America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

Sure, and I think that's totally reasonable. But I'm not sure that dismissing it as a non-story, fake news, and a waste of time is reasonable. It was a completely sensible thing to raise and investigate, and it was and remains something that while not necessarily impactful is relevant and potentially of concern. It was not a non-story, it was not fake news (at least the non-opinionated parts but that can be said for any news story), and investigating and reporting on it was not a waste of time.

I guess it depends on what your definition of fake news is. I'm not saying that it wasn't worth investigating, but we made a big news story out of something that amounted to not much. I was being flippant, I didn't mean it should literally have not been reported at all. We spent so much time on this "controversy".

Too often the options we're presented with are "this is nothing" and "this is a crisis". Both Hillary's emails and COVID are neither of those. Admittedly, COVID is more towards the crisis end while Hemails are more towards the nothing end, but these are issues that require a nuanced and considered view.

I'm actually still not sure the Hillary story deserves to be taken "very seriously". It would depend on details that I'm not aware of yet (but if this conversation goes much further, I'll be forced to look up). Like what steps Hillary took in setting up her personal server, and what exact personal authority she has in keeping classified documents. Classified documents can be kept at your home in your personal storage arrangements (like a locked file cabinet), but the specific letter of the law on what is required to keep it safe is not clear to me.

Which to be fair, you absolutely have as you've explained your view in both posts, which is why I think it's unfortunate that you lapse into Trumpian hyperbole simply because the conclusion was that the particular events didn't warrant a major response.

This is straight at the point that I was trying (and apparently failing) to make. Which is that controversies stumped by the GOP will hereby henceforth be dismissed by me as non-stories unless they have a substantial amount of evidence. I no longer give them the benefit of the doubt, and I'm doing that with the Hillary email story as well. This is not "Trumpian hyperbole", it's just adjusting my level of skepticism toward a specific group.

I used to accept, without evidence, the notion that Hillary was up to no good. Now I don't.

The news, the reporting and the investigation were all valid

Waaaaaaay overblown. Not even close to proportionate.

That your two party system jumps on any shred of impropriety and tries to turn it into the seeds of a civil war is unfortunate, but if public accountability becomes lax just because people are scared of the media circus then I don't see it ending well. We've seen what people with little disregard for tradition and precedent can do within a relaxed rule set, if they're not even publicly accountable then you're going to need a lot more Edward Snowdens.

This is definitely a fair point. People have to hold both sides accountable. But what was proportionate to Hillary's transgression here? What does "accountable" look like? I have an idea, I think you have a different idea.

I view the Clinton email thing through the lens of "what would happen to me if I were caught doing the same thing?". In the US we're supposed to be equal under the law, right?

Although it's no secret that some are more equal than others.

This is not the appropriate standard. What would happen to you if you were caught doing the same thing as secretary of state? Your authority and role when it comes to national security absolutely matters to this story. The same thing is true of the President, btw.

This is at the core of this story, and the republican narrative around the story. The complete lack of context.

Edit:

You two got me looking up more details. It looks like a "very small number of emails", sounds like a handful out of the 60,000 or whatever emails were turned over bore classified markings. Other emails that she received (not clear whether any were sent by her, and that does make a difference) contained unmarked classified information.

Apparently there was precedent for personal email servers: "Among Clinton’s predecessors, only Colin Powell (Jan. 20, 2001–Jan. 26, 2005) used a personal email account for government business."

This practice was apparently allowed.

And she was not using a government email account for these communications. I gather from the context here that she was not using, and not expecting to use, email to regularly handle classified information. Which actually seems appropriate to me.

Again, it sounds like she technically broke department policy, also sounds like it's not a big story.

 

[Tornado]

I will note just that while it certainly spiraled into partisan hackery, I'm not sure how much of that is the core issue versus it being her specifically. The way she carried herself. The way she seemingly responded to any criticism of anything she did by trying to cover up that she had done anything at all. I know it's not at all a like for like, but compare the coverage and response of the Email story compared to the crap Giuliani tried to spew regarding Hunter Biden. Everyone but Trump's super hardcore, let's-stage-covid-parties base saw the latter and rolled their eyes. It wasn't just Trump's sycophants who were eating up the former.



