Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

[marc]

A little flash from the past. A more indepth look at corruption within the DNC, of which Hillary controlled via vast injections of money from her "Foundation": https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...calling-out-corruption-during-clinton-scandal
...where was the desire by Democrats to combat corruption when we found out Hillary Clinton improperly used a private email server? We learned that there was an “anomaly” on her server discovered by the intelligence community inspector general that led him to believe that virtually every single one of the emails that went through that server was sent surreptitiously to a foreign entity unrelated to Russia. There was corruption in her decision to set up the unsecured email server in her basement in violation of longstanding security protocols. There was corruption in the ramshackle FBI “investigation” into it. Democrats continue to deny that she put national security at risk.

The Democrats were equally silent about Holder when the House held him in contempt of Congress attorney general for obstructing an oversight investigation into the “Fast and Furious” operation in 2012. Rather than take a stand, more than 100 Democrats simply left the chamber and refused to vote. Where was Pelosi trying to root out corruption then?

Similarly, the Democrats have remained silent about the manner in which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to surveil Carter Page, a private American citizen, was secured. Release of the redacted documents revealed that the FBI agents who prepared the applications did not make clear to the court that much of the information regarding Page had come straight from an opposition research document funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, information former FBI Director James Comey himself referred to as “salacious” and “unverified.” Democrats did not wail with outrage when this corruption of the FISA process was revealed. Instead, they doubled down and defended the application.

An opinion piece by Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the TEA Party Patriots. Sorry, not buying it. It's a piece so full of conspiracy theories it would be much more appropriate on Prison Planet.

Also, "Fast and Furious"? You mean the operation that was started under Bush, but when it went proved a disaster Republicans tried to make it look like Obama and Holder's creation? Gee, now why would the Democrats object to a Republican controlled investigation into Holder over that?

Oh, and:

much of the information regarding Page had come straight from an opposition research document funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee

Yeeeaaaa... except the investigation of Page started before the Steel Dossier was written. The Dossier, which was originally commissioned by Republicans, as opposition research by one of the other primary candidates. By the time the Dossier was ready, the original candidate who commissioned it was out of the running, so Fusion GPS then offered it to Hillary's campaign, which did not use any of it during the campaign as they hadn't verified it yet. Btw, much of what was in the Dossier has been verified, and no part of it has been shown to be false.

As for the email server, at worst could be called a bad decision. To try and claim it is evidence of corruption you would have to demonstrate it was purposely set up to specifically leak classified information. But enough people have already debunked that nonsense.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

First, "the Hill" is a left-of-center media source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/

Second, even if it was an article about Jews by Adolf Hitler, facts remain facts. Critical thinking allows a person to avoid "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" by gleaning facts, if any, from any source regardless of who wrote it or who published/broadcast it. In this case, the article notes several signs of either corruption or deliberate negligence on the part of the Democrats. Just so we're clear, I'm not a fan of the Republicans either and became an Independent in 2012 after years of frustration with the RNC. To paraphrase Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me".


Third, while you may disagree the DNC is corrupt, or at least has no interest in draining the swamp, I will certainly agree that Trump is only adding alligators to the swamp with no intention of draining it himself.

Dude, right at the top of the article: "THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL"

Correct and a standard disclaimer. What did you think of my comment about sources and critical thinking?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

https://www.mondialisation.ca/why-both-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-are-corrupt/5549269

That appears to be a French website and the only thing it mentions in regard to Clinton is:

Regarding Clinton’s case, a post was made to Huffington Post’s «blog» on 29 May 2016, that optimistically (and unrealistically trusting that the U.S. government would actually follow through on this) predicted «Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges» for her having used the U.S. State Department to fundraise for her Clinton Foundation (money that she and her family control), but the article lasted less than a day online before being taken down by HuffPo management.

Hillary Clinton did not, in fact, get indicted for any such thing because there was no truth to the accusation of her having used the State Department to fundraise for the Clinton Foundation. But that, of course hasn't stopped the person you claim you despise from using it as a political tool. This is from the conservative site Business Insider:

While it is highly inappropriate for a sitting president to call on his own Justice Department to investigate his political opponents, Trump has nevertheless openly pushed for investigations of the Clintons while in office. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, on the outs with his boss because of his recusal in the Russia investigation has, according to The Washington Post, begun to look "into matters that Trump has publicly complained are not being pursued."

