Why no one should consider voting for Hillary Clinton

[Jhhnn]

Your recollection does indeed suck. Not only is your premise wrong but you are also clearly lacking any detail of the political climate at the time.


The bush admin pushed for war with Iraq, not because that's what the intelligence told them, it's what they told the intelligence community to find. People in congress didn't believe it, it's just that they never thought a sitting president and his admin would outright lie to them, to their face.

Of course people like boomerang don't remember that, they don't want to.

The Bush Admin fashioned 9/11 into a bludgeon against all enemies, foreign & domestic, in what has to be one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in history. Pandering to fear & bloodlust, they whipped the media into a frenzy & convinced all too many people to support their iron fisted leadership in time of a trumped up crisis. Hell, they even built an extra-legal prison at Gitmo as a publicity stunt to show us just how grave the threat was & how tough they'd be to overcome it. Breaking terrarist balls at Gitmo, defying any soft headed do-gooders to do anything about it cuz no true American would want any less.

For a lot of Dems, voting against the perfectly timed AUMF right before the midterms would have been political suicide. A lot of them got clobbered anyway. The whole effort was covered by a lot of talk about how the Admin needed it to "negotiate" with the stubborn Iraqis, something Hillary alluded to in her speech at the time.

As you say, it was hard for anybody to think that the Bushistas were lying about nearly all of it. In retrospect, I'm sure that a lack of experience with the personalities involved played a large part in that.

 

[glenn1]

The Bush Admin fashioned 9/11 into a bludgeon against all enemies, foreign & domestic, in what has to be one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in history. Pandering to fear & bloodlust, they whipped the media into a frenzy & convinced all too many people to support their iron fisted leadership in time of a trumped up crisis. Hell, they even built an extra-legal prison at Gitmo as a publicity stunt to show us just how grave the threat was & how tough they'd be to overcome it. Breaking terrarist balls at Gitmo, defying any soft headed do-gooders to do anything about it cuz no true American would want any less.

For a lot of Dems, voting against the perfectly timed AUMF right before the midterms would have been political suicide. A lot of got clobbered anyway. The whole effort was covered by a lot of talk about how the Admin needed it to "negotiate" with the stubborn Iraqis, something Hillary alluded to in her speech at the time.

As you say, it was hard for anybody to think that the Bushistas were lying about nearly all of it. In retrospect, I'm sure that a lack of experience with the personalities involved played a large part in that.

So she was worried about "political suicide" the year immediately after winning a 6 year Senate term? Why not just admit that she generally supports military intervention and leave it at that? She approved the use of force for Iraq, was a leading Afghanistan hawk in the Obama cabinet, backed intervention in Libya and Syria, and had the State legal adviser lead the charge for drone strikes. When her husband was in office, she supported military action in Haiti (1994), and former Yugoslavia in 1995 and 1999. Hell, she said herself "I urged him to bomb."

 

[Matthiasa]

Are you stupid? Who thinks Bengazi was handled poorly? Oh, just 50% of Americans. But on your planet I suppose Bengazi was just a triumph in crisis control and the communications after were a textbook example.

Which is roughly equal to the number of people who would have never voted for her in the first place, funny how that works...

 

[nickqt]

So she was worried about "political suicide" the year immediately after winning a 6 year Senate term? Why not just admit that she generally supports military intervention and leave it at that? She approved the use of force for Iraq, was a leading Afghanistan hawk in the Obama cabinet, backed intervention in Libya and Syria, and had the State legal adviser lead the charge for drone strikes. When her husband was in office, she supported military action in Haiti (1994), and former Yugoslavia in 1995 and 1999. Hell, she said herself "I urged him to bomb."

We have to pretend Hillary(!) is a liberal that way you have your foil to run whichever grifter/true believer your side runs so that the advertisement revenue is in the billions for the mainstream media that is a for-profit industry.

 

[LightPattern]

David Letterman tonight: "BTW.. Who's against same family presidents?"

 

[Jhhnn]

So she was worried about "political suicide" the year immediately after winning a 6 year Senate term? Why not just admit that she generally supports military intervention and leave it at that? She approved the use of force for Iraq, was a leading Afghanistan hawk in the Obama cabinet, backed intervention in Libya and Syria, and had the State legal adviser lead the charge for drone strikes. When her husband was in office, she supported military action in Haiti (1994), and former Yugoslavia in 1995 and 1999. Hell, she said herself "I urged him to bomb."

I didn't say Hillary was vulnerable at the time. I said "many Dems".

She's been more hawkish than I'd like, but none of it created the kind of clusterfuck that the Bushistas initiated in Iraq & Afghanistan.