It's definitely pretty quaint after four years of Trump, but I feel the media in general also elevated the story from a sorta nothingburger into a humongous scandal that probably had a lot to do with her losing because the media knew that's what the people wanted. People didn't trust her and people didn't like her (and I would say still don't, which is why it concerned me for so long in this election cycle that she kept talking about things that Trump screwed up instead of just being quiet and letting Biden handle his own affairs), so when the story first broke and the Republicans went ballistic I don't think people on the left were too terribly concerned about protecting her over it. Most of that is probably hubris in assuming the election would be a cakewalk regardless, but it's not like this was a different person than the one that Democrats had dragged through the town behind their horse when she was running against Obama just 8 years prior.

 

[Danoff]

I will note just that while it certainly spiraled into partisan hackery, I'm not sure how much of that is the core issue versus it being her specifically.

But here again, how much of that was GOP manufactured?

The way she carried herself. The way she seemingly responded to any criticism of anything she did by trying to cover up that she had done anything at all.

Even if you're specifically applying this to the way she chose to carry herself and respond, I'm starting to view her as someone who was paranoid and constantly attacked. She had been vilified since her husband was president. Possibly even before. That has to bleed over into how she carries herself.

I get that we can blame this part on her, but I'm seeing her in a much more favorable light than I used to, and this unraveling is coming from the endless stream of conspiracies that I'm now linking together.

It makes me want to re-investigate whitewater to be honest. Honestly it makes me want to re-evaluate Paula Jones. Maybe I'd come to the same conclusion I have now, which is that Clinton sexually harassed Paula Jones and witness tampered (Monica) to skate on charges that he should have been convicted on.

But... how much of that did I see through the lens of a GOP smear?

 

[Tornado]

But here again, how much of that was GOP manufactured?

How much of it can be considered GOP manufactured when her own party weaponized it against her? I don't think it can be considered primariy a GOP sticking point specifically with all the nasty dirty laundry that was aired in 2008.

 

[Danoff]

How much of it can be considered GOP manufactured when her own party weaponized it against her?

I'm not saying it wasn't effective. I'm just searching for the truth, and realizing that I've been biased.

 

[Tornado]

I will defer to you on things before 2008 because I was too young to bother paying attention to politics beyond meme jokes in popular culture about her (the first I had probably even heard her name was making fun of her political ambitions in Die Hard 3, which was before Bill had even started his second term), but it just doesn't seem to me like she had a lot of friends in her own party even then.


That the GOP feasted on that is without question, but I'm not sure I agree that it was wholly their creation.

 

[Danoff]

I will defer to you on things before 2008 because I was too young to bother paying attention to politics beyond meme jokes in popular culture about her (the first I had probably even heard her name was making fun of her political ambitions in Die Hard 3, which was before Bill had even started his second term), but it just doesn't seem to me like she had a lot of friends in her own party even then.


That the GOP feasted on that is without question, but I'm not sure I agree that it was wholly their creation.

It's possible that Bill was the ultimate start of the GOP conspiracy theory train. He definitely did some bad things. Getting some of that substantiated may have taken on a life of its own.

Hillary struggled with the double-edged sword that was her husband's legacy the whole time.

 

[Danoff]

I just spent about an hour reviewing Whitewater and Vince Foster. Here again, you need to bring the presumption of guilt to the story to see the Clintons as orchestrating the conspiracy that the GOP promoted. Otherwise the story does actually hang together without any major* wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons. If you just go by why evidence is presented in the case, the Clintons here again get basically a free pass on the entire episode.

*lying about ignoring a subpoena aside

 

[Biggles]

I just spent about an hour reviewing Whitewater and Vince Foster. Here again, you need to bring the presumption of guilt to the story to see the Clintons as orchestrating the conspiracy that the GOP promoted. Otherwise the story does actually hang together without any major* wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons. If you just go by why evidence is presented in the case, the Clintons here again get basically a free pass on the entire episode.

*lying about ignoring a subpoena aside

This makes for pretty depressing reading. I remember the insistent drumbeat of anti-HRC comments on GTPlanet leading up to the 2016 election. I distinctly recall reading Famine opine how although Trump was very bad, Hillary was just "awful".

I tired to reconcile this to the reality of Hillary & Bill Clinton & it made no sense me ... unless you chose to believe the litany of unproven claims about the Clintons' crimes. Maybe you are too young to actually remember the Clinton presidency, but I can tell you that from the very first, Republicans levelled a (familiar) litany of accusations: they were extreme leftists, socialists, anti-American etc. Hillary was tasked by Bill to head up a task force to try & improve the US healthcare system. It was resolutely stonewalled by the GOP & the insurance companies & ultimately failed to achieve anything. After years of investigation the Clintons the Starr inquiry into Whitewater came up with nothing ... & then finally hit upon the Lewinsky affair to try & bring down the Clintons.

