[Zelandakh]

PassedOut, on 2017-September-18, 05:10, said:

Korea.

Yes of course! Vietnam had its own issues...

[Winstonm]

This (from 2015) makes one wonder if the RNC weren't also involved, and if this isn't the type of "dirt" that was promised by the Russians at the Trump Tower meeting.

Note: this is not the NYT article but from a Clinton support group. Here is a link to the NYT article referenced: https://www.nytimes....to-test-it.html

Quote

By Peter Daou

The New York Times looks behind the curtain of the shadowy conservative effort to demolish Hillary Clinton’s favorable public image:

An expensive and sophisticated effort is underway to test and refine the most potent lines of attack against Mrs. Clinton, and, ultimately, to persuade Americans that she does not deserve their votes. While the general election is 16 months away, Republican groups are eager to begin building a powerful case against the woman they believe will be the Democratic nominee, and to infuse the public consciousness with those messages.

The effort to vilify Mrs. Clinton could ultimately cost several hundred million dollars, given the variety and volume of political organizations involved.

[jjbrr]

It's almost as if republicans had a clear strategy to win the election. Weird.

[Winstonm]

jjbrr, on 2017-September-18, 11:33, said:

It's almost as if republicans had a clear strategy to win the election. Weird.

Yes, but did that strategy include collusion with a foreign government? I have read that the Gucifer2 hacked documents were used in a number of Republican campaigns.

[Winstonm]

I keep going back to the Coates article in The Atlantic:

Quote

....But that is the point of white supremacy—to ensure that that which all others achieve with maximal effort, white people (particularly white men) achieve with minimal qualification.... …

....And so the most powerful country in the world has handed over all its affairs—the prosperity of its entire economy; the security of its 300 million citizens; the purity of its water, the viability of its air, the safety of its food; the future of its vast system of education; the soundness of its national highways, airways, and railways; the apocalyptic potential of its nuclear arsenal—to a carnival barker who introduced the phrase grab ’em by the [p—y] into the national lexicon....

And there are millions of voters who still celebrate this victory.

[jjbrr]

Winstonm, on 2017-September-18, 12:32, said:

Yes, but did that strategy include collusion with a foreign government? I have read that the Gucifer2 hacked documents were used in a number of Republican campaigns.

Of course it did, especially later in the summer.

[RedSpawn]

kenberg, on 2017-September-16, 10:03, said:

Voting for Hillary was the realistic alternative, at least for me. I have voted in every presidential election and in most or maybe all off year elections, since I turned 21 (then the legal voting age) in 1960. Rarely are the choices great, but there is always a choice. I would have voted for just about anyone over Donald Trump and I have not changed my mind.

My lack of enthusiasm for the PBS interview does not mean that I think HC would have been an awful president. We will of course never know how good or bad she would have been. "Inspiring" is not a word that comes to mind, not my mind anyway, but I think she would have thrown herself into the job with energy and good intent, she would have had a good crew, and with a bit of luck, as needed by all, it could have gone decently.

I might well return to this. Right now I need some lunch.

Question: Do you honestly think Hillary would have thrown herself into the job with energy and good intent with absolutely no advice or direction from her husband at all? My problem with HRC, besides the character issue of her campaign receiving material support from the Democratic National Committee and never officially apologizing to Bernie Sanders for the lapse of judgment, is that it almost feels like her husband has a chance at 16 years affecting policy at the White House.

I am not suggesting that HRC isn't her own woman. I am suggesting that the very fact that husband and wife can vie for the Presidency out of a nation of 330 million people smacks of what is wrong with our political system. HRC had a mentality that she should have ascended to the White House because of her sex, her pedigree, her political clout, and her family name. It's problematic in 30 years when you have the possibilities of:

• George H.W. Bush (4 years) (1989-1993)
  
• George W. Bush (8 years) (2001-2009)
  
• Bill Clinton (8 years) (1993-2001)
  
• Hillary Clinton (4 years) (2017-2021)

Are we a constitutional republic because this Presidential list has dynastic overtones had Hillary won?

[Al_U_Card]

As JFK went from hawk to dove, it looked as if it might be JFK then RFK the perhaps Teddy.... a real dynasty and not what the Military Industrial Intelligence community wanted (war profits).
What have those that were actually elected got in common? War. Weapons. Conflict.

[gwnn]

Not directly relevant to the thread, maybe, but a cute reality game online (if at times featuring slightly foul language):
You’ve Been Elected To Congress! Can You Pass Even One ***** Bill?

[kenberg]

RedSpawn, on 2017-September-18, 14:48, said:

Question: Do you honestly think Hillary would have thrown herself into the job with energy and good intent with absolutely no advice or direction from her husband at all? My problem with HRC, besides the character issue of her campaign receiving material support from the Democratic National Committee and never officially apologizing to Bernie Sanders for the lapse of judgment, is that it almost feels like her husband has a chance at 16 years affecting policy at the White House.

