Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Lord Liaden]

You don't have to look hard to find many other places in the world which are vastly worse off than the United States today. Places where most people live in terror of their government; and places where violent anarchy leads to many people living under great risk to their lives, every day. Even today, America is an island of fairness and stability compared to that sea.

 

Does current American government, and society, have serious problems? Absolutely. But it's proven robust enough to adapt and grow for nearly two and a half centuries. Things might still have to get worse before they get better, but I'm pretty confident they'll get better eventually. I have faith in the fundamental spirit of the American system and people.

 

Mind you, I'm still glad I live in Canada.

[aylwin13]

.oO(I wonder if there is still room left in British Columbia? Vancouver is beautiful this time of year.)

[Cancer]

Just do it soon. I am already too old.

[Old Man]

You're only as old as you feel!

 

(So, billions of years, in my case.)

[Pattern Ghost]

[Simon]

Note: Admin hat is _off_ for this post.

 

I'm curious about feedback on what I would consider a "different take" on the arguments against Clinton.

 

I'm assuming that Trump's inability to fulfill pretty much any of the requirements for office are obvious at this point...I'm looking to address just Clinton.

 

Full disclosure:  I started out thinking/stating that she was a poisoned candidate -- someone who didn't have the political wherewithal to avoid the pitfalls and accusations that had been leveled at her over the years.   I formally withdraw that statement...and, in fact, reverse it.  But that's not the point of this post.

 

Those who like HRC don't need my encouragement.  This is about those who despise her -- those who think she's gotten away with murder/espionage/etc.

 

Fact: she's been accused of many things.  She's been investigated more than just about any other politician or candidate for the presidency.  

 

Other fact: she hasn't been found in criminal or prosecutable violation of anything.  You know this because she hasn't been prosecuted.

 

Other other fact: her general ratings in any given capacity (First Lady, senator, Secretary of State) at the end of her time in the office have been very good.

 

That's our starting point.

 

Let's go with the apparent belief of those that hate HRC -- that she's gotten away with everything because she's just too powerful.  Too connected.  She has too many friends in power. Leaving aside everything and just taking that at face value, wouldn't that make her the most powerful politician we know of?  She knows that she can get away with anything (according to some, including murder), and she does.  I'm not even going to bother arguing what's been actually found...let's just go with that -- she knows that she can get away with anything she wants and she has done so routinely throughout her career.

Regardless of the validity of that assumption, if we go with that we have to take her as a ridiculously powerful force in politics.  The likes of which we have never seen before.  That's scary.  Particularly if she's out for evil.  So we have to ask ourselves what she's after....and the only thing we have to look at is what she's actually fought for, what she's done.  What she's gone after in her time as First Lady, congresswoman, and Secretary of State.

 

Remember, she knows that she can get away with whatever she wants...since she's been doing that for 30 years.

 

Her record throughout her time in politics has her fighting for child welfare and education first and foremost.  Hmm...doesn't sound so evil.  She's not as far left as Sanders...more left of center than anything else.  But is that a bad thing?

Again, let's assume that everything that's been said is correct and she's actually that good -- she's good enough to get away with everything that she's been accused of, despite years and millions of dollars of concerted effort to investigate her.  If she's that good at getting what she wants...and what she wants is something as innocuous as child welfare and education (and women's rights)....how exactly does that make her unfit?

Her accusers say that she just wants power.  So what?  Let's say that that's all she's after.  If her way of getting power is fighting for (and getting) things that benefit those of us who most need it, is that a bad thing?  Do those of you who hate her think that she's been playing a 30 year "long game" just to get into the White House (again) so that she can show her true colors and kill of the American Dream?

[Lord Liaden]

Dan, I'm not one of those who demonizes Hillary Clinton. I believe her actions, while in some cases questionable, have been blown out of proportion. However, responding purely on the basis of the thesis you present... I think it would come down to whether you believe the end justifies the means. If Clinton is truly able to subvert the system of checks and balances built into the American governmental system, to the point of getting away with whatever she wants, is that someone who should be in the Oval Office, even if what she wants is something a particular person believes is a good thing? Once the system is successfully subverted, it opens the door for a successor to do the same thing, potentially for a very different agenda.

