[cherdano]

Phil, I find it hard to understand why so many find Hillary unlikeable.

 Phil, on 2016-September-27, 08:39, said:

3. She could have taken him to task on the unpreparedness thing - if he can't prep for a debate, how will he prep for policy discussions or trade talks?

I thought she did:

Quote

Clinton: I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that's a good thing.

http://www.vox.com/2...t-clinton-trump
I don't think she needs to say more than that.

I have seen a lot of takes how Trump did badly, and of course he did. But I don't think Clinton is getting enough credit, I thought on some level she was quite brilliant. She succeeded in getting under Trump's skin very quickly - you may think that's easy but none of the other 16 Republican candidates managed to do that on the debate stage. She managed to make much of the debate about Trump (which is what you want to do if both candidates are unpopular), without making it too obvious that she wanted the debate to be about Trump. She hit him quite hard, but all of her attacks were organically in context because she had provoked Trump to lose his temper before that.

Meanwhile, the Team Clinton really did exceptionally well - the perfect roll-out of Alicia Marchado (and I do think it's a testament to Clinton's personal skills that she is able to recruit people like Marchado or Khan to act as surrogates for her), a website that keeps working during the debate, obviously they anticipated many attacks, etc.
Obviously I wouldn't hire Clinton as an actor, others are better at reproducing canned lines without anyone noticing they might be canned lines; but other than that I thought she basically did as well as possible.

[PassedOut]

Good opinion piece in the Post today: How passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be good for America

Quote

For the past 50 years, the export of goods and services has trended higher and now accounts for about 13 percent of our GDP and supports 1 in 12 U.S. jobs. Equally important, workers in export-intensive manufacturing industries earn 18 percent more, on average, than those in other manufacturing sectors. The TPP would eliminate some 18,000 tariffs, making our exports less costly and more competitive. Removing those tariffs would translate directly into more exports abroad and sustain more good-paying jobs at home.

Crawling fearfully into a nationalistic hole, as the anti-trade movement demands, exemplifies short-term thinking perfectly. And even more ridiculous is relying on more tax cuts for the rich to build the economy. Hillary's switch on the TPP is, in my opinion, simply pandering to the ignorant for votes.

[shyams]

 cherdano, on 2016-September-28, 05:55, said:

I have seen a lot of takes how Trump did badly, and of course he did. But I don't think Clinton is getting enough credit, I thought on some level she was quite brilliant. She succeeded in getting under Trump's skin very quickly - you may think that's easy but none of the other 16 Republican candidates managed to do that on the debate stage. She managed to make much of the debate about Trump (which is what you want to do if both candidates are unpopular), without making it too obvious that she wanted the debate to be about Trump. She hit him quite hard, but all of her attacks were organically in context because she had provoked Trump to lose his temper before that.

I agree with you that Clinton was excellent during the first debate.

In my personal view (and I'm certain many US posters will vehemently disagree), Hillary gets a raw deal because she's a woman.

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2016-September-11, 16:15, said:

So, is Hil sick (medically) or what?

Apparently completely cured from whatever medical problems she had a couple of weeks ago based on her debate appearance. On the other hand, Trump looked and sounded awful sniffling the entire debate. To be perfectly fair, one democratic pundit suggested Trump wasn't really sick and that the sniffling was due to cocaine use.

[PassedOut]

 shyams, on 2016-September-28, 08:40, said:

I agree with you that Clinton was excellent during the first debate.

In my personal view (and I'm certain many US posters will vehemently disagree), Hillary gets a raw deal because she's a woman.

I agree, not an easy task as a debater: How could sexism hurt Clinton in the debates? These female high school debaters know.

Quote

“I have to think about things in a way my male counterparts don’t, like toeing the line between passionate and hysterical,” Fanger says. “It’s harder for women to have the freedom to be emotional, like to tap into the anger that’s getting Trump and [Bernie] Sanders votes. If [Clinton] gets up and waves her arms around and screams, people will feel like they’re being yelled at by their mom.” (Incidentally, this is exactly how then-CNN commentator Jack Cafferty described Clinton’s primary debate performance in 2008, saying that she had showed a “softer side” in one round against Barack Obama but later “morphed into a scolding mother.”)

