Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

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.

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/m...shot/87359946/

The tweet quoted by Michael Folk-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...linton/492173/

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCboyCOMINGatYA!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

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

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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?

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

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

haven't heard this old favorite used yet.
Attachment 935852

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chupapau

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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!

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.

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/11...b38855dfb6.jpgphoto storage

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

so who did you vote for during the 2008 primary?

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.jpgimage sharing sites

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

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.

...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. :)