a barrier anymore. But right now we don't even know what other Democrat will run until they announce. The republican party is still pretty fractured at this point so that even if no other democrat ran, Mrs.Clinton would still have a very decent shot at beating them...but maybe not the best chance.
I believe she lost to President Obama in the primary because he was a fresh face who at least seemed to stand for certain ideals...and he was young and cool; not a bad thing when young people came out in droves to vote for change. She seemed like the typical machine politician, and she proved it when she used that "phone call' commercial against him.
I usually vote republican in most elections. I didn't vote for Obama...but I can honestly say I'm not dissappointed he won. Both times. I actually think when you remove all the nuance...he pretty much stood by his real (non political) convictions in the long run. I think what hurts him most is that he doesn't understand the importance of perception when it comes to foreign policy. I think he's tone deaf on that issue, but hey, most presidents stumble after trhis long a time in office...but Hillary....i honestly don't think she stands for anything. She could be good or bad...it all depends on which way the wind blows.

Thanks for your thoughts, I agree with you about the 'firsts', compared to the UK it is actually something you do well, though for some it is little more than window dressing. In the end, politics ought to be about substance, but I do also wonder if the 'vision' thing is important. Obama in this respect was rather like Reagan in that both had a 'vision' of an America different from the one they claimed was not working at the time, and both have patchy records on delivery. I suspect that the reality of US politics is messy because a President is not responsible for a lot that happens, even at the Federal level, and your states system devolves power away from Washington DC. Nevertheless, a key factor in the US is the relationship that a President has with Congress. I think this has been a weakness for Obama (as it was for Jimmy Carter), and does suggest that the 'liberalization' of the US that put Onama into the White House (if that is what it was), has yet to make a difference in Congress -because if there was such a shift to the 'left' then where are the Democrats in the Senate and the House? On this basis I do wonder if Mrs Clinton could build a better relationship with Congress, not least because of the hostility that both she and her husband had to deal with last time. But until another Democrat puts themselves forward, we are just speculating, fun as it is...

[Stavros]

Broncofan, re your post on Rubio -
Thanks for the information, I am just glad he isn't running for office in the UK!

[Ben]

Progressives Line Up to Defend Clinton Corruption:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/24/progressives-line-up-to-defend-clinton-corruption/

[Ben]

Hillary Clinton: "Start Thinking Of Iraq As A Business Opportunity"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LkJfuN6ruE

[Stavros]

Obviously I did not watch all 10+ hours of the hearings on Benghazi that were held in Washington a few days ago, but I must concede that Mrs Clinton was impressive throughout, even if the core issue on Libya is not just the attack in Benghazi but whether or not it was right for the USA to engage in regime change in Libya that led to the overthrow of Qadhafi -as Mrs Clinton has been quoted as saying 'We came, we saw, he died'. It has been argued in the link below that it was Mrs Clinton along with Samantha Power and Susan Rice who persuaded an otherwise reluctant President Obama to 'lead from behind', just as it has been claimed by Seymour Hersh that the US was involved in the transfer of weapons seized from Qadhafi's arsenals to rebels in Syria, something in a classified memo that 17 months and $4.5m worth of Republican Party muck-raking has failed to expose (bearing Hersh's reputation in mind) --

Under the terms of a secret agreement between the US and Turkey, partly funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals were procured in Libya by retired US soldiers through Libyan front companies, with the operation overseen by the CIA and MI6. Normally, the CIA should have reported what it was doing to Congress, but an exception is made for liaison missions and “the involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison mission”. Hersh cites a former intelligence officer as saying that the only purpose for the US to keep open a consulate in Benghazi “was to provide cover for the movement of arms”. After the murder of Mr Stevens, the CIA abruptly ended the operation which then came under Turkish control.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/benghazi-hillary-clinton-is-guilty-but-not-as-charged-a6707711.html

The odd thing about the hearings is that the Committee sits high off the ground and makes it look like the members are hiding from the person they are questioning. It didn't help that the chairman -Trey Gowry (sounds like a species of duck native to Alaska) - looks like a shell-shocked marine cadet and that hour after hour nothing the Committee could come up with had any impact, other than the question someone asked of Mrs Clinton abut being alone at home when she burst into laughter, as did most of the rest of the world.

$4.5m -cheaper than the film, but not as entertaining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0PPWJk_MLs

[buttslinger]

There was talk in the media a week before the hearings that the Republicans were using this to "POLITICAL" ends. In the end, it was Hillary who used the hearings for political ends. The Republicans on the panel were mostly former prosecutors, Hillary is a TV Star.
Most of the Republicans running for President have decided that being on TV, and in the public eye is great for their careers, even if they lose. Politics has become more about Madison Ave instead of Pennsylvania Ave.
My Sister met Bill and Hillary when they came to a bluegrass club she moonlighted at in the nineties. Bill worked the room with a beer in one hand, shaking hands with the other, talking to EVERYBODY. Hillary sat at the table with her drink, my sister said she had a COLD FISH aura goin' on. All her smiles and laughs are choreographed and phony, for the camera, but that's what it takes to be President, in her case. Nobody gets to be President by accident.
For all her negatives, I think she very well could be a kick-ass President, maybe even great. Especially now that the tide of the economy has turned around. I sense that all those unforeseen invisible uncontrollable factors that occur during a Presidency might work in her favor, unlike a Bernie Sanders or even a Jimmy Carter. Enemies of the United States might think twice while a vindictive bitch like Hillary sits her ass in the oval office. Sean Hannity might have a stroke. While Putin has that tough stare, Hillary has that insane laugh. I hope that's for the cameras, I am not sure.

[Stavros]

If Mrs Clinton does get the nomination, and right now it looks that way because of her solid appearances in public debates and in Congress -in contrast to her opponents-, how will she present a different economic programme from that presented by Sanders?

On the one hand there seems to be a shorthand shared by Democrats that elevates 'the Middle Class' above everyone else while taking pot shots at the 1% of super rich billionaires and hedge funds. On the other hand, Mrs Clinton does appear to have developed policy ideas which cover the wide range of issues and which have been laid out in the link in what I think is a fair assessment of her economic policy where it identifies three steps to increasing Middle Class income:

The first step is to boost the economy. How? Give tax cuts to the middle class and small businesses, establish an infrastructure bank, and fund more scientific research. Also, help women enter the workforce by requiring businesses to pay for family leave and give sick days to all.

The second step is to create fair growth. Clinton would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, increase workers' benefits, expand overtime, and encourage businesses to share profits with employees. She also wanted to invest in students and teachers, support unions and collective bargaining, strengthen the Affordable Care Act, expand job training, lower college and healthcare costs, and fight wage theft.(Source: "It's Time to Raise Incomes for Hard-Working Americans," Hillary Clinton 2016 LinkedIn page, July 13, 2015)

The third step is to support long-term economic growth. Hillary would combat "quarterly capitalism" by raising short-term capital gains taxes for those earning $400,000 or more a year, the top 0.5% of taxpayers. Investments held between one and two years would be taxed at the maximum income-tax rate of 39.6%. Assets held for longer would be taxed on a sliding scale, such as 36% for those held 2-3 years, 32% for those held three to four years, and 20% (the current rate) for those held for six years or more.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Hillary_Economy.htm

In the web page linked above are policies she advocated when running against Obama in 2008 which in addition to presenting a plan for a balanced budget (something Obama did not) included-


Double the size of the enforcement unit in U.S. Trade Representative's Office to increase compliance with trade

Expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance agency to help workers displaced by outsourcing.

Two measures that would be red flag to Republicans as both measures require an increase in Federal spending on an expanding bureaucracy.

Some problems that arise from this-
1) What is Mrs Clinton's position on 'free trade' given that she supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership but now opposes it; I don't know what her position is on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership [TTIP] and it seems her own team are not comfortable with these issues, but she will have to deal with them at some point.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/06/hillary-clinton-trade-deal-obama-congress-democrats

The belief is that like her husband, Mrs Clinton is more congenial to 'corporate capitalism' than Mr Sanders, but is this a real problem once you get over the corporate interests and their powerful lobbying in Congress, their financial clout in super-PACS and the reluctance to pay taxes all of which can be dealt with by new laws? I would suggest millions of Americans who worked in the auto industry, the chemicals and communications industries and many more who live on their pension are relying on funds generated by pension funds on Wall St, and many pensioners support their younger families. Wall St is easy to knock, because it isn't going anywhere, but America is a capitalist country and Wall St fuels the machine. Be careful what you wish for?

2. The Middle Class Matters. Of course it does, and nobody thinks otherwise because wages have stagnated and many traditional middle class jobs have disappeared. But what about the Working Class? Or the Unemployed? Has the Working Class simply disappeared in the way middle aged white men have been dying off at a faster rate than anyone else?
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/02/death-rate-middle-aged-white-americans-aids

Does anyone speak for the unemployed? I think there is a danger that this relentless appeal to Middle Class voters could make the Democrats a less broad-based party than it could be, so maybe it should try to be more inclusive. In the end the attacks in Paris will not make any difference to the Presidential campaign, where, as usual, the economy will be the dominant issue.

[nitron]

To all the Left. Move further to the Left when you vote, Vote Greens or Socialists or whatever is left of the Dems if Hillary is nominated. That's all . The Repblcans are an anachronism, the Dems have replaced them, every thing has shifted to the right in your country. Therefore switch to a further left position .

[JPeterson]

To all the Left. Move further to the Left when you vote, Vote Greens or Socialists or whatever is left of the Dems if Hillary is nominated. That's all . The Repblcans are an anachronism, the Dems have replaced them, every thing has shifted to the right in your country. Therefore switch to a further left position .

Elections have consequences. People who voted Ralph Nader in 2000 are the reason for things moving further right because George W Bush appointed conservative judges that came to the conclusion corporations are people and it's a bosses business what goes on btwn a woman and her doctor. Hilary is not an ideal candidate but she is the best candidate to prevent us from having a Conservative supreme court for the next 50 years.

[Ben]

Emails expose close ties between Hillary Clinton and accused war criminal Henry Kissinger:

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/12/emails_expose_close_ties_between_hillary_clinton_a nd_accused_war_criminal_henry_kissinger/

[Stavros]

In a week which has seen Radovan Karadzic convicted of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, this may be an opportune moment to warn anyone who is interested about a pamphlet written by Diana Johnstone called Queen of Chaos: the Misadventures of Hillary Clinton (linked below).

Diana Johnstone has form as a peddler of lies about Bosnia, most notoriously in her 2002 study Fool's Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions (Monthly Review Press). In Fool's Crusade the Clinton's come in for a major bashing, Hillary included, as if the Reagan Presidency in the 1980s had ignored the Balkans. Whatever, there is also a link here to a sustained demolition of Johnstone's 2002 book. I expect to see some journalists and commentators in the press citing Johnstone's book on Mrs Clinton as a reason to oppose her candidacy for the Presidency, assuming she defeats Bernie Sanders and no other candidate emerges.

Johnstone has been described as a 'left revisionist' which suggests that her articles are premised on the iniquity of American imperialism so that everything that happens is seen through this prism, enabling some truly nasty people to get a free lunch on the basis that they are actively anti-American/globalization etc. It is like those people who should know better defending Vladimir Putin's military engagement in Syria as well as claims that while Saddam Hussein, Bashar as-Asad and Muammar Qadhafi were/are all dictators, the quality of life in Iraq, Libya and Syria was better than it is now, Islamic fanatics had no platform, and the countries were stable. In the case of Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's National Front, Johnstone has decided that because Le Pen is a vocal critic of the 'bankers and bureaucrats' austerity and so on that she is 'basically on the left' which is as absurd politically as it is geographically.

Readers must make up their own mind, but as has been pointed out elsewhere Diana Johnstone plays fast and loose with the truth and neglects to inform readers in her work on Yugoslavia that in the 1960s she met and befriended Mirjana Markovic who went on to marry Slobodan Milosovic, and that she often stayed with the couple when visiting Belgrade.

If she gets the nomination Hillary Clinton is going to be the target of some vicious journalism of the kind produced by Diana Johnstone.

Johnstone's book on Clinton is here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rlW3CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=queen+of+chaos&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif1vuGg-HLAhUEuBQKHQDsCXYQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=queen%20of%20chaos&f=false

A devastating critique of Johnstone's book Fool's Crusade can be found here:
http://genocideinbosnia.blogspot.co.uk/2005/07/proving-genocide-in-bosnia.html

A Bosnian based in Canada has also written an extensive critique of Johnstone's work here:
http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/a_fools_account_a_response_to_diane_johnstone

[trish]

If she gets the nomination Hillary Clinton is going to be the target of some vicious journalism of the kind produced by Diana Johnstone.Seems to be par for the course. Thanks for the post.

[broncofan]

I know this is a Hillary Clinton thread but apropos of the Democratic race I'll include this link. I must give myself credit when I said that Bernie was short on details (especially about financial matters; others have talked about his lack of foreign policy acumen) and promises more than he has plans to deliver. Is he as clueless as Trump? No. Is he a bit more genuine than Hillary? Yes. But he does speak in slogans and make unsupportable promises. Was never a Sanders supporter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/05/9-things-bernie-sanders-shouldve-known-about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/

[broncofan]

http://fortune.com/2016/04/06/retirement-savings-fiduciary-rule/

This article describes what would have to happen for the treasury to have authority under Dodd Frank to break up big banks. Bernie was also asked about the prosecution of financial criminals and what laws they broke and did not have specifics but has been talking about them for months and months in very general terms in speeches. Again, not saying some people should not have been prosecuted who were not...but you need a current violation of the law...meaning legislation that exists and which provides criminal penalties that apply to specific conduct. Just talking about an entire criminal class in the financial sector is cheap demagoguery.

[flabbybody]

It's funny that Bernie thinking we still use tokens to get on the New York subway is the gaff getting all the attention in the media.

[broncofan]

It's funny that Bernie thinking we still use tokens to get on the New York subway is the gaff getting all the attention in the media.
Yeah. After the dozens and dozens of times he's talked about breaking up banks and prosecuting crooks, one would think he'd know everything there is to know about how to achieve it. Would love to hear him talk about the advisability of breaking up banks instead of subjecting them to more exacting regulation (whatever that is, capital requirements, greater limitations on types of investments, more personal accountability for executives). Would this require the passage of more legislation or better enforcement of existing laws?

I had no idea whether he would have unilateral authority as president to break up a bank...but at least I anticipated it could require some doing to dismantle enormous financial institutions. Their liabilities are guaranteed by the federal gov. and so their existence naturally should come with more strings attached...but does that mean they can be dissolved at the whim of the president? What about their investors? What would that do to access to credit and to credit markets when you start hacking away at the banks? Again I don't know the answers...somebody more schooled maybe does but he never even asked the questions:)

[Stavros]

Allow me to refer you to the book Fragile by Design: the Political Origins of Banking Crises and Scare Credit, by Charles W. Calomiris and Stephen H. Haber (Princeton University Press, 2014).
In particular, Chapter 3: Crippled by Populism: US Banking from Colonial Times to 1990 offers a very readable account of the early phase (and indeed the whole period under review) designed by Alexander Hamilton which nurtured the early years of your Republic through a 'coalition of elites' that 'limited the number of banks that received charters, it tended not to provide credit to small farmers and artisans' (p153). This system broke down under the demand enabled by a federal political system for credit and banking by a multitude of farmers, artisans and small businesses that dominated the US from around 1810 to 1980 when this cornucopia of small banks and loan societies collapsed. A system the authors describe as 'inherently unstable, non-competitive and inefficient in its allocation of credit' led to this: 'The banking system was composed of thousands of small banks that operated local monopolies, which meant that they were able to charge more for loans and pay less for deposits than they would have had they been obliged to compete with one another. The absence of branches meant that these banks could neither spread risk across regions nor easily move funds in order to head off other bank runs' (p154).

Something tells me from the evidence that the US has had an unhappy experience with thousands of small banks, characterised as one crisis after another. Breaking up the banks, like Trump's proposal to prevent the transfer of money through Western Union to countries outside the USA is another mad idea whose economic costs would be greater than its benefits. You can forgive Sanders as he is a business illiterate, but Trump is CEO of a large corporation and has no excuses, unless it turns out he always got someone else to do the sums and was only interested in his percentage and how much he could spend.

[Stavros]

Another smear against the reputation of Hillary Clinton is being peddled in the press and social media:

As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality."

Zeifman has his own issues with the Clinton Presidency and the Clinton's in particular and appears to have changed his story several times over the years. Whatever, this smear has been thoroughly demolished in this link-
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

[zerrrr]

Something to consider regarding the Democratic Party. I find it ironic that the LGBT community is rallying around someone who is pro-DOMA and anti-gay marriage (8 years ago). Then again she knows that come election time she will need to shore up the LIberal bases in New York and California (pro-LGBT) while dumping the Red South where they are anti-LGBT.

I don't think her positions evolved so much as she realizes who to pander to for votes. Let's be honest, she lied about DOMA at the beginning of the campaign.

Here is some food for thought about how the parties are evolving.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/why-democrats-are-becoming-the-party-of-the-1-percent

Honestly, she is so far right-wing that I have a hard time discerning between Hillary and Trump.

Then again, as a Libertarian, we see the world as follows.

930392

[hippifried]

That quote in the pic describes a lot of folks who don't identify with libertarians too.

[trish]

Back in the 90’s the choice was between passing a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or an act of Congress leaving the question of gay marriage to the states. One of these things seemed inevitable at the time. The choice was between not allowing gays in the military or “Don’t ask don’t tell.” It may not seem like it now, but the latter policy was seen by the LBGT community as a half a step in the proper direction. We’ve come a long way since then. Both “DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell were signed into law by Bill Clinton. Bernie opposed DOMA but only because it didn’t leave enough to the States, his concern for gays and lesbians was nil.

Pander schmander, think what you want but at least Hillary and Bernie are for LGBT rights today. Trump is against marriage equality to this day, as are Cruz and Kasich (Kasich says he’s against the gay lifestyle but promises he considers the issue of gay marriage a settled law). The Advocate is warning that Libertarian Paul Ryan is a Trojan Horse for LGBT issues because he recently changed his mind about gays being allowed to adopt children! Libertarian Rand Paul says he doesn’t “buy into the concept of gay rights.”

Rights, other than corporate rights, are exactly what modern day Republicans and Libertarians are out to suppress and eliminate. Libertarians just don’t seem to believe that people have the right to make laws to protect themselves against exploitation by more powerful private interests. If you’re a private concern you can do what you want, regardless of the interests of others who share the commons. Competition, not cooperation is their model. Modern day republicans are hung up on religion, racism, nationalism as well as the bogus economic theories (trickle down) that they’ve borrowed from nineteenth century Austrian quacks.