The charges against the foundation have ranged from ridiculous to serious. Two days after the initial reports of the Trump administration's new probe, multiple conservative websites falsely claimed that 22 of the foundation's employees had been arrested. There were no arrests.

Many charges are trivial. Fox News reported that a donor to the foundation, Terrence Duffy, asked then-Secretary Clinton for help in setting up business meetings in Singapore and Hong Kong. Yet U.S. embassies do this routinely.

Other accusations are far more troubling. Human rights-abusing governments, including Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman, have donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. Saudi Arabia alone has contributed US$10 million to $25 million.

Ukrainian steel magnate Victor Pinchuk also gave the foundation $10 to $25 million. And he was by many accounts not shy about asking for help from Hillary Clinton when she served as secretary of state. While there's been no indication of what the new FBI investigation is looking into, over the years these probes have usually focused on influence peddling allegedly enabled by the Clinton Foundation's fundraising.
...
The foundation has made notable contributions in global health, HIV/AIDS and women's empowerment. Perhaps its most notable success was in negotiating a significant drop in the price of drugs used to fight AIDS and then bringing those drugs to Africa, where an epidemic was ravaging the continent.

Despite the suspicions conservatives have long raised about the Clinton Foundation, Charity Navigator, a group that rates the fundraising and spending practices of nonprofits, gives it high marks. The foundation spends 87 percent of what it raises on the programs it supports, a higher share than most of its peers.

So, once again, we have nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Dude! All that money MUST mean they're corrupt! Yet, no evidence of corruption. In fact, exactly the opposite:

So now we have some more emails related to Hillary Clinton [re: pay to play with the Foundation], and what have we learned? The crown prince of Bahrain wanted to meet with the Secretary of State, and in addition to making a request through normal channels he also talked to someone at the Clinton Foundation, who then called Huma Abedin. The meeting took place, which is entirely unexceptional since meeting with people like this is the Secretary of State’s job. There’s no indication that the extra push by the Foundation had any particular effect.

Another time, someone at the Foundation called Abedin to see if she could expedite a visa. She said this made her nervous, and the Foundation guy backed off.

On another occasion, a lobbyist who had formerly been a Democratic staffer asked for a meeting with her client, a coal company executive. Abedin blew her off.

We might yet find a smoking gun in all these emails. But so far, the trend is clear: lots of people talked to Huma Abedin to try to set up meetings with Hillary Clinton. Generally speaking, Abedin treated them politely but told them to get lost. That’s about it.

If some of these efforts had succeeded, that would hardly be noteworthy. It’s the kind of thing that happens all the time. What’s really noteworthy about the most recent email releases is that they demonstrate a surprisingly high level of integrity from Hillary Clinton’s shop at Foggy Bottom. Huma Abedin was tasked with running interference on favor seekers, and she seems to have done exactly that. There’s no evidence at all that being a donor to the Clinton Foundation helped anyone out.

So tell me again what the issue is here?

Other's had the same question:

In August of 2016 during the campaign, the State Department released emails from former Clinton aide Huma Abedin that conservative groups said showed evidence of “special expedited access to the secretary of State” for some donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of the exchanges involve former top Foundation executive Doug Band.

Yet Scott Amey, general counsel at the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight, or POGO, told USA TODAY that while the emails showed some donors requesting meetings and access, there wasn't evidence they were granted, meriting further investigation.

For instance, one 2009 exchange involved Band urging Abedin to get the agency to intervene in order to obtain a visa for members of a British football club, one of whose members was having difficulty because of a “criminal charge.” The campaign said at the time the emails show no action was taken.

And, of course, this has been under close scrutiny already for years and was under close scrutiny during her service as SoS:

A review of foundation disclosures shows that at least two foreign governments — Germany and the United Arab Emirates — began giving in 2013 after the funding restrictions lapsed when Clinton left the Obama administration. Some foreign governments that had been supporting the foundation before Clinton was appointed, such as Saudi Arabia, did not give while she was in office
...
Foundation officials said Wednesday that the ethics review process required under the 2008 agreement for new donors — or for existing foreign-government donors wishing to “materially increase” their support — was never initiated during Clinton’s State Department years.
...
The 2008 agreement laid out that the new rules were intended to allow the Clinton Foundation to continue its “important philanthropic work around the world,” while also avoiding conflicts. It was signed by Bruce Lindsey, then the foundation’s chief executive, and Valerie Jarrett, who was co-chair of Obama’s transition team.

