Anyone watching? Interested? Obviously this is a two person debate tonight with 3 others joining. Curious to see HC take on the TPP questions. I am sure her emails/Benghazi will be brought up ad nausum, but the TPP has me interested.
I'll just call him an extreme statist. He most certainly is that.
Again I think that's a historically naive characterization and that matters. I also feel a Sanders presidency (again not happening) would be push towards moderate-left positions by the rest of the party and other republicans, where as HRC begins as a third way liberal whose instincts are basically center-right.
I'll just call him an extreme statist. He most certainly is that.
Again I think that's a historically naive characterization and that matters. I also feel a Sanders presidency (again not happening) would be push towards moderate-left positions by the rest of the party and other republicans, where as HRC begins as a third way liberal whose instincts are basically center-right.
But isn't that simply a brainier version of the guy who thinks everyone without the Glenn Beck seal of approval is a RINO? It's establishing the Center on your terms, in your case based on concepts of left and right that were true for a period of time and aren't necessarily true now.
Ash, your concept of left/right seems to be much more European Â
in nature. HRC would be center-right there, not so much here. If you assume that a strong strain of the right in the US is inclined towards limited government (which it really isn't in any meaningful sense, but that's what it purports to be) then there really isn't much in Europe that can be characterized as "right" by American standards.
RE: Responding to Benghazi is really pretty easy. Â
Under Bush, there were 13 attacks on US embassies, with numerous deaths. Many of the deaths were of non-Americans. Only one death was a consulate member, but there were 11 were Americans serving various functions, and lots of others were our guests at the time of the attacks? Not identical, but similar enough. (link) I won't get into the WTC argument, but what about the death of 241 marines? Not similar enough? Why didn't that turn into an unending series of investigations?
- ( New Window )
george - in exactly how many of the 13 attacks was the ambassador left to die?
In exactly how many of those 13 embassy attacks did the attackers breach the embassy walls?
In exactly how many of those embassy attacks did the ambassador ask for additional security and was denied?
In exactly how many of those embassy attacks did outside contractors come to the aid of the embassy (without weapons)?
In exactly how many of those embassy attacks did the administration blame a small time video producer for causing the riots.
241 Marines? - in Lebanon 1983, The Reagan Administration?
Why don't you bring up Mogadishu - Blackhawk Down. If you're going back to Reagan, why did you bypass Bill and Les Aspin denying the Army's request for Bradleys and armored vehicles. Now that is a better comparison because there, a request for additional aid was denied, just like Benghazi. But what difference does it make.......
is part of his charm given the pretty appalling lack of social mobility and skewed wealth distribution in this country, but I'm just an angry dude who thinks general immiseration is a shitty strategy for political stability.
I get anger, I just don't get the moral and practical certainty that can so fervidly and angrily defend policy prescriptions that aren't obviously the best way of addressing income inequality or the plight of the poor. You (the generic you, not the personal you) have to be open to the notion that others, especially those on your side, are well-intentioned and are advancing prescriptions because they genuinely believe they are the best way of helping those who need help. In Vermont, progressives fighting other progressives - the old wagon wheel joke - were clearly fighting over the best way to attack what they perceived to be the same ills.
A very smart post, especially the bolded part. Here's the thing -- Bernie is trailing in the Dem race, and I think he's hit his absolute high point. He's going to fade from here. Because he is well, well, well to the left of most Dems.
Now can we apply the same question on the GOP side? The only policy prescription we've heard from the right since 2000 is more tax cuts. Tax cuts when times are good, tax cuts when times are bad, tax cuts all the time. And make believe dynamic scoring math that makes the tax cuts look like they're not blowing a hole through the budget. Is there anyone running on the right who isnt advocating for big tax cuts?
I'll just call him an extreme statist. He most certainly is that.
Again I think that's a historically naive characterization and that matters. I also feel a Sanders presidency (again not happening) would be push towards moderate-left positions by the rest of the party and other republicans, where as HRC begins as a third way liberal whose instincts are basically center-right.
But isn't that simply a brainier version of the guy who thinks everyone without the Glenn Beck seal of approval is a RINO? It's establishing the Center on your terms, in your case based on concepts of left and right that were true for a period of time and aren't necessarily true now.
Not necessarily. Whereas the person who indiscriminately throws around RINO is drawing from some ideal conception of a conservative, my and political scientists' spectrum is drawn more from historical precedent, one that goes beyond the last 35 years.
RE: Ash, your concept of left/right seems to be much more European Â
in nature. HRC would be center-right there, not so much here. If you assume that a strong strain of the right in the US is inclined towards limited government (which it really isn't in any meaningful sense, but that's what it purports to be) then there really isn't much in Europe that can be characterized as "right" by American standards.
I think that's fair.
and look, I'm not a social scientist nor a scholar Â
I don't have the ability to read a lot of literature on this. I can't quantify this statement, but given the expansion of government going back to the Bush administration, I don't see how anything that's happened in at least the past 15 years or so reflects any real shift towards conservatism.
RE: and look, I'm not a social scientist nor a scholar Â
I don't have the ability to read a lot of literature on this. I can't quantify this statement, but given the expansion of government going back to the Bush administration, I don't see how anything that's happened in at least the past 15 years or so reflects any real shift towards conservatism.
Well I think the big government/small government divide is a little silly, since Reagan was hardly a small spender. The better question is where government does its spending as a way of capturing the right/left spectrum.
the European right tends to be much more slanted towards Â
a sort of nationalistic populism coupled with economic protectionism, with much more of a grounding in ethnic and, sometimes, explicitly racial terms. Sort of a Pat Buchanan on steroids thing.
What's wrong with a HRC nomination? She's the most vetted candidate in history, she'll have the best advisor of our generation, she's super smart and has a set of balls on her. A little shady? Perhaps , what politician isn't .