Obviously we still have a long way to go. But to me, most notable Libertarians and Republicans these days look like ignorant selfish assholes: on close inspection it’s difficult to tell one from another.

[zerrrr]

You think Hillary is pro-LGBT but she is really pro whoever donated the most to her campaign and fake charities. Just keep telling yourself she is a supporter but do not be surprised when she turns her back on you.

As for the Libertarian Party you could not be more wrong. You wrote Libertarian when you should have written Democrat.

I am not sure how you support a candidate with the big business ties Hillary has as being a supporter of the poor and middle class.

I would like you to know that in 1972 the Libertarian Party nominated a gay male, John Hospers, for President so we have been pro-LGBT a long time before the two major parties found it popular.

An introduction - http://www.lp.org/introduction/what-is-the-libertarian-party

http://lpalabama.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/common-sense-on-issues-AL.png

[broncofan]

I would like you to know that in 1972 the Libertarian Party nominated a gay male, John Hospers, for President so we have been pro-LGBT a long time before the two major parties found it popular.

An introduction - http://www.lp.org/introduction/what-is-the-libertarian-party

http://lpalabama.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/common-sense-on-issues-AL.png
And what kind of government programs do you guys recommend for the poor and the sick and the disabled? How do you guys feel about civil rights legislation including laws that would protect lgbt from active discrimination by private employers?

[broncofan]

How about work safety regulations, minimum wage laws, regulators of food and drug safety, environmental protections? Someone help me out with what else is missing. I also read that pamphlet. It says that the left agrees with special rights for minorities...I don't think that's the position of any democrat.

[zerrrr]

You can read up and see where we stand. This was the press release after the Supreme Court ruling last year.

https://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-four-decade-advocacy-for-marriage-equality-pays-off-with-us

Here is the wonderful contrast of Hillary.

Pro gun control - http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-challenges-the-gun-lobby-1457655128
(http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-challenges-the-gun-lobby-1457655128)

except if you gave to her Foundation - http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

(http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187)Even stuff like minimum wage laws are becoming a BS card. The McDonald's people screaming for $15/hour will soon be replaced by ordering kiosks.

I live in PA and there is no way the Democratic governor raises the minimum wage. Why? He is a businessman and knows the low minimum wage is the only way to attract jobs to this state.

Do you actually think work safety regulations, food and drug regulations, and environmental protections are not bought and sold by both parties? Just look around. Take a red pill and look around.

Bernie has it right. He is hitting the same button Bill did in 1992 when he said 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" He is nailing the undercurrent of people who feel left behind but that is the fault of the politicians in DC. Look at the statistics. They tell you things are better but you know they are not.

[zerrrr]

Remember when Bill passed welfare reform? Hillary wants to take a hard look at it.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/04/18/3770333/hillary-clinton-welfare-reform/

Like I said, just watch out. She is far right and not supportive of the poor and middle class. It only matters to her who gave how much money.

[broncofan]

If the statistics tell me things are better and they have not been incompetently compiled or interpreted, I believe them over my own gut.

What you are describing is a race to the bottom, which is the best justification for federal government regulation rather than local regulation. Perhaps states should not compete with one another to attract businesses by allowing workers to be exploited. If people cannot afford to systematically withhold their labour, they will not be paid enough to enjoy a reasonable living standard. As a result they end up skimping on preventative health care and education which is a front-loaded cost and we are a poorer, less inclusive society as a result.

Look, I have read about Libertarianism and it is well thought-out and rigorous in theory, but not practical. People do not look after one another. Exploitation is rife in a free market system and charity rare.

Further, there is no doubt that corporations undermine many of these regulations, but they are not able to avoid their strictures altogether. Isn't it better to have an imperfect system of compliance than none at all? We can talk about the consequences of not having any regulation of prescription drugs or work safety laws, but that might be avoided.

[broncofan]

Remember when Bill passed welfare reform? Hillary wants to take a hard look at it.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/04/18/3770333/hillary-clinton-welfare-reform/

Like I said, just watch out. She is far right and not supportive of the poor and middle class. It only matters to her who gave how much money.
If you read the last three paragraphs when she says we need to take a look at it, I believe she means to re-examine it because certain parts of it are harmful (and have been). I could be wrong, it's awfully late here. But her husband signed it into law, although she offered support for it at the time, but the "we have to take a look at it" quote is an acknowledgement of its failings rather than an expression of desire to compound them.

[Stavros]

Something to consider regarding the Democratic Party. I find it ironic that the LGBT community is rallying around someone who is pro-DOMA and anti-gay marriage (8 years ago). Then again she knows that come election time she will need to shore up the LIberal bases in New York and California (pro-LGBT) while dumping the Red South where they are anti-LGBT.

I don't think her positions evolved so much as she realizes who to pander to for votes. Let's be honest, she lied about DOMA at the beginning of the campaign.

Here is some food for thought about how the parties are evolving.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/why-democrats-are-becoming-the-party-of-the-1-percent

Honestly, she is so far right-wing that I have a hard time discerning between Hillary and Trump.

Then again, as a Libertarian, we see the world as follows.

930392

This is an argument where, as other posts have indicated, context helps explain Hillary Clinton's positions which have indeed changed over the years. In 1999 for example, prior to announcing her intention to run for the Senate in New York, Clinton declared "I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel" which was not the official position of the US government or indeed her own view prior to the decision to enter politics as an individual. It is still controversial because the official view of the US Govt is that those parts of Jerusalem occupied by Israel in 1967 remain illegally occupied, which is why Jerusalem is not officially recognised as the capital of Israel and why the US has not moved its embassy there. The link with the quote is here-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/hillary-clintons-little-noticed-israel-problem

The issues here are complex, of course, but at the level of policy, should a politician always stick to one policy position and never change it? Pragmatism in politics suggests that change may be necessary as well as desirable and a clear difference between 'then and now' for the Clintons on the issues of same-sex marriage is the way in which attitudes in the US have changed since the 1990s when it was considered national news that Ellen DeGeneres was going to 'come out' on her tv show, with Bill Clinton offering the hallowed imprimatur of Presidential endorsement or support. These days, most people don't care if a person is 'gay' or 'straight' assuming those two words are still valid, not even in sport though I might be wrong on that as I don't follow it in the US -we do not have openly gay footballers in the UK. To outsiders, the timidity of the US in public over issues which are common knowledge in private is one of the curiosities of American life. The relentless need to elevate marriage and the family to the status of holiness sits uneasily with the reality that so many marriages fail and so many partners ignore their holy or legal vows to lead lives of relentless infidelity.

Another way to view the Clinton Presidency in its context is to compare it with the UK Labour Party which lost four elections between 1979 and 1997 just as the Democrats lost every Presidential election between 1980 and 1992, and only won under Tony Blair when it ditched its socialist constitution (Clause 4 of it to be precise), and to old Labour hands sold its soul to the devil of global capitalism for one reason only: to win an election. I think we can see that as in the US the 'New Deal' consensus that lasted from the 1930s to 1980 is similar to the Keynesian Consensus which in the UK lasted from 1945 to 1979, the point being that Thatcher and Reagan tore up the old way of using (Federal) Government to solve economic problems by emphasising the importance of markets (even if the reality today is that the largest employer in the US is either Federal or State govt and millions more rely on welfare).
If you wanted to win elections, you had to accept the new framework, which is what Clinton and Blair did, and in doing so also registered the fact that the erosion of heavy industry in the US and the UK depleted the Working Class/Blue Collar vote that had formed the basis of electoral support, and that the Middle Class had become the central plank of their electoral support -and many of them were working for Federal or State government and agencies. On this basis, the Clintons played the politics of the time in accordance with what they thought would work -and if that looks like a timid support for 'digital queers' and identity politics that is as far as they could go at the time without alienating their new base of support. To slate Mrs Clinton for being a fair weather politician also assumes she has a degree of integrity most politicians either do not have, or which in having relegates them to the margins, just as Sanders has been just as marginal a politician for most of his career as some Confederate flag-waving Southern politician still trying to deal with the abolition of slavery.

From where I am, if the choice is between Clinton and Trump or indeed, any other Republican, I would at least vote for Clinton however grudgingly, because I think the next President is in for one term during which not a lot on the economy will change, and that given the fact that neither Party -and certainly none of the candidates- has any long-term policy platform to create jobs and grow the economy, the USA has four years in which to think deeply about the next 50 years and to find someone with the vision to articulate the concerns of the generations they want to vote for them.

This is separate from a discussion of the Libertarian alternative, which is not what this thread is about.

[broncofan]

I don't really see how there's any alternative to Hillary Clinton, which is not a great endorsement but I have no reluctance to vote for her given the alternatives. It is not a bad thing to be pragmatic. The sea shift on gay marriage in this country happened quickly and in the 90's the Republicans were determined to pass through a welfare reform act that would have been much more damaging to people who needed assistance. Should she not consider the political alternatives? Why not move to the center rather than lose elections and deal with a much worse outcome? You cannot allow your party to become irrelevant by holding fast to unpopular views.

Bernie Sanders' commitment to policies he cannot implement does not just make him an idealist, it makes him irresponsible. It's very easy to list problems and very tough to craft solutions. And Trump cannot be a serious alternative either. He is not literate when it comes to policies (he thinks all of our health care problems can be solved by repealing the McCarran Act), he is prone to reckless pronouncements, and wants to do things that would damage this country for a generation. Building a wall? Legalizing torture? Carpet bombing countries that harbor terrorists? Excluding all Muslims from our country? There is nothing about a Hillary presidency that is nearly as apocalyptic. So what if she's an opportunist....whatever policies she comes up with will at least be within the realm of reasonable. If the next president does not have great vision, at least let them be cautious.

[broncofan]

This is separate from a discussion of the Libertarian alternative, which is not what this thread is about.
True. But in fairness the purpose of the thread was that Hillary had not been gracious to Barack when he won the primaries in 2008. It now is an all purpose thread about Hillary in 2016 I guess, which broadens it a little though maybe not to, what is the best system of gov for the U.S. (hint: not libertarianism:)).

[fred41]

Probably not exactly the appropriate thread for this, but this is where the conversation of the moment is taking place, so who really gives a fuck? Especially when there's only a handful of people participating, with someone new occasionally walking in and providing some new blood. Kind of like a big living room in the suburbs with the front door open...or a neighborhood dive bar with a friendly home crowd that's inviting enough to accommodate a wayward wanderer, who may opt to become a regular.

Usual disclaimer: Just latched on to a new brand of coffee: "Kicking Horse" ...roasted in Canada, our wonderful neighbor to the North ( which I'll have the extreme pleasure of visiting again in August for the Heavy Montreal Festival ) and I just drank a half caraf.

This is an interesting and seemingly unconventional time in American Politics. It's fucking weird. Why?
I think an enormous part of it has been mentioned by Stavros...the economy...specifically jobs.
Especially blue collar type jobs, because that is what seems to be fueling the Trump machine. None of the nominees are saying what I believe the reality to be: There aren't going to be any jobs for an enormous section of you. Yeah, sure...Trump promises to bring all that back, but I think he really knows that would be almost impossible...and I think so do many of his supporters, it's just that they simply don't care anymore.They know the asteroid is slowly coming for them so they're gonna party like its 1999. They're saying - "Let's call in a Berserker!!!"
They're not really voting Republican or Democrat...because those parties (or the cartoon versions of them)can't really help them. Democrats' raising of the minimum wage or enhancing social programs doesn't ever really help them. It's just another way of saying "Welcome to Mickey Dees! It ain't much, but we got you more money...or you can try to live on gov't life support until the asteroid hits. Just go to whatever version of a drugstore you use can help make the wait bearable. Sure, there are occasionally some jobs we can get you, but our party's environmental wing will never make that possible...and it really doesn't matter because unless you belong to a union, we don't need your vote anyway. "
...and Republican promises of less tax and trickle down and religion never really helps them either because they are simply empty promises without an actual industry that can be created. Much of wealth nowadays seems to be a shifting around of papers...and the only industries that can trickle down, only trickle down to technicians.The blue collar end happens in another country...but hey, we'll blind you with religion, so you can hate everyone and meet your angry god at the great reckoning..
...and the extreme wings of the parties are both filled with hate...and continue to add propellant.

So a true Moderate will either pick and choose which candidate is less repulsive...or sit it out.

Because I think Stavros might be right in another way: This is only going to be for one term

[fred41]

...and I think many voters have become tired of the over the top pandering for votes. It's always existed, but seems more extreme as time goes on. Hillary (looking up I realize this is supposed to be a Hillary thread) has to consistently shift depending on which crowd she's facing, which has always been the case for a politician - especially during a primary.
But even when she (or her husband) gives a perfectly common sense answer, she'll ruin it by reversing herself simply because of the perception that it may insult a thin skinned base of extreme voters.
Or she'll co-opt a platform she's never really fully endorsed.

Trump is wildly, and often ridiculously, pandering to everyone who will support him...changing tunes at the drop of a hat....often in the same night...But I think at this point, all his supporters are pretty much in on the same joke anyway. It doesn't really matter what he says, because as i've stated previously - they don't give a damn....they want to blow the whole thing up. Bring on the berserker...the reality star...the guy everyone in the world's genteel society everyone hates (which makes him even more attractive to his base).

again...strange election. It would be okay if it helped improve things in the future...but I have strong doubts on that happening.

[buttslinger]

Near the end of the Revolutionary War, right before the King called it quits, Washington's Generals were really pissed that their men hadn't been paid and that the USA was BROKE. And they all met up in New York and were going to discuss calling it quits themselves. Washington had to get them to wait a couple days and when he showed up, many of the Generals didn't want him there. He said he wanted to say a few things, and took a paper from his pocket.
"Gentlemen," said Washington, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."
Many of the Generals didn't even know he had glasses, and at that moment, everyone broke down, and the rest is History.

Lincoln read two books over and over as a child: The Bible and The Compleate Works of William Shakespeare.

FDR was a bit of a paradox, the job of President literally killed him and is the reason we only have two term Presidents now.
Saddam Hussein laughed that it took him eight years to figure out which way was up, when dealing with absolutely everything at once.
It takes WISDOM.

You don't want the smartest guy in the room to be in charge, he will leave the room with everyone's cash in his wallet (Trump)

The only reason Hillary voted for the Iraq War was because everyone knew it was going to happen no matter what she did, and any fool figured that even Bush couldn't fuck up a sure thing. So if she voted against it she would never be President. Bernie voted against the Iraq War. And he will never be President. It was WISE to vote for the War at that time under those circumstances, because when youre in charge you have to pick your victories as well as pick your defeats.
Hillary is a cold fish bitch, I won't be voting for Hillary in the Fall, I'll be voting for [Hillary-Bill-Wassermann-Democratic Machine] Clinton.
I'm looking forward to her destroying those Republican pricks AND filling the pockets of Republican voters with CASH.
Nothing is more important and crucial to the future of the United States than to have another Clinton Presidency that takes the National Debt Number from twenty zeroes to zero. (massive applause)

http://s32.postimg.org/xk6hvam51/fdr.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
image sharing (http://postimage.org/)

[fred41]

Nothing is more important and crucial to the future of the United States than to have another Clinton Presidency that takes the National Debt Number from twenty zeroes to zero. (massive applause)


I hope you're being sarcastic, because if you're not, then you're a fool for believing that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening.

[buttslinger]

I hope you're being sarcastic, because if you're not, then you're a fool for believing that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening.

My being a fool has nothing to do with it. And I'm absolutely dead serious. Obama has been setting it up for 8 years. I'm guaranteeing it.

[broncofan]

Democrats' raising of the minimum wage or enhancing social programs doesn't ever really help them. It's just another way of saying "Welcome to Mickey Dees! It ain't much, but we got you more money...or you can try to live on gov't life support until the asteroid hits.
Small anecdote: A friend of mine has been on disability for about ten years. His physical condition finally improved so that he can work. He lives in California where the minimum wage passed. He has a high school degree and very little work experience. We started calculating what he can buy on $15 an hour.....he was initially very excited until he started calculation all of his expenses and realized he just wasn't under water anymore. These are not great times and a living wage is not elevating people to the middle class but it's a small mercy.

[broncofan]

Small anecdote: A friend of mine has been on disability for about ten years. His physical condition finally improved so that he can work. He lives in California where the minimum wage passed. He has a high school degree and very little work experience. We started calculating what he can buy on $15 an hour.....he was initially very excited until he started calculation all of his expenses and realized he just wasn't under water anymore. These are not great times and a living wage is not elevating people to the middle class but it's a small mercy.
But I guess my point is that you're right. It's hard for something like that to excite people enough on election day. You calculate the difference between the current minimum wage and the living wage and you can take care of things a little better but I can understand why people would look at these programs and say "fuck it, I'll go all in with orange snowcone head. Maybe he can make America great".

[trish]

The storyline is that the current split in U.S. politics is not Right vs Left, but uneducated, labor whose economic status as been declining vs educated, technicians and professionals who economic status is climbing. Trump supporters are drawing from the first group regardless of prior political affiliation.

I doubt the latter class is being accurately characterized. Silicon Valley has few, if any unions. They’ve adopted the practice of hiring visiting technicians (typically from India) with work visas and them ‘letting them go’ instead of promoting them, and hiring another batch of technicians on work visas. The earlier batch then has to go home because they lost jobs and with them their visas. Teacher’s unions are under attack in every state of the union, especially in states with business aligned governors (e.g. Walker in Wisconsin and Rauner in Illinois) who believe the key to balancing the budget is to cutback state revenues, cutback state funding for schools, for universities, for the elderly and those who are dependent on social services, for infrastructure and to give every break imaginable to the Walmarts of the world. (Btw, Rauner hasn’t gotten a budget passed in nearly a year!) The breaking of unions started with Ronald Reagan and their sad demise has been steady ever since, bringing in the wake of their collapse the economic decline of the blue collar worker who once made up more than half of our middle class. With nearly all of the private labor unions gone, attention has turned to destroying those of government workers. When those unions are gone I not sure who will be left who can even afford to shop at Walmart or eat at MacDonald’s.

Meanwhile multibillionaire and New Jersey resident David Tepper is so wealthy the State of New Jersey is in a tizzy because he’s moving to Florida. Because one man is moving to Florida the State will loose hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue (even though - not counting loopholes - Tepper is paying at most 8.97%. ( http://nyti.ms/1O3FxkN ).