There is a documentary on Hillary Clinton on Netflix. The picture it paints of Hillary Clinton is a very believable one. She was a bright girl from a very modest middle class background who parleyed her intelligence into a national profile at Wellesley college & then went on to Yale Law School. There she met Bill Clinton & eventually, with some reluctance, ended up hitching her wagon to his political career.

90% of the accusations against Hillary & Bill are complete BS & lies - you know, like the BS & lies about the "stealing" of the 2020 election. Yes, the Clintons were ambitious & focused & at times ruthless, but they had no advantages of money or family political connections, so they had to work hard to climb to reach the governorship of Arkansas & then the Presidency. Bill was at best, a philanderer, at worst a sexual predator (like plenty of other political figures). Hillary was put in an impossible situation by his actions.

Hillary has never been a charmer or a charismatic politician, but it seems to me most of the antagonism towards her is based primarily on her being an "uppity woman". Conscious or subconscious misogyny. She would have made a perfectly fine, "normal", centrist President & the US wouldn't be in the mess it is today by electing, in preference to Hillary, a narcissistic sociopath.

 

[Imari]

Waaaaaaay overblown. Not even close to proportionate.

This is definitely a fair point. People have to hold both sides accountable. But what was proportionate to Hillary's transgression here? What does "accountable" look like? I have an idea, I think you have a different idea.

It's probably worth keeping in mind that I'm not in the US. The news and reporting I saw are probably not what you saw, and while I can try and take that into account I'm never really going to understand what the coverage was like first-person in the US. If you subtract all the coverage that was either partisan fear-mongering or 24 hour news channels trying to justify their existence, what I saw seemed somewhat reasonable. Perhaps a little too much, but then again this was running up to a presidential election so some additional scrutiny seems fair.

You two got me looking up more details. It looks like a "very small number of emails", sounds like a handful out of the 60,000 or whatever emails were turned over bore classified markings. Other emails that she received (not clear whether any were sent by her, and that does make a difference) contained unmarked classified information.

Correct. But to me the relatively small amount of information involved can only be determined after appropriate investigation.

Again, it sounds like she technically broke department policy, also sounds like it's not a big story.

Maybe. It sort of depends what the policy is and what the ramifications for breaking it are. Again, stuff that can only be determined by investigation, and since we're talking about public officials who are running for office this is potentially relevant information for the voting public as well.

 

[UKMikey]

90% of the accusations against Hillary & Bill are complete BS & lies - you know, like the BS & lies about the "stealing" of the 2020 election. Yes, the Clintons were ambitious & focused & at times ruthless, but they had no advantages of money or family political connections, so they had to work hard to climb to reach the governorship of Arkansas & then the Presidency. Bill was at best, a philanderer, at worst a sexual predator (like plenty of other political figures). Hillary was put in an impossible situation by his actions.
Hillary has never been a charmer or a charismatic politician, but it seems to me most of the antagonism towards her is based primarily on her being an "uppity woman". Conscious or subconscious misogyny. She would have made a perfectly fine, "normal", centrist President & the US wouldn't be in the mess it is today by electing, in preference to Hillary, a narcissistic sociopath

Psst... maybe Epstein did kill himself after all.

 

[ryzno]

I love how no one mentioned Bernie getting screwed in '16. But obviously that wasn't her making him step aside so she could get the seat she deserved for stepping aside for Obama...
Y'all are kinda funny to watch.
-----
What honestly made you change @Danoff?

I honestly can't believe some of the stuff you are posting especially considering how out of nowhere it seemed to come, from you.

 

[jjaisli]

The email server that she controlled seemed to raise eyebrows. And it was a technical violation of the requirements the government laid down (according to the FBI). She had her arguments for why it wasn't, the FBI didn't agree.

That's not to say Hillary is a saint. She should not have stuck up for her husband's sexual harassment so recently. But that's its own issue, Republicans don't seem to mind that one so much.

I remember the insistent drumbeat of anti-HRC comments on GTPlanet leading up to the 2016 election. I distinctly recall reading Famine opine how although Trump was very bad, Hillary was just "awful".

I tired to reconcile this to the reality of Hillary & Bill Clinton & it made no sense me ... unless you chose to believe the litany of unproven claims about the Clintons' crimes. Maybe you are too young to actually remember the Clinton presidency, but I can tell you that from the very first, Republicans levelled a (familiar) litany of accusations: they were extreme leftists, socialists, anti-American etc. Hillary was tasked by Bill to head up a task force to try & improve the US healthcare system.