The rest? She said she'd take GWB at his word wrt the Iraq AUMF. It's right there in her speech at the time. He lied. It's just that simple, and obvious to anybody not emotionally committed to the cause.

It's quite remarkable how you manage to blame the deceived rather than the deceivers even as you obfuscate the fact that any opponent Hillary might face will very likely be much, much more hawkish. Witness the raving about current negotiations w/ Iran.

 

[werepossum]

Clinton enforced the no-fly zone and did occasional bombings of the country, but I don't think he ever showed a desire or willingness to actually conduct a ground invasion to topple Saddam with no plan for the aftermath.

So the ideal President would have stated goals (i.e. regime change) and then do absolutely nothing to accomplish them but hope they somehow happened?

Come to think of it, that might actually be better, sadly.

 

[glenn1]

I didn't say Hillary was vulnerable at the time. I said "many Dems".

She's been more hawkish than I'd like, but none of it created the kind of clusterfuck that the Bushistas initiated in Iraq & Afghanistan.

The rest? She said she'd take GWB at his word wrt the Iraq AUMF. It's right there in her speech at the time. He lied. It's just that simple, and obvious to anybody not emotionally committed to the cause.

It's quite remarkable how you manage to blame the deceived rather than the deceivers even as you obfuscate the fact that any opponent Hillary might face will very likely be much, much more hawkish. Witness the raving about current negotiations w/ Iran.

I'm not "blaming" anyone. That being said you Dems have a strange way of supporting her. She's not as progressive as you like, more hawkish than you prefer, but her main qualification seems to be "at least she's better than the potential GOP candidate." Which is amusing to me since if she flipped parties you'd have no hesitation in opposing her for those same reasons.

Is this how your political soul dies, having to pull the lever for someone who could just as easily be the opposition party candidate just to preserve a couple meters of politically worthless turf like abortion and higher taxes? /

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not "blaming" anyone. That being said you Dems have a strange way of supporting her. She's not as progressive as you like, more hawkish than you prefer, but her main qualification seems to be "at least she's better than the potential GOP candidate." Which is amusing to me since if she flipped parties you'd have no hesitation in opposing her for those same reasons.

Is this how your political soul dies, having to pull the lever for someone who could just as easily be the opposition party candidate just to preserve a couple meters of politically worthless turf like abortion and higher taxes? /

Saying that she could just as easily be the opposition party candidate is pretty insanely wrong.

Have you forgotten how radicalized the Republican Party has become? Go look at her stance on issues and look at theirs and tell me if she would stand a snowball's chance in hell in a Republican primary with her positions.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not "blaming" anyone. That being said you Dems have a strange way of supporting her. She's not as progressive as you like, more hawkish than you prefer, but her main qualification seems to be "at least she's better than the potential GOP candidate." Which is amusing to me since if she flipped parties you'd have no hesitation in opposing her for those same reasons.

Is this how your political soul dies, having to pull the lever for someone who could just as easily be the opposition party candidate just to preserve a couple meters of politically worthless turf like abortion and higher taxes? /

Heh. Dems aren't thrashing about in search of their own version of Colbert's mythical Rick Parry. Nor do we have a penchant for litmus test politics.

Why does anybody vote for anybody? Because they believe that their choice will do a better job. If you see support for Hillary as lukewarm, then support for any potential adversary will be tepid, at best.

Repubs are particularly twisted over Hillary because they know she's highly electable. Looking over their own stable of nags & losers the contrast probably brings some to tears.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not "blaming" anyone. That being said you Dems have a strange way of supporting her. She's not as progressive as you like, more hawkish than you prefer, but her main qualification seems to be "at least she's better than the potential GOP candidate." Which is amusing to me since if she flipped parties you'd have no hesitation in opposing her for those same reasons.

Is this how your political soul dies, having to pull the lever for someone who could just as easily be the opposition party candidate just to preserve a couple meters of politically worthless turf like abortion and higher taxes? /

You assume that if she flipped that there would be a better opportunity on the democratic side, that's not a given.

To me, she's a little to the right of Obama, which is more in the center than anything. If there were a qualified "progressive" candidate I'd probably vote for them but against any current republican? I'll take anyone.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Subtract out the atmospheric issues that are mostly social issues and there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and many of the leading Repubs. Certainly on the major economic issues they're dancing to the same sheet of music -- the exact same sheet of music.

Yeah, there are some economic issues that differentiate such as ACA but when all to many in the middle class are seeing there once decent paying jobs pulled out from underneath them things like ACA are crumbs.