Jennifer Friedman, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement that the agreement was signed “to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest” and “in keeping with the high standards we set for our nominees.” She said the deal went “above and beyond standard ethics requirements.”

Clinton Foundation fundraising, particularly from foreign governments, came up repeatedly at Clinton’s confirmation hearings for secretary of state.

The only possible issue that I've been able to find is in regard to Algeria:

The donation from Algeria for Haiti earthquake relief, they said, arrived without notice within days of the 2010 quake and was distributed as direct aid to assist in relief. Algeria has not donated to the foundation since, officials said.

The contribution coincided with a spike in the North African country’s lobbying visits to the State Department.

That year, Algeria spent $422,097 lobbying U.S. government officials on human rights issues and U.S.-Algerian relations, according to filings made under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Data tracked by the Sunlight Foundation shows that while the Algerian government’s overall spending on lobbying in the United States remained steady, there was an increase in 2010 in State Department meetings held with lobbyists representing the country — with 12 visits to department officials that year, including some visits with top political appointees. In the years before and after, only a handful of State Department visits were recorded by Algeria lobbyists.

The country was a concern for Clinton and her agency.

A 2010 State Department report on human rights in Algeria noted that “principal human rights problems included restrictions on freedom of assembly and association” and cited reports of arbitrary killings, widespread corruption and a lack of transparency. Additionally, the report, issued in early 2011, discussed restrictions on labor and women’s rights.

“Algeria is one of those complicated countries that forces the United States to balance our interests and values,” Clinton wrote in her 2014 book, “Hard Choices.” She said that the country was an ally in combating terrorism but that “it also has a poor human rights record and a relatively closed economy.”

Clinton met with the president of Algeria during a 2012 visit to the country.

But all that shows is that the country itself was of interest, and in no way shows that unsolicited money given to the foundation was the cause of that interest. Indeed, how could it be since the money immediately went out, so it didn't significantly benefit the foundation in any way and Clinton didn't meet with anyone from the country until 2012, a full two years after supposedly paying to play.

She and Bill are multi-millionaires based almost entirely on his post-presidential speeches and books. The foundation does nothing but good in the world. During her tenure, there was intense scrutiny and full understanding on everyone's parts in regard to the sensitivity of the foundation in relation to the ethical and legal requirements.

So, once again, we're left with an argument from incredulity and little else. The foundation has raised over a billion dollars over the years, so why would a one-time donation from Algeria--intended and funneled specifically for disaster relief--suddenly tip the scales?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hillary is only slightly less of a narcissistic asshole than Trump. Sure she'd like to run again, if for no other reason than vindication, but I strongly doubt the DNC will let her do more than be allowed to show up as a recipient for some sort of lifetime achievement award.

Well, she did write a book pointing fingers at everyone else and go on a non-apology tour as therapy for her historic failure of a run for the presidency last time. What would become of her mind if she ran and lost again to Trump? Maybe if the DNC did as you suggest, it would be a kindness towards her and her future mental stability. Step aside, Hillary. You've done your service. We'll give you an award. Enjoy your retirement.

 

[Jarhyn]

First, "the Hill" is a left-of-center media source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/

Second, even if it was an article about Jews by Adolf Hitler, facts remain facts. Critical thinking allows a person to avoid "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" by gleaning facts, if any, from any source regardless of who wrote it or who published/broadcast it. In this case, the article notes several signs of either corruption or deliberate negligence on the part of the Democrats. Just so we're clear, I'm not a fan of the Republicans either and became an Independent in 2012 after years of frustration with the RNC. To paraphrase Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me".


Third, while you may disagree the DNC is corrupt, or at least has no interest in draining the swamp, I will certainly agree that Trump is only adding alligators to the swamp with no intention of draining it himself.

Dude, right at the top of the article: "THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL"

Correct and a standard disclaimer. What did you think of my comment about sources and critical thinking?

Reality itself has a left-of-US-center bias. So I don't think it is out of place to quote left-of-center media in discussing reality.

How do I justify this view? Belief, authority, purity, tradition, all these things are re cornerstones of the American right wing thought process (and of conservative thought in general), and none of them speak to the relationships in reality which makes things functional, it merely identifies in some cases things that we have done that, when we did them, were kind of maybe, sort of, functional. When we do things like question, doubt, contemplate, and observe, the cornerstones of progressive thought, we see things like computers, moon missions, The Theory of Evolution, and Ethical Philosophy happen.