90% of the accusations against Hillary & Bill are complete BS & lies - you know, like the BS & lies about the "stealing" of the 2020 election.

Selectively quoted. By in large, I agree with these statements. I was still in university when Bill Clinton became President. Looking back now, so many years later, it's hard to remember with clarity, everything that happened. But the GOP have been on a crusade against the Clintons for almost 30 years. In fact, I just mentioned this in a post a few days ago, but I can remember coming back to the US in 1999, toward the end of Bill's second term, after having worked overseas for several years. And those years coincided with the rise of militant "entertainment" right wing radio programs. I remember Bob Grant from way back when. But suddenly you had guys like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Bob Levin, Sean Hannity, etc. There are probably many others I've forgotten. And the tone had changed. The attacks were scathing and facts became fewer and were replaced with innuendo and outrage.

I think a lot of this also increased after 9/11 when there was a general sense to rally around the wave of nationalism after the World Trade Center attacks. But the constant attacks against the Clintons, and Hilary in particular, who was then running for Senator of NY State, were unrelenting. If you didn't know anything about the Clintons in those days and just listened to the constant verbal pounding and diatribe they were spewing, EVERY single day, you would think she was the devil incarnate. And It wouldn't be difficult to imagine she ran a baby eating pedophile ring int he basement of a pizzeria (a claim that wouldn't actually arise until years later. But it certainly made it easier to believe). Conservative leaning people who think that Trump never got a fair shake from the press should go back and listen to right ring radio in the early 2000s. And despite it all, I never heard Clinton accuse the the press as being the "enemy of the people".

I wasn't a huge fan of Hilary when she ran in 2016. She would not have been my first choice. I think she did a poor job handling the email scandal, and a number of other situations, especially considering what an old political dog she was, and a shrewdly intelligent person. I think her keen intelligence and her general disdain of right-wing media gave her a sense of apathy toward toward a certain sector of the electorate, hence the infamous "deplorable" comment. A comment that while perhaps as true as Mitt Romney's 47% gaff, were unsuitable public criticism and helped sink their careers.

But I think as a nation, we would have been MUCH better off under Hilary Clinton than we have been under the last four years of Trump. I think the majority of the public sort understood that back in 2016. But maybe it took Donald Trump to make us truly realize it.

 

[Famine]

I distinctly recall reading Famine opine how although Trump was very bad, Hillary was just "awful".

Actually I laid out Trump's faults pretty starkly (and it turns out accurately - though I was optimistic on his constitutional limitations), and stated that Hillary was just awful. It was a "whereas Hillary" not an "although Donald":

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-elections-2016.326052/page-152#post-11361406

I'm still pretty firmly there too. A lot of the mud slung in her direction is doubtless inflated (and some is doubtless made up), and the fact she's near to so much mud in the first place is itself a question, but I don't think she's awful because of the mud. I think she's awful despite it - I just dislike her as a person from what I've seen of her over the last... 28 years?


Had she been elected in 2016, I think we'd have seen a continuation of the Obama years, from drones to deficit and all points in between. It would have been a normal presidency with the normal pointless posturing from North Korea, Iran, Assad and the normal gaggle of malcontents. I think we'd have also seen further reaction from the extreme "right" (racist authoritarians) and be in grave danger of electing someone from that pool two weeks ago - and with the constant backdrop of Trump outside the tent pissing in (probably about either 80k COVID deaths, or about unconstitutional masks/lockdowns), for another four years starting in 2024...

Biden coming in now, after all that, can't continue from the Obama years. ****'s all on fire. That should dramatically affect the tone of a four-year Democrat Presidency.


The fact that an absolute walloper like Trump got elected is... pretty shameful, but his extreme and moronic views coupled with his insane ego and absolute incompetence has somewhat had the predicted effect. Sure, 71m people voted for four more years of... that is concerning*, but five million more Americans turned out - and in record numbers - to reject it.

This is what Americans need to remember not only in November 2024 but in the respective party primaries and caucuses throughout 2024. If you don't turn out in numbers and vote, you might get four years of absolute embarrassment on the world stage and your Constitution torn to shreds domestically.


The Trump Presidency will be the USA's wake-up call.

*It's worth remembering at this point that Trump voters are not stupid, racist, fascist, America-hating cretins. They simply don't see Trump's own stupidity, racism, fascism, and overt disregard for the Constitution as a deal-breaker for a President. I'm not sure how you can reconcile Trump smashing through all of your protections from a tyrannical government with the role of protecting those protections, but people believe a lot of contradictory things.