I am not suggesting that HRC isn't her own woman. I am suggesting that the very fact that husband and wife can vie for the Presidency out of a nation of 330 million people smacks of what is wrong with our political system. HRC had a mentality that she should have ascended to the White House because of her sex, her pedigree, her political clout, and her family name. It's problematic in 30 years when you have the possibilities of:

• George H.W. Bush (4 years) (1989-1993)
• George W. Bush (8 years) (2001-2009)
• Bill Clinton (8 years) (1993-2001)
• Hillary Clinton (4 years) (2017-2021)

Are we a constitutional republic because this Presidential list has dynastic overtones had Hillary won?

If he were to advise her not to get sexually involved with a White House intern I would be ok with that. More seriously, I suppose spouses have influence over presidents. In some cases, Nancy and Ronald. maybe quite a bit. In other cases, Mamie and Dwight, perhaps less. The influence that Bill might have was not a big concern for me. However I do agree that the general idea of a spouse, or a child, or a sibling, or some other close relative, following into the WH is not appealing to me. When push came to shove, I voted for Hillary. but I can understand the view that one Adams, one Bush, one Clinton is enough. I recall the sort of jokes and the sort of concerns of the Kennedy years but given the subsequent events I'll let that be.

Hillary acknowledges that she rubs people the wrong way. She does. Me as well. But I was asked about a reasonable alternative to Trump. My answer to that? Approximately anyone. I wasn't all that fond of Obama but I voted for him twice. And I wished him well, I just didn't all that much care for him. Trump is the only president in my lifetime for whom I can not really say that I wish him well. I don't think he wishes me well or that he wishes the country well. I think he is an obnoxious arrogant jerk. It's hard to wish success for such a person. It's not a case of his success will be our success. I don't think that at all.

I didn't vote for Ronald Reagan. I wished him well. There's a difference.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-September-18, 14:48, said:

Question: Do you honestly think Hillary would have thrown herself into the job with energy and good intent with absolutely no advice or direction from her husband at all? My problem with HRC, besides the character issue of her campaign receiving material support from the Democratic National Committee and never officially apologizing to Bernie Sanders for the lapse of judgment, is that it almost feels like her husband has a chance at 16 years affecting policy at the White House.

I am not suggesting that HRC isn't her own woman. I am suggesting that the very fact that husband and wife can vie for the Presidency out of a nation of 330 million people smacks of what is wrong with our political system. HRC had a mentality that she should have ascended to the White House because of her sex, her pedigree, her political clout, and her family name. It's problematic in 30 years when you have the possibilities of:

• George H.W. Bush (4 years) (1989-1993)
  
• George W. Bush (8 years) (2001-2009)
  
• Bill Clinton (8 years) (1993-2001)
  
• Hillary Clinton (4 years) (2017-2021)

Are we a constitutional republic because this Presidential list has dynastic overtones had Hillary won?

I'm sorry, but you are more concerned that Hillary may have asked for and received advice from a former president (oh, the horror!) than you are concerned about Donald Trump's possible compromising business dealings and potential blackmail material that foreign governments may hold against him?

[cherdano]

The good news is that Donald Trump is getting advice from Jared Kushner, who will solve the opioid crisis, bring Middle East peace, reform the VA, and negotiate with China. Bill Clinton couldn't compete with that!!

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2017-September-18, 16:05, said:

If he were to advise her not to get sexually involved with a White House intern I would be ok with that. More seriously, I suppose spouses have influence over presidents. In some cases, Nancy and Ronald. maybe quite a bit. In other cases, Mamie and Dwight, perhaps less. The influence that Bill might have was not a big concern for me. However I do agree that the general idea of a spouse, or a child, or a sibling, or some other close relative, following into the WH is not appealing to me. When push came to shove, I voted for Hillary. but I can understand the view that one Adams, one Bush, one Clinton is enough. I recall the sort of jokes and the sort of concerns of the Kennedy years but given the subsequent events I'll let that be.

If Hillary had immediately succeeded Bill, I might be worried about the dynasty problem. But she didn't. She went on to have a successful political career of her own, while Bill was busy running the Clinton Foundation with Chelsea, and this prepared her for the Presidency. Of course she would seek advice from Bill, but I'll take his advice over Ivanka's any day.

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on 2017-September-19, 08:19, said:

The good news is that Donald Trump is getting advice from Jared Kushner, who will solve the opioid crisis, bring Middle East peace, reform the VA, and negotiate with China. Bill Clinton couldn't compete with that!!