Reality has a liberal bias. So why shouldn't the media that is supposed to be reporting reality?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Reality itself has a left-of-US-center bias.

Reality has a liberal bias. So why shouldn't the media that is supposed to be reporting reality?

Liberal bias, absolutely. Left? Maybe. I agree with most of your post and just want to point out again that left and liberal, though they've been joined in US politics for a very long time, are not the same thing, and have been decoupling there as the illiberal left been growing. The liberal right I haven't seen much of.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

A little flash from the past. A more indepth look at corruption within the DNC, of which Hillary controlled via vast injections of money from her "Foundation"

Aside from the fact that you quoted an opinion piece from a Tea Party fucktard, where does it show any money was injected from the foundation?

where was the desire by Democrats to combat corruption when we found out Hillary Clinton improperly used a private email server? We learned that there was an “anomaly” on her server discovered by the intelligence community inspector general that led him to believe that virtually every single one of the emails that went through that server was sent surreptitiously to a foreign entity unrelated to Russia. There was corruption in her decision to set up the unsecured email server in her basement in violation of longstanding security protocols. There was corruption in the ramshackle FBI “investigation” into it.

We have already disproven any such nonsense regarding her emails, but you do realize that simply because someone repeats the word "corruption" that doesn't actually prove that she was, in fact, corrupt right?

The Democrats were equally silent about Holder

They weren't, but that had nothing to do with Clinton.

Similarly, the Democrats have remained silent about the manner in which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to surveil Carter Page

Yeah, again, nothing to do with Clinton. The "opposition research document" being referred to was the Steele dossier, which had nothing to do with why Carter Page was under investigation.

Regardless and again, none of this is evidence of Hillary Clinton being corrupt.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What about that time when she flew to Benghazi and shot a US Ambassador because Al Qaida paid her off?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What about that time when she flew to Benghazi and shot a US Ambassador because Al Qaida paid her off?

Oh, right, I forgot that. And, of course, Vince Foster and the child sex ring.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What about that time when she flew to Benghazi and shot a US Ambassador because Al Qaida paid her off?

Oh, right, I forgot that. And, of course, Vince Foster and the child sex ring.

Also, there was that time she ran a crappy-assed election campaign and got Donald Trump installed as President.

Fuck the bitch for that one.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Correct and a standard disclaimer. What did you think of my comment about sources and critical thinking?

Reality itself has a left-of-US-center bias. So I don't think it is out of place to quote left-of-center media in discussing reality.

How do I justify this view? Belief, authority, purity, tradition, all these things are re cornerstones of the American right wing thought process (and of conservative thought in general), and none of them speak to the relationships in reality which makes things functional, it merely identifies in some cases things that we have done that, when we did them, were kind of maybe, sort of, functional. When we do things like question, doubt, contemplate, and observe, the cornerstones of progressive thought, we see things like computers, moon missions, The Theory of Evolution, and Ethical Philosophy happen.

Reality has a liberal bias. So why shouldn't the media that is supposed to be reporting reality?

I tend to agree with several of your observations...although I'd soften some of the harshness.

I've always seen Left and Right, Liberal and Conservative as a Yin-Yang thing; they complete a whole just like a traditional mother and father or female and male. Mothers and women tend to be nurturing and compassionate, while fathers and men tend to be more stoic and urent about standing upon one's own feet. I think a nation overly-dominated by Left or Right would be doomed to failure in the end. While party names and specific ideologies change, the basic differences between the two major parties often remain the same and date back to Jefferson and Hamilton such as:
1) Big vs Small government
2) Corporate vs public interests
3) Taxes

 

[ZiprHead]

What about that time when she flew to Benghazi and shot a US Ambassador because Al Qaida paid her off?

Oh, right, I forgot that. And, of course, Vince Foster and the child sex ring.

Also, there was that time she ran a crappy-assed election campaign and got Donald Trump installed as President.

Fuck the bitch for that one.

Don't forget that one time when she stole a kids lollipop.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What about that time when she flew to Benghazi and shot a US Ambassador because Al Qaida paid her off?

Oh, right, I forgot that. And, of course, Vince Foster and the child sex ring.