“Clinton faces similar challenges in terms of trying to both confront stereotypes but at the same time being weirdly beholden to them, because she needs voters to vote for her in the same way I need a judge to vote for me,” Fanger says. “I don’t have full freedom to fight the patriarchy in the way I want to because it’s a competitive activity. I’m in that room to get the ballot.”

Which, come November, is exactly what another woman seeks to do. And whether or not these young debaters want Clinton to be president, they are hoping her candidacy helps change what it means to be a woman in debate — and what it means to be “presidential.”

[cherdano]

 PassedOut, on 2016-September-28, 07:21, said:

Hillary's switch on the TPP is, in my opinion, simply pandering to the ignorant for votes.

The interview with Ezra Klein has interesting comments by her on immigration:

Quote

Is it a big job displacement? No. But is it something? Yes. Is it something that is painful and personally hurtful to somebody you know, maybe not you but someone down the line? Absolutely. And I think it’s a mistake to just make the economic argument.

I'd imagine that her thinking on trade is similar. She knows that economists would judge TPP to be a benefit, and that there'll be more winners than losers. But she also thinks that it is not enough to make their argument - you also need to convince voters that it's a good idea, and that politicians have made a serious effort at softening the impact on those losing by the deal (and unless TPP doesn't do anything, there'll be a few losers from the disruptive effect of any change).

The odd thing about all that is that trade in general doesn't poll that well, and neither did TPP before the primaries began. It just became a political hot issue for both Trump and Sanders supporters.

Personally, I find it hard to understand how some (especially Sanders supporters) developed such strong opinions about TPP. It's an extremely complex deals, with some stuff that's clearly beneficial, others that I don't like much, and a lot lot more I don't know much about.

[Phil]

 cherdano, on 2016-September-28, 05:55, said:

Phil, I find it hard to understand why so many find Hillary unlikeable.

I thought she did:

http://www.vox.com/2...t-clinton-trump
I don't think she needs to say more than that.

If I were coaching her, I would have told her to go right for the jugular on this issue and said,

"Mr. Trump, if you can't be expected to adequately prepare for a presidential debate, how can you be expected to make national policy decisions or negotiate trade deals if you dont prepare?"

Re: the likability aspect, well, I don't think she's especially articulate (BHO has set a high bar unfortunately - so did Bill) and she has a real penchant for not telling the truth, or telling a filtered version. She reminds me of so many of my bridge opponents that never disclose because they think it's winning bridge.

On Monday, they both spoke in sound bites. Hers were just more intelligent and we'll rehearsed.

Note: I was a Bernie supporter, and I didon't like her six months ago.

Note2: many people in my family support Trump. They've asked me what is so great about HRC. But I don't have to make the case for her, I merely have to make the case against him, which is trivial.

[Phil]

Here's the excerpt from VOX:

Trump: Look, the African-American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time, like right now. And after the election they say see you later, I'll see you in four year of the African American community, they've been abused and used in order to get votes by Democrats and politicians.

They've controlled these communities for up to 100 years. I'll tell you, you look at the inner cities, and I left Detroit and Philadelphia and you've seen me. I've been all over the place. You decided to stay home, and that's okay. But I will tell you. I've been all over, and I've met some of the greatest people I'll ever meet within these communities, and they are very, very upset with what their politicians have told them and what their politicians have done.

Clinton: I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that's a good thing.

Seems she picked a strange time to play this card.

[awm]

 PassedOut, on 2016-September-28, 07:21, said:

Good opinion piece in the Post today: How passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be good for America


Crawling fearfully into a nationalistic hole, as the anti-trade movement demands, exemplifies short-term thinking perfectly. And even more ridiculous is relying on more tax cuts for the rich to build the economy. Hillary's switch on the TPP is, in my opinion, simply pandering to the ignorant for votes.

Note that the authors of this article are CEOs of large multi-national corporations. It's exactly these sorts of companies which most stand to benefit from the TPP.

As far as I can tell, the truly horrifying thing about the TPP is the investor-state dispute settlement which basically lets multinational companies sue countries for damages when they pass profit-reducing laws like environmental protections, family leave, a minimum wage, etc. Further, these lawsuits are judged not by neutral third parties but by corporate lawyers who are likely to represent the vary corporations they are judging in the next case down the line.