[Old Man]

Two words: Supreme. Court.

 

Hillary could be guilty of everything she's ever been accused of, including the death of Vince Foster , and I'd still pull the lever for her for this one reason.

[Pattern Ghost]

SCOTUS appointments are . . . yet another no-win situation in politics for me. I think the whole concept of lifetime appointees not being beholden to their political parties just doesn't work out in practice.

[Old Man]

I'm totally with you on that.  And no SCOTUS is going to go my way 100% of the time.  But lifetime GOP appointees truly frighten me.  Look at Citizens United.

 

(Of course if the Dems don't also win the senate next month there still won't be a Hillary appointee, but that's a separate issue.)

[Iuz the Evil]

I'm totally with you on that. And no SCOTUS is going to go my way 100% of the time. But lifetime GOP appointees truly frighten me. Look at Citizens United.

 

(Of course if the Dems don't also win the senate next month there still won't be a Hillary appointee, but that's a separate issue.)

I don't think they can actually permanently block one if she wins (interim appointment is an option if they won't play at all), but will undoubtedly make a big scene.

 

Just checked. Brennan was a recess appointment in 1956, it's possible.

[megaplayboy]

If they try to block a SCOTUS pick by her, and the Dems have the Senate back, the filibuster on appointments will be completely removed. I'd expect a fairly unambiguous warning about doing away with the legislative filibuster to follow that act.

[Badger]

I'm totally with you on that.  And no SCOTUS is going to go my way 100% of the time.  But lifetime GOP appointees truly frighten me.  Look at Citizens United.

 

(Of course if the Dems don't also win the senate next month there still won't be a Hillary appointee, but that's a separate issue.)

 

And, of course liberal apointees scare me.  THough, I am a fair, whoever is in charge gets to appoint.  Which despite, the chances of a person who would agree more than 5 percent of the time being nominated was slim and none.  I wished Obama would have made more of an issue to at least try to fill the spot.  Because that is what Presidents do. 

[Badger]

The government sucks.  There, I've said it, Badg, so you don't need to worry.

Seriously, though, I think there is definitely room for criticism of our government.  There is wasteful spending.  There is overregulation.  There's also areas where we don't spend enough.  And areas that are woefully under-regulated.

 

The problem, at least IMO, is the damned polarization going on in this country.  It seems like people either want to tear down the government completely, or have an omnipresent government that regulates every aspect of our lives.  Or at least, that's how the two sides paint each other.

 

The reality is (again IMO), we need some government.  Some spending on infrastructure, on public security, on military, on social safety nets.  Some regulation of businesses to make sure their products and services are safe.  Some laws on things people can and cannot do.

 

The problem comes in defining what "some" means.  As a society, we seem to be losing the ability to compromise.  It feels like we're heading toward a society of absolutes.  Hell, two sentences back I just caught myself almost saying "we've lost the ability to compromise."  As if we're either able to compromise completely, or none at all -- no middle ground.  And I had to remind myself that life's not like that.

 

And I'm sure all of what I've said is no surprise to anybody here.  This is a community of fairly smart people.  And as I look at posts here, at how people (generally) get along, may argue but typically keep from being "my way or the highway" internet trolls, it gives me a little hope that we (as a whole society) can get past these current bumps in the road, figure out a way to smooth them out, and move forward.

 

Thanks.  Like I said I want some govt, probably less than most here.  But, that doesn't mean no govt, and it doesn't mean I have a problem with people wanting more govt.  Nothing good or evil to it.

 

Thinking on it, I guess we are a little more touchy given the timing of things.  Probably be better off once we know our fate one way or another (though then we can dread Christmas  )

[Badger]

Note: Admin hat is _off_ for this post.

 

I'm curious about feedback on what I would consider a "different take" on the arguments against Clinton.

 

I'm assuming that Trump's inability to fulfill pretty much any of the requirements for office are obvious at this point...I'm looking to address just Clinton.

