Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

[Jarhyn]

As someone who is, ostensibly, in the group that HRC managed to not inspire to the polls, no. She failed because she was unable to be the democrat we wanted. If the DNC really wants o win elections, they need to field a real progressive with clearly stated policy goals, and a track record for actually pursuing those goals.

(And preferably one who has an education that isn't 30 years past its best-by date)

I actually feel the same way as you. I've always been more progressive than the people I've voted for. Most of my votes have been votes against people I didn't want in office than for people I did.

That you decided against using that very valid strategy and seeing what we have to deal with today, it makes me wonder about the thought process that went into your decision.

View attachment 18538

Maybe you missed it, but this thread pretty well starts with me saying that I held my nose and voted for her anyway. I include myself in that mentioned demographic because it was NOT an easy decision, because when should it ever be easy to vote for someone you believe will betray your interests, as HRC almost did with TPP or her utter lack of interest or understanding about net neutrality, or her failure to make clear policy choices against the growing debt-slavery that is student loans?

But yes, I did vote for her, even after she abandoned the principle that the democrat who should run is the democrat that inspires those under 30 to have optimism for the future.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

I think you;ve made a good point.

I wonder, however, how campaign funds were involved in making these decisions. Hillary's campaign was not only funding her own campaign, but also keeping the DNC afloat. Were there funds enough to make it worth campaigning in locales that almost all considered safe? The reasons behind why these decisions should be examined instead of just saying "Hillary was dumbs."

The "Clinton Foundation" was flush with cash from foreign donations. A reason many considered her corrupt (remember Billary selling the Lincoln bedroom?) and also why the FBI was looking into the Foundation.

View attachment 18539
View attachment 18540

Your own second attachment shows her campaign did not receive funds from the Clinton Foundation. Do you have proof it did?

Edited to add that if the foundation did fund Hillary's campaign, that would put their 501C3 status in jeopardy.

The second graph only shows her relations with the banks. It does state that, of the $25M she and Bill made from the banks, she "donated" $1.5M to the Foundation. I fail to see what you are trying to make of that part. Obviously there was a lot of money floating around and, thanks to Citizens United, there was a lot of ways for big money to be used to push political agendas. I wish our Congress would do something to fix that since, IMO, money tends to corrupt.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your own second attachment shows her campaign did not receive funds from the Clinton Foundation. Do you have proof it did?

Edited to add that if the foundation did fund Hillary's campaign, that would put their 501C3 status in jeopardy.

The second graph only shows her relations with the banks. It does state that, of the $25M she and Bill made from the banks, she "donated" $1.5M to the Foundation. I fail to see what you are trying to make of that part. Obviously there was a lot of money floating around and, thanks to Citizens United, there was a lot of ways for big money to be used to push political agendas. I wish our Congress would do something to fix that since, IMO, money tends to corrupt.

Generally, people fail to see the connection between large amounts of money and the kinds of activities that are generally necessary to acquire it (either war profiteering, black market activity, or rent seeking). Instead, they think about what money can do for them. I don't think it's possible to get truely wealthy without one of those ethically unacceptable activities.

The only mechanism that I know of that is capable of making enough money to do big things without engaging in ethically damnin behaviors is taxation, as the purpose of taxation is to build and support social infrastructure.

 

[ZiprHead]

I actually feel the same way as you. I've always been more progressive than the people I've voted for. Most of my votes have been votes against people I didn't want in office than for people I did.

That you decided against using that very valid strategy and seeing what we have to deal with today, it makes me wonder about the thought process that went into your decision.

It is a strategy that encourages those you are voting for to ignore you and take your vote for granted, and quite likely to shift AWAY from what you want so to attract move votes they may not otherwise have. It is why the Democrats have been reaching further and further to the right. Is there any case of "less of two evils" choice where you wouldn't vote for one of them based on this strategy?

That might be a valid observation if you hadn't ignored the part about "what we have to deal with today".

 

[ZiprHead]

Again, did they choose not to listen because she's "the dumbs" or was it because there just wasn't enough money to divert into longshot locales? You didn't address that part of my question.

Doesn't matter - it was the wrong choice either way. The point is that these were not actually longshot locales. They were incorrectly identified as longshot locales and they were really close races which could have been swayed either way by a late push. Both the Dem and GOP teams on the ground recognized this and brought it to the attention of the national campaigns. The Trump team made the correct call and listened to them and the Clinton team made the incorrect call and didn't.

The ability to make the correct calls in situations like that is why you pay lots of money for campaign advisors as opposed to having unpaid interns google the latest polling results each morning and working off of that. The Clinton team failed to make the correct calls and failed as a result of this mistake.

So that sounds to me like it was the campaign advisors and not Hillary herself. Are you admitting that campaigning and governing can be two completely differant things?

