Captain,
I probably did. Thank you for the fix.
Hilary Clinton had to deal with flak coming at her husband for a long long while. I think that's a terrible angle for trump to go at, considering she's pretty used to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hilary Clinton had to deal with flak coming at her husband for a long long while. I think that's a terrible angle for trump to go at, considering she's pretty used to it.
Chelsea Clinton said in an interview last week "I can't remember a time when my family wasn't under attack".
Crystal,
Probably when they weren't in the public eye...
Paul Ryan has already called it off.Yeah, he hasn't rescinded his support for Trump though.
Basically Ryan is saying, "Trump is too much of a creep to come to Wisconsin, but I still support him being in charge of the country."
The Repubs will back him even if they have to hold their noses. Ditching him means losing the election so they are stuck on the tiger.
By the way, they found some more tapes. Y'know, in case that coffin needed any more nails in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably when they weren't in the public eye...
He was elected Governor of Arkansas in 1978. She was born in February 1980. So her entire lifetime.
Crystal,
Right so before she was born, he and Hilary married and you know...other stuff.
Manny,
They're already losing the election! It's just a question of how badly.
Red,
I can't wait...
The Repubs will back him even if they have to hold their noses. Ditching him means losing the election so they are stuck on the tiger.Paul Ryan has already called it off.Yeah, he hasn't rescinded his support for Trump though.
Basically Ryan is saying, "Trump is too much of a creep to come to Wisconsin, but I still support him being in charge of the country."
If Trump ends up being a lost cause (poll numbers so low he has no chance of winning the presidency) they will cut him free. Resources they spend on him can be spent on the senatorial and House elections, and tying those candidates to Trump risks them losing votes as well.
The biggest risk, IMHO, of the GOP giving up on Trump is that Trump has no party loyalty. If they cut the cash and resource flow to his campaign, and withdraw all support, Trump will almost certainly take a scorched earth approach. He can publicly endorse his base, which probably number something like 40% of the likely Republican voters, to vote against those other candidates
If Trump doesn't recover from his current diving poll numbers, either way the GOP is probably screwed.
According to Politico, the RNC has stopped all work on the Trump campaign
The Repubs will back him even if they have to hold their noses. Ditching him means losing the election so they are stuck on the tiger.Paul Ryan has already called it off.Yeah, he hasn't rescinded his support for Trump though.
Basically Ryan is saying, "Trump is too much of a creep to come to Wisconsin, but I still support him being in charge of the country."
I have no particular insight into Republican workings, but I'm seeing a bunch of articles that the RNC is pulling their money and support. Some commentators say this means they are "abandoning their candidate to certain defeat" and other Repubs running for Congress are running away from him.
*Ninja'd
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... who thinks the newspapers after the election result are going to be "You're FIRED!"?
So... who thinks the newspapers after the election result are going to be "You're FIRED!"?
It's too early to count those chickens.
If a lot of people suddenly decide that Hillary 'can't lose', you'll see votes peel away from her like crazy. And that could throw the election into the house of representatives.
Where it's far to early to tell who will hold the majority (probably Republicans)and what they would do if they had to choose between Hilary and the electorate who had just "defeated" her
Let me rephrase: If Clinton wins, would that headline be used? =)
What I don't get is all the talk of Trump dropping out. At this point, it's far too late for that. Some states have already starting mailing out ballots, etc. Unless I'm missing something, for Republicans it's Trump or no one.
|
What I don't get is all the talk of Trump dropping out. At this point, it's far too late for that. Some states have already starting mailing out ballots, etc. Unless I'm missing something, for Republicans it's Trump or no one.
That's correct.
It's just that some of them are realizing they'd have been better off running no one.
So, after Trump latest faux pas about women showing everybody how higly he values the fairer sex we now have a bunch of emails about the inner workings of Clinton's campaign and her view about issues such as the middle class and regualting Wall Street.
To keep the D&D analog, to me these elections seem a lot like like a village having to choose between a clan of ogres or a coven of vampires to rule them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To keep the D&D analog, to me these elections seem a lot like like a village having to choose between a clan of ogres or a coven of vampires to rule them.
Ah, yes, another master of the false equivalence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's one of the quotes:
"My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing," she (Clinton) said in the remarks. "...And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it."
...Was anybody expecting anything else, given the life she's lead? This seems more like an honest admission of reality than a smoking gun saying she's utterly out of touch and wants to stomp all over the middle class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's one of the quotes:
"My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing," she (Clinton) said in the remarks. "...And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it."...Was anybody expecting anything else, given the life she's lead? This seems more like an honest admission of reality than a smoking gun saying she's utterly out of touch and wants to stomp all over the middle class.