In general economists agree that trade is good on the whole, but it can easily lead to a "race to the bottom" in terms of labor, safety, and the environment as companies relocate to the places with weakest relevant regulations (and apparently, sue countries which try to improve standards for billions). A well-designed trade deal should therefore ensure that participating countries with lower standards gradually raise them, whereas the TPP seems to make it difficult for any participating country to raise them without being sued.

[Cyberyeti]

 awm, on 2016-September-28, 21:37, said:

Note that the authors of this article are CEOs of large multi-national corporations. It's exactly these sorts of companies which most stand to benefit from the TPP.

As far as I can tell, the truly horrifying thing about the TPP is the investor-state dispute settlement which basically lets multinational companies sue countries for damages when they pass profit-reducing laws like environmental protections, family leave, a minimum wage, etc. Further, these lawsuits are judged not by neutral third parties but by corporate lawyers who are likely to represent the vary corporations they are judging in the next case down the line.

In general economists agree that trade is good on the whole, but it can easily lead to a "race to the bottom" in terms of labor, safety, and the environment as companies relocate to the places with weakest relevant regulations (and apparently, sue countries which try to improve standards for billions). A well-designed trade deal should therefore ensure that participating countries with lower standards gradually raise them, whereas the TPP seems to make it difficult for any participating country to raise them without being sued.

And the rest of the world sees American based multinationals producing dodgy products and suing anybody objects on public health or environmental grounds. This is why TTIP is despised by many in Europe, and probably won't get passed.

[PassedOut]

 Phil, on 2016-September-28, 20:20, said:

Here's the excerpt from VOX:

Trump: Look, the African-American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time, like right now. And after the election they say see you later, I'll see you in four year of the African American community, they've been abused and used in order to get votes by Democrats and politicians.

They've controlled these communities for up to 100 years. I'll tell you, you look at the inner cities, and I left Detroit and Philadelphia and you've seen me. I've been all over the place. You decided to stay home, and that's okay. But I will tell you. I've been all over, and I've met some of the greatest people I'll ever meet within these communities, and they are very, very upset with what their politicians have told them and what their politicians have done.

Clinton: I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that's a good thing.

Seems she picked a strange time to play this card.

It seems to me that Trump was teasing her about staying at home preparing for the debate, so what time would have been better? And I don't see that she had to refute Trump's notion that the Republicans have been doing a better job of acting in the interest of African-Americans than have the Democrats.

[kenberg]

 awm, on 2016-September-28, 21:37, said:

Note that the authors of this article are CEOs of large multi-national corporations. It's exactly these sorts of companies which most stand to benefit from the TPP.

As far as I can tell, the truly horrifying thing about the TPP is the investor-state dispute settlement which basically lets multinational companies sue countries for damages when they pass profit-reducing laws like environmental protections, family leave, a minimum wage, etc. Further, these lawsuits are judged not by neutral third parties but by corporate lawyers who are likely to represent the vary corporations they are judging in the next case down the line.

In general economists agree that trade is good on the whole, but it can easily lead to a "race to the bottom" in terms of labor, safety, and the environment as companies relocate to the places with weakest relevant regulations (and apparently, sue countries which try to improve standards for billions). A well-designed trade deal should therefore ensure that participating countries with lower standards gradually raise them, whereas the TPP seems to make it difficult for any participating country to raise them without being sued.

I am not prepared to either endorse what you say or dispute what you say, but I think you have very well demonstrated the true tragedy of this election. There are many topics that need but are not getting substantial discussion.

A day or two before the debate I suggested a question for HC about the TTP, along the lines of "We get it that you have changed your mind about the TTP, but are you objecting to some of the details or objecting to the broad idea of it?" I think that she touched on this a little, saying that, I forget her exact words, we need to develop trade with the world. But that's too easy.

DT is a disaster, most, not all, of us agree. He will tell China what to do, tell everyone what to do, of course they will all do what he says because he is the Donald. If they refuse, he will fire them. But the corollary is that we do not have any engagement over differing but realistic alternatives. This is very much to be regretted.