And refinance 666 5th Avenue through I'm sure ordinary and totally legal means.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2017-September-19, 08:58, said:

If Hillary had immediately succeeded Bill, I might be worried about the dynasty problem. But she didn't. She went on to have a successful political career of her own, while Bill was busy running the Clinton Foundation with Chelsea, and this prepared her for the Presidency. Of course she would seek advice from Bill, but I'll take his advice over Ivanka's any day.

I think we agree. Had Hillary won she would have been President Hillary, not President Hillary channeling Bill. Bill might not agree, but I expect she could easily have explained to him that his term was over.

The Dems regarded her as the certain candidate. This may have created, both with the public and with her, a setting that ultimately worked against her.

A lot of unfair things happened during the campaign. That's not new, only the specifics vary from one election to another. In a strange way, this is useful. Unfair things happen in life, unfair and in particular unexpected things happen during a presidency. The Shah of Iran develops caner and seeks treatment, for example. So, among the debates and the policy papers, we see how a candidate copes with the unfair and the unexpected. Not very well, I think that was the verdict on Hillary. If she really wants to know What Happened, I think she should start with that.
I am neither advocating nor justifying unfairness, but it is a fact of life and we note how a candidate deals with it.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2017-September-19, 09:18, said:

So, among the debates and the policy papers, we see how a candidate copes with the unfair and the unexpected. Not very well, I think that was the verdict on Hillary. If she really wants to know What Happened, I think she should start with that.

I prefer to think that the American people got the President that they deserved...

Good luck to them...

[RedSpawn]

barmar, on 2017-September-19, 08:58, said:

If Hillary had immediately succeeded Bill, I might be worried about the dynasty problem. But she didn't. She went on to have a successful political career of her own, while Bill was busy running the Clinton Foundation with Chelsea, and this prepared her for the Presidency. Of course she would seek advice from Bill, but I'll take his advice over Ivanka's any day.

OK. But if Hillary receives and potentially acts on advice from the First Gentleman ( who used to be a Former President), doesn't that fly in the face of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment? Technically, we didn't elect BC to a 3rd term, but he would just have a potentially material say in White House matters since his capable wife is in the Office of the President. And more likely than not, she will discuss thorny issues with those in her inner circle, including her husband.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2017-September-19, 09:18, said:

I think we agree. Had Hillary won she would have been President Hillary, not President Hillary channeling Bill. Bill might not agree, but I expect she could easily have explained to him that his term was over.

The Dems regarded her as the certain candidate. This may have created, both with the public and with her, a setting that ultimately worked against her.

A lot of unfair things happened during the campaign. That's not new, only the specifics vary from one election to another. In a strange way, this is useful. Unfair things happen in life, unfair and in particular unexpected things happen during a presidency. The Shah of Iran develops caner and seeks treatment, for example. So, among the debates and the policy papers, we see how a candidate copes with the unfair and the unexpected. Not very well, I think that was the verdict on Hillary. If she really wants to know What Happened, I think she should start with that.
I am neither advocating nor justifying unfairness, but it is a fact of life and we note how a candidate deals with it.

I don't think Trump's "unfair" antics did her in. She really needed to get out there, pound a few beers with the white blue-collar voters who supported Obama (of whom 18% voted for Trump) and make them feel like she was going to do real stuff, not fake stuff, to get their regional economies going again, that it wasn't going to be easy, that it wasn't going to happen over night, but she was not going to rest or play golf until she succeeded. Basically, be like Sanders on trade and education and channel Rocky. Not easy to pull off after a bitter primary with Bernie for someone who doesn't look like Sylvester Stallone.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-September-19, 13:00, said:

OK. But if Hillary receives and potentially acts on advice from the First Gentleman ( who used to be a Former President), doesn't that fly in the face of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment?

No. It was be stupid not to listen to his advice. How many president have the advantage of a living, breathing, ex-president in the WH with them?

[cherdano]

cherdano, on 2017-September-19, 08:19, said:

The good news is that Donald Trump is getting advice from Jared Kushner, who will solve the opioid crisis, bring Middle East peace, reform the VA, and negotiate with China. Bill Clinton couldn't compete with that!!

I forgot to mention the, according to sources close to Ivanka, moderating influence of Ivanka Trump. Her moderating influence would stop Trump from doing silly things like ending DACA (making life miserable for 1.2 million people), imposing a transgender troup ban (making life miserable for soldiers who trusted the government that they could be open about who they were for no reason other than reversing a decision by Obama), or (perhaps) withdrawing from the Paris agreement (making the future less safe for 6 billion people, just to reverse a decision by Obama).
We can all be grateful for Ivanka's effective moderating influence (according to sources close to Ivanka). Bill Clinton couldn't compete with that!