I’m not an adopter of the new storyline, myself. Nor have I adopted Bernie’s view of our current political divide. I still tend to see it as a theoretical split. The Right believes in supply side economics and the Left is still somewhat Keynesian. Since Reagan, government policy leaned heavily supply-side. The success of the supply-siders has (inadvertently - I trust) decimated the blue-collar half of the middle class. They’re feeling disenfranchised and Trump is promising something shiny and new: an old con: bait and switch. ( http://nyti.ms/1R5at59 )

Besides the presidency and economics being up for grabs, there’s so much more. The Supreme Court has been making some very serious mistakes on social and political issues. They’re eating away at women’s rights and with Citizen’s United they gave away the entire legislative branch of government to anyone with the highest bid. Then there’s the Middle East. Does anyone really think the solution to ISIS is carpet bombing? - I mean besides Cruz...and Carly...and Trump (who wavers between the nuclear option and isolationism!) ...and the whole clown car of Republican losers?. Etc. etc.

[fred41]

Small anecdote: A friend of mine has been on disability for about ten years. His physical condition finally improved so that he can work. He lives in California where the minimum wage passed. He has a high school degree and very little work experience. We started calculating what he can buy on $15 an hour.....he was initially very excited until he started calculation all of his expenses and realized he just wasn't under water anymore. These are not great times and a living wage is not elevating people to the middle class but it's a small mercy.

To be fair though...$15 dollars would probably go a lot further in a state that isn't California or NY. ..and you're right - Mrs. Clinton seems like a safe choice. Of all the candidates left in the octagon, she's the middle of the road, establishment candidate. The Right will call her too liberal, but there's nothing I can see too actually support that...and she certainly now has enough of a track record that you can look up. If anything, she seems more to the right than the President...and probably is as far as foreign policy goes.
As I've mentioned before, I usually vote Republican...but I can't vote for Trump. He's just too silly to me....and I can't stand Ted Cruz (and apparently neither can ANY of his co-workers http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/28/john-boehner-ted-cruz/?_r=0) (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/28/john-boehner-ted-cruz/?_r=0)...hell) Hell, even satanists don't like him...lol http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/satanists-snub-comparison-cruz-lucifer/story?id=38785064. John Katich might've been tolerable...but it ain't happening and Trump being in the mix knocked out any true establishment candidate out of the republican ranks a long time ago.

[trish]

Of Trump and Cruz, Kasich is the more sane and likable. But he's way to far right for my tastes. This year he work to defund Planned Parenthood in Ohio and succeeded.

[Stavros]

The media war continues with a video called Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight...
It then appears that most of the video does not show Mrs Clinton lying, but changing her opinion over the years on policy issues such as same-sex marriage and the North America Free Trade Agreement. Surely there has to be some sort of warning attached to this material if in fact the video does not show Mrs Clinton telling outright lies, even if one expects a politician to play fast and loose with the truth. I also wonder why, after 11 hours of testimony before the House Committee on Benghazi which had print-outs of those famous emails, nothing has been found that proves Mrs Clinton broke the law. It may be the case that the FBI is still investigating but the record on indictments for the Clintons over the last 25 years is not good and I don't think it is because the Bilderberg Group or the Illuminati or the Rothschilds are pulling strings in the background. And anyway, an indictment is not a guilty verdict.

In 1982 I might have said 'Vote Labour!' and in 2010 'Don't Vote Labour!' I was not lying, I just changed my mind.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/video-showing-hillary-clinton-lying-for-13-minutes-straight-gains-millions-of-views-a7040551.html

[trish]

In attack politics never using "changed her mind," instead use "flip-flopped". Never use "intransigent," instead use "pigheaded." When you have to dispute the truth call it a "conspiracy of lies". When your opponent changes her mind say you "caught her in a lie." Dems the rules. If everyone followed them, then everything will actually be a conspiracy of lies.

[fred41]

haven't heard this old favorite used yet.
935852

[Stavros]

Trivial, but factual -I have never eaten a waffle. Not even sure what they are.

[Stavros]

So the FBI is not going to indict Mrs Clinton and that comes as no real surprise. Although the FBI says that
of the 30,000 emails returned to the state department, 110 emails in 52 chains were determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent. Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time, 36 chains contained secret information at the time, and eight contained confidential information, the lowest level of classification...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/05/fbi-no-charges-hillary-clinton-email-investigation

For those who are interested, Wikileaks has published thousands of the Clinton emails -not, as far as I am aware, any of the classified emails- and I spent around 2 hours today sifting through them using search terms mostly related to UK politics, such as 'Tony Blair', 'Peter Mandelson', 'Liam Fox' and I also put in 'Paul Ryan'. The Wikileaks exposure merely reveals what a curse email might be for anyone in a large organisation. Most consist of chains of emails containing the same information and most of them are print outs of news reports from Reuters, the Washington Post and so on, all material that is in the public domain. Most of the emails I saw were from Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton and of little interest other than gossip about Mandelson ('a sectarian in a sect of one, himself'), Gordon Brown (both loathed) and Tony Blair (clearly a friend) and it is Mrs Clinton who is most notable by her absence as I could only find two direct comments in an email from her, one regarding a minor dispute over a statue of Ronald Reagan erected in the grounds of the US Embassy in London, the other an email to Cherie Blair saying how sorry she was to have missed her when the latter was in DC. or New York or wherever it was. There might be something juicy somewhere, but my guess is we would know about it by now.
The emails re Paul Ryan were of little importance other than that he was not invited to breakfast with Mrs Clinton as was also the case with John Boehner, presumably because wet croissants are not what people want for breakfast.

I think the problem is one of 'entitlement'. Mrs Clinton has been the wife of the Governor of Arkansas, 'First Lady' of the USA, Secretary of State -I doubt she has ironed Bill's shirts for 40 years, I doubt she needs to get the A train to travel up town or wait for the Bus in Chappaqua (if they have buses) to get her to the train station. The idea she is going to take an intense interest in an email server is I thnk a weak idea as I suspect she regards these things being done for her by others who know what they are doing, just as a man as rich as Donald Trump has probably forgotten what it is really like to queue for a coffee in Starbucks or work for 12 hours in a bakery for less than he spends on a pair of shoes, or socks for that matter.

Anyway if you want to sift through them the 50, 547 emails are here-
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

[hippifried]

Hey Stavros:
You left out her stint in the Senate.
At least with Hillary, nobody can whine later that they didn't know what they were getting. You know... The way all the so called "progressives" (still don't know what that means) did when President Obama wouldn't jump through their hoops and carry out their agenda. With everybody else, especially Donald Trump, predicting what they might do in the White House is a crapshoot at best.

Anyway... You need to get some waffles before the Flems shut down the Chunnel & won't let you into Belgium.

[Stavros]

Hey Stavros:
You left out her stint in the Senate.
At least with Hillary, nobody can whine later that they didn't know what they were getting. You know... The way all the so called "progressives" (still don't know what that means) did when President Obama wouldn't jump through their hoops and carry out their agenda. With everybody else, especially Donald Trump, predicting what they might do in the White House is a crapshoot at best.

Anyway... You need to get some waffles before the Flems shut down the Chunnel & won't let you into Belgium.

Hippifried I accept all your points bar one. Is it not the case that Mrs Clinton represents 'business a usual' which means the Democrats have to be forced to commit to 'liberal' social policies where their voter base is 'gung-ho' for it? Is it not indeed Obama's cautious approach to policy that has enabled him to appeal to a broad range of voters as a 'steady hand' on the wheel where, for example, Donald Trump is seen as the equivalent of a drunk driver?

I don't agree Belgium will refuse me entry in the unlikely even of my wanting to visit -how will I afford the trip?- ; and anyway and hard though it might be to believe, I have never eaten a waffle. And last but not least, be wary of referring to Belgians as 'Flems' as half of them are Walloons...

[hippifried]

Okay, I stand corrected. Flems & Loons from now on. Wouldn't wanna leave anybody out of the insult pot.

Waffles are just pancakes, but the waffle iron cooks them evenly throughout. Should be able to get one cheap once the pound deflates.

I've never said that Sen. Clinton is in anyone's pocket or that she wouldn't at least try to be as liberally progressive as Presidents Clinton and Obama, or even more so. I read her healthcare report back in '94. I know what kind of careful thought she'd bring to the White House. I also know she's not a raving fanatic like... Well, like every Republican that's tossed their hat in the ring the last two presidential elections. I'd like nothing better than to see that asswipe Trump lose all 50 States to the bitch of his nightmares. I want a President who can & will think, without all that anti-Keynesian Austrian economic theology and klan/nazi mumbo jumbo clouding and pushing aside good judgment. Is that too much to ask? I think not.

[Stavros]

This week I have been watching the Trump Convention in Cleveland, courtesy of the BBC Parliament Channel here in the UK, and I must say that I wonder if a line of decency has been crossed. Some of you may dismiss the vitriolic abuse of Mrs Clinton as part of the 'rough and tumble' of politics and argue that if a candidate is not robust enough to handle public criticism, even abuse, they should probably not be in politics. I am also not in a position to know if the kind of material that has been put on sale in Cleveland matches in levels of abuse what might have been available at Democrat Party conventions in the past.

However, free speech, even in the USA does have limits, and the case of Al Baldasaro, the Veteran who advises Trump, exposes the limit. Baldasaro has been recorded as saying on radio that Mrs Clinton should be put in front of a firing squad and executed for 'treason'. In spite of being documented fact, Baldasaro denied saying it, claimed it was a distortion of the liberal media and went further: “Should I give up my freedom of speech and worry that I’m going to hurt somebody’s feelings?"

But if the record is correct, and this is the crucial point, Baldasaro has not potentially hurt Mrs Clinton's feelings, he appears to have advocated causing her real, physical harm, and that surely is not just illegal, but the line that is crossed when free speech ceases to be part of freedom because it takes that freedom away from someone else, in this case a named individual.
Nor is this the only case, as a delegate from West Virginia, Michael Folk tweeted at Mrs Clinton “You should be tried for treason, murder and crimes against the U.S. Constitution… then hung on the Mall in Washington, D.C.”

The rule of law should be important at all times, yet again and again at the Trump Convention the delegates have chanted 'Lock her up' and Chris Christie led a mock 'trial' at which Mrs Clinton was found 'guilty' of all charges without any evidence being presented to the court or the woman in question being asked to answer the charges. Well, political theatre this might be, but in the context of t-shirts and lapel badges on sale in Cleveland that do not just abuse Mrs Clinton because she is a Democrat but because she is a woman, and in a context where the Trump delegation in Congress has refused to maintain the integrity of the Supreme Court by accepting President Obama's nominee to replace Justice Scalia you could argue that the US is on a slippery slope where law and order is replaced by lynch mobs, the police kill citizens, and citizens kill the police.

And before anyone insists this really is just political theatre, the sobering fact is that when, a month ago, Thomas Mair appeared in court accused of the murder of Labour Member of Parliament Jo Cox, he gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain'.

One can only hope responsible people take action to stop this before it is too late.

Links -Al Baldasaro comments-
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/07/20/gop-convention-baldasaro-clinton-shot/87359946/

The tweet quoted by Michael Folk-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/lock-her-up-hillary-clinton/492173/

[buttslinger]

One can only hope responsible people take action to stop this before it is too late

You said a mouthful Stavros!!!
ha ha, we value our free speech over here, so if the Republicans call for Hillary's death and prosecution, that's nothing new. In the past they have wanted to dig up dead politicians and put them on trial. Mudslinging is an American Tradition.
The way I see it, it all comes down to THE SITUATION- do you want to be on top of it,....or under it.
Who will guide the American ship through dangerous waters?
Hillary has an ARMY of kollegeedukated Democrats in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado.....AKA the swing states. These are always the deciders of the electoral college . THESE are the responsible people you're looking for, and they will save the World from our own worst enemy, the Donald. And his kids.
Bet the House on Hillary to WIN.
This shit about Hillary lying and all....The Republicans have had two years as the majority in the House and Senate, they've spent the entire time digging 20 feet deep to find dirt on Hillary and they got nothing. If I am facing 8 years in prison, I WANT my attorney to lie, cheat, steal, whatever, to keep me out of the slammer.
If the Republicans unearthed the truth that politicians and lawyers LIE LIKE DOGS.........hey man,.....bulletin......

I'm very excited about the Republicans finally playing their last card-the race card.
I am very excited about Roger Ailes being booted out of the Fox Propaganda channel.
I'm not quite ready to bet on Democrats retaking the House and Senate.
But from a reality standpoint, Hillary is having multiple orgasms right now.
I'll bet her seat is wet when she stands up.
But if she had a heart attack in the White House and Tim Kaine stepped in, that would be OK with me....
I'm a UNION MAN.....all the way
haw haw haw!

[BCboyCOMINGatYA!]

Not to side track it, but its all the name, we just voted in a name up here in Canada, I have accepted a lot of money in firearms will go bye bye and our country in general will lose LOTS of money , thanks to ridiculous plans that never actually involve direct economy growth.

Its just a name, Justin trudeau , I had never seen so many countries take interest in our voting until he came along, pretty boy with a name, snowboard instructor/drama teacher.... now PM . Sweet resume bro, I mean I wouldnt trust a drama teacher/snowboard instructor to run a small business.. Or even be a Foreman, nevermind the leader of a nation. He is there because his father was our leader 30 or 40 years ago, and its the only reason, thats when our FIRST huge gun grab happened too :D

Clinton is similar, but I find worse. I have known her to be manipulating and slimy for years. the ONLY reason she is anything close to where she is and how she gets away with shit is because she is married to Bill Clinton, probably the only reason she stayed with him too. She has totally mutated over the last 8 years too, I find her to be very slimy.
Remember:
"If she cant please her own husband, how is she going to please you America?"

And seriously, I hate the "The evil that you know" Argument, its what people said up here, "At least we know what we are getting into" Because you dont, you have NO IDEA what Hilary will actually do. Our PM promised that we would be 10 billion in dept at the end of his 4 year run... "Hey at least we knew what we were getting into" They say. Wow. and he already passed the 10 billion he promised, its looking like it will be closer to 200 billion unless he ditches his drastic green plan. But even if you know Hilary is gonna keep the same shitty plan, I mean fuck, do you take your kid back to a babysitter that beats them because you dont want to try someone new?

Oh and I am pretty sure, that sadly, Hilary is going to be the next president.

[broncofan]

Remember:
"If she cant please her own husband, how is she going to please you America?"

This has to be the dumbest, most misogynistic statement I've heard this week.

[BCboyCOMINGatYA!]

This has to be the dumbest, most misogynistic statement I've heard this week.

I know right? ITs the one great thing I can take from this entire election process, that Trump ACTUALLY used that line. Lol.

[martin48]

No, I get it With Hillary we all get a fuck. With Trump we all get fucked



This has to be the dumbest, most misogynistic statement I've heard this week.

[tslvr]

Hey, Buttslinger, you do realize the dems only want your vote and the union's money? They do not care about hard working people other than to stay in power. W

[tslvr]

Oops, was not done and hit the wrong buttton. As I was saying, what they want is a country full of dependents. And if that's what we get, it will lead to the end of the USA as a strong nation and world leader. At that point, your union won't matter any way. And I grew up in a union family and have watched the middle class get more destroyed each year.

[buttslinger]

Hey, Buttslinger, you do realize the dems only want your vote and the union's money? They do not care about hard working people other than to stay in power. W

sigh.....
Yes, bad things do happen when Democrats are in Power, but the last two years the Republicans have owned the Senate, House AND Supreme Court.....and they blame everything on Obama!!!
If you get your information from Conservative Media, you don't believe in Climate Change, or even Evolution.
Without going into great depth, the Democrats are truly the party of the middle class, whereas the Republicans are in the pocket of the ONE PERCENT.
Democratic taxes get me SECURITY, Police, roads, bridges, Education, WORLD POWER.
Republican God, Guts, and guns get me absolutely nothing. They watch as Corporate greed fleeces me for my mortgage, gasoline, food, clothes, healthcare, etc etc etc.
Name your poison. There will be stormy seas no matter who is steering the ship.
The Working Stiff is going to carry everyone no matter who is in charge.
Do you really want to send your paycheck to your Boss?

[Stavros]

After last night's news on Mrs Clinton's Vice-Presidential nominee, is this going to be called the Kaine and Able ticket?

[Stavros]

Is the resignation of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and leaked emails implying the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders going to damage the Democrats and mess up their convention in Philadelphia? The DNC is supposed to be even-handed in its treatment of candidates in elections, which is where the controversy lies. Or you could take the view that if the Democrats had as a basic rule the requirement that anyone seeking public office for the Party should have been a Party member for 10 years, this problem would not exist because Sanders would not have been eligible to waltz into the Democrat Party and insist he has the right to be their President. You have some pretty daft ways of running a political party, it is almost as bad as the Labour Party, and that must be a dubious accolade!

[chupapau]

haven't heard this old favorite used yet.
935852


Anyway... You need to get some waffles before the Flems shut down the Chunnel & won't let you into Belgium.


I don't agree Belgium will refuse me entry in the unlikely even of my wanting to visit -how will I afford the trip?- ; and anyway and hard though it might be to believe, I have never eaten a waffle. And last but not least, be wary of referring to Belgians as 'Flems' as half of them are Walloons...


Okay, I stand corrected. Flems & Loons from now on. Wouldn't wanna leave anybody out of the insult pot.
Waffles are just pancakes, but the waffle iron cooks them evenly throughout. Should be able to get

Yes by all means, insult your oldest, albeit smallest, ally on the continent, after all, who needs friends and allies...

Waffles 101 : It's the dough, mainly, that is the difference. The big crunchy waffles are the same dough as pancakes, but yeast added and let to foment for some hours in a cold basement, out of light.

Furthermore, you are all welcome to come live here, just make sure to leave the populism where it is, we can do without thank you. Just be prepared to learn French and Dutch in a very short period to fit in properly :)

Also, the Chunnel ends in France, no jurisdiction for the Belgians to shut it down, I know some would like to though.

And on the topic of the thread :

No person with minimal education can think the US will get anywhere with Trump. Having lived in the states however, he could well win, I wouldn't be surprised.

Hillary? Then all their allies are well fucked just the same. She left the Obama administration to go and lobby pro fracking, and behalf of companies like Halliburton!!!!!! She is the motor behind TTIP, a "free" trade deal if which no one is allowed to know the actual text!!!

Either way, just like with the Brexit vote, it is a lose lose from the onset. For real people that is.

[buttslinger]

Just one snippet:
Trump has never read a book on a U S President.
His desk is covered with magazines with himself on the cover. I'm not making this up.
So what gives, America?
Trump was nominated for the Republican ticket because 13 million racists sprinted to the polls to vote for him.
The EXPERIMENT that is the United States of America is a generational trial and error Junior High School Chemistry Lab Experiment. With a classroom of pathetic students.
The TEACHER looking over the class is the one person who can determine whether or not the kids blow up the chem lab.
Hillary is a cold fish in a pants suit.
But she will be Caesar.
So go out and make money and have the best life you can create.
Don't get your satisfaction from Solomon.
He'll tear your Baby in half.