I love how no one mentioned Bernie getting screwed in '16. But obviously that wasn't her making him step aside so she could get the seat she deserved for stepping aside for Obama...
Y'all are kinda funny to watch.

It has been covered on here before, and in quite some depth.

Obviously DNC was as bent as could be in securing her nomination - but I don't remember it coming up as a Clinton-led operation, merely something she benefitted from.

 

[Danoff]

This makes for pretty depressing reading. I remember the insistent drumbeat of anti-HRC comments on GTPlanet leading up to the 2016 election. I distinctly recall reading Famine opine how although Trump was very bad, Hillary was just "awful".

I'm sure I was part of it. She's still a very polarizing figure. Maybe not the greatest choice to win republican votes. Hillary has been hated, and labeled as conniving and nefarious since I was a teenager. I'll just say that I honestly didn't re-examine all of that (nor did I really have much of a reason to) until now. I don't know what it would have taken to get me to vote hillary over gary johnson. Learning that 90% of the stuff about the clintons is lacking evidence wouldn't have done it.

I tired to reconcile this to the reality of Hillary & Bill Clinton & it made no sense me ... unless you chose to believe the litany of unproven claims about the Clintons' crimes. Maybe you are too young to actually remember the Clinton presidency, but I can tell you that from the very first, Republicans levelled a (familiar) litany of accusations: they were extreme leftists, socialists, anti-American etc. Hillary was tasked by Bill to head up a task force to try & improve the US healthcare system. It was resolutely stonewalled by the GOP & the insurance companies & ultimately failed to achieve anything. After years of investigation the Clintons the Starr inquiry into Whitewater came up with nothing ... & then finally hit upon the Lewinsky affair to try & bring down the Clintons.

It seems like the beginning of the conspiracy-oriented party. But I'm actually wondering whether it goes back further. That'd be before my memory. I know I was lied to about Nixon.

There is a documentary on Hillary Clinton on Netflix.

Given my recent interest in her, I might need to check that one out.

Bill was at best, a philanderer, at worst a sexual predator (like plenty of other political figures). Hillary was put in an impossible situation by his actions.

I'm re-interested in this as well. I need to re-research the paula jones trial. I'm not taking anything for granted these days.

Hillary has never been a charmer or a charismatic politician, but it seems to me most of the antagonism towards her is based primarily on her being an "uppity woman".

I'd say it's based on her being a democrat actually. 2nd fiddle is that she lacks a penis. Kinda like most of the ire against Obama is that he's a democrat, 2nd fiddle is that his skin is too dark.

I love how no one mentioned Bernie getting screwed in '16.

I should probably spend some time on that one too. I don't think that one was GOP-created, so maybe it has as much merit as you're giving it here. But at this point I'm taking no conspiracy theory for granted. The republicans have invented so much nonsense for so long that I can't assume this is separate.

But obviously that wasn't her making him step aside so she could get the seat she deserved for stepping aside for Obama...

I like how you think this is some kind of moral high ground compared to actual plots to kidnap and murder the governor of Michigan instigated and defended by the president.

What honestly made you change @Danoff?

Trump! Is this difficult to follow? Trump makes crap up, he spreads conspiracy theories so fast that there is a wikipedia page dedicated to the conspiracy theories he has pushed. He spreads conspiracy theories so fast that if you try to search for conspiracy theories created by Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, you just get Trump's conspiracy theories.

This naturally has me considering how far back this phenomenon goes. How long has the GOP been making crap up with no actual substance... for a very long time is the answer I have so far.

 

[Blitz24]

Trump! Is this difficult to follow? Trump makes crap up, he spreads conspiracy theories so fast that there is a wikipedia page dedicated to the conspiracy theories he has pushed. He spreads conspiracy theories so fast that if you try to search for conspiracy theories created by Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, you just get Trump's conspiracy theories.

This naturally has me considering how far back this phenomenon goes. How long has the GOP been making crap up with no actual substance... for a very long time is the answer I have so far.

Exact reason I voted against him. He may have some decent policy gains, but he needs to have his phone and computer taken away from him or have someone else review what stupidity he spews out on social media. Ditto for him going off script on any of his pressers. He should have been given a shock collar zap each time he said something utterly moronic. (Probably would have to replace the collar about 20 times a year, but much better than anything else.)

 

[Danoff]

But I think as a nation, we would have been MUCH better off under Hilary Clinton than we have been under the last four years of Trump. I think the majority of the public sort understood that back in 2016. But maybe it took Donald Trump to make us truly realize it.