It's really the social issues that truly differentiate the right and left and as the Dems and country as a whole have moved the bar on gay rights etc the right has moved even farther right and dug in the heals. Interestingly, Ted Cruz appears to be softening his comments on gay rights and if the Republican party begins to move more to the middle on social issues there truly will be no light between Dems and Repubs. I don't see the Repubs abandoning there opposition to gay rights anytime soon but we'll see.


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

Subtract out the atmospheric issues that are mostly social issues and there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and many of the leading Repubs. Certainly on the major economic issues they're dancing to the same sheet of music -- the exact same sheet of music.

Yeah, there are some economic issues that differentiate such as ACA but when all to many in the middle class are seeing there once decent paying jobs pulled out from underneath them things like ACA are crumbs.

It's really the social issues that truly differentiate the right and left and as the Dems and country as a whole have moved the bar on gay rights etc the right has moved even farther right and dug in the heals. Interestingly, Ted Cruz appears to be softening his comments on gay rights and if the Republican party begins to move more to the middle on social issues there truly will be no light between Dems and Repubs. I don't see the Repubs abandoning there opposition to gay rights anytime soon but we'll see.


Brian

Do you think the level of social spending on means tested programs will be higher after eight years of Hillary or eight years of any one of the Republicans up for the nomination?

Do you think tax rates on the wealthy will be higher after eight years of Hillary or eight years of any one of the Republicans up for the nomination?

Do you think America's response to the financial crisis would have been the same if McCain had been president, or do you think the US would have behaved more like Europe and tried to cut deficits more?

I fell for the idea that the two parties are the same back when Nader was running in 2000, but you would think the last 15 years would put that to bed.

 

[glenn1]

Subtract out the atmospheric issues that are mostly social issues and there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and many of the leading Repubs. Certainly on the major economic issues they're dancing to the same sheet of music -- the exact same sheet of music.

Yeah, there are some economic issues that differentiate such as ACA but when all to many in the middle class are seeing there once decent paying jobs pulled out from underneath them things like ACA are crumbs.

It's really the social issues that truly differentiate the right and left and as the Dems and country as a whole have moved the bar on gay rights etc the right has moved even farther right and dug in the heals. Interestingly, Ted Cruz appears to be softening his comments on gay rights and if the Republican party begins to move more to the middle on social issues there truly will be no light between Dems and Repubs. I don't see the Repubs abandoning there opposition to gay rights anytime soon but we'll see.


Brian

Pretty much how I see things also. My guess is that gay marriage is a non-issue in the 2016 elections except for which GOP side losers can gather the votes of those who vote primarily on social issues. I'd say that's maybe 25-30% of GOP primary voters at most, and probably lower.

Apart from that, most of the remaining differences come down to "support" for things that aren't happening like instituting a carbon tax or similar global-warming measures for the left, repeal Roe v. Wade and increase abortion restrictions on the right. Otherwise only some changes around the edges happen like whether the cap gains rate will be 15% or 20%, or if a Presidential Order is to follow or ignore the Hyde Amendment at overseas military bases.

 

[CPA]

If any "normal" citizen destroyed information that was requested, subpoenaed, and under legal protection, they would be held in contempt of court, congress, and be held to whatever laws could be thrown at them.

I have had my emails subpoenaed by the FBI and SEC, including anything I sent to my personal account and anything I worked on with my home computers. You know what I did? I kept every HDD I had. Why? Because not only could I be arrested if I didn't product them, but my career would be ruined.

That she, or any other politician, isn't held to that standard is only evidence that we, as a people, have lost our way as a Republic.

She shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell at winning the election. Combine the emails with the Foundation issues and you have a person that is the ultimate representation of corruption.

Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely.


And as to her emails probably getting hacked, do you really think that she had *EVERYTHING* she needed to have to protect her "server" in her little house in Chappaqua NY? Firewalls, 24/7 monitoring, intrusion detection....etc.

Like x 1,000

 

[werepossum]

Subtract out the atmospheric issues that are mostly social issues and there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and many of the leading Repubs. Certainly on the major economic issues they're dancing to the same sheet of music -- the exact same sheet of music.

Yeah, there are some economic issues that differentiate such as ACA but when all to many in the middle class are seeing there once decent paying jobs pulled out from underneath them things like ACA are crumbs.

It's really the social issues that truly differentiate the right and left and as the Dems and country as a whole have moved the bar on gay rights etc the right has moved even farther right and dug in the heals. Interestingly, Ted Cruz appears to be softening his comments on gay rights and if the Republican party begins to move more to the middle on social issues there truly will be no light between Dems and Repubs. I don't see the Repubs abandoning there opposition to gay rights anytime soon but we'll see.