[chupapau]

Oh, don't you think this Melania is scary as hell? Me thinks she's a Skynet Cyborg.

[buttslinger]

Oh, don't you think this Melania is scary as hell? .......

Hey Man, this entire election is like a Twilight Zone episode.

[trish]

Is the resignation of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and leaked emails implying the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders going to damage the Democrats and mess up their convention in Philadelphia? The DNC is supposed to be even-handed in its treatment of candidates in elections, which is where the controversy lies. Or you could take the view that if the Democrats had as a basic rule the requirement that anyone seeking public office for the Party should have been a Party member for 10 years, this problem would not exist because Sanders would not have been eligible to waltz into the Democrat Party and insist he has the right to be their President. You have some pretty daft ways of running a political party, it is almost as bad as the Labour Party, and that must be a dubious accolade!

Bernie supporters (at least the vocal ones) did expect the DNC to be even-handed. I think the reason for this expectation is that these supporters are as new to the party as is Bernie himself. However, it is only natural that party leaders, who have worked and helped to shaped the party for decades, have an interest in protecting the progress that they have made. It’s the basic reason why the DNC has committed delegates and super-delegates in the first place; otherwise it could wind up with its own version of Trump running for president.

From what I’ve seen of the emails, there isn’t much to get upset about. There’s one suggesting the DNC hire a Kentucky journalist to report that Bernie is an atheist or that he is Jew. It went on to ask which would be more upsetting to Kentuckians. It of course plays into stereotypes of Kentuckians, Jews and atheists - which is upsetting, except to those who are against political correctness. It’s also true that Bernie was raised Jewish but is probably an atheist and that neither is looked upon very favorably by a lot of Kentuckians. But, the thing is this: no action was taken. No Journalist was contacted and not such article written. I far as I can tell, there’s a slew of emails going back and forth between DNC members which make it clear that most of the party officials were favoring Hillary (surprise surprise!); but there were none that directed any official or unofficial action.

Will Bernie supporters not vote Democratic in November because of this fiasco. Surely some won’t. How many remains to be seen. A lot may depend on what happens today.

It’s interesting that Putin is responsible for this particular hack. Trump has been saying he wants a diminished involvement of the US in NATO and that he (Trump) would not come to Latvia, Lithuania nor Estonia’s aid should Putin move in an take them (something about them not pulling their own weight)! It’s no wonder Putin would love to endorse Trump. Of course he can’t; but releasing hacked DNC emails is the next best thing.

Another interesting point is that Russia has been hacking State Department emails for over decade. As far as we can tell, he was unable to hack Hillary private servers.

[blackchubby38]

If Sanders supporters are stupid enough not to vote for Clinton in November, then they only have themselves to blame when Trump gets sworn in as President in January.

[Stavros]

If Sanders supporters are stupid enough not to vote for Clinton in November, then they only have themselves to blame when Trump gets sworn in as President in January.

I think the greater fear is that Sanders' supporters might not vote at all. It is that mix of don't knows and abstentions that the polls cannot accurately predict, but if a week is a long time in politics, there is a virtual eternity to get through before November and we live in interesting if unpredictable times.

[Stavros]

Another interesting point is that Russia has been hacking State Department emails for over decade. As far as we can tell, he was unable to hack Hillary private servers.

It occurred to me today reading some comments in the press by people making a connection between hacking and the Russians potentially accessing classified information on Mrs Clinton's email server, that throughout the Cold War the Kremlin had 'eyes and ears' in the White House, Congress and the Military, and the US had its 'eyes and ears' in the Kremlin and the Soviety military, and I don't expect much has changed as far as spying is concerned. As for Kentucky, I am afraid all I know about it is that they have a famous horse race, and Jennifer Lawrence was born there, so it must be a purty fine stayte. Also rather liked what I saw of Wasserman-Schultz, so I am sorry to see her go. I don't think this story will 'run and run', something else will intervene.

[flabbybody]

Michelle blew the roof off the place. Ripped Trumps asshole apart on birther thing and reminded everyone that he gets no mulligan for that sorry episode.
Why didn't Cameron ask her to come to London for Remain rally instead of POTUS?
might've turned out different

[Stavros]

Michelle blew the roof off the place. Ripped Trumps asshole apart on birther thing and reminded everyone that he gets no mulligan for that sorry episode.
Why didn't Cameron ask her to come to London for Remain rally instead of POTUS?
might've turned out different

Michell Obama delivered a powerful but clever motivational speech which did two critical things: 1) it focused on a positive message laced with hope and ambition; and 2) never mentioned Trump by name. It was not a policy-focused speech which can be left to others, but it set the all important tone to contrast with the relentless whining and aggressive negativity of both Trump's acceptance speech and those of the other speakers. And it was just the right length so nobody got bored or fell asleep.

Why didn't Cameron ask her to come to London for Remain rally instead of POTUS?
-In a word, Vanity (the concept not the star).

he gets no mulligan for that sorry episode.
-I had to google Mulligan as I had not come across that expression before, astute in its context!

[buttslinger]

While real facts, figures, and stats are crucial in the governing process, they will never be seen by the general public.
Right now, we are in the WWF stage of Governing, and the Circus with the most attendees wins.
Just like Thomas Jefferson planned it.

[buttslinger]

I've got to repeat myself-
If Trump wins the White House, he will undoubtedly also be given the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, the U S Military, and the keys to Ft Knox..............
I' m going to sail past Politics and Governing and Pray directly to God that I never see that day.
So DON'T be it!



https://s32.postimg.org/5so8t6qat/119c1b6720ae5eaebf2dbbb38855dfb6.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/nipxe83vl/)photo storage (https://postimage.org/)

[hamdasl]

The candidate choice is pretty dismal this election cycle. I just keep thinking about Ralph Nader. Looks like history just might repeat itself.
Sometimes there are only bad choices to make.

[trish]

Hillary is an excellent choice. She's taken a lot of shit over the last forty years. Mostly because, since Gingrich, the only game plan Republicans seem to know is smear your opponent and then do it again and again. It's called distraction. Don't fall for it. Because of her work as First Lady on single payer health care the GOP invented everything from Whitewater to the murder of Vince Foster. To date she's been accused of 22 murders. I'm sorry but that's just loony. She was a Senator for New York who was primarily responsible for getting healthcare coverage to first responders and then to military families. Under her directorship of the State Department we brokered the deal with Iran that required them to give up their refined uranium stockpiles and blocked them from developing nuclear weapons for at least ten years. Under her directorship we finally took down Bin Laden. This is not to say she is responsible for those and other accomplishments, but only that she was a principle participant in the decision-making behind them. For me, this is not a difficult choice at all. One candidate is highly accomplished and highly qualified. The other candidate is a vain attention whore and a pampered clown. I'm too young to remember, but my mother loved Hillary ever since she proposed the Children's Health Insurance Program and got it passed. She never stopped loving Hillary. I'm with Mom.

[zerrrr]

Trump has no shot. I find it ironic that news sites push poll numbers when poll numbers are meaningless. Nationwide polls do not elect the President; the electoral college does.

Remember Bush vs. Gore?

Anyway, Hillary has roughly 322 electoral votes if the election was held today.

It is funny how much money will be wasted between now and election day. None of the money will shift poll numbers in battleground states. People have already made up their minds and in this day and age where everyone stands around shouting their viewpoints on the Internet nobodies mind will change.

[Stavros]

Trump has no shot. I find it ironic that news sites push poll numbers when poll numbers are meaningless. Nationwide polls do not elect the President; the electoral college does.
Remember Bush vs. Gore?
Anyway, Hillary has roughly 322 electoral votes if the election was held today.
It is funny how much money will be wasted between now and election day. None of the money will shift poll numbers in battleground states. People have already made up their minds and in this day and age where everyone stands around shouting their viewpoints on the Internet nobodies mind will change.

Setting aside the cost of US elections, if I were to fine tune your post, it would be to argue that campaigning remains important for two reasons: a) to get people to leave home and actually vote; and b) campaigning is important at the level of local politics where Congress remains crucial to the conduct of government and the ability -or not- of a President to get his or her bills turned into law.

In fact, getting people to register and then vote is as important in the US as it is in the UK and any liberal democracy.

[fred41]

Hillary is an excellent choice. She's taken a lot of shit over the last forty years. Mostly because, since Gingrich, the only game plan Republicans seem to know is smear your opponent and then do it again and again. It's called distraction. Don't fall for it. Because of her work as First Lady on single payer health care the GOP invented everything from Whitewater to the murder of Vince Foster. To date she's been accused of 22 murders. I'm sorry but that's just loony. She was a Senator for New York who was primarily responsible for getting healthcare coverage to first responders and then to military families. Under her directorship of the State Department we brokered the deal with Iran that required them to give up their refined uranium stockpiles and blocked them from developing nuclear weapons for at least ten years. Under her directorship we finally took down Bin Laden. This is not to say she is responsible for those and other accomplishments, but only that she was a principle participant in the decision-making behind them. For me, this is not a difficult choice at all. One candidate is highly accomplished and highly qualified. The other candidate is a vain attention whore and a pampered clown. I'm too young to remember, but my mother loved Hillary ever since she proposed the Children's Health Insurance Program and got it passed. She never stopped loving Hillary. I'm with Mom.

so who did you vote for during the 2008 primary?

[trish]

In 2008 I voted for Obama in the primaries, principally because Hillary was such a polarizing figure. In spite of the fact that Hillary had more experience, Obama was equally liberal and seemed more electable. Little did I know at the time just how polarizing - no traumatizing - a black president would be. I aways knew the shit that was thrown at Hillary from the beginning was just the ‘malarkey’ that was continuously churned out by conservative radio, Fox News, Frank Luntz and other sexist, Republican strategists. They went off the rails back in the 90’s already when they accused her of murder.

Hillary is, of course, still a polarizing figure, but I favored her over Bernie. I would’ve have voted for Bernie in the presidential election had he been our candidate, but I would’ve been much more pessimistic about winning. Even now, Bernie is like an iceberg - most of what the Republicans would have used against him is still hidden from view. Like Trump, Bernie never released his tax papers. The Clinton campaign went very easy on him, considering. Hillary has ten times as many accomplishments, is ten times more pragmatic and is not the one-note charlie that Bernie is.

I chose Obama in the presidential campaign over McCain and Palin not because he had more experience than McCain (he obviously didn’t) but because I favored Obama’s proposed policies over McCain’s.

I’m voting for Hillary in the upcoming presidential election because, duh. :)

[fred41]

I ask not because I'm trying to corner you... I'm asking because of the way you endorsed her.
Bottom line - You voted for Obama over her when even back then she had a better track record. She had way more experience than he did.
Why did I ask?
Charisma is everything when it comes to a presidential candidate.
It's the rockstar quality you can't quite put a name to...but you know it when you see it.
Kennedy had it...Reagan had it ...
Barack Obama has it...hell, his whole family has it...Michelle has it.
It isn't a requirement though, and that's why I'm bringing it up...because Hillary doesn't have it. She's awful when it comes to doing the big smile, thumbs up look. I hate her when she does that...it's awful. it's incredibly unnatural.
Her best interviews, in my opinion, are the very rare ones (because she does so few) where she just speaks about policy...no smiles...no shouting...just conversational and matter of fact.
She's very good when she does those. Almost wonkish...but in a good way.
I hate the Hillary that the campaign pushes on people.
But I almost like the real Hillary we don't often get to see because that's not how campaigns work.
Hell, I wish she would never smile.
If you're a cranky bitch...be a cranky bitch...be the best damn cranky bitch you can be.
She was a blatant carpetbagger when she became a New York senator. But she was an excellent senator for us once she was in.
She's very good at what she does. maybe she's not all that likable ...I don't know. ....and she is very polarizing - that is true.
But at this moment in time we need someone we can rely on to actually do the work and understand it.
I don't care if that person is likable.
She damn sure knows what she's doing and she's good at it.

For a while IRL I was pushing Gary Johnson to acquaintances that usually voted Republican but were obviously uncomfortable with Trump. Johnson is actually a much, much better, and more palatable Libertarian than the Pauls. He doesn't come across as a hater in any way or form like they are.
...and i figured he was a good vote since my state of New York will vote Hillary anyway.
but I can't rely on that anymore.
and there's no reason not to vote for her anyway...- she (and her husband) are moderates. She broadcast that when she picked Tim Kaine for vice president. It was like saying "look... I have to move further left to appease the Sanders voters, but that will change once I get elected"...otherwise she would have picked someone like Elizabeth Warren.
She's "establishment"...and that's what I prefer.


I disagree with you on Bernie Sanders. He's the most honest politician out there (seemingly) but I don't believe in his policies.He's way, way too far to the left for me ...and you probably are to...but I still love you to death.

I'm back to being an Independent because, right now, there's no place for me in the Republican Party I used to vote for.
Things have changed. I've changed. They've changed too...but for the worse.

Hillary is just the common sense choice at this point.


Funny how things change.

[Stavros]

What worries me about candidates, not just in the US, is the promises they appear to make on jobs, given that without jobs people do not have an income other than from welfare or donations from family and friends. Job creation is not impossible, but unless millions of 'blue collar' Americans are going to be employed making and repairing roads and bridges in the infrastructure projects Obama touted in 2008 that Mrs Clinton also referred to last week, I don't see present-day technology offering work at the same level as say the 1950s, for example US fracking has survived Saudi Arabia's attempt to price it out of business by cutting cost and that means using fewer workers to extract more shale oil, but there will be new jobs -for some people.

In Clinton's case the team she assembles will be as important as her own contribution, but what I got from the Convention was the extent to which she is probably more interested in domestic than foreign policy, and that she has been effective when dealing with detailed policy that most people find boring, because it is, though necessary.
A claim in the Telegraph in the UK that Mrs Clinton, if elected, will 'go after Asad' and propose No-Fly Zones in Syria as part of a renewed effort to evict him from office, does not impress me and may not be true, as the Syrian Air Force is not the only cause of death in Syria, and if the US proposed it but the Russians declined to accept it, the policy would be impracticable. Presidents need someone with authority and expertise in foreign affairs and assume John Kerry will want a rest from that job.

[trish]

Hi Fred,

Back in ‘08 I chose Obama over Hillary mostly because I thought we was electable and that once in office he could get legislation passed. By then Hillary had already secured the ire of Republican voters and was a polarizing figure thanks to the way conservative media had slandered her ever since she proposed a single-payer national health insurance plan - something first ladies aren’t supposed to concern their pretty little heads about. Obama was also my Senator. I heard him talk, shook his hand and spoke to him on several occasions prior to ’08.

You’re right about charisma, and pants suits apparently aren’t part of the formula. Even charisma won’t give you the House. If Hillary is to fulfill any of her promises we have to give her a Senate and Congress that will not devote themselves to obstructing everything she does. On that score, I’m not holding my breath.

Hi Stavros

I agree that our approach to employment in the modern world has incorporate the inevitable advance of robotics and computer technology. Building and maintaining infrastructure still requires construction workers, and plumbers, engineers and technicians who know how to lay and splice optic cable.
There is one sense in which the numbers tell us the U.S. economy has fully recovered from 2008 recession. The stock market is booming. But the recovery was lopsided. Blue collar jobs don’t pay what they used to. Labor unions that secured fair pay have, in many States, been systematically dismantled by Republican Governors. (In Illinois we haven’t had a budget bill passed in over a year. Gov. Rauner is starving social safety nets for children and the elderly, and starving universities in hopes to destroy collective bargaining and wreck academic unions.) If one person has to work two jobs to make a living, it’s not going to help the employment rate.

I don’t know if anyone in the U.S. has a workable proposal for Syria. Nor does the electorate want to hear what they consider to be wonkish details. The options are: “I’ll be a forceful ambassador,” vs “I’ll bomb the shit out of them” - unless we’re talking about our border, then the options are: “I’ll build a huge wall” vs “I’ll build a bridge.”

Many Dems I know think Kerry is a better Secretary of State than Hillary was and wouldn’t mind seeing him continue in that position. As far as I know, no candidate ever publicly promises those kinds of posts to anyone until after the election.

[buttslinger]

Wow, lots of people ringing the "truth bell" here, fantastic!
The Future holds a God in Heaven who will free us all from pain and death.........
til then, we've got us a complex business here to run.
Now, I'm putting the electoral college "over under" at 100 points for Hillary.

Baby needs a new pair of shoes, hah!

https://s32.postimg.org/8ddd3ggj9/23521.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/p14v5ybap/)image sharing sites (https://postimage.org/)

[trish]

Ever since Fred brought up the notion of charisma the other day it’s been rolling around in my head. I’ve met a few people who I describe as having a kind of dominating presence. When you’re in the same room with them, they somehow hold your attention. You’re immediately drawn to what they say, how they hold themselves and you want to impress them back. For me this quality never comes across on the television screen, although for a lot of people it does. I never understood Reagan’s charisma, for example. I was never impressed by his presence; but then I’ve never met him. Even the movie screen fails me in this way. I understand the language of film, so I know by how other characters react, that Rick (in Casablanca) is supposed to be charismatic, but for me it doesn’t emanate from the character but rather from how the others respond to the character. It’s all acting. If somehow I could met Bogart in person, then I might feel the strength of his presence.

Given the diminished sensitivity of my charisma sensors, and having never met Trump, I’m wondering why people seem to think he’s so charismatic. I look at him and listen to him and I see an complete and utter asshole.

But here is my real question. How often is the word ‘charismatic’ ever applied to a woman? It’s not unusual for a woman to dominate a room, make her presence felt and draw people who will want to impress her. Men like that are charismatic. Women are alluring, sultry, attractive, sexy but are they ever called ‘charismatic’? Because of the way we understand and apply the concept, is it even possible for a woman candidate to be charismatic?

[broncofan]

That's a good point Trish. I've never heard a woman described as charismatic but I have heard women described as "likable, empathic, easy to listen to." I am not saying these are equivalents as it is unfair for the gold standard for women to be about getting along and the gold standard for men to be about commanding respect and demonstrating control.

I think the problem for Hillary is that she is an extremely serious person who is not given to small talk or spontaneous outpourings. This is seen as robotic and makes her difficult to relate to. Her campaign team has tried to make her more relatable by having her smile more and laugh more but this only makes it seem contrived because she is not naturally easygoing or good-humored.

I'm not sure she has the potential to display the negative charisma of a Dick Cheney just by seeming grouchy or curmudgeonly. But that is probably a symptom of sexism. A man without special charm can seem appealing if he grumbles and looks like he isn't trying too hard to please anyone. Do women have the option of appearing not to care? Are women ever praised for "telling it like it is, damn the consequences" or ignoring various norms of behavior? I would say no.