That's my take on it. If she had claimed actually to be middle class, people would have jumped all over her tax returns and (justifiably) laughed, because that would have indicated she had no idea what a middle class income or lifestyle looked like. (I remember a quote that unfortunately I can't find; someone was interviewing a televangelist about household finances, and the televangelist asked something like "is two million dollars a lot of money?" Yes, you dolt, it is, and it was even more back then.)
Almost every politician claims in their TV ads to have come from the middle class (even when they didn't); every politician claims to be concerned for the middle class in their TV ads. I'm genuinely impressed that Hilary says the same thing behind closed doors in speeches to Wall Street plutocrats.
Here's one of the quotes:
"My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing," she (Clinton) said in the remarks. "...And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it."...Was anybody expecting anything else, given the life she's lead? This seems more like an honest admission of reality than a smoking gun saying she's utterly out of touch and wants to stomp all over the middle class.
The context matters: as I read, this is HRC's paid speech to a group of bankers explaining her position on Wall Street. What she's doing here is answering an "unspoken question" ("Can we trust this democrat with our interests"?) in order to ingratiate herself with her audience. It's the ABC of the political speech. And given HRC's ideas on the need of having a public and a private position on everything I find it quite revealing.
@ Orfamay Quest: Do you favor Ogres over Vampires or Vampires over Ogres?
Granted, one group is messier than the other but the end result is the same.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Orfamay Quest: Do you favor Ogres over Vampires or Vampires over Ogres?
Not a relevant question, as Clinton is neither an ogre nor a vampire, and it requires willful ignorance of the actual histories, positions, actions, and proposed policies of the two to even consider that as a working hypothetical.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think she's necessarily wrong on the positions thing - or even unusual. Take the fact that the President has the nuclear launch codes, for example. Even if she personally has no desire to ever launch them (her private position), as President, she'd probably be obligated to uphold the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction in order to discourage others from using them (the public position). If a President felt this way, would it be wrong of them?
Similarly, part of negotiating is not letting others know how much you're actually willing to give up, usually in the interests of getting the best deal for the people you represent. Again... is having a public stance for your political opponents, and a private stance with your allies, inherently a bad thing?
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, the Clinton speech excerpts are overall much better than I expected. There were only a few positions I found objectionable, all of which were already known issues, and several where I was pleasantly surprised that she'd make such an argument... especially considering the audience.
If this is the 'most damning' stuff they have on her... they're making me more optimistic about her potential administration.
Seriously, comparing 'she admits she is no longer middle-class' with 'he says he likes to sexually assault women' is no longer just 'false equivalence'... it has passed into a level of such desperation to avoid having to make a rationale choice as to approach a disassociative disorder.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think she's necessarily wrong on the positions thing - or even unusual. Take the fact that the President has the nuclear launch codes, for example. Even if she personally has no desire to ever launch them (her private position), as President, she'd probably be obligated to uphold the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction in order to discourage others from using them (the public position). If a President felt this way, would it be wrong of them?
Similarly, part of negotiating is not letting others know how much you're actually willing to give up, usually in the interests of getting the best deal for the people you represent. Again... is having a public stance for your political opponents, and a private stance with your allies, inherently a bad thing?
That really depends on how well she can distinguish between her opponents and her allies. One of the things that killed the Romney campaign is that he considered bankers his allies, and the American population at large ("These are people who pay no income tax. ...and so my job is not to worry about those people.") to be his enemy.
Turning that around, though,.... the fact that she [Clinton] is willing to tell bankers to their face, in private, that she sympathizes with the middle class is the living antithesis of having a private and public policy. If she had really wanted to ingratiate herself, she could have pulled a Romney-esque "Let them eat cake!" Why didn't she? What stopped her?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cynical View: Decades of being under constant attack by right-wing media encouraged her to never, ever say anything genuinely damaging, even in private, lest it be leaked and hurt her at some point in the future.
Optimist View: She actually believes in the things she says and, if not perfect, genuinely does care at least some about the poor and the middle class.
Practical View: Having wealthy and successful people holding accounts is good for banks, and it's important to take the long-term view instead of focusing solely on quarterly profits.
Ancient Aliens View: Her meat-suit was equipped with a hypnotic sub-vocalizer that makes people do the opposite of what she says, so she could help destroy the American banking industry while still sounding like a saint in preparation for the polar shift of the ley lines calling Atlantis back for the Illuminati.
@ Orfamay Quest: Do you favor Ogres over Vampires or Vampires over Ogres?Not a relevant question, as Clinton is neither an ogre nor a vampire, and it requires willful ignorance of the actual histories, positions, actions, and proposed policies of the two to even consider that as a working hypothetical.
In your opinion, that is. And BASED on the factors you mention I beg to differ.
I believe HRC is the kind of person who will do whatever she has to do to please the people who matter most for her: the people paying her, not "the People" (or "the rabble" as someone put it a long time ago).