Brian

Agreed. Unfortunately for them the Pubbies have staked out most of the losing social issues demographically, so they have to figure out how to recover ground they are increasingly losing without alienating their base.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The Supreme Court will establish gay marriage I predict it won't be an issue for Republicans.
However if the court rules against it there will be a firestorm in the Republican Party.

 

[werepossum]

The Supreme Court will establish gay marriage I predict it won't be an issue for Republicans.
However if the court rules against it there will be a firestorm in the Republican Party.

Yeah, if SCOTUS should shoot down gay marriage there is zero chance of a Republican President in 2016 unless the Hildabeast really, really disintegrates in the last stretch. Can't muster much sympathy though - if they assemble a circular firing squad to defend an undefendable idea, loss of power is the least they deserve.

 

[Jhhnn]

Subtract out the atmospheric issues that are mostly social issues and there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and many of the leading Repubs. Certainly on the major economic issues they're dancing to the same sheet of music -- the exact same sheet of music.

More of the "They're just as Bad!" false equivalency. Hillary can count Warren, Sanders & other progressives as her allies, act accordingly. None of the Repub contenders would even want them.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Do you think the level of social spending on means tested programs will be higher after eight years of Hillary or eight years of any one of the Republicans up for the nomination?

Do you think tax rates on the wealthy will be higher after eight years of Hillary or eight years of any one of the Republicans up for the nomination?

Do you think America's response to the financial crisis would have been the same if McCain had been president, or do you think the US would have behaved more like Europe and tried to cut deficits more?

I fell for the idea that the two parties are the same back when Nader was running in 2000, but you would think the last 15 years would put that to bed.

There are differences in some areas of economic policy and I'm not saying they are unimportant, but on the bigger issues that define the future there is no difference. Yeah, I shudder to think what would have happened if Romney had set the auto industry adrift and allowed the "free market" to handle the banking crisis.

As I've said in past posts on this subject there are a goodly number of business types, particularly in the tech industries, that prefer Dems and not just on social issues. For them, Dems are a safer choice that aligns with there social beliefs while not challenging the trade and outsourcing plans they share with Republicans.

Again, the differences at the margins on economic issues are not unimportant, but those things are kind of like setting a nice table in a house that's just been repossessed. In the end the policies of both parties are driving the middle class into ruin and that trumps all the other economic isses combined and by a huge margin.


Brian

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yeah, if SCOTUS should shoot down gay marriage there is zero chance of a Republican President in 2016 unless the Hildabeast really, really disintegrates in the last stretch. Can't muster much sympathy though - if they assemble a circular firing squad to defend an undefendable idea, loss of power is the least they deserve.

Doesn't only one random guy have a live bullet in a firing squad? You know to protect the honor of the shooting guy? Who would take the one live round in that circle? I bet it would be the Tea Party, which is the way it should be. They can start their own party. I have a feeling most of them don't really consider themselves Republican.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Americans will get two shitty choices for the next election.

Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Americans will get two shitty choices for the next election.

Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton.

If I were a betting man I'd give you 1:5 odds that you're correct.

The republican party insiders like Karl Rove have pretty much latched onto Jeb and no one is going to stop the Hillary juggernaut so, yeah, it will be either Hillary or Jeb.


Brian

 

[werepossum]

Doesn't only one random guy have a live bullet in a firing squad? You know to protect the honor of the shooting guy? Who would take the one live round in that circle? I bet it would be the Tea Party, which is the way it should be. They can start their own party. I have a feeling most of them don't really consider themselves Republican.

Only one guy has a blank in a firing squad. That way there is no proof that any one person killed the accused, but a single badly aimed shot doesn't leave the accused painfully wounded.

You're right about the Tea Party, but neither they nor the Republicans can win without the other.

 

[Jhhnn]

Agreed. Unfortunately for them the Pubbies have staked out most of the losing social issues demographically, so they have to figure out how to recover ground they are increasingly losing without alienating their base.

Repub leadership has been radicalizing their base since before Reagan, particularly when they pandered to former southern Democrat Christian fundies. Their power base shifted to the states of the former confederacy. They've created a whole generation of politicians who pander to that & to the big money support of radical right billionaires. Meanwhile, public opinion has gone in other directions, sometimes on its own as with gay marriage & marijuana, sometimes in response to policy failure at home & abroad during the Bush years.

They refuse to own any of that failure, to learn from it or to budge from the long held ideological folly that spawned it.

There's a growing political wasteland between that base & the rest of America, a place where nobody lives. They've marched for Glenbeckistan for decades, & they've arrived. They willingly entertain absurdity as fact. Repubs will have increasing difficulty reaching across that void at the national level. Dems don't suffer from the same problem at all.