Also, there was that time she ran a crappy-assed election campaign

Joking aside, it nevertheless resulted in a record number of raw votes second only to Obama, beating her opponent by almost three million votes—with an additional five million or so in confirmed preferential choice among registered voters who, for various non-partisan reasons did not cast a vote—in spite of the fact that she faced thirty years of GOP lies; Trump going after the last gasp of white supremacy in a country founded on white supremacy; an unprecedented and massive cyber attack/covert influence campaign coordinated with Russia and Wikileaks; an unprecedented coordination of election fraud tactics; the fucking FBI as an unprecedented October surprise; and having battled a completely unnecessary and bitterly divisive civil war within her own party—that likewise was weaponized by Russia—taking precious time, resources and hundreds of millions of dollars away from what should have been our united real focus (Trump), allowing for Trump to campaign unimpeded for months without any counter whatsoever from us.

It’s astonishing how that actual mountain keeps getting ignored in favor of the illogical, nonsensical mole-hill of, “crappy-assed campaign.” It literally disproves any such notion.

And the response is almost always the same idiotic Dem perspective of, “How could you lose to Trump,” again ignoring the fact that she didn’t. She did not lose the vote; she lost the Presidency due to a less than 1% differential in a handful of select counties in three states.

Nate Silver gave the chances of such an unlikely event occurring 10%, which on his scale would be like getting hit by lightning twice.

When you factor in the preference of registered voters, her “crappy-assed campaign” results in a 55% Hillary; 46% Trump landslide. So, clearly the facts show that she could not possibly have run a “crappy-assed campaign.”

Which, for anyone dispassionate enough to give a shit about what actually happened, necessarily means that something else was at play. Again, it can’t solely be anti-Hillary sentiment, since the registered voters who did not vote expressly stated a preference for Hillary on the order of 37% (to Trump’s 30%).

Considering the facts that, up until Comey’s letter, every poll showed Hillary winning and that “blue states” were the culprits, the most logical reason why so many registered voters preferring Hillary did not get off their asses to vote is because they thought it was a lock for Hillary and/or Trump couldn’t possibly win.

With a 7% differential in preference, we’re talking about some five million votes. Trump is President due to 40,000. Which means that if just .0086% of those non-voters had voted (in key blue counties), we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

It is simply ignorant and absurd for anyone to seriously point to such statistically anomalous pivot points as any indication of a “crappy-assed campaign.”

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also, there was that time she ran a crappy-assed election campaign

Joking aside, it nevertheless resulted in a record number of raw votes second only to Obama, beating her opponent by almost three million votes—with an additional five million or so in confirmed preferential choice among registered voters who, for various non-partisan reasons did not cast a vote—in spite of the fact that she faced thirty years of GOP lies; ...

And her cousin Jim Bob won the award for most chicken wings eaten at the 2003 Arkansas State Fair. Both are about as fucking relevant.

She ran a losing campaign against someone whom she should have beaten. Failing to recognize the key areas where she and her team needed to shore up support due to close races is an indicator of that failure. Trump went and held large rallies throughout the Midwest in the closing days of the campaign in order to do just this and she did not counter him and he managed to eke out victories in those states. The ability to recognize where the polling does not match the facts on the ground and additional action must be taken is one of the main jobs of a campaign team and Trump's team did this and hers did not, which is one of the key reasons that he succeeded and she failed.

Failing to do the jobs a campaign team is supposed to do makes that campaign a crappy-assed one.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But she got a record number of votes! Something any Democrat running against Trump would have gotten! So she isn't a loser even though she lost the Presidency!

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Also, there was that time she ran a crappy-assed election campaign

Joking aside, it nevertheless resulted in a record number of raw votes second only to Obama, beating her opponent by almost three million votes—with an additional five million or so in confirmed preferential choice among registered voters who, for various non-partisan reasons did not cast a vote—in spite of the fact that she faced thirty years of GOP lies; ...

And her cousin Jim Bob won the award for most chicken wings eaten at the 2003 Arkansas State Fair. Both are about as fucking relevant.

She ran a losing campaign against someone whom she should have beaten. Failing to recognize the key areas where she and her team needed to shore up support due to close races is an indicator of that failure. Trump went and held large rallies throughout the Midwest in the closing days of the campaign in order to do just this and she did not counter him and he managed to eke out victories in those states. The ability to recognize where the polling does not match the facts on the ground and additional action must be taken is one of the main jobs of a campaign team and Trump's team did this and hers did not, which is one of the key reasons that he succeeded and she failed.