Take the stuff about "being out of touch with the interests of the middle class because I'm not one of them anymore". IF this speech would have been given at a public debate, possibly against Sanders, your interpretation would be perfectly right: HRC was being shockingly honest with her circumstances.
But this is not the case.
She's giving this little speech to a bunch of people who most assuredly are NOT middle class and never were middle class. People who paid some thousand dollars to hear her speak. And she wants to ingratiate herself with them, show them thay have "common ground". So the message she's trying to convey is "Yes, I used to be middle class, and yes, my father was a progressive blaimg the elite for many a thing" (all stuff she can't deny, so it's better to admit it), but I've not been middle class for a long time now".
She would have NEVER given such a speech at a debate with Sanders, where her caipaign tried to give her a completely different image (and different "public positions" on a lot of issues, by the way).
Call me sanctimonious but I find this the the height of hypocrisy, and yes, a lot of politicians are just like that. Doesn't mean we should accept the fact as something to be lived with.
P.S.
I was thinking about the nuclear issue recently. My take is this: Trump wins the elections and you've better hope he doesn't wake up angry. HRC wins the elections and you have to hope the people giving her orders don't want to make an example.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders."
That's the line that's grabbed me the most (so far) in my readings of the Podesta docs. Clinton has a vision of a N & S American common market + Shengen-equivalent travel policies? As long as it corrected the EU's political vs economic sovereignty issues, sign me right up!
This kind of thing is what I mean when I tell Clinton's critics from the left that she'll shock them with how progressive she is. Best way to make that happen is to give her a Democratic Congress to work with.
Cynical View: Decades of being under constant attack by right-wing media encouraged her to never, ever say anything genuinely damaging, even in private, lest it be leaked and hurt her at some point in the future.
Optimist View: She actually believes in the things she says and, if not perfect, genuinely does care at least some about the poor and the middle class.
Practical View: Having wealthy and successful people holding accounts is good for banks, and it's important to take the long-term view instead of focusing solely on quarterly profits.
Ancient Aliens View: Her meat-suit was equipped with a hypnotic sub-vocalizer that makes people do the opposite of what she says, so she could help destroy the American banking industry while still sounding like a saint in preparation for the polar shift of the ley lines calling Atlantis back for the Illuminati.
Those are all theories, yes. The only one that actually sounds like it could be damaging, if true, is the fourth. Even the first one shows how presidential she is compared with Trump, since he doesn't seem to be able to keep from saying genuinely damaging things on Twitter the night after having his arse handed to him in a debate.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ancient Aliens View: Her meat-suit was equipped with a hypnotic sub-vocalizer that makes people do the opposite of what she says, so she could help destroy the American banking industry while still sounding like a saint in preparation for the polar shift of the ley lines calling Atlantis back for the Illuminati.
This is actually making more sense to me than Rogar's 'interpretation'.
Ancient Aliens View: Her meat-suit was equipped with a hypnotic sub-vocalizer that makes people do the opposite of what she says, so she could help destroy the American banking industry while still sounding like a saint in preparation for the polar shift of the ley lines calling Atlantis back for the Illuminati.This is actually making more sense to me than Rogar's 'interpretation'.
Nice to know. Care to explain what makes so little sense in my "interpretation"?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that there is a secret cabal giving Hillary Clinton a secret hit list of people they want nuked maybe?
Just a shot in the dark. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, the Clinton speech excerpts are overall much better than I expected. There were only a few positions I found objectionable, all of which were already known issues, and several where I was pleasantly surprised that she'd make such an argument... especially considering the audience.
They're almost exactly what I expected*. Praise for austerity measures (the Simpson-Bowles plan), talk about how the financial parasites are innovative and create jobs, soothing backrubs about how there's a "bias against people who live successful lives," we need Wall Street insiders to fix Wall Street, how it wasn't 100% true that Wall Street had rigged the economy, etc., etc.
All to people who, five to seven years prior, helped to tank the economy.
Oh yeah, and she's in favor of single-payer because "it keeps costs down" but we'll never, ever get it.
---
*"I pretty much expect that corporate shills like Hillary (and all the Republican candidates, probably Chafee and O'Malley, too, though I didn't particularly follow them) get paid big bucks to come into corporate offices and give them verbal back rubs about how great they are for the economy, innovate technology, whatever, so, as I said, I always thought this issue was pretty weaksauce and the fact that Bernie couldn't come up with better material was further evidence that Bernie really wasn't any danger to the kleptocratic, plutocratic rulers of this country."
The fact that there is a secret cabal giving Hillary Clinton a secret hit list of people they want nuked maybe?