[fred41]

But here is my real question. How often is the word ‘charismatic’ ever applied to a woman? It’s not unusual for a woman to dominate a room, make her presence felt and draw people who will want to impress her. Men like that are charismatic. Women are alluring, sultry, attractive, sexy but are they ever called ‘charismatic’? Because of the way we understand and apply the concept, is it even possible for a woman candidate to be charismatic?

I don't think the problem is the definition of the word 'charismatic' (personally I think it comes down to presence..but based on various characteristics that seem to slightly differ in people that have it. Attraction is obviously a key, but it's not necessarily based on being attractive...it's can also involve likability -but not moral or even good).
I also don't think the problem is whether the word is used to describe women. It is. Hell, the first definition that came up in google for the word used a woman as an example. I then googled the words 'charismatic woman', to see what discussions or articles came up describing a woman as charismatic. I stopped after the first example. It was an article that described both Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton as charismatic.
So apparently the problem was that I don't think she has charisma.
Apparently lots of other people think she does.

It would have been better for you to say "Fred. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Hillary Clinton oozes charisma...and you're just an asshat."

lol.
The usage of the word is based on personal perception...and therefore an opinion.
You've admired her for a very long time...I really didn't, so our perception would be different.

[fred41]

I'm not sure she has the potential to display the negative charisma of a Dick Cheney just by seeming grouchy or curmudgeonly. But that is probably a symptom of sexism. A man without special charm can seem appealing if he grumbles and looks like he isn't trying too hard to please anyone. Do women have the option of appearing not to care? Are women ever praised for "telling it like it is, damn the consequences" or ignoring various norms of behavior? I would say no.

I thought about it for two seconds and the first name in politics that came to mind was Jean Kirkpatrick. There are others.

[fred41]

...and who say's "Discussion has died..." on this board. We just went from talking about Hillary to whether or not there is sexism in descriptive words. :)

[Stavros]

But here is my real question. How often is the word ‘charismatic’ ever applied to a woman? It’s not unusual for a woman to dominate a room, make her presence felt and draw people who will want to impress her. Men like that are charismatic. Women are alluring, sultry, attractive, sexy but are they ever called ‘charismatic’? Because of the way we understand and apply the concept, is it even possible for a woman candidate to be charismatic?

The most obvious example of charismatic women occurs in the performing arts. I can still recall the frisson of excitement and wonder I felt at a performance of Strauss's opera Elektra with Birgit Nilsson in the title role, ditto Gwyneth Jones as Brunnhilde in a Ring cycle, Elizabeth Schwarzkopf in recital, Reri Grist as Oscar in Un Ballo in Maschera, and a few others. I am sure it must work like that with the best performers in rock and pop, in the sense that you go fired up for a great performance and get one, and that person commands the stage from the moment they walk on. In politics, and like her or not, Margaret Thatcher had a sort of charisma, even her opponents like me became addicted to her as if it were an exquisite punishment. There are others, such as Aung San Suu Kyi in the days when she was a political prisoner, maybe Eva Peron. There are charismatic women in politics if you look for them. Perhaps we want women to be more lovable or likable when they enter public office in a way we do not expect of men?

[Stavros]

Here's a thought, possibly a wild one as I don't know most of the Republicans on the Hill -with more and more Republicans preferring to endorse Mrs Clinton than Donald Trump, could she -if she is elected President- begin a healing process in Congress that restores a more bi-partisan decision-making process to break gridlock and petty filibustering and delaying tactics used against a Democrat President? Or will it just be 'business as usual' if the composition of Congress does not change? So much depends on the relationship a President forges with Congress, and in spite of her unpopularity in the wider country, could Hillary Clinton actually be the one person to bring both sides of Congress closer together?

[fred41]

Here's a thought, possibly a wild one as I don't know most of the Republicans on the Hill -with more and more Republicans preferring to endorse Mrs Clinton than Donald Trump, could she -if she is elected President- begin a healing process in Congress that restores a more bi-partisan decision-making process to break gridlock and petty filibustering and delaying tactics used against a Democrat President? Or will it just be 'business as usual' if the composition of Congress does not change? So much depends on the relationship a President forges with Congress, and in spite of her unpopularity in the wider country, could Hillary Clinton actually be the one person to bring both sides of Congress closer together?

Some of that also depends on her, but I hope so. The more Trump opens his mouth, the more she looks like the adult in the room. The more backing she gets from Republicans and right leaning independents, the more she can discard the diehard Sander voters.Then when election time comes and goes she can go back to the slightly left of center moderate I believe her to be.
I think Trump burned himself recently. The idiot actually got some voters who were just going to vote for Gary Johnson (I think he's polling at about 9% now) to turn around and vote for Clinton instead- to try to make absolutely sure that she will win, just in case it gets too close.

[buttslinger]

Unlike American voters, American Politicians always vote to their own best interests. The Republicans who are running from Trump started with the ones in states that were going to have tough local elections, but now you might see guys figuring out that tying their political futures to a Champion with the social maturity of a thirteen year old might come back to bite them.
Also, the Koch Bros and their buddies didn't trust Trump from Day One.
Maybe it's because they knew he couldn't win, or maybe they figure playing ball with Hillary might be a new kind of Enlightenment.
I'm going to predict Blake Shelton running for President in 2024, promising wholesome country values, after a disturbing sex tape of Hillary Clinton blowing a roomful of Wall St Strongmen is leaked.........

[Stavros]

Some of that also depends on her, but I hope so. The more Trump opens his mouth, the more she looks like the adult in the room. The more backing she gets from Republicans and right leaning independents, the more she can discard the diehard Sander voters.Then when election time comes and goes she can go back to the slightly left of center moderate I believe her to be.
I think Trump burned himself recently. The idiot actually got some voters who were just going to vote for Gary Johnson (I think he's polling at about 9% now) to turn around and vote for Clinton instead- to try to make absolutely sure that she will win, just in case it gets too close.

Thanks Fred as this is along the line I was thinking. Obama did not serve enough time in the Senate to develop bi-partisan relations with Republicans, but also fell foul of the split in the GOP which saw the Neo-Cons lose out to the TEA Party in Senate and House for whom even Neo-Cons became 'Republican In Name Only'. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has been around long enough in the Senate and beltway politics to have both cordial relations with -some- Republicans while not being too far apart with them on policy issues. The question that cannot be answered is how the evident split in the GOP will shape up after November, for while we must assume there will be some pragmatic Republicans, some TEA Party radicals, and some Neo-Cons it remains to be seen if Trump will have brought a new kind of 'street-wise' politician into Congress. It is not just Trump refusing to endorse Paul Ryan but his failure to respond negatively to someone in the crowd at one of his rallies who, on hearing Ryan's name shouted 'Throw him over the wall' -quite radical given that Ryan would become President if Obama and Biden were suddenly not there. If this introduces a fourth column in the Republican Party in Congress, maybe we should take a cue from the split in the PLO in 1974 over those who were willing to opt for a 'two-state solution' with Israel, and those who rejected it, and thus became known as the Rejection Front. After all, whatever it is Trump argues, he seems to be against it -he rejects the polls because they are rigged; he rejects the Media because they are biased against him; he rejects the law when it doesn't resolve disputes to his advantage, and he has all but rejected the General Election result if he doesn't win because that too is rigged.

[buttslinger]

could Hillary Clinton actually be the one person to bring both sides of Congress closer together?

I'm going to say NO in the sense you're asking, Republicans despise Hillary and the ground she walks on.
In the sense that she may regain more political POWER in the House and Senate, then yeah, less gridlock, and yes, Hillary is a Machine Candidate, and a Hawk, in that sense ...She IS a Republican!
Lots of these House of Representative Members are just businessmen guys from like Oklahoma who own a big Car Dealership and have the bucks to run for office. Some others actually come to Washington with fresh bold ideas on how to change things in Washington, then they get here and the guys in the SUITS put their arm around them and walk them into the back room and EXPLAIN to them "how we do things here"
The first Black President ran things like a White College Professor, not like a "BLACK MAN" is characterized.
The first Woman President will run things like a scarred barroom brawler with balls to the floor, not like a "LADY" is characterized.
There is no Republican Leader, that's why Trump wasn't quashed from Day One.
Current events say the change at Fox News might bring light to American Politics, because they own THE EAR of a huge bloc of Republican voters. I hope after the election Bill-o retires, and you start to see the Monica Crowleys and Sean Hannitys dissapear into conservative radio, I have a dream!!
But in my opinion, the only good thing Trump will do about gridlock is blame the Republican Party for his loss, and storm back to the penthouse at Trump Tower for a relaxing massage and Melania blow-job. Never to be seen again in American Politics.
And leaving already disillusioned Republican voters even more disillusioned. Or is it more illusioned, how the hell do I know????? The bigger the picture gets the harder it is to analize.

This is a fantastic time for Democrats, gays, trannys, and guys scouring the face of the earth for smut.
That's good enough for me.
Guys like Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have hinted about the scary tunnel vision Hillary has in her contempt and hatred for the Republican Party.
That's good enough for me!!!

https://s32.postimg.org/sce6llvl1/Trey_Gowdy_Aug_12_2015.png (https://postimg.org/image/az3w6r09t/)free picture upload (https://postimage.org/)

[nitron]

She really is going to win this time, no mistakes....https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F1629cf.jpg&f=1
....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX0X0tx0TOU

[trish]

The seargent will for his seargent's pay
Obey the captain 'til his dying day
The captain will for his captain's pay
Obey the general order of battle play
The generals bow to the government
Obey the charge you must not relent

Of course this isn't true in many places. The current government in Turkey just survived a coup, the last government in Thailand did not. One of the strength of our democracy is that the general do indeed bow to the government - of, by and for the people.

[Stavros]

Of course this isn't true in many places. The current government in Turkey just survived a coup, the last government in Thailand did not. One of the strength of our democracy is that the general do indeed bow to the government - of, by and for the people.

So if President Trump loses his temper with Iran and tells his General to 'nuke Tehran' the Four Star guy will do just that, produce the codes and the key and 'boom!'---?

[trish]

I believe the oath that a serviceman takes is to uphold the constitution, not their personal conscience, desires or greed. I do believe this is a strength rather than a weakness. Should a President attempt to short-circuit the procedures recommended therein, one would hope the Generals find a way to thwart his/her effort.

However, the US doesn't always adhere to it's own laws, or at least Presidents and Legislators have found subtle ways to interpret it to their own advantage. The Constitutions grants only to Congress the right to declare war. So ever since Korea the US partakes in police actions rather than war. One would think launching a swarm of missiles armed with nuclear warheads would be the ultimate declaration of war, yet this right apparently has been ceded to President who's ever present aide carries with him the nuclear 'football'.

It's a sad world that has produced a sufficient number of nuclear warheads to destroy itself ten times over, and the US has been the leader in the race to nuclear oblivion.

[Stavros]

I believe the oath that a serviceman takes is to uphold the constitution, not their personal conscience, desires or greed. I do believe this is a strength rather than a weakness. Should a President attempt to short-circuit the procedures recommended therein, one would hope the Generals find a way to thwart his/her effort.

However, the US doesn't always adhere to it's own laws, or at least Presidents and Legislators have found subtle ways to interpret it to their own advantage. The Constitutions grants only to Congress the right to declare war. So ever since Korea the US partakes in police actions rather than war. One would think launching a swarm of missiles armed with nuclear warheads would be the ultimate declaration of war, yet this right apparently has been ceded to President who's ever present aide carries with him the nuclear 'football'.

It's a sad world that has produced a sufficient number of nuclear warheads to destroy itself ten times over, and the US has been the leader in the race to nuclear oblivion.

A confused and confusing post, but one that needs clarification on issues of US law on which I cannot make a proper judgement. That said I don't think 'police actions' is the right word to describe the use of force not sanctioned by Congress, given that

According to a 1995 article in the American Journal of International Law (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm), "Presidents and their advisers point to more than two hundred incidents in which Presidents have used force abroad without first obtaining congressional approval."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/all-the-previous-declarations-of-war/279246/

I am still not sure what would happen if, for example, Iran attacked and sank a US military vessel in the Gulf and President Trump decided to 'nuke Tehran' in retaliation, if there is any basis in law or military procedure to stop a General from carrying out the order. As I think I read somewhere recently, there is no formal procedure to short-circuit that Presidential order.

[martin48]

Something to read here - http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

Then after a few 'nukes' there will not be any courts around to pass judgement.

[fred41]

So if President Trump loses his temper with Iran and tells his General to 'nuke Tehran' the Four Star guy will do just that, produce the codes and the key and 'boom!'---?

Not quite that simple, but...

well, a hell of a lot simpler than most of us probably think or have thought. Just Wiki it. Apparently the Secretary of Defense has to verify it...then there are targeting options....but
Look, just Wiki it and then read why Trump is a bad idea to be in charge of this. It's pretty good:
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes

here's a snippet:
"The other reason for concern is his character.
After the Watergate scandal broke, and President Nixon became increasingly embattled politically, he turned to drink as a source of comfort. This freaked out Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, who worried that an erratic, drunk Nixon might order a nuclear launch out of pique (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955). Schlesinger told aides in the Pentagon war room to check with him if Nixon started talking to them about launching nukes.
Thankfully, Nixon didn’t do it. But the worry with Trump is similar: His character is so erratic that he might order a nuclear launch just because he’s mad at someone."



(BTW, the link in the snippet leads to another interesting opinion article)

[zerrrr]

If you read the electoral college numbers Hillary has this election won. Trump is not winning Virginia and his insults towards the Governor of Ohio doomed that battleground state.

Getting to 270 is an impossibility.

[fred41]

If you read the electoral college numbers Hillary has this election won. Trump is not winning Virginia and his insults towards the Governor of Ohio doomed that battleground state.

Getting to 270 is an impossibility.

True or not I think the link article from my previous post makes an excellent read:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955

[Stavros]

Not quite that simple, but...

well, a hell of a lot simpler than most of us probably think or have thought. Just Wiki it. Apparently the Secretary of Defense has to verify it...

Your link in the latter post actually makes it clear -that Schlesinger was concerned at Nixon's reliance on alcohol clouding his judgement did not remove the illegality of questioning the President's decision, had he made it:

As with his predecessors, Trump’s power over the life and death of entire nations would be practically unbounded. Today, the nuclear deluge he could command would consist of thousands of weapons, each 10 or 20 times more deadly than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima...

There are no restraints that can prevent a willful president from unleashing this hell...

If he gave the command, his executing commanders would have no legal or procedural grounds to defy it no matter how inappropriate it might seem. ... It must be obeyed as long as it is constitutional—i.e., the president as commander in chief believes he or she is acting to protect and defend the nation against an actual or imminent attack.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955

I actually think these apocalyptic scenarios though scary beg the question -would the US actually be threatened by a nuclear attack? In reality I doubt it but as the articles linked above suggest, an accidental trigger warning made by human and/or computer error is conceivable and has for years been cited as the most likely scenario for nuclear apocalypse, made worse if there is such a breakdown of trust and or communication between the sides that even a direct call to verify the action by the other side would not be possible.

There is, however, a different and more complicated scenario, and that would involve using 'tactical' or 'battlefield nuclear weapons' of the kind that carry a small payload but can 'take out a target' with ruthless efficiency. On the one hand, the decision to use such weapons would have to come from the Commander-in-Chief and be his (or her) ultimate decision, but on the other hand it would be part of military strategy to deliver a 'conclusive' strike to end an intractable situation, a last ditch action when all other means had failed but some action needed to be taken. Humiliation is one such situation that might play the Trump tune, as he believes in the kind of 'decisive leadership' that he claims Obama does not have which Putin does, and is not the kind of man who would not respond if humiliated.
To be entirely hypothetical, if there were an attack on the USA in the USA on the 9/11 scale organised as well as claimed by Daesh, I can imagine Trump reasoning that only one response is now necessary, to 'nuke' either Mosul or Raqqa, or both, on the military grounds that both cities would be 'taken out' but that the wider nuclear fall-out would not be severe or as severe as it was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Job done. Daesh blown to smithereens.
The main problem with this is that once one state uses tactical nuclear weapons in this way, it would establish a precedent other nuclear states might also use, setting aside any legal challenges -but it is also a situation different from the crisis management of an incoming nuclear strike but adds emotion to a 'reasonable' military choice. And Trump might argue with his Generals that other nuclear states would see this is as 'one-off' and not the 'normalisation' of nuclear deployment on the battlefield.
And happily, this is all speculation..

[fred41]

]
The main problem with this is that once one state uses tactical nuclear weapons in this way, it would establish a precedent other nuclear states might also use, setting aside any legal challenges -but it is also a situation different from the crisis management of an incoming nuclear strike but adds emotion to a 'reasonable' military choice. And Trump might argue with his Generals that other nuclear states would see this is as 'one-off' and not the 'normalisation' of nuclear deployment on the battlefield.
And happily, this is all speculation..

I think people have a tendency to forget that we actually have tactical nuclear weapons (smaller scale strategic nuclear weapons). I wonder if that was what Trump was musing about when he questioned having nuclear weapons and not using them. But again, as you mentioned in the quote - no one really wants to set the precedent....or take the chance of escalating a battle beyond all control.

[Stavros]

I read in the Guardian that

Nearly 15,000 emails recovered by the FBI from the private server used by Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state are set to be made public just before the presidential election in November, it emerged in court on Monday.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/22/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-release-election-day

I am puzzled by this release of emails because I can't think of another example of a senior politician in the USA having their correspondence made public while they are still either in office or running for office -the closest I can think of is the release of Richard Nixon's White House tapes, but that took place after he resigned. What I find even more puzzling is that first of all, if there were any classified documents they will obviously not be in the batch released to the public, and those that are released will turn out to be of little or no interest if the larger cache released earlier this year is anything to go by. Those who have been demanding the release on the assumption the emails will contain sensational correspondence that will 'sink' the Clinton campaign should be locked in a room at 9am and ordered to read them. My guess is that by 10 am they will be banging on the door and screaming to be let out. Boredom does that to the politically ambitious.

[nitron]

Originally he was "with Hillary" and the plan was to sabotage the Party. Soften the opposition for her.That was the Plan. Now.;...
HE"S GONE ROGUE!!!
That CRAZY BASTARD!

[Stavros]

The breaking news all over tv and the front pages for the last few hours has focused on the FBI opening a new investigation into the private email server Hillary Clinton used when she was Secretary of State. But it appears to be focused on email exchanges between Mrs Clinton's adviser Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner, with no evidence any email from or to Mrs Clinton is 'in the frame'. I have no idea what this is about, other than what we have been told and the speculation is that it might hurt Mrs Clinton one percentage point as most voters, it is assumed, have either already voted or made up their mind.