[Winstonm]

Last night I heard a report that Hillary Clinton has proposed an idea to make college free to instate residents. This is a farsighted positive idea on par with the grand ideas proposed by the likes of FDT and LBJ, and an idea that is constructive rather than punitive. There is virtually no media coverage about it - the media is still reporting on the latest Trump fiasco or falsehood.

It's hard for Hillary to make any image inroads without news coverage. Our U.S. media seems to have this Presidential election cycle confused with WWF Wrestlemania.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2016-September-29, 08:06, said:

Last night I heard a report that Hillary Clinton has proposed an idea to make college free to instate residents. This is a farsighted positive idea on par with the grand ideas proposed by the likes of FDT and LBJ, and an idea that is constructive rather than punitive. There is virtually no media coverage about it - the media is still reporting on the latest Trump fiasco or falsehood.

It's hard for Hillary to make any image inroads without news coverage. Our U.S. media seems to have this Presidential election cycle confused with WWF Wrestlemania.

This is another area where I think that competing realistic ideas would be very welcome. I need to see a seriously ill friend but I will come back to this later. Opportunity is very good. I am not positive that free college is so good. It might, as is often the case, depend on the details.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2016-September-29, 08:17, said:

This is another area where I think that competing realistic ideas would be very welcome. I need to see a seriously ill friend but I will come back to this later. Opportunity is very good. I am not positive that free college is so good. It might, as is often the case, depend on the details.

FWIW, free college tuition is one of the areas where I don''t agree with the progressive left.
I am strongly in favor of permanent minimum income.
Furthermore, I believe that this amount should be sufficient to allow a person to attend classes at a state college.

However, I think that it is a mistake to explicitly tie the income to a activity (attending college)

[PassedOut]

 hrothgar, on 2016-September-29, 08:40, said:

FWIW, free college tuition is one of the areas where I don''t agree with the progressive left.
I am strongly in favor of permanent minimum income.
Furthermore, I believe that this amount should be sufficient to allow a person to attend classes at a state college.

However, I think that it is a mistake to explicitly tie the income to a activity (attending college)

The permanent minimum income is inevitable, in my opinion, because it's the only sensible solution to the problems we are already starting to face. However, the political reality is that it will take a long time for folks to accept our evolving situation, and free college tuition is, I think, a useful interim step. We need to work toward a future that maximizes the efficient production of goods and services without dooming folks who lack the interest and/or talent to compete in that arena. This is not going to be an easy or simple transition.

[Al_U_Card]

 kenberg, on 2016-September-29, 07:05, said:

If they refuse, he will fire them.

As opposed to firing at them (with drones etc.) as already approved by the consensus?

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2016-September-29, 08:40, said:

FWIW, free college tuition is one of the areas where I don''t agree with the progressive left.
I am strongly in favor of permanent minimum income.
Furthermore, I believe that this amount should be sufficient to allow a person to attend classes at a state college.

However, I think that it is a mistake to explicitly tie the income to a activity (attending college)

This is why I enjoy these forums so much - a solution I had not considered. I can see the benefit to a minimum income simply in economic activity.

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2016-September-29, 09:03, said:

The permanent minimum income is inevitable, in my opinion, because it's the only sensible solution to the problems we are already starting to face. However, the political reality is that it will take a long time for folks to accept our evolving situation, and free college tuition is, I think, a useful interim step. We need to work toward a future that maximizes the efficient production of goods and services without dooming folks who lack the interest and/or talent to compete in that arena. This is not going to be an easy or simple transition.

Learning from the past involves not repeating the same mistakes. It's all about the banking system and its casino-capitalism joint venture with the financial corporations. Rapacious business practices are bad enough but when the oversight of government is dictated by the Federal Reserve and its economic policies, the only loser is the common man.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-September-29, 08:17, said:

This is another area where I think that competing realistic ideas would be very welcome. I need to see a seriously ill friend but I will come back to this later. Opportunity is very good. I am not positive that free college is so good. It might, as is often the case, depend on the details.

How do we overcome the "let's go back to the Wild West good old days" mentality in sufficient numbers to pass constructive legislation that is for the benefit of the many rather than the few?