 

Full disclosure:  I started out thinking/stating that she was a poisoned candidate -- someone who didn't have the political wherewithal to avoid the pitfalls and accusations that had been leveled at her over the years.   I formally withdraw that statement...and, in fact, reverse it.  But that's not the point of this post.

 

Those who like HRC don't need my encouragement.  This is about those who despise her -- those who think she's gotten away with murder/espionage/etc.

 

Fact: she's been accused of many things.  She's been investigated more than just about any other politician or candidate for the presidency.  

 

Other fact: she hasn't been found in criminal or prosecutable violation of anything.  You know this because she hasn't been prosecuted.

 

Other other fact: her general ratings in any given capacity (First Lady, senator, Secretary of State) at the end of her time in the office have been very good.

 

That's our starting point.

 

Let's go with the apparent belief of those that hate HRC -- that she's gotten away with everything because she's just too powerful.  Too connected.  She has too many friends in power. Leaving aside everything and just taking that at face value, wouldn't that make her the most powerful politician we know of?  She knows that she can get away with anything (according to some, including murder), and she does.  I'm not even going to bother arguing what's been actually found...let's just go with that -- she knows that she can get away with anything she wants and she has done so routinely throughout her career.

 

Regardless of the validity of that assumption, if we go with that we have to take her as a ridiculously powerful force in politics.  The likes of which we have never seen before.  That's scary.  Particularly if she's out for evil.  So we have to ask ourselves what she's after....and the only thing we have to look at is what she's actually fought for, what she's done.  What she's gone after in her time as First Lady, congresswoman, and Secretary of State.

 

Remember, she knows that she can get away with whatever she wants...since she's been doing that for 30 years.

 

Her record throughout her time in politics has her fighting for child welfare and education first and foremost.  Hmm...doesn't sound so evil.  She's not as far left as Sanders...more left of center than anything else.  But is that a bad thing?

 

Again, let's assume that everything that's been said is correct and she's actually that good -- she's good enough to get away with everything that she's been accused of, despite years and millions of dollars of concerted effort to investigate her.  If she's that good at getting what she wants...and what she wants is something as innocuous as child welfare and education (and women's rights)....how exactly does that make her unfit?

 

Her accusers say that she just wants power.  So what?  Let's say that that's all she's after.  If her way of getting power is fighting for (and getting) things that benefit those of us who most need it, is that a bad thing?  Do those of you who hate her think that she's been playing a 30 year "long game" just to get into the White House (again) so that she can show her true colors and kill of the American Dream?

 

I'll try to answer better if I get time to think on it more.

 

I think one thing that bothers me is it appears as if there are 3 sets of rules.  1) for the bulk of us   2) for the elites  and 3) for the Clintons.  That press conference earlier this year.  The only way I could interpret it was "yep, she's guilty.  If anybody else did these things, they'd be locked away, but.....Hillary Clinton."  I do suspect being the likely candidate for the party in executive power made it easier to let her off (aka pressure applied behind the scenes.).  

 

Not saying I am right.   But, this was the only I could interpret that press conference, in my mind.  ANd I don't like that, even if I was on someone's side, I don't think, and hope I wouldn't think that was right.   When it comes to such I try to be fair, cant say I am always successful, but I try to be to the best of my abilty and not let any animosity get in the way.

 

 

As far as her being powerful?  It is an interesting idea that it could qualify her to get things done.  But, you also have to ask would the ends justify the means?  How much is ok?  We, blast Trump for being a bully and rightfully so.  But, should we turn a blind eye, if how she gets things done is by bullying as badly or worse than how Trump does so.  Would that be right?

[Pattern Ghost]

I find a few things about Hillary give me pause. Not the conspiracy stuff, either. However, as I look at the field, she's probably the only candidate running who's remotely qualified for the job.I think she's the candidate likely to do the least long term harm.

 

One other thing to consider is that people who are really good at this level of politics are not necessarily nice people, regardless of their public persona or personal charisma. Politics are simply cut throat and always have been, especially the last decade or so. So, likeability alone wouldn't necessarily disqualify someone IMO.