 

[ZiprHead]

As someone who is, ostensibly, in the group that HRC managed to not inspire to the polls, no. She failed because she was unable to be the democrat we wanted. If the DNC really wants o win elections, they need to field a real progressive with clearly stated policy goals, and a track record for actually pursuing those goals.

(And preferably one who has an education that isn't 30 years past its best-by date)

I actually feel the same way as you. I've always been more progressive than the people I've voted for. Most of my votes have been votes against people I didn't want in office than for people I did.

That you decided against using that very valid strategy and seeing what we have to deal with today, it makes me wonder about the thought process that went into your decision.

View attachment 18538

Maybe you missed it, but this thread pretty well starts with me saying that I held my nose and voted for her anyway. I include myself in that mentioned demographic because it was NOT an easy decision, because when should it ever be easy to vote for someone you believe will betray your interests, as HRC almost did with TPP or her utter lack of interest or understanding about net neutrality, or her failure to make clear policy choices against the growing debt-slavery that is student loans?

But yes, I did vote for her, even after she abandoned the principle that the democrat who should run is the democrat that inspires those under 30 to have optimism for the future.

My apologies. I did miss that. Although the quote I responded to sounded very much like you did not vote.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Again, did they choose not to listen because she's "the dumbs" or was it because there just wasn't enough money to divert into longshot locales? You didn't address that part of my question.

Doesn't matter - it was the wrong choice either way. The point is that these were not actually longshot locales. They were incorrectly identified as longshot locales and they were really close races which could have been swayed either way by a late push. Both the Dem and GOP teams on the ground recognized this and brought it to the attention of the national campaigns. The Trump team made the correct call and listened to them and the Clinton team made the incorrect call and didn't.

The ability to make the correct calls in situations like that is why you pay lots of money for campaign advisors as opposed to having unpaid interns google the latest polling results each morning and working off of that. The Clinton team failed to make the correct calls and failed as a result of this mistake.

So that sounds to me like it was the campaign advisors and not Hillary herself. Are you admitting that campaigning and governing can be two completely differant things?

Huh? I’m talking about the campaigning. Hence all the posts about the campaigning and the actions of her campaign advisors. I’ve literally not discussed another subject.

The Clinton campaign includes both Clinton and the advisors whom she hired for that campaign.

 

[ZiprHead]

Your own second attachment shows her campaign did not receive funds from the Clinton Foundation. Do you have proof it did?

Edited to add that if the foundation did fund Hillary's campaign, that would put their 501C3 status in jeopardy.

The second graph only shows her relations with the banks. It does state that, of the $25M she and Bill made from the banks, she "donated" $1.5M to the Foundation. I fail to see what you are trying to make of that part. Obviously there was a lot of money floating around and, thanks to Citizens United, there was a lot of ways for big money to be used to push political agendas. I wish our Congress would do something to fix that since, IMO, money tends to corrupt.

You implied if not out right said more than once now that Foundation money was used to finance the campaign. If that's not what you meant, why are you interjecting this into a conversation about her campaign?

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe you missed it, but this thread pretty well starts with me saying that I held my nose and voted for her anyway. I include myself in that mentioned demographic because it was NOT an easy decision, because when should it ever be easy to vote for someone you believe will betray your interests, as HRC almost did with TPP or her utter lack of interest or understanding about net neutrality, or her failure to make clear policy choices against the growing debt-slavery that is student loans?

But yes, I did vote for her, even after she abandoned the principle that the democrat who should run is the democrat that inspires those under 30 to have optimism for the future.

My apologies. I did miss that. Although the quote I responded to sounded very much like you did not vote.

Yeah, I have a painful habit of egoizing over my own positions, assuming others care enough about what I write to build a general picture of my views, positions, and actions, even when I have more than once failed to remember as much of others and their views. Admittedly, I come here when I want to scratch my argumentative itch; I know there are generally going to be folks saying unbelievably asinine shit in attempt to "cutely" dissemble, and it feels really good when I rub their noses in it. So yeah, I have some issues. On top of that, I'm a pretty terrible communicator.

That said, yeah, I voted for her, and I don't regret it. I wish more of my generation had done so as well, largely because she would have accomplished very little these two years given a republican-controlled everything.

I think one of the bigger disservices of politics is that everyone who rises to a national level tends to be much older than would be necessary to really speak to the issues of younger generations. And I say this as a member of "the younger generations" who is pushing 40 now. HRC represents, to me, someone who is out of touch with the technology and economy of 201x. At least Bernie surrounded himself with people who were knowledgeable enough to bring him current on the issue, and he took time and combined that with his knowledge to actually develop an understanding he could speak to.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I still think that the main reason there was so much resistance to voting for Clinton was simply because she is a woman. USA gave the vote to black men (1876) before white women (1920).