Failing to do the jobs a campaign team is supposed to do makes that campaign a crappy-assed one.

While I agree campaign failures can lead to a failed election, I'm against presupposing that all voters are sheep who can easily be led by a sharp campaign.

A major factor in Obama's 2012 was that the American public was tired of 8 years of Bushism, creating an election that was the Democrat's to lose. Likewise, after 8 years of Obama, it was the Republican's election to lose...and they almost did with Trump. Unlike the DNC, the RNC nomination process was on the up-and-up and Trump's domination of all the other candidates shocked it to its core. Despite all of the polls, it's the American voters who decide how to place their vote, if at all. The only poll that matters is on election day. While I trust well done polls, there's always a margin of error and elections so close they fall within that margin of error can produce surprises.

Hillary's campaign ran on "more of the same" and Trump on "now for something completely different". Given those two choices, and given that most Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of our nation, We, the People, elected Trump. What will happen in 2020, or even next Tuesday, is in the hands of We, the People, not pollsters or campaign managers.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hillary's campaign ran on "more of the same" and Trump on "now for something completely different". Given those two choices, and given that most Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of our nation, We, the People, elected Trump.

That's a point that doesn't get made often enough. Bernie's startling rise out of nowhere and challenge to Hillary also makes this point. It was a time of populism, when people were sick of "politics as usual", shiny robotic politicians, and Washington insiders, and Hillary symbolized them each in sharp contrast to her opponents. Jeb Bush (the other dynasty candidate) was taken down early and easily for the same reason.

 

[JohnG]

Correct and a standard disclaimer. What did you think of my comment about sources and critical thinking?

Reality itself has a left-of-US-center bias. So I don't think it is out of place to quote left-of-center media in discussing reality.

How do I justify this view? Belief, authority, purity, tradition, all these things are re cornerstones of the American right wing thought process (and of conservative thought in general), and none of them speak to the relationships in reality which makes things functional, it merely identifies in some cases things that we have done that, when we did them, were kind of maybe, sort of, functional. When we do things like question, doubt, contemplate, and observe, the cornerstones of progressive thought, we see things like computers, moon missions, The Theory of Evolution, and Ethical Philosophy happen.

Reality has a liberal bias. So why shouldn't the media that is supposed to be reporting reality?

I tend to agree with several of your observations...although I'd soften some of the harshness.

I've always seen Left and Right, Liberal and Conservative as a Yin-Yang thing; they complete a whole just like a traditional mother and father or female and male. Mothers and women tend to be nurturing and compassionate, while fathers and men tend to be more stoic and urent about standing upon one's own feet. I think a nation overly-dominated by Left or Right would be doomed to failure in the end. While party names and specific ideologies change, the basic differences between the two major parties often remain the same and date back to Jefferson and Hamilton such as:
1) Big vs Small government
2) Corporate vs public interests
3) Taxes

Democrats seem right of centre to me. Maybe just my perspective as a Canadian.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Democrats seem right of centre to me. Maybe just my perspective as a Canadian.

I would say that the USA left is to the right of the Canadian right, and that it has been that way for a while now. Stephen Harper is to the left of Hillary Clinton for example.

The mainstream right in Canada rarely make any move to undo universal single payer health care. Obama didn't even push to establish it, instead bargaining down to Obamacare from the "public option". And Stephen Harper was to the left of Hillary Clinton on many measures.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Hillary's campaign ran on "more of the same" and Trump on "now for something completely different". Given those two choices, and given that most Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of our nation, We, the People, elected Trump.

That's a point that doesn't get made often enough. Bernie's startling rise out of nowhere and challenge to Hillary also makes this point. It was a time of populism, when people were sick of "politics as usual", shiny robotic politicians, and Washington insiders, and Hillary symbolized them each in sharp contrast to her opponents. Jeb Bush (the other dynasty candidate) was taken down early and easily for the same reason.

I like Jeb Bush, but Bush the Lesser proved that two Bushes in the one lifetime is one too many. Same for two Clintons, which is another reason people were reluctant to accept Hillary....and explains why, even though she was a front-runner in 2008, she ended up losing to a junior Senator/community organizer.

OTOH, if the Democrats had run James Webb, I'd have voted for him in a heartbeat.