[Simon]

I'll try to answer better if I get time to think on it more.

 

I think one thing that bothers me is it appears as if there are 3 sets of rules.  1) for the bulk of us   2) for the elites  and 3) for the Clintons.  That press conference earlier this year.  The only way I could interpret it was "yep, she's guilty.  If anybody else did these things, they'd be locked away, but.....Hillary Clinton."  I do suspect being the likely candidate for the party in executive power made it easier to let her off (aka pressure applied behind the scenes.).  

 

Not saying I am right.   But, this was the only I could interpret that press conference, in my mind.  ANd I don't like that, even if I was on someone's side, I don't think, and hope I wouldn't think that was right.   When it comes to such I try to be fair, cant say I am always successful, but I try to be to the best of my abilty and not let any animosity get in the way.

 

 

As far as her being powerful?  It is an interesting idea that it could qualify her to get things done.  But, you also have to ask would the ends justify the means?  How much is ok?  We, blast Trump for being a bully and rightfully so.  But, should we turn a blind eye, if how she gets things done is by bullying as badly or worse than how Trump does so.  Would that be right?

I probably didn't explain what I'm getting at too clearly.

 

I'm going with the assumption that she's "guilty" of everything she's been accused of/investigated for.  It's either that, or you have to take the massive number of accusations and level of investigation into account when looking at any singular issue that you think she may actually be guilty of....which I fear is too brief of a statement to make sense....so I'll try to elaborate.

 

Case 1:  she's guilty of all or most of the things she's been accused of.  She's just powerful enough or good enough at politics to get away with them.  This isn't a matter of the ends justifying the means, it's just a very powerful (competent) politician. One who is able to do whatever they want.  Worrying concept until you look at her record -- "whatever she wants" appears to be generally good.  Fighting for child welfare, education, fairly balanced tax plans, even a relatively pragmatic approach to international politics that combined both US interests and diminishing of conflict.  Of particular note is that you don't find a track record of evil or corrupt/self-serving acts.  

 

Case 2: she's innocent of all or most of the things she's been accused of.  This changes things substantially.  If she's not getting away with all of this stuff because she's just that powerful, then it means that the investigations and scrutiny that she has faced have legitimately tried and failed to turn up any actionable indiscretions on her part. Which is kind of extraordinary -- it means she is fundamentally honest in a way that we don't give many politicians credit for.  It changes how you look at any individual accusation/investigation.  The email scandal has to be viewed not from the perspective of someone too powerful to take on, but from the perspective of someone who has been accused time and again by opposition politicians looking for something that they can use to take her down.  Everything was examined (yes, even the deleted 33k)...and they couldn't find anything actionable.

 

Personally, I find Case 2 more plausible.  

 

On the email side, a local friend used to work with the NSA in classification and has had some interesting input into what constitutes an actionable breach.  It puts the FBIs statements in perspective and makes them understandable -- not as "she's too powerful to take down" but more exactly what they said, "she didn't perform any actions which should be prosecuted, though she was extremely careless in her handling of sensitive information".  He went over far worse instances of mishandling (by far less powerful individuals) which were not actionable.

[Lord Liaden]

Case 1:  she's guilty of all or most of the things she's been accused of.  She's just powerful enough or good enough at politics to get away with them.  This isn't a matter of the ends justifying the means, it's just a very powerful (competent) politician. One who is able to do whatever they want.  Worrying concept until you look at her record -- "whatever she wants" appears to be generally good.  Fighting for child welfare, education, fairly balanced tax plans, even a relatively pragmatic approach to international politics that combined both US interests and diminishing of conflict.  Of particular note is that you don't find a track record of evil or corrupt/self-serving acts.  

 

But what you're saying does amount to, "the end justifies the means." American politicians are not supposed to be able to do whatever they want. The United States Constitution created the three branches of government, with restraints on each balancing their powers, precisely so none of them would be able to do whatever they want. Never again a king for America.