A presidents main job is to make sure the country focuses on the right thing at the right time. It requires somebody intelligent, who does their homework and can deliver news with a straight back and an air of authority. I'm sure Clinton would have been great. She's a tried and tested politician. Have we any reason to think she wouldn't be?

 

[angelo]

I still think that the main reason there was so much resistance to voting for Clinton was simply because she is a woman. USA gave the vote to black men (1876) before white women (1920).

A presidents main job is to make sure the country focuses on the right thing at the right time. It requires somebody intelligent, who does their homework and can deliver news with a straight back and an air of authority. I'm sure Clinton would have been great. She's a tried and tested politician. Have we any reason to think she wouldn't be?

Both candidates were on the nose, Killery more so than The Trumpet is the main reason more people in the states that counted voted the way they did. Also, a Clinton presidency would in all likelihood have been a continuation of an Obama presidency which most people could no longer stomach.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Both candidates were on the nose, Killery more so than The Trumpet is the main reason more people in the states that counted voted the way they did. Also, a Clinton presidency would in all likelihood have been a continuation of an Obama presidency which most people could no longer stomach.

What was wrong with the Obama presidency? On this side of the pond the American's seemed happy about Obama

 

[angelo]

You mean " RED LINE Obama?" the first ever president to bow to a leader of a terrorist state, not to mention his groveling apologetic speech in Cairo soon after being elected. The very same man who proclaimed that the muslim call to prayer was the " most beautiful sound on earth."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-approval-rating-gallup-poll-obama-popularity/

 

[Harry Bosch]

You mean " RED LINE Obama?" the first ever president to bow to a leader of a terrorist state, not to mention his groveling apologetic speech in Cairo soon after being elected. The very same man who proclaimed that the muslim call to prayer was the " most beautiful sound on earth."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-approval-rating-gallup-poll-obama-popularity/

It pains me to say that I think Angelo is right. For some reason, there is a growing bitterness and hatred in the US. I think that this is why a president who showed grace, dignity and competency was replaced by an asshole like Trump.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You mean " RED LINE Obama?" the first ever president to bow to a leader of a terrorist state, not to mention his groveling apologetic speech in Cairo soon after being elected. The very same man who proclaimed that the muslim call to prayer was the " most beautiful sound on earth."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-approval-rating-gallup-poll-obama-popularity/

When on a diplomatic mission and you visit another country it's customary to follow local custom. Something which Trump failed to do. The Saudis are expected to follow American custom when in America. Which they also do.

I find it baffling that you think Obama's intelligence is a sign of failure, and Trump's idiocy a sign of strength. On all of these Obama did everything right.

Only weak people need to brag about how successful they are. Strong people don't. Trump is making USA come across as weak.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Both candidates were on the nose, Killery more so than The Trumpet is the main reason more people in the states that counted voted the way they did. Also, a Clinton presidency would in all likelihood have been a continuation of an Obama presidency which most people could no longer stomach.

What was wrong with the Obama presidency? On this side of the pond the American's seemed happy about Obama

Until Trump showed up, I had Obama down as "most embarrassing President ever".

 

[DrZoidberg]

Both candidates were on the nose, Killery more so than The Trumpet is the main reason more people in the states that counted voted the way they did. Also, a Clinton presidency would in all likelihood have been a continuation of an Obama presidency which most people could no longer stomach.

What was wrong with the Obama presidency? On this side of the pond the American's seemed happy about Obama

Until Trump showed up, I had Obama down as "most embarrassing President ever".

Why? After FDR and Kennedy I don't know any American president who has been better for the American image than Obama

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Until Trump showed up, I had Obama down as "most embarrassing President ever".

Why? After FDR and Kennedy I don't know any American president who has been better for the American image than Obama

Aside from selling out the left, there was nothing wrong with Obama. I believe he would have won a third term were it possible.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Until Trump showed up, I had Obama down as "most embarrassing President ever".

Why? After FDR and Kennedy I don't know any American president who has been better for the American image than Obama

Aside from selling out the left, there was nothing wrong with Obama. I believe he would have won a third term were it possible.

Ge was a recension president. There wasn't much he could do. Getting Obamacare passed was well and truly beyond the call of duty

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Ge was a recension president. There wasn't much he could do. Getting Obamacare passed was well and truly beyond the call of duty

I would agree had he at least TRIED for single payer. I know people here like to blame the Republicans and say Obama couldn't have gotten it through, and they are right, but the point is Obama never put it on the table for them to bargain down from. He started with "public option". He was either meek or a sell out while pretending to be meek, and that was his weakness. This didn't help Hillary either, as she then came in with her "no, we can't" anti-change attitude, amplifying those on the left who felt let down by Obama.