I'm not totally sure on that one. I think if she had won we might be starting a Trump presidency at this point. A trump presidency where the COVID response can be blamed on the democrats (even if it was far better than our current response), and where Trump can benefit from a post-COVID-vaccine boost.

I think a Hillary win might have netted us 8 years of Trump starting now. I'd rather have COVID be the downfall of the Trump presidency.

 

[longshot1314]

"We came, we saw, he died" is a pretty good reason not to like Hillary Clinton, especially since it led to a failed state and slave markets. We can add her 2016 campaign, insinuating falsehoods against Bernies supporters, calling anyone who supported Trump as "deplorables" and leveraging her influence to ensure she won the primary. We can add to it further with her taking the completely unfounded "russian asset" claim towards Tulsi Gabbard, and also Bernie as deliberate attempts to slander them. So I mean sure it's "misogyny" I guess? And would we have been better under her? Maybe, though if she had the same opportunity of invading Venezuela and Iran dangled in front of her that Trump did, it'd be hard to argue we wouldn't gotten involved with at least one of those conflicts.

 

[Biggles]

I'm not totally sure on that one. I think if she had won we might be starting a Trump presidency at this point. A trump presidency where the COVID response can be blamed on the democrats (even if it was far better than our current response), and where Trump can benefit from a post-COVID-vaccine boost.

I think a Hillary win might have netted us 8 years of Trump starting now. I'd rather have COVID be the downfall of the Trump presidency.

Speculating in that way is pointless IMO. You can't plot out things like that years in advance. Voting "against" Hillary (or not voting) gave us Trump. That much is clear. In 2016 it was possible to believe that Trump might "pivot" & become more of a reasonable President. I thought, based on his prior history & rhetoric, that that was unlikely ... but the reality has been worse than I could have imagined back in 2016. And the disturbing part is that MORE people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016!

I think it's clear that we're living in a "post-fact" world now. Truth barely matters anymore. This is pretty much entirely due to "conservatives" - the right wing media that started with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck & Fox News, but has now expanded to the point that large numbers of Fox News followers have started to conclude that Fox is too "liberal" & have moved on to sites like Breitbart, InfoWars, OAN etc. There may be extreme left wing media sites out there, but their followers are negligible compared to the right wing.

As far as Hillary is concerned, yes the DNC put their hands on the scale on her behalf in the primaries, but Sanders wouldn't have won anyway - he just didn't have enough support. Had he won the primaries, I'm pretty convinced he would not have won the GE.

Did the Clintons do some "compromising" things? Yes - if you're in politics to win you end up doing that - it's the way the system works. It's easy for Libertarians or Greens ... or Bernie Sanders ... to come off as more principled. They are not playing to win. Should Kamala Harris wind up being the Democratic candidate in 2024 (not a sure thing by any means IMO) she will be attacked mercilessly for the compromises she made in advancing her political career ... and for being an uppity (black) woman. You know - she slept her way to the top.

Bottom line: nothing Hillary has said or done compares with the dishonesty of Trump's life in business & politics.

 

[polysmut]

Voting "against" Hillary (or not voting) gave us Trump.

Trump's popularity gave you Trump. He won in 2016 because enough people voted for him to win, not because of any votes cast for other candidates.

 

[Biggles]

Trump's popularity gave you Trump. He won in 2016 because enough people voted for him to win, not because of any votes cast for other candidates.

I disagree. Trump was not very popular. He won because a considerable number of Democrats abstained from voting ... & some clearly voted for Trump. The reason for this was partly due to the previously mentioned years of lies, innuendo & BS about the Clintons. For example:

"We came, we saw, he died" is a pretty good reason not to like Hillary Clinton, especially since it led to a failed state and slave markets. We can add her 2016 campaign, insinuating falsehoods against Bernies supporters, calling anyone who supported Trump as "deplorables" and leveraging her influence to ensure she won the primary. We can add to it further with her taking the completely unfounded "russian asset" claim towards Tulsi Gabbard, and also Bernie as deliberate attempts to slander them. So I mean sure it's "misogyny" I guess? And would we have been better under her? Maybe, though if she had the same opportunity of invading Venezuela and Iran dangled in front of her that Trump did, it'd be hard to argue we wouldn't gotten involved with at least one of those conflicts.