In a typical roar of whimsy, Trump said 'This is bigger than Watergate' several times, as if even he couldn't quite believe it. One wonders if Trump has any real idea what happened between the break-in at the Watergate building in 1972 and the resignation of President Nixon two years later. Or maybe if he wins the vote, his Secretary of State will be more important than the President?

[flabbybody]

No one knows what to make of the re-opening of the FBI probe, if that's even the proper characterization. The issue is Huma's laptop which she used to communicate with her deranged husband. Tony is likely to be arrested sometime soon for sexting an underage girl as his 4-year old son layed beside him in bed.
But back to the laptop...The device might contain classified State Dept emails who's origins are part of the infamous Hillary private server loop.

So we got a real life pervert with pictures of his junk on the same computer as government secrets. Ian Fleming couldn't have written anything better.
But Trump is wrong about this being bigger than Watergate. Doubtful it's a game changer. Just a plot to a great movie

[holzz]

shifty bitch. quintessential politician, appears nice but like a fucking harpie or a scorpion.

[trish]

The scorpion is Jame Comey. The shifty, whining bitch is Donald Trump. But, yeah Hillary will rain down on America's enemies like a fuckin' harpie. I'm definitely with her.

[buttslinger]

shifty bitch. quintessential politician, appears nice but like a fucking harpie or a scorpion.

MY BITCH HILLARY!!!
Oh Yeah!!
Hey, holzz, what is transsexual, .... 12 years old, ....and will live to over a hundred??
Hillary's next five Supreme Court Justices!!
ha ha ha!!
I don't blame the republicans for being scared shitless of Hillary, Hillary is TOMMORROW,
the GOP is yesterday.
Redneck is the new nigger.

[ed_jaxon]

You guys are totally missing the point.

Huma Abedin is fine as hell and her husband is a freak of the highest magnitude.

Dude has to have some butt assed nekkid pics of her on his computer.

I am calling for a thorough examination of that laptop!

Just don't examine mine.

[zerrrr]

The scorpion is Jame Comey. The shifty, whining bitch is Donald Trump. But, yeah Hillary will rain down on America's enemies like a fuckin' harpie. I'm definitely with her.

Just don't be surprised if what happens is not what you expect.

[buttslinger]

To be serious for one brief moment, behind all the weirdness you actually assimilate there are cans and cans of worms you can't even imagine.
If Comey hauls Hillary off to jail AFTER the election, and he's got the goods, so be it.
Tim Kaine would in my opinion be unable to become President on his own,
but I think if you put him in the chair and gave him the power,
he'd surprise everyone.

[zerrrr]

The media is making a bigger deal out of this than it really is in real life. Weiner is the target of a child porn sting and in the course of the investigation they found something on communal equipment which means that the FBI has to reopen the investigation in order to properly do their jobs.

If a transgender woman was murdered and the case deemed closed and new information came to light the investigation would be reopened because of the new information. That is how the system is supposed to work.

Since Clinton has locked up the election the media needs a story to get through the final week so they create this bombshell investigation to make it look like the election is tightening so people actually go out to the polls.

Will this change anyone's mind? No. The public is sick and tired of the crap the media has thrown out regarding the election. Everyone is suffering from election fatigue.

[trish]

Since Clinton has locked up the election the media needs a story to get through the final week so they create this bombshell investigation to make it look like the election is tightening so people actually go out to the polls.
That one was tinfoil-worthy. :screwy

[broncofan]

A couple of things. I cannot think of the mechanics by which many different media companies could control the fbi director. Or that outside of partisanship, they care what voter turnout is and their stories are geared towards ensuring maximum voter turnout. How does that profit them? Actually, who cares what their motives are...let's say you have them all figured out, in what manner could they accomplish what you said they did?

Second thing is, the question is not whether the fbi should investigate (they already are investigating Weiner) but whether the director was allowed to make a statement about a very preliminary stage of an investigation (when people do not have enough information to evaluate culpability) under the Hatch act.

[buttslinger]

I would say the elephant in the room is that the core republican voter is a wounded animal right now, and has been for over eight years.
Beneath all the crazy cheering at Trump Rallies, you can almost feel the crazy fear and uncertainty.
They are in total fight/flight hysteria.
For them this isn't the future of the USA, it's about the future of their own FAMILY.
While most of the readers here see a tranny orgy as a GOOD thing, Republican Mothers only know those big city bright lights done blinded and stole their little boy.

This is why in this last week you're seeing Clinton ads using Trump's own words against women. Gotta get Trump tweeting about wimmen agin!
Trump is wrong on everything. Policywize. It's a goddam shame that still means nothing to Republicans.

[zerrrr]

A couple of things. I cannot think of the mechanics by which many different media companies could control the fbi director. Or that outside of partisanship, they care what voter turnout is and their stories are geared towards ensuring maximum voter turnout. How does that profit them? Actually, who cares what their motives are...let's say you have them all figured out, in what manner could they accomplish what you said they did?

Pretty easy. You already know of Thiel's shitposting PAC but did you know Hillary has one as well?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html

When Sanders supporters called for recounts the Internet screamed that the election was being stolen. Trump does it and everyone calls him crazy.

When polls come out showing Hillary with leads of 8+ points the pro-Trump polls and anti-Hillary stories start just like the past week.

The media learned after the 2000 election that elections can be very profitable. I remember during the primaries when Cruz was positioned as an establishment candidate when in reality he is a Tea Party guy. So the media plays the line of 'Cruz meets with Republican establishment leaders in Washington. Let's now go to a Trump rally where 10,000 people are waiting for him to speak.'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/17/american-dream-divided-nation-equal-opportunity-trump-clinton-campaign

Speaking at a Morgan Stanley investors’ conference in March, one of the commanders of the FIC, Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS and a man whose 2015 compensation totaled $56.8m, had this to say about the Trump campaign. “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. The money’s rolling in and this is fun … this [is] going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

[broncofan]

Pretty easy! And all that was proof that the media forced the FBI director to say he was reopening the email investigation? This is why I asked what evidence you had that Comey was acting at the behest of any news organization.

People profit from situations all the time without causing them....this seems to be a theme in conspiracy thinking. Adherents think if someone profits from a situation, he must have brought it about. Sometimes it's true sometimes it's not. For instance, when a plane goes missing, CNN's ratings might go up. Would you seriously consider this evidence that CNN disappeared the plane?

I won't even get into the claim that Trump was merely asking for a recount of closely contested jurisdictions....he was accusing the system of being rigged before a single ballot had been cast.

[buttslinger]

I just heard on CNN that there is a leaked FBI report that white males named Donald Trump have been being murdered since last Friday.
They're not sure whether to warn the public, or to substantiate stories of a suspicious looking cyborg leaving the scene,...or just not comment on the whole thing.

[zerrrr]

The FBI director is just doing his job. He has a job to do regardless of the political calendar. The media will spin it multiple ways.

When Hillary wins she is going to have a hard time uniting the country and repairing our destroyed foreign policy.

For all of the crying over China building military bases in the Pacific our friends are now moving closer to China due to the rhetoric displayed in this election. Malaysia has joined the Philippines in moving closer to China. That effectively shuts our door in SE Asia.

[Stavros]

The FBI director is just doing his job. He has a job to do regardless of the political calendar. The media will spin it multiple ways.

When Hillary wins she is going to have a hard time uniting the country and repairing our destroyed foreign policy.
For all of the crying over China building military bases in the Pacific our friends are now moving closer to China due to the rhetoric displayed in this election. Malaysia has joined the Philippines in moving closer to China. That effectively shuts our door in SE Asia.

The FBI director is just doing his job. He has a job to do regardless of the political calendar. The media will spin it multiple ways.
--The view of Harry Reid that the FBI has violated the Hatch Act calls this into question.

--I think the US has been divided for a very long time, how one describes the divisions is not easy as they are regional, ethnic, religious, etc -aspects of the US embedded since the first settlers arrived. I think the most serious cleavage might relate to differing views on how much power the Federal government has and should have, because this also relates to 'states rights' and the claim that 'Washington DC' is out of touch with ordinary citizens, a claim that was made by Nixon when he was running for the White House in 1968.

As for foreign policy, is it destroyed?
A major loss of confidence took place as a consequence of regime change in Iraq, most notably within the USA itself. The fact that the US and the UK bombed the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 was lauded at the time, yet the Taliban continue to be a major player in Afghan and Pakistan politics, and the Middle East has not benefited from the assumption made by the Bush Presidency that regime change in Iraq would become part of a trend toward democratisation in the region. But if the policy was flawed from the start, and I think it was, it was inevitable that good intentions would lead to bad results, and people as well as Presidencies don't like bad results.
The so-called resolution to the conflict in Iraq endorsed a Shi'a dominated government led by Nouri al-Maliki that reneged on a key element of the agreement with the Bush Presidency and deliberately shut out Sunni Arabs from government and the army. It happened because the US was desperate to find a way out of Iraq, yet Trump blames Obama and Mrs Clinton for the resulting mess. This is an example of how a Republican strategy failed on the battlefield and in diplomacy, yet the Democrats have shown a different way of dealing with foreign policy issues.

Consider the differences-even with the bombing of Serbia the Clinton Presidency was able to bring the parties to the Yugoslav conflict to Ohio -including the Serbs- to negotiate a peace that ended that war, and Milosovic was later sent for trial to The Hague. The Clinton Presidency through the work of George Mitchell was instrumental in bringing together the conflicting parties in Northern Ireland to conclude the Good Friday Peace Agreement, and Clinton came in at a later stage to bring Israel and the PLO to sign a peace treaty in 1993.

The evidence suggests that the US can use military force, but that when supported with equally aggressive diplomacy it can secure a result that lasts; or that diplomacy used to its full advantage can produce results without military engagement.

Although Mrs Clinton is portrayed as being more prone to military action than Barack Obama, the Obama Presidency in effect, heard what the US public was saying and that it did not want to see its service personnel sacrificed overseas in unwinnable wars. And while Trump might describe the negotiations with Iran as 'the worst deal in history' or whatever meaningless words he used, how else is Iran to be brought back into the world of diplomacy when all the military analysts have said a military conflict would not be desirable or achieve its objectives? And was the agreement with Iran so bad? Only Trump and some extremists think so, but they have had Iran on their target list for their own reasons for a long time.

As for the Philippines and Malaysia, they are looking at how they can extract the best deal from China and so far it is all about money, such as the agreement between China and the Philippines to allow more fishermen into Scarborough Shoal. The longer term questions for all in the region are -Can the Chinese be trusted not to expand their military presence in the Pacific but with what ambitions? And, related to that, can the Chinese be trusted partners over the long term, compared to the US?

As for the US, it retains a strong military presence with security guarantees in both Japan and South Korea and the Philippines needs to ask if the US really needs it, rather than the other way round.

[hippifried]

Dollars to donuts says all this hoopla is just some Weiner weiner pics sent to Huma at work.

[zerrrr]

The FBI director is just doing his job. He has a job to do regardless of the political calendar. The media will spin it multiple ways.
--The view of Harry Reid that the FBI has violated the Hatch Act calls this into question.

--I think the US has been divided for a very long time, how one describes the divisions is not easy as they are regional, ethnic, religious, etc -aspects of the US embedded since the first settlers arrived. I think the most serious cleavage might relate to differing views on how much power the Federal government has and should have, because this also relates to 'states rights' and the claim that 'Washington DC' is out of touch with ordinary citizens, a claim that was made by Nixon when he was running for the White House in 1968.

As for foreign policy, is it destroyed?
A major loss of confidence took place as a consequence of regime change in Iraq, most notably within the USA itself. The fact that the US and the UK bombed the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 was lauded at the time, yet the Taliban continue to be a major player in Afghan and Pakistan politics, and the Middle East has not benefited from the assumption made by the Bush Presidency that regime change in Iraq would become part of a trend toward democratisation in the region. But if the policy was flawed from the start, and I think it was, it was inevitable that good intentions would lead to bad results, and people as well as Presidencies don't like bad results.
The so-called resolution to the conflict in Iraq endorsed a Shi'a dominated government led by Nouri al-Maliki that reneged on a key element of the agreement with the Bush Presidency and deliberately shut out Sunni Arabs from government and the army. It happened because the US was desperate to find a way out of Iraq, yet Trump blames Obama and Mrs Clinton for the resulting mess. This is an example of how a Republican strategy failed on the battlefield and in diplomacy, yet the Democrats have shown a different way of dealing with foreign policy issues.

Consider the differences-even with the bombing of Serbia the Clinton Presidency was able to bring the parties to the Yugoslav conflict to Ohio -including the Serbs- to negotiate a peace that ended that war, and Milosovic was later sent for trial to The Hague. The Clinton Presidency through the work of George Mitchell was instrumental in bringing together the conflicting parties in Northern Ireland to conclude the Good Friday Peace Agreement, and Clinton came in at a later stage to bring Israel and the PLO to sign a peace treaty in 1993.

The evidence suggests that the US can use military force, but that when supported with equally aggressive diplomacy it can secure a result that lasts; or that diplomacy used to its full advantage can produce results without military engagement.

Although Mrs Clinton is portrayed as being more prone to military action than Barack Obama, the Obama Presidency in effect, heard what the US public was saying and that it did not want to see its service personnel sacrificed overseas in unwinnable wars. And while Trump might describe the negotiations with Iran as 'the worst deal in history' or whatever meaningless words he used, how else is Iran to be brought back into the world of diplomacy when all the military analysts have said a military conflict would not be desirable or achieve its objectives? And was the agreement with Iran so bad? Only Trump and some extremists think so, but they have had Iran on their target list for their own reasons for a long time.

As for the Philippines and Malaysia, they are looking at how they can extract the best deal from China and so far it is all about money, such as the agreement between China and the Philippines to allow more fishermen into Scarborough Shoal. The longer term questions for all in the region are -Can the Chinese be trusted not to expand their military presence in the Pacific but with what ambitions? And, related to that, can the Chinese be trusted partners over the long term, compared to the US?

As for the US, it retains a strong military presence with security guarantees in both Japan and South Korea and the Philippines needs to ask if the US really needs it, rather than the other way round.

Quoting Harry Reid is like quoting a con man. One of the most corrupt and disliked Democrats in the Senate by his own party.

In terms of Iraq, a complete failure. The government is laughably weak and long-term our military is looking to move closer to Iran than Saudi Arabia since the young Saudi's are more radical in nature. Your quoting Bush but ignoring Obama's eight years of failure in the region.

Remember the change in governments across North Africa that was supposed to bring in a wave of democracy and peace? How has that worked? It hasn't except to create more chaos. Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Libya are still in conflict.

The diplomacy of the last eight years has not worked. Neither has the diplomacy of Bush when he went into Iraq.

In terms of Asia, they are moving closer to China because they look at the election rhetoric with disdain and realize their future is with the Chinese who are not talking about war and starting conflicts around the world.

Can you trust the US? Asia does not think so. Americans think they can but that is an American line of thinking being pressed onto Asia rather than looking at it from an Asian point of view. They see the Americans as warlike wanting conflicts around the world. That is the problem with America; we think in terms of ourselves and how others should see us rather than emphasizing with the other countries.

If you think just electing Hillary is going to solve our foreign policy problems you are mistaken. There is a lot of work to be done to repair damage caused by more than a decade of failure.

[broncofan]

Neither has the diplomacy of Bush when he went into Iraq.

Please tell me you don't think Bush going into Iraq was diplomacy by any definition.

[zerrrr]

Please tell me you don't think Bush going into Iraq was diplomacy by any definition.

The Republicans thought it was at the time. Every step since then has just dipped us further into the quagmire of Middle Eastern politics that includes the last eight years.

[broncofan]

The Republicans thought it was at the time. Every step since then has just dipped us further into the quagmire of Middle Eastern politics that includes the last eight years.
It's tough to make the right decision even when you don't do anything deliberately stupid. The decision to invade Iraq cost hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. The decision to withdraw troops? It was not all that clear at the time what the net cost would be and it's not that clear what the cost would have been had we retained troop numbers.

The reason I nitpicked your terminology is that I don't think the actions of Bush and Obama were equivalent in any sense and the distinction in terminology makes that point (there's a different word for starting a war and negotiating terms of withdrawal). Obama has tried to engage in diplomacy and tried to draw down our troop commitment. You cannot hold someone to account for failing to clean up a disaster as effectively as it was created.

[zerrrr]

My problem with Obama's approach was the Arab Spring which ended up being a complete disaster. The focus should have been just stabilizing the region, not overthrowing governments.

Then to top it off he gives speeches and put out information leading us to believe the Al Qaeda was nothing more than some low level mob operation from the documents seized at his home when it was clearly not the case. If so, we would not be hearing about them today.

My problem with our foreign policy is that we think solely in terms of how everyone should live through a US lens when it is clearly not the case. You have to look at how people live by putting yourself in their shoes.

[Stavros]

Quoting Harry Reid is like quoting a con man. One of the most corrupt and disliked Democrats in the Senate by his own party.
In terms of Iraq, a complete failure. The government is laughably weak and long-term our military is looking to move closer to Iran than Saudi Arabia since the young Saudi's are more radical in nature. Your quoting Bush but ignoring Obama's eight years of failure in the region.
Remember the change in governments across North Africa that was supposed to bring in a wave of democracy and peace? How has that worked? It hasn't except to create more chaos. Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Libya are still in conflict.
The diplomacy of the last eight years has not worked. Neither has the diplomacy of Bush when he went into Iraq.
In terms of Asia, they are moving closer to China because they look at the election rhetoric with disdain and realize their future is with the Chinese who are not talking about war and starting conflicts around the world.
Can you trust the US? Asia does not think so. Americans think they can but that is an American line of thinking being pressed onto Asia rather than looking at it from an Asian point of view. They see the Americans as warlike wanting conflicts around the world. That is the problem with America; we think in terms of ourselves and how others should see us rather than emphasizing with the other countries.
If you think just electing Hillary is going to solve our foreign policy problems you are mistaken. There is a lot of work to be done to repair damage caused by more than a decade of failure.

Please accept these congenial thoughts in reply to your post.

a) I honestly don't know much about Harry Reid so I can't judge him, but he does hold a senior position in Congress.

b) I don't know if Hillary Clinton as President can solve foreign policy problems, but I do think she can put together a better foreign policy team than Donald Trump.

c) I think it is unfair to judge Obama's record in the Middle East as a failure, if only because you only need ask 'What does success look like?' to appreciate the extent to which the problems in the Middle East are local and regional and that if anything, the Obama Presidency has tried to step back from problems which it could not control anyway, it is called damage limitation.