Just a shot in the dark. :-)
You sure you got my meaning about the nukes' example? It was an exageration and on both counts. Meaning I believe Trump to be a dangerous irrational sociopath and HRC to be a self serving politician willing to do whatever it takes to get more power and her strategy for this has always been making those richer and more powerful than her happy.
So, what secret cabal? I never even hinted about such concept. The names of those who paid for HRC's campaigns are all well known.
You don't need to be a genius to understand how the lawmaking process works with the likes of HRC. People with the means pay you and you do their bidding when it comes to implementing policies. It's a safe bet and a wise economical strategy to have those who pass legislation on your paycheck and this is not just today's issue or even HRC's issue. It's a systemic issue and has been for a long time. Reforming it, I believe, was a big part of Berie Sanders' campaign.
Oh, and don't try to strawman my arguments please, I find it rather unpleasant.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Raises hand*
I'd like to call attention back to the whole "rich people donating to her Foundation for favors" thing. I think some of the people donating expected that to happen, but nobody found any actual impropriety there. Some people who donated had their requests denied, and some people who benefited were the kind of people we expect the Government to help.
I don't think she's as easy to buy as some people think she is.
Yes.
As I believe we all established in another thread, we all expect the government to help union-busters and off-shorers, arm blood-stained theocratic monarchies, etc., etc.
It's how the system works.
I know what you're trying to say, Comrade, but I feel like you're deliberately misinterpreting what I said in order to make your point, and I think you'd be more effective at persuading people to agree with you if you didn't do that.
The fact that there is a secret cabal giving Hillary Clinton a secret hit list of people they want nuked maybe?
Just a shot in the dark. :-)
You sure you got my meaning about the nukes' example? It was an exageration and on both counts. Meaning I believe Trump to be a dangerous irrational sociopath and HRC to be a self serving politician willing to do whatever it takes to get more power and her strategy for this has always been making those richer and more powerful than her happy.
So, what secret cabal? I never even hinted about such concept. The names of those who paid for HRC's campaigns are all well known.
You don't need to be a genius to understand how the lawmaking process works with the likes of HRC. People with the means pay you and you do their bidding when it comes to implementing policies. It's a safe bet and a wise economical strategy to have those who pass legislation on your paycheck and this is not just today's issue or even HRC's issue. It's a systemic issue and has been for a long time. Reforming it, I believe, was a big part of Berie Sanders' campaign.Oh, and don't try to strawman my arguments please, I find it rather unpleasant.
Just explaining what part of what you originally said was preposterous, that was all.
*agrees that nuclear fallout is bad for people*
I know what you're trying to say, Comrade, but I feel like you're deliberately misinterpreting what I said in order to make your point, and I think you'd be more effective at persuading people to agree with you if you didn't do that.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
but that's because Trump isn't actually finished yet.
This.
I'm not yet convinced that the hard-core Trump supporters are a small number of voters. While this weekend is likely to winnow out the remaining Republicans who aren't part of the alt-right, it's not entirely clear to me how big a percentage of the voters are all-in for Trump.
This election is likely to give us a very good metric for how close the country is to tipping to fascism.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know what you're trying to say, Comrade, but I feel like you're deliberately misinterpreting what I said in order to make your point, and I think you'd be more effective at persuading people to agree with you if you didn't do that.I'm sorry you feel that way.
Giving a false apology really isn't helping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually kind of annoyed at this.
The man is a moron, a scam artist, has the attention span of a goldfish (if that rumor about attention span was true), and either had or is willing to fake a breadth of counterfactual ignorance.
THIS is the bridge too far? Really?
|
|
Nice to know. Care to explain what makes so little sense in my "interpretation"?
Your theory that Clinton mentioning the change in her circumstances from her middle-class roots was secretly an effort to "ingratiate" herself to rich bankers and tell them that she had abandoned progressive principals.
In isolation it is a ridiculously biased stretch. In context with her other comments, including numerous progressive positions that the audience would not support, it lacks even the internal logical consistency of the Illuminati explanation.
Non-Wall Street related, article being passed around by all my Palestinian solidarity activist friends:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking about the nuclear issue recently. My take is this: Trump wins the elections and you've better hope he doesn't wake up angry. HRC wins the elections and you have to hope the people giving her orders don't want to make an example.
Even IF that's true, a few Killary death squads running around are better than nuclear bombs going off. IF she has them, her ninja assassins have proven that they can take out their targets quietly, efficiently, with no collateral damage and no evidence to leave behind for an FBI investigation 3 special prosecutors and 2 house subcommittee investigations to find.
Giving a false apology really isn't helping.I know what you're trying to say, Comrade, but I feel like you're deliberately misinterpreting what I said in order to make your point, and I think you'd be more effective at persuading people to agree with you if you didn't do that.I'm sorry you feel that way.
It isn't false. I'm sorry he feels that I am deliberately misinterpreting what he said. I just don't think I am.