The US has a long history of mistakes & miscalculations in foreign policy that predate Hillary. Hillary Clinton was only Sec of State, so her positions were only apart of the decision-making. She did not call anyone who supported Trump as "deplorables" - she said 50% of them were - a pretty accurate assessment in hindsight - and she later apologized. I don't think it is at all likely that a Clinton administration would have invaded Venezuela or Iran. And it's not clear that not getting involved is necessarily the right decision in world affairs.

I wasn't a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but her political career needs to be assessed in the light of all the facts & circumstances, not just the made-up ones.

 

[Imari]

She did not call anyone who supported Trump as "deplorables" - she said 50% of them were - a pretty accurate assessment in hindsight - and she later apologized.

However, if you're aiming to be President then you need to be able to serve the entire country, even those people that didn't vote for you. Labelling them as deplorables is exactly the sort of divisive nonsense that made Trump such a problem.

It being true is really neither here nor there, it's one of those facts that simply can't be voiced in that manner. You can criticize the opposing candidate, but it's very shaky ground criticizing the opposing voters as these are the people who need to believe that you won't target them for their voting choices. Trump is again a great example, it's totally believable that he would target Democrat voters for the sin of not voting for him.

I don't think it is at all likely that a Clinton administration would have invaded Venezuela or Iran.

Iran they wouldn't because the Iran Deal was working fine and the Democrats supported it. Venezuela is unclear, imo, but it's exactly the sort of thing where the US has involved itself in the past.

And it's not clear that not getting involved is necessarily the right decision in world affairs.

The last 70 years of repeated failures isn't enough to convince you?

 

[Danoff]

This has gone further than I intended (not complaining, you guys are having a nice discussion, carry on). My original intent with dragging Hillary back into the light was not to claim that she's great. It was to understand how much of what surrounds her is nonsense. The GOP has been peddling in so much nonsense that I'm starting to realize that a lot of the narrative around her and Bill is as well.

I'm a little surprised to find that the allegations against Bill are not clear cut either. There are definitely some concerning allegations, and Bill's documented behavior with Monica is a big problem. But the whole thing is less cut and dry than I would have expected.

We're at a point in American politics where the mud-slinging is so nasty, that I do not expect to see a candidate with a penis run for office without being accused to sexual harassment or rape. Certainly some of it is substantiated. Bill's proven conduct with Monica is not acceptable. Bill's alleged conduct with others would put him in jail as a rapist if it were all proven in court. Trump's own statements, and witnessed allegations, are also damning (though probably wouldn't land him in jail as a rapist). But then we see Biden being accused as well, and given the insane made-up narratives of the GOP, I think this has to be the expectation going forward.

There are definite reasons to believe that some of what was alleged about bill was exactly that - a political move to try to smear him. It's complicated by the fact that his documented actions suggest that it is more believable than for someone who has no documented evidence, like Biden. But we're left with this awful situation of not being able to know whether the accusations are true unless we have evidence.

Which unfortunately means that because of the conspiracy theories, we'll have to let someone with accusers like Bill had off the hook politically. We need evidence before we can believe any of this stuff, because the Republicans have peddled so much nonsense these last 4 years... these last 4 days... that nothing can be believed anymore.

The only safe(er) thing to do* is elect women from here out.

*statistically

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

This is an interesting figure and it's left me wondering where we go from here.

Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.

That's obviously a far more lopsided figure than his actual proportion of the vote - and it's up further than it was in 2016 (36% vs 64%). Clearly the coasts influence this number quite a bit, but it paints a pretty vivid picture of the socio-economic partisan divide and the grievance politics. I think this dovetails with the disillusionment of our current economy and the perceived (amplified by social media) unfairness of it. It's hard not see why...about the only component of the economy that is producing positive headline figures right now is the stock market...which only 50% of Americans have any involvement in - fewer still (14%) have any sort of genuine money making, direct stake in it.

So you are being constantly bombarded (via social media) by the incredible financial success of some people but there is no real opportunity for you to accomplish the same if you are not in the right circumstance - ie advanced college degree, investments, inheritance, etc. Then you have people on cable news, talk radio, blogs, journals, etc telling you, in exact terms, who is causing this pain - it's the elites, the liberals, and their policies. It's like a rage factory.

I think there are only a few politicians that truly and innately grasp the problem. Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Andrew Yang. I see Yang's vision as the best as it vilifies the least number of people and actually seems to provide a workable roadmap to improving the situation.