But rather than go into the details which would take in the politics of every Presidency since Eisenhower, and the long-established (since the 1930s) commercial links (through the petroleum industry) the broad brush approach would ask why if it is the case, has the US appeared to lose influence in a region where it was once trusted as a partner and an honest broker?

Consider the importance of the Peace Treaty that President Carter brokered between Egypt and Israel in 1979, and the Peace Treaty between Israel and the PLO that President Clinton brought to a conclusion on the same spot on the White House lawn in 1993. On both occasions two warring parties agreed to stop fighting, and on both occasions the USA was victorious where the Russians were defeated. The 1979 treaty was possible because Egypt broke its relations with the USSR, fed up with its measly financial contributions and second-rate military hard-ware -President Asad thus swapped the USSR for the USA and opted for peace instead of war. In 1993 the PLO signed a peace treaty having lost the financial support of the USSR and at a time when the new Russia was led by a man, Boris Yeltsin, who was ignorant and indifferent to Middle Eastern issues.
Vladimir Putin was an observer of Yeltsin's failures and I do not doubt for one moment that defeating a Clinton would make his day, however he thinks that can be achieved; but replacing the USA as the region's most trusted partner would be a dream come true. Don't be fooled by Syria, Turkey and Iran -Vladimir, dream on.

Compare the successes of Carter and Clinton with the abject failures of Ronald Reagan in Lebanon,and George HW. Bush and his son George W. Bush in Iraq- not once but twice-, and you can observe an erosion of confidence in parts of the region in both the commitment of the USA and its motives. Moving troops into a country to defend its government or providing materiel and intelligence in support of a friendly government was standard practice for years, deliberate regime change by military means was a different order of magnitude. Doing so to long-established dictatorships which offer no smooth transition to peaceful let alone democratic government appears to have been risky to the point of insanity and the Obama Presidency has had to deal with this legacy, and before you leap in and shout 'Libya!' bear in mind that the greatest military support for the rebels in Benghazi that led to Qadhafi's demise was led by France and the UK.

The conclusion is that if the last ten years has seen an erosion of US influence in the region, the blame must lie with Republicans in general, and the Bush Presidency in particular. The Arab Spring which ignited hope before being smothered by state violence was never going to be a victory for anyone, but if the USA was going to take sides, why not with the people against the dictators? And yes, in some cases, such as Egypt, the US got it wrong, but that would require a different discussion than we have time for here.

After all, what has Russia achieved? It has become involved in an expensive civil war in Syria that has no end in sight, and whose conduct has reflected badly on its reputation. It has a flakey relationship with Turkey that can be co-operative on one day and become aggressive on another. It has failed to establish good relations with most of the region in part because of its actions in Syria, and those relations it has may not last. The USA might have lost something in the Middle East, but what, in reality, has Russia won? Not a lot.

A President Clinton, if it happens, faces an uphill struggle in the Middle East, and a more fractious, unstable and violent region than I can recall in my own lifetime. But with a good team and a patient and thoughtful policy agenda, I think she can re-build trust in the region, and be there when the time comes for wars to end and for treaties to be made. History is on the side of the Democrats on this, harsh as the region looks right now. Because I also think the Arabs want peace, they are also sick and tired of war and corruption and dictatorship. It can't last forever.

[buttslinger]

Look, what Comey did was put Hillary's face front and center, so what we've got now is what you would have if the Republicans had Jeb Bush running. It's ALWAYS going to be about Hillary. You will never see a Democratic President that will beat Republicans up as much as Hillary will.
Republicans didn't pick the wrong bitch to fuck with, we picked her.

Obama won the Iraq War: two dollar gas.
Thanks, Obama.
Obama is from Chicago,...... the children there are tougher than ISIS.
(I wish I was kidding)

I want to see what happens to Fox News, Megan Kelly is adding a chapter to her book about Ailes sexually cornering her. They're making that little pantywaste Tucker Carlson their 7PM man replacing that clutch cargo puppet Greta van Sustreren.

The Republicans have had their own TV Network where Republicans could tell any lie they want, with no counter response from Democrats, unless you count those fake dems on their payroll. That's illegal.
If it isn't
Hillary's new Supreme Court Justices will make sure it's illegal again.
And get dirty money out of politics,
And a couple hundred other things Scalia did.
On a level playing field, the GOP is doomed as it is now.
I don't hate the rednecks, I hate the Cruz$$ez.
Brylcream and bullshit.
Crooked Hillary might face Cruz in four years.
Oh, my God.

[blackchubby38]

You know Trump can still win this thing right?

[buttslinger]

You know Trump can still win this thing right?

Those sound like WAGERING words, sir............

[Stavros]

You know Trump can still win this thing right?

Honestly, no. I think he would need a swing in voting that even he cannot manage, or a successful campaign of voter suppression in North Carolina and Florida as was claimed in a story in Bloomberg News this week quoting an 'unnamed Trump official' thus:
We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” aimed at idealistic white liberals, young women and African Americans."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/donald-trump-voter-suppression-campaign-north-carolina-florida

-Plus another claim the Russians will be stepping up their cyber-attacks with possible new leaks from their Wikileaks partners.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-house-readies-fight-election-day-cyber-mayhem-n677636

-Who made that claim about rigged elections?

[hippifried]

I want to see what happens to Fox News, Megan Kelly is adding a chapter to her book about Ailes sexually cornering her. They're making that little pantywaste Tucker Carlson their 7PM man replacing that clutch cargo puppet Greta van Sustreren.

The Republicans have had their own TV Network where Republicans could tell any lie they want, with no counter response from Democrats, unless you count those fake dems on their payroll. That's illegal.
If it isn't
Hillary's new Supreme Court Justices will make sure it's illegal again.
And get dirty money out of politics,
And a couple hundred other things Scalia did.
On a level playing field, the GOP is doomed as it is now.
I don't hate the rednecks, I hate the Cruz$$ez.
Brylcream and bullshit.
Crooked Hillary might face Cruz in four years.
Oh, my God.

You're talking about the fairness doctrine. Sorry, but the Supremes have nothing to do with it. It was never a law. It was an administrative rule in the FCC regulations, & was changed to a voluntary status during the Reagan years. Commission members are presidential appointees. They set the licensing regs for broadcasting on the public airwaves. As much as I'd love to blame Scalia for all that's wrong in the world, I think he was an HW Bush appointee. Not guilty on this one. Too bad. We could string him up posthumously.

Oh yeah... Ted Cruz was born a Canadian. He's a naturalized citizen. Natural born and naturalized aren't the same thing, and it doesn't matter who his mother is. That's why all the same clowns who just love him now were trying so hard to convince everyone that President Obama was born in Kenya. That would disqualify him from being President. Now the same assholes would like you to think that Republicans are immune from the same Constitutional prerequisites. Both George Romney (1964) & Cruz (2016) dropped out of the race before the SCOTUS could rule on it. Kind of sad that Ted Cruz was the Republican's last chance to keep from being Trumped. Oh well... That's what you get for let the crazy run amok because you're too chickenshit to take on the tea-baggers in the primaries.

Oh & 1 more thing: No use blaming God. God's an asshole when it comes to politics. Instead of saying "Oh, my God!", just say "Holy Shit!".

[hippifried]

You know Trump can still win this thing right?

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the NYPost/ABC poll that showed a 1% spread. Even the Wall Street Journal rolls their eyes at that one. Seems that turned out to be a question about "enthusiasm". The NYT reported 6% of likely voters with no visible dip over the email bullshit. She'll probably take Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado. Arizona's 11 votes are up for grabs & starting to tip toward blue. Regardless of how red it's painted on the map, Texas is in play. It's shaping up to be a landslide folks. I think the media, who hype the "horse race" nonsense, underestimate just how turned off the American people are by this blustering jerk. He garners no respect. Like a traveling snake oil salesman. He got the nomination because the rest of the pack were such losers. He was just the last bozo out of the clown car. There's no there there. He has conservative Republicans trying to decide whether to write in somebody else, vote Libertarian, or just stay home.

I still have a bit of tingling from the knot in my stomach every election, but my sense of dread is way down this time around. Whether I've liked the outcome or not, I've won every Presidential election bet since I started in 1972. Hope my instincts hold up.

[trish]

Everytime I check FiveThirtyEight Nate Silver has Hillary's probability of winning going down. On November second it was 70%, yesterday it was 66%. I sleep with my teeth clenched. I can't stand this election. If Trump takes the White House, I'm having a lobotomy.

[broncofan]

Everytime I check FiveThirtyEight Nate Silver has Hillary's probability of winning going down. On November second it was 70%, yesterday it was 66%. I sleep with my teeth clenched. I can't stand this election. If Trump takes the White House, I'm having a lobotomy.I read an interesting article that talked about the assumptions Silver uses that has resulted in his meta-polling data being the most pro-Trump. I found it...but it made me feel a little better after reading it because I've also relied a lot on his site. Maybe you won't grind your teeth when you sleep tonight:)

http://www.vox.com/2016/11/3/13147678/nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast

[blackchubby38]

Those sound like WAGERING words, sir............

No wagering words. I'm just saying that people who are going to vote against Trump maybe in for disappointment when they wake up on November 9th.

[buttslinger]

No wagering words. I'm just saying that people who are going to vote against Trump maybe in for disappointment when they wake up on November 9th.

You're absolutely right, CNN has Hillary under 270.
Nothing is more important than getting out to vote.

[zerrrr]

You're absolutely right, CNN has Hillary under 270.
Nothing is more important than getting out to vote.


Everytime I check FiveThirtyEight Nate Silver has Hillary's probability of winning going down. On November second it was 70%, yesterday it was 66%. I sleep with my teeth clenched. I can't stand this election. If Trump takes the White House, I'm having a lobotomy.

Don't worry. She has the election in the bag. This is just media scare tactics to get out the vote on both sides. Every network is tugging at your strings and pushing your buttons. Don't play into the fear.

[buttslinger]

This is just media scare tactics to get out the vote on both sides.

Putting Giuliani in a cell next to Chris Christie won't ease my fears if that fucking clown is in the White House.
There are two parallel Universes here:
the college educated
and the 8th graders.
And the 8th graders have chosen a 6th grader to lead them.
They understand him.

[blackchubby38]

You're absolutely right, CNN has Hillary under 270.
Nothing is more important than getting out to vote.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Less than a week ago, CNN had her at 270 and Trump at 179. Two things have happened over the past two weeks to galvanize Republicans. The announcements about premiums going up for people with Obamacare and Comey's one about the new emails. The two issues that Republicans have been foaming at the mouth about for the past 4 years and they feel their anger has finally been justified.

You combine that with Independent voters who are probably being being turned off by Comey's announcement and the Wikileaks emails and you can see why this election is going to be a lot closer than all the experts think its going to be.

Compare that to Democrats who I think got a little a head of themselves thinking that this election was going to be cakewalk. What have they had to get excited about. That Access Hollywood audio was a long time ago going by election standards.

Millennials don't give a damn about the Clintons or what they accomplished because they don't care about anything that happened before they were born and/or when they were young. They're still pissed that Bernie Sanders didn't the get the nomination.

Meanwhile some black voters feel if its not the Black Lives Matter movement, they can't be bothered. They feel not enough is being said to address their concerns, so they have been lukewarm to Hillary. I just hope they realize that if Trump does indeed win, they can probably expect even less being said.

Hillary and rest of the Democrats have 4 days to get their voters and undecided ones excited about voting for her on Tuesday. The message just can't be vote for her because she is a woman and Trump's behavior towards women.

[buttslinger]

..... The message just can't be vote for her because she is a woman and Trump's behavior towards women.

The one and only message I read is that if Trump wins, the Republicans will control EVERYTHING, and they won't have to run their games in front of the public, everything is going to be done behind closed doors.
Catapulting 11 million Mexicans back to Mexico, and building a Wall that the Martians can see, that is a fucking joke, Trump is bullshitting his own flock. (unless he's a racist, then he's SMART)
The Republicans would lock Trump in the Oval Office if he won. I'm not worried about that infantile prick, I'm worried about that same cast of Republican Characters that destroyed the economy of the entire world 8 years ago....
for what they considered a more important mission- UNLIMITED RICHES and POWER.

[buttslinger]

I haven't heard one word on what Giuliani, ......I mean, Comey's announcement last Friday has had on the Senate race.

[trish]

This just in -> http://nyti.ms/2esCdEd

[buttslinger]

This just in -> http://nyti.ms/2esCdEd

Trump has to see headlines the day before election day saying basically
"Republicans Wrong, Democrats Right"

Gee, I hope that doesn't influence voters....:whistle:

[Vladimir Putin]

I wasn't crazy about her in 2008, but thought she was the lesser of two evils over Trump in 2016.

[trish]

This exceptional, talented, caring, generous and most qualified woman got a raw deal from the she left law school. Instead of making zillions of dollars by joining a major law firm, she chose a life of public service. Her first accomplishment was a project (for the Children's Defense Fund) getting two million unfortunate children into public schools who had handicaps that (previous to her intervention) made school attendance impossible. Being a politically accomplished woman in the seventies made her unpopular to conservatives who still thought a woman's place was in the home tending babies and fixing her husband's meals. Her work on trying to get all of us universal health care drew the fire anti-government conservatives who spent the government's money on one investigation after another, after another, after another. Nothing ever stuck. She was never guilty of anything other than being a successful woman who was also liberal. But in politics, it doesn't matter whether you're innocent or guilty - only the volume of lies they tell about you.

[Stavros]

I wasn't crazy about her in 2008, but thought she was the lesser of two evils over Trump in 2016.

Could you be more precise and tell us in what way are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton evil?

[Vladimir Putin]

I didn't express myself well. I didn't mean to imply Hillary was evil. Just that I was disturbed over why she used a separate E-mail server while she was Secretary of State. I also was not fond of her support of past free trade deals that led to outsourcing of jobs.

She was clearly more qualified than Trump. I am very concerned that our country is going to be led by someone with psychological issues. We would not have any of that had she won.

[BostonBad]

Hillary wants to up our taxes even more. I know it sounds cool voting for her but who wants to keep getting poked in the ass each paycheck? Enough is enough.

[trish]

Hillary wants to up our taxes even more. I know it sounds cool voting for her but who wants to keep getting poked in the ass each paycheck? Enough is enough.It depends on who you mean by "our". I'd love to get poked in the ass, 'cause that would mean I'd be a billionaire and raking in millions of dollars worth of profits and dividends. Right now, it's my employers who poke me in the ass. Sometimes enough isn't enough to make ends meet - so to speak.

[Stavros]

I didn't express myself well. I didn't mean to imply Hillary was evil. Just that I was disturbed over why she used a separate E-mail server while she was Secretary of State. I also was not fond of her support of past free trade deals that led to outsourcing of jobs.

She was clearly more qualified than Trump. I am very concerned that our country is going to be led by someone with psychological issues. We would not have any of that had she won.

Nothing personal, I was just expressing my irritation with the way in which people often used standard words and phrases without giving them much thought. It is easily done and I have done it myself, though I suspect most people today would struggle to define the word 'evil' which is religious in origin.
Or it could be that a word like 'bad' is no longer thought to have the weight of meaning that it actually conveys, as people search for more powerful words to describe people and situations they don't like. It would have been possible to describe Trump and Clinton as two disappointing candidates, or unappealing, or regrettable, even bad. But the need for spectacular words to fit the febrile mood of the times may reflect a view that standard words and phrases are now no longer enough, but does imply the reach of an ever-increasing vocabulary to accommodate rage and frustration.

[trish]

Given that 'evil' in this context is not to be taken literally, phrases like "the lesser of two evils" when applied to presidential candidates (which has been done so often it's more of a cliche than a meaningful claim) focus on the character of the candidates rather than their actions or policies.

Neither Hillary nor the policies she supports are evil, bad or anything of the sort. I would say I support most of her proposals and I have nothing but admiration for her personally. Yes, she's has made a few mistakes: she chose (like Colin Powell) to use a secure private server for her emails. BTW, the State Department's email server was hacked, hers never was; nevertheless the use of a private server was a political mistake that contributed significantly to putting Trump in the White House.

On the other hand I do think the secularized version of the word 'evil' does aptly apply to Trump, his character, his actions and his proposed goals for the nation. As to character he is a shallow, ignorant, narcissistic, bigoted, misogynistic, manipulative liar. As to his actions, he's groped women, broke contracts, refused to pay his contractors for services rendered, invented schemes to rip off old people's pensions and working families of their savings (and called it Trump University), he ran (runs) a charity that does little or no charitable work (unless you consider he and family charity cases). As to his goals for the nation, he wants to deport more immigrants than are here illegally, build a wall between us and Mexico and threaten them with crippling tariffs unless they pay for it, he wants a moratorium against all Muslims, he already put a leading white supremacist in the White House and he wants to make deals that will increase his empire of hotels and golf-courses ...oops...I mean he wants to make America Great Again.

This was not a choice between two evils. It was quite clearly a choice between good and bad. America was not thinking clearly, mesmerized by a cloud of obfuscation and buffoonery.

[Stavros]

On the other hand I do think the secularized version of the word 'evil' does aptly apply to Trump, his character, his actions and his proposed goals for the nation.

There is an irony here -on the one hand you refer to the 'secularized version of the word evil' which thereby strips it of its religious meaning as taking the side of the Devil against Almighty God, so that all of the values associated with God are reversed by association with the Devil; on the other hand so many Americans claim to both believe in God and to be Christian that the word Evil may retain its meaning for them, and may even reflect the way they viewed either candidate in the campaign. The problem is we cannot be sure, as the need to find the most loaded words to describe someone people do not like runs the risk of distorting their meaning and purpose, it may not be truth that no longer has meaning, but words, and that is just as dangerous a trend.

So I don't dispute the reasons you dislike Donald Trump, and understand why you defend Hillary Clinton -but I would hope the judgement of a politician is not just moral, or religious, but political. For that to work, one should query the character of the person seeking the Presidency and analze their policy proposals, rather than overload the debate with words which aim to express extreme forms of discontent yet constitute the very extremism unleashed in the language used in the campaign which people are now complaining about. Once it becomes normal to refer to opponents as liars and criminals it doesn't leave much room for reasoned debate about them.

As the Presidential campaign in the USA and EU referendum debate in the UK revealed, we are in danger of normalizing a narrative in politics that had previously been considered unacceptable because it was, and remains associated with people who do not support democracy or free speech, and who deliberately target people because of their religion, their ethnic origin and their sexual orientation as existential threats to 'the nation' or the integrity of the state in which they live. This creates a quite different set of propositions from the practice of good governance, and transforms -or seeks to transform- the public realm into a 'life and death struggle' in which the assumption is that government must act against these threats, or the future of the state is in peril. The reality is that day to politics must deal with less dramatic issues, and though they have short and long term consequences, policies ought not to be framed by the kind of prejudice which was exposed in the campaigns -in the USA and the UK- because democracy may be more fragile than we have assumed in a world where it remains the minority form of government.