 

Mark Twain asserted in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court that Heaven must be the perfect place, because it has the perfect absolute dictator running it; but the problem with human dictators is, however competent and benevolent they may be, eventually they die, and a less-enlightened person will probably take their place and their power.

 

Again, I don't think any of the above actually applies to Hillary Clinton.

[csyphrett]

I do have a question, Dan. These leaked emails, the news said that a portion were altered for redistributation. Wouldn't Wikileaks know that? Or would it matter from Assange's side of things.

CES 

[Simon]

I do have a question, Dan. These leaked emails, the news said that a portion were altered for redistributation. Wouldn't Wikileaks know that? Or would it matter from Assange's side of things.

CES 

Depends on what you mean.

 

There has been some alteration by Wikileaks (or other parties involved during/after the hacking of the accounts) in order to make them look worse than they are.  One of them was attributed to Bloomenthal in the leaked email but was actually written by a Newsweek author (IIRC) -- so they know that tampering has been going on at that level.

 

One of the earlier outcries on the email scandal referred to Clinton instructing State Dept. staffers to "remove the paper" or some such from classified documents so that they could be sent externally (as they were required in short time frame).  Early outcries stated that this was an example of her instructing someone to remove the classified headers and send classified information out...but that's not what it means -- the parlance used meant to remove the classified information so that the document could be sent...which is proper procedure.

[Starlord]

Two words: Supreme. Court.

 

Hillary could be guilty of everything she's ever been accused of, including the death of Vince Foster , and I'd still pull the lever for her for this one reason.

 

In the end, this is why I voted for Hillary Clinton today (early voting just started).  That and I just don't think he can do the job.  I imagine many, many scenarios in the situation room where he completely ignores the advice and knowledge of every General and Admiral in the room.

 

PS:  Am I the first herophile to vote? 

[megaplayboy]

Help me figure this out--both candidates were allegedly equally bad 5 or 6 months ago. Since then, A LOT more bad stuff has come out about Trump than about Clinton. Shouldn't it logically follow that, as of now, one candidate is clearly worse than the other? I mean, come on guys. I know you don't like her, but...seriously! What's it gonna take to simply acknowledge the obvious?

[Cancer]

PS:  Am I the first herophile to vote? 

Could be. My ballot (WA has gone to all postal voting) has not yet come, and I don't expect it for another week or so.

[Nolgroth]

What is so obvious? That she is smarter than Trump? Sure. That alone should make her a better politician. Maybe that between two horrible choices, she is (maybe) slightly less horrible? She manages spin better so public appearance is certainly better. I've never questioned her intelligence or political acumen. I've only ever questioned her moral compass. I still do.

 

This whole exercise is flawed. There is not a binary choice here (that she is completely innocent or completely guilty). I also want to point out that, for the majority of her alleged criminal behavior she was married to the Arkansas State Attorney General, the Governor of Arkansas, and ultimately, the President of the United States. She has been a stalwart member of the Democratic Party since before I was born. To assume that she is not politically connected and protected is naive at best. I will also admit that there is likely a lot of noise drowning out the legitimate signal. The problem is sifting through the noise, which nobody really seems inclined to do without an agenda of some sort. When looking for any sort of facts, agendas are bad. At this point it is kind of moot anyway. Whether I like it or not, Hillary Clinton is going to be our next President. I knew that when Trump was given the Republican nomination. 

 

I don't understand why it is important that we don't like, trust or support HRC. My negative mind conjures all sorts of bad things, but really why does it matter? If this is some sort of public shaming exercise, it failed. I might be wrong about Clinton. It has certainly happened before. I might look back in four years and say, "Clinton was good for the nation." Today I don't believe it. I certainly feel no shame and I still have no intention whatsoever of casting my vote for her. If I turn out to be wrong, then I will admit it. I've done so on other issues and I will do so again. How about we revisit this conversation after her term is up. Heck, I'll look at it again when she hits her second State of the Union address.

[megaplayboy]

Well, given one candidate with a questionable moral compass, and one who appears to have no moral compass whatsoever, that seems like an easy decision about who is worse, not at all difficult to discern.