In any case, and digressions aside, its obvious to me that the single greatest issue our country is dealing with right now is wealth inequality. Covid has dramatically turned up the wick, and Donald Trump is sledgehammering the wedge, but it exists apart from both of those things. It needs to be fixed and soon or there is going to be far worse unrest in years to come. More than anything else, we need to figure out a way to build up the middle class again, it is absolutely key to stability. We need more Americans to have something to lose, because it's pretty clear that many feel like they've got nothing to lose.

 

[Dotini]

More than anything else, we need to figure out a way to build up the middle class again, it is absolutely key to stability. We need more Americans to have something to lose, because it's pretty clear that many feel like they've got nothing to lose.

Great post, maybe your best ever. 👍
IMHO, the pathway to income and stability has traditionally been through jobs, specifically steady jobs with pay adequate to support a family and some prospect of advancement. I have my doubts that welfare and other government subsidies will do the same thing.

 

[Biggles]

However, if you're aiming to be President then you need to be able to serve the entire country, even those people that didn't vote for you. Labelling them as deplorables is exactly the sort of divisive nonsense that made Trump such a problem.

It being true is really neither here nor there, it's one of those facts that simply can't be voiced in that manner. You can criticize the opposing candidate, but it's very shaky ground criticizing the opposing voters as these are the people who need to believe that you won't target them for their voting choices. Trump is again a great example, it's totally believable that he would target Democrat voters for the sin of not voting for him.

Agreed. The total quote was:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

But she also said the other half of Trump’s supporters “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change.”

Iran they wouldn't because the Iran Deal was working fine and the Democrats supported it. Venezuela is unclear, imo, but it's exactly the sort of thing where the US has involved itself in the past.

The Democrats, since LBJ, have muddled in the margins, trying to influence outcomes favourable to US goals. They haven't launched a full scale invasion anywhere. There's no reason to think they would have launched an overt intervention in Venezuela.

The last 70 years of repeated failures isn't enough to convince you?

Not everything is a "failure" & intervention isn't automatically the wrong thing. You might want to take a look at General Dallaire's book: Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda.

Or there's always the Second World War. My former neighbour fought to liberate Europe from fascism & was severely wounded in the last weeks of the war. He just turned 96 years old - I'm relieved he lived long enough to see Trump defeated at the polls, but he wrote to me yesterday about his concerns that so many Americans continue to support a quasi-fascist figure.

This discussion is really in response to Danoff. Yeah, HRC isn't a saint. The Democrats don't always act ethically & they make mistakes in domestic & foreign policy, but it's still necessary to separate fact from fiction in coming to a comparative judgement of political figures. Voting for the "worse evil" can have very serious consequences. Trump & Trumpism seems to have pushed the United States to the brink of a completely "post-factual" world. The implications of this are very disturbing.

 

[longshot1314]

That's the large issue I see with Biden, returning to the Obama era status quo isn't really an option. If we do that then we're making the environment ripe for another Trump or even someone who actually lives up to the alt-lefts wet dream of a fascist dictator alt-right candidate. The wealth gap played directly into his hands when the Democrats ran Clinton, given how much she was representative of wall street and the 1% in addition to her other issues. This is also why the biggest issue I take with the Democrats is that rather than having some self awareness and taking some time to reflect on why they lost and why they had shortcomings, they instead tried to absolve themselves of any blame for it all. There's also the issue of the level of propaganda that MSM had been willing to push to support this given the duration of Russiagate and the fact now that redbaiting can be used as a means to delegitimize any populist movement regardless of whether the claim is legitimate or not. That's also led to a dangerous precedent being set with respect to censorship, when you consider the recent rash of journalists leaving long term postings at various media outlets and the subsequent social media ban hammer that's been making the rounds, targeting many groups that are not spreading misinformation but have a stance that can be considered a "threat" to the establishment. There was a recent case with respect to Bret Weinstein where his account was removed with no explanation and when it was reinstated the person who contacted him to do so was noted to have ties to the DNC. Regardless of who started the issue of misinformation, does it make it any different as to which side does it? Because in either case it's shades of authoritarianism. Also begs to ask the question, if something is objectively true or would have evidence to warrant further investigation, does it matter which side it comes from and who it puts in a bad light?

 

[huskeR32]

someone who actually lives up to the alt-lefts wet dream

Thanks for letting me know early that I didn't need to take your post seriously.

 

[GranTurNismo]

What even is the "alt-left"?

 

[Joey D]

What even is the "alt-left"?

Traditionally, they're anarchists, but I'm not sure what it means nowadays. It probably mostly refers to Antifa.

I can't see anyone in those groups ever getting very far in politics, especially in America. As @Danoff has pointed out, we have way too many people that embrace authoritarianism.