And that is why words matter, because just as they can be used to offer a calm, sober and reasonable political programme on which to judge government they can also hurt, and not so much reflect divisions in society, as create them. And the greater those divisions become, the harder it becomes to govern. The assumption is that Trump will revert in office to becoming the standard pragmatist that the office tends to create -consider Reagan's second term- and that the UK will find an accommodation with the EU that is good for the country but does not satisfy the hardline 'Brexiteers'. The alternative is life in a political wilderness where nothing gets done and the people get mad, and I don't think any of us want that.

[trish]

Words do matter. With that I agree. But unfortunately for anyone who wishes to speak to future readers or even readers in another demographic, the meanings of words are in constant flux. “Decimate” used to mean to diminish your enemy’s number by one tenth; now it means to completely obliterate them. The average American (and I suspect the average Brit as well) has trouble reading Shakespeare (if they bother to do so anymore) because of the many linguistic shifts that have occurred between Elizabethan and modern times. Reading Chaucer is almost impossible.

You are right, when someone uses the phrase “the lesser of two evils”, we cannot be certain what they mean by ‘evil’, nor can we be certain what is meant by “so and so has been demonized.” For that matter, I’m never certain what the waiter means when I’m asked, “Would you like cream for your coffee.” We can only do our best, and in matters of importance we should curb our urge to exaggerate (although I do not think it’s an exaggeration to say Trump is a misogynist, a narcissist, a manipulative liar, or a cheat).

Words also matter, not only for the meanings they convey but for their emotional impact and shock value. Imagine the dissonance that reverberated throughout our collective brains when Trump announced he was never a Birther - that he was in fact the one who deliberately put an end to Birtherism! That whopper must’ve bought him several million hours of free air time. The fact that it was so obviously false and had such an ridiculous twist made it first class entertainment. To those ready to receive his message, it seemed deeper than it was: a metaphor for how Trump will simply sweep away all conventional restrictions and free us from liberal scorn and confirm us in our prejudices. Truth no longer matters; going viral is what counts. We no longer speak in sentences, we speak in memes.

How wonderfully dull it would be if we all said, “After considerable research and honest deliberation, I chose the candidate with the more promising policies and the better character for the job at hand.” At this point I so want to be living in that world. In that world I have a mouth; I can communicate. In this world, I’m all but mute.

[Stavros]

Words do matter. With that I agree. But unfortunately for anyone who wishes to speak to future readers or even readers in another demographic, the meanings of words are in constant flux. “Decimate” used to mean to diminish your enemy’s number by one tenth; now it means to completely obliterate them. The average American (and I suspect the average Brit as well) has trouble reading Shakespeare (if they bother to do so anymore) because of the many linguistic shifts that have occurred between Elizabethan and modern times. Reading Chaucer is almost impossible.

You are right, when someone uses the phrase “the lesser of two evils”, we cannot be certain what they mean by ‘evil’, nor can we be certain what is meant by “so and so has been demonized.” For that matter, I’m never certain what the waiter means when I’m asked, “Would you like cream for your coffee.” We can only do our best, and in matters of importance we should curb our urge to exaggerate (although I do not think it’s an exaggeration to say Trump is a misogynist, a narcissist, a manipulative liar, or a cheat).

Words also matter, not only for the meanings they convey but for their emotional impact and shock value. Imagine the dissonance that reverberated throughout our collective brains when Trump announced he was never a Birther - that he was in fact the one who deliberately put an end to Birtherism! That whopper must’ve bought him several million hours of free air time. The fact that it was so obviously false and had such an ridiculous twist made it first class entertainment. To those ready to receive his message, it seemed deeper than it was: a metaphor for how Trump will simply sweep away all conventional restrictions and free us from liberal scorn and confirm us in our prejudices. Truth no longer matters; going viral is what counts. We no longer speak in sentences, we speak in memes.

How wonderfully dull it would be if we all said, “After considerable research and honest deliberation, I chose the candidate with the more promising policies and the better character for the job at hand.” At this point I so want to be living in that world. In that world I have a mouth; I can communicate. In this world, I’m all but mute.

We can't go on like this, living in a virtual world where our words are filtered through online portals that only exist through anonymity, a lack of responsibility and a 'so what?' attitude to reams of abuse directed at conservatives, republicans, democrats, men, women -well just about everyone. The ironic consequence of the internet snooping our Masters insist upon (now legal in the UK) is that the online terrorists who threaten to castrate, decapitate and incinerate people they don't like, may one day soon have to appear in person to explain why they said what they said, and dismissing it as 'just a joke, mate' might not be, should not be enough-
Police are investigating a tweet calling for someone to “Jo Cox” the Conservative MP Anna Soubry.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/02/police-investigate-tweet-jo-cox-mp-anna-soubry

I have to be an optimist, and believe that as the next four to five years evolve, a different narrative and a different language will evolve with it, and that the majority of people will agree that we can do better than this, think more clearly about real issues, and not get lost in a miasma of prejudice and hate that destroys more than it creates. Just last night in a prosperous suburb of London, one of the UK's wealthiest men and once upon a time Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, lost his seat in the House of Commons to a shock victory for the Liberal Democrats. Goldsmith resigned 'in principle' when the Government proposed to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport near Goldsmith's constituency, standing as an 'Independent' to oppose that policy. The election however became consumed by the EU referendum result as Richmond voted heavily for Remain. But it was also a rebuttal to Goldsmith who failed to defeat the Labour candidate for Mayor of London -Sadiq Khan- having accused this man of being soft on 'Islamic terrorism'. Richmond, at least, proves that not everyone in the UK, Europe or the USA is crazy for the crazies.

I agree the worry with Trump is that he himself and some of the men he has appointed are 'part of the problem' we have right now, Bannon in particular. But most of these people have never known what the reality of real power is like, Trump most of all. It is one thing to consider a deal that returns 7% in dollars over 5 years, and a deal that results in 7% of humanity losing their property and maybe even their lives in a week, and that just within the USA.

And rest assured, Trish, a post as eloquent and elegant as yours does not make you mute!

[blackchubby38]

If you're keeping score at home, this is the list of the people that the Clinton camp is blaming for her losing the election:

James Comey
Russia
President Obama
Huma Abedin

[bluesoul]

Huma Abedin

why her? all she ever did was marry carlos danger, put up with his lothario doppelganger anthony weiner (while probably giving him some amazing fellatio with that generous overbite) then suffer through the embarrassment of his failed run for mayor of new york

btw: one thing i found really funny. alex jones found out facebook considers him fakenews

p.s. i'm unsure whether i find huma abedin attractive or not. she's certainly "not bad" and does at least elicit desires of giving her a facial but i remain indifferent when considering coitus

[blackchubby38]

why her? all she ever did was marry carlos danger, put up with his lothario doppelganger anthony weiner (while probably giving him some amazing fellatio with that generous overbite) then suffer through the embarrassment of his failed run for mayor of new york

btw: one thing i found really funny. alex jones found out facebook considers him fakenews

p.s. i'm unsure whether i find huma abedin attractive or not. she's certainly "not bad" and does at least elicit desires of giving her a facial but i remain indifferent when considering coitus

I'm guessing because she didn't divorce him the first time around and seemed to be standing by her man during his campaign for mayor of NYC. On a side note, I would take Weiner as mayor over DeBlasio in a New York minute.

I think Huma is attractive and would consider coitus in a New York minute.

[Stavros]

I think Huma is attractive and would consider coitus in a New York minute.

What is a 'New York Minute'?

Meanwhile the NYT has published an extensive account of the DNC hacking with strong claims it was a Russian operation, being Putin's revenge on Hillary Clinton for claiming he fixed the 2011 elections in Russia, plus his belief the Security Council led him astray over Libya. What is really pertinent is that an aide of John Podesta instead of marking a phishing email as 'illegitimate' left it at 'legitimate', because history often shows that cock-ups have played a key role in dramatic incidents. The report also raises questions about the honesty of Julian Assange and Wikileaks which to me has now been so compromised as to make its 'revelations' unreliable.
The NYT report for those who haven't seen it is here-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

[blackchubby38]

What is a 'New York Minute'?

Meanwhile the NYT has published an extensive account of the DNC hacking with strong claims it was a Russian operation, being Putin's revenge on Hillary Clinton for claiming he fixed the 2011 elections in Russia, plus his belief the Security Council led him astray over Libya. What is really pertinent is that an aide of John Podesta instead of marking a phishing email as 'illegitimate' left it at 'legitimate', because history often shows that cock-ups have played a key role in dramatic incidents. The report also raises questions about the honesty of Julian Assange and Wikileaks which to me has now been so compromised as to make its 'revelations' unreliable.
The NYT report for those who haven't seen it is here-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

New York Minute:

A New York minute is an instant. Or as Johnny Carson once said, it's the interval between a Manhattan traffic light turning green and the guy behind you honking his horn.

It appears to have originated in Texas around 1967. It is a reference to the frenzied and hectic pace of New Yorkers' lives. A New Yorker does in an instant what a Texan would take a minute to do.

[Stavros]

New York Minute:
A New York minute is an instant. Or as Johnny Carson once said, it's the interval between a Manhattan traffic light turning green and the guy behind you honking his horn.
It appears to have originated in Texas around 1967. It is a reference to the frenzied and hectic pace of New Yorkers' lives. A New Yorker does in an instant what a Texan would take a minute to do.
How odd, because I thought a 'New York Minute' -guessing, obviously- is what the cab driver on W28th tells you when you ask at 6pm how long it will take to get to Lincoln Centre...enough time for a head in the back with the Brazilian Amazon you are taking to the Met...

[broncofan]

If you're keeping score at home, this is the list of the people that the Clinton camp is blaming for her losing the election:

James Comey
Russia
President Obama
Huma Abedin
I think it's fair to blame Comey and Russia. The exposure of all of one candidate's private correspondence while the other candidate's correspondence remains untouched is surely unprecedented. Hillary had the public and right wing media tearing apart every private email sent between her and her staff for months on end.

Can you even imagine if we'd had every private correspondence between Trump and his team? For instance, I wonder what they were saying internally after it became clear that Melania plagiarized Michelle Obama. I wonder what sorts of emails Trump received that caused him to use his twitter account less. Almost anything a team of political advisers says internally to control the candidate's message is going to look bad if it's leaked during that election. Even in a team of people whose professionalism cannot be impugned the release of private correspondence is devastating.

[handsumjack]

Not one of my issues.. But would like to have made it a 3 way with her and Markie Post. I heard Markie and Hillary had a hot thing going until Bill wanted to watch.

[MrFanti]

Hillary lost because Democrats were in general, sick of establishment politicians. This is why Bernie Sanders shot up in popularity because he was an anti-establishment candidate. Trump is an anti-establishment individual hence his rise in popularity because Republicans were also sick of establishment politicians too.

Now here's the kicker. If the DNC had not interfered with the primaries and manipulated them in Hillary's favor, we might have seen a Sanders/Trump battle to which I believe Sanders would have won and defeated Trump!

Something else that the Hillary camp didn't take into account were the portion of Sanders supporters that flat out did not like Hillary and went Trump instead.

[filghy2]

Now here's the kicker. If the DNC had not interfered with the primaries and manipulated them in Hillary's favor, we might have seen a Sanders/Trump battle to which I believe Sanders would have won and defeated Trump!

The total vote in Democrat primaries was 55.2% for Clinton against 43.1% for Sanders, which is a very decisive margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_prima ries,_2016 Are you seriously suggesting this was due to manipulation, and on what evidence?

[MrFanti]

The total vote in Democrat primaries was 55.2% for Clinton against 43.1% for Sanders, which is a very decisive margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_prima ries,_2016 Are you seriously suggesting this was due to manipulation, and on what evidence?

The DNC manipulated the primaries to favor Clinton over Sanders read about it below (your asked for evidence).
http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/

If the DNC had abstained from manipulation of the primaries, then there's good chance we'd be seeing President Sanders instead of Trump.

[peejaye]

Don't waste your time Fanti, the cunt is a hardcore Troll & seriously fucked-up!

[MrFanti]

Don't waste your time Fanti, the cunt is a hardcore Troll & seriously fucked-up!
Never said I was a Hillary fan.
I'm just pointing that had Sally Wasserman and the DNC remained impartial during the Democratic primaries, we might be talking about President Sanders instead of President Trump.
It is my perspective that Sanders had the better shot of defeating Trump - especially since a few upset Sanders voters voted Trump instead of Hillary.

The DNC misunderstood the veracity of the Sanders camp and how a portion of them preferred Trump over Hillary. It didn't help Hillary's cause either when Sanders supporters discovered that the Democratic primaries were manipulated to favor Hillary.

[Stavros]

Bernie Sanders sits as an Independent in Congress, and for all his fan base was not so different on some issues from the other independent running on the Republican ticket. That in the end Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by close to 3 million votes undermines your claim. That someone else in the Democrat Party might have won the nomination is the question that has no answer, even though Barrack Obama came 'from nowhere' in 2008 so it might have been possible for a younger candidate to emerge if he or she were prepared to challenge Mrs Clinton. Just as the prospect of Joe Biden becoming the nominee for 2020 may make sense, but yet again defers the opportunity for a younger candidate with appeal to first time voters.

[peejaye]

Never said I was a Hillary fan.
I'm just pointing that had Sally Wasserman and the DNC remained impartial during the Democratic primaries, we might be talking about President Sanders instead of President Trump.
It is my perspective that Sanders had the better shot of defeating Trump - especially since a few upset Sanders voters voted Trump instead of Hillary.

The DNC misunderstood the veracity of the Sanders camp and how a portion of them preferred Trump over Hillary. It didn't help Hillary's cause either when Sanders supporters discovered that the Democratic primaries were manipulated to favor Hillary.

Unfortunately I know "Jack shit" about US politics & I'm not going to pretend I do by surfing the internet.
All I will say; If I was a US citizen I'd of voted Trump 1,000 times over before I voted Clinton. I think you would of been at war with someone already if that blood thirsty warmongering bitch had been elected.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=peejaye;1838510
If I was a US citizen I'd of voted Trump 1,000 times over before I voted Clinton. [/QUOTE]

Your boy wants a trade deal so his rich buddies can raid the NHS and transform our public service into a profitable business. Is that what you want?

[peejaye]

You're fucking obsessed! The Tories, whom you helped cling to power, are doing that anyway! Shameful cunts!

[buttslinger]

I said it before, I might end up saying it again, but if I'm a compleat moron, the world will hardly notice. Hillary would have been the best prepared President in all of history, on deck since 1992, Secretary of State, Senator, her rolodex is a who's who of the Democratic Party. Her choices for cabinet positions and appointees would have been twenty years in the making. And she had an eight year head start with Obama. As bad as Trump seems, it's worse.
When Trump thinks ahead, he must be thinking about a nice retirement making license plates.

[Ben in LA]

Unfortunately I know "Jack shit" about US politics & I'm not going to pretend I do by surfing the internet.
All I will say; If I was a US citizen I'd of voted Trump 1,000 times over before I voted Clinton. I think you would of been at war with someone already if that blood thirsty warmongering bitch had been elected.
We’re close to war with the orange moron in office...nuclear war at that.

[peejaye]

Aaaahh..You're a Clinton fan, well that's explained. I'm afraid the media & experts here. for what it's worth, didn't agree with you. They said, & I agreed, you had two fucking awful candidates, it was a case of which one voters hated the least!

[peejaye]

We’re close to war with the orange moron in office...nuclear war at that.

With whom exactly? Enlighten me.

[peejaye]

Guys; Listen to someone who knows, I've got the cunting scars to prove it;
You DON'T want fucking bitches running your country! Believe me! :hide-1:

[blackchubby38]

Unfortunately I know "Jack shit" about US politics & I'm not going to pretend I do by surfing the internet.
All I will say; If I was a US citizen I'd of voted Trump 1,000 times over before I voted Clinton. I think you would of been at war with someone already if that blood thirsty warmongering bitch had been elected.

I would slow down with that statement if I was you. I get the sense that there are people in the Trump administration who are just looking for a reason to go to war with Iran.

[buttslinger]

When I think about the cabinet Clinton would have picked, the Judges, ...........after 8 years of Obama you would see a team 20 years in the making, Clinton really would have been the best prepared President ever.... 8 years in the White House, State Senator, State Department, what a preparation, what a rolodex. And while millions would complain and condemn, the World would see what "as good as it gets" looks like.
Instead we get a guy who is the worst prepared President in History.

[MrFanti]

That in the end Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by close to 3 million votes undermines your claim.
Valid point.
But I would still debate that had the DNC and Sally Wasserman not interfered with the primaries, Sanders could have won the nomination - not Hillary.
And it's my opinion (yes everyone has one) that Sanders stood a better chance of defeating Trump than Hillary.

[MrFanti]

. Hillary would have been the best prepared President in all of history,
I think Joe Biden would have been the better President.

[MrFanti]

I think Joe Biden would have been the better President.
Oh and speaking of Biden....
Had he ran, I also believe he would have defeated Trump also......

[filghy2]

The DNC manipulated the primaries to favor Clinton over Sanders read about it below (your asked for evidence).
http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/

You don't seem to have read that article because it doesn't say what you claim it says. The court made no finding on whether the DNC had actually rigged the primaries. The basis for the decision to dismiss the case was that even if the allegation was assumed to be true, the DNC would have had the legal right to choose their preferred candidate.

This article seems to provide a better discussion of what happened.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/11/04/no-the-dnc-didnt-rig-the-democratic-primary-for-hillary-clinton/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e4d712c0ad14

[filghy2]

Don't waste your time Fanti, the cunt is a hardcore Troll & seriously fucked-up!

Your complete lack of self-awareness is hilarious. According to Wikipedia "a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion."

Six posts from you in this thread in the past day alone, and none of them relate to the issue that MrFanti raised. But if you enjoy being a laughing stock then keep going.

[MrFanti]

You don't seem to have read that article because it doesn't say what you claim it says. The court made no finding on whether the DNC had actually rigged the primaries.

The court basically decided that the allegations weren't true.
The court also said O.J. Simpson was innocent too..

Considering how much Legal power (read $$$) Simpson and the Clintons held/hold, of course they're going to be deemed innocent...

[filghy2]

The court basically decided that the allegations weren't true.

No, the reported judgement did not say that either. But in any case, you were the one who offered it as your sole piece of evidence that the primaries were rigged! Shall we take it that you have no evidence then?