RE: the European right tends to be much more slanted towards Â
a sort of nationalistic populism coupled with economic protectionism, with much more of a grounding in ethnic and, sometimes, explicitly racial terms. Sort of a Pat Buchanan on steroids thing.
Certainly. It's therefore disconcerting to see that same brand of ethnic or implicitly ethnic populism being used to good effect by Carson and Trump. Romney was more palatable than most of the candidates this year.
It's amazing people still are attempting to defend Â
and will never make politically costly decisions. Even LBJ, who was as calculating and self-serving a politician as there ever was, pushed the Civil Rights Bill through despite effectively giving up the South. I despise the Clintons.
I don't have the ability to read a lot of literature on this. I can't quantify this statement, but given the expansion of government going back to the Bush administration, I don't see how anything that's happened in at least the past 15 years or so reflects any real shift towards conservatism.
I love how every republican starts off with "i'm not a scientist" HAHAHAHA!! No shit, we couldn't tell.
Now back to telling us about the global warming hoax.
1. An ambassador was not left to die. That's a slur. The House Intel committee refuted that notion. And is an ambassador's life that much more valuable? Nothing else matters?
2. Benghazi did not involve an embassy. It was a temporary mission. Thus by its nature it wasnt as secure as a permanent embassy.
3. Stevens did ask for 5 total security agents for the Benghazi mission. There were 5 there at the time of the attack. There were not always 5 there, but there were during the attack. Moreover, State has said that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the attack. You get a big enough armed mob and it really doesnt matter whether there are 3 or 5 or 10 people attacking a semi-secure structure. So what is your point?
I've already addressed the video above.
But we get the point. Bad things only happen because Hillary and Obama is bad and made them happen. I think the outrage here is that Congress hasnt even looked into Benghazi! What are they waiting for?
RE: and look, I'm not a social scientist nor a scholar Â
I don't have the ability to read a lot of literature on this. I can't quantify this statement, but given the expansion of government going back to the Bush administration, I don't see how anything that's happened in at least the past 15 years or so reflects any real shift towards conservatism.
Well as a dyed in the wool libertarian, that it what overwhelmingly matters to YOU. But that is not the only measure of what is conservative.
is part of his charm given the pretty appalling lack of social mobility and skewed wealth distribution in this country, but I'm just an angry dude who thinks general immiseration is a shitty strategy for political stability.
I get anger, I just don't get the moral and practical certainty that can so fervidly and angrily defend policy prescriptions that aren't obviously the best way of addressing income inequality or the plight of the poor. You (the generic you, not the personal you) have to be open to the notion that others, especially those on your side, are well-intentioned and are advancing prescriptions because they genuinely believe they are the best way of helping those who need help. In Vermont, progressives fighting other progressives - the old wagon wheel joke - were clearly fighting over the best way to attack what they perceived to be the same ills.
A very smart post, especially the bolded part. Here's the thing -- Bernie is trailing in the Dem race, and I think he's hit his absolute high point. He's going to fade from here. Because he is well, well, well to the left of most Dems.
Now can we apply the same question on the GOP side? The only policy prescription we've heard from the right since 2000 is more tax cuts. Tax cuts when times are good, tax cuts when times are bad, tax cuts all the time. And make believe dynamic scoring math that makes the tax cuts look like they're not blowing a hole through the budget. Is there anyone running on the right who isnt advocating for big tax cuts?
There are plenty of avowedly ideological, virtually humorless Republicans. In the field I'd say Cruz is probably the closest to that, perhaps a good bit of why he is utterly despised by most of his Senate colleagues, but that is as much an issue of ambition as it is purity.
What's wrong with a HRC nomination? She's the most vetted candidate in history, she'll have the best advisor of our generation, she's super smart and has a set of balls on her. A little shady? Perhaps , what politician isn't .
Maybe because she cannot give a straight answer on anything?
Maybe because after 8 years as Senator and 4 years as Sec State she does not have a defined policy on anything? She cannot give a straight answer or say what she if for. At least Donald Trump swears he will build a wall on the Mexican border (not agreeing with that - just that he has said something definite as far as a policy.)
Look, you can crap on the Republicans all day long and they deserve it. But HRC is as bad as any of those, and maybe worse than some. There is NOTHING she brings to the table that will help this country, NOTHING.
She just wants to be president to be the 1st woman.
RE: RE: and look, I'm not a social scientist nor a scholar Â
I don't have the ability to read a lot of literature on this. I can't quantify this statement, but given the expansion of government going back to the Bush administration, I don't see how anything that's happened in at least the past 15 years or so reflects any real shift towards conservatism.
Well as a dyed in the wool libertarian, that it what overwhelmingly matters to YOU. But that is not the only measure of what is conservative.
Greg is a libertarian and I am not, but it's certainly a tension for a lot of people who consider themselves to be conservatives. Yes law and order, yes strong defense, but at what point have you surrendered too much liberty or encouraged too large a government to effect those? The simple and unfortunate answer is who gives a fuck, I'm not the one who is going to get cavity searched at the airport or get pulled over because my tag light is dim, but for the people who actually think about such things and/or aren't assholes that's not acceptable.
Your earlier post is essentially the Matt Yglesias take on it, the notion that she would be effective precisely because she is willing to ignore or at least play fast and loose with the rules and is unlikely to be bound by mere formalities. How that is distinguished from the whole "trains run on time" bit is perhaps too nuanced for me, other than that she would flout that authority in the service of a perceived good. Link - ( New Window )
1. An ambassador was not left to die. That's a slur. The House Intel committee refuted that notion. And is an ambassador's life that much more valuable? Nothing else matters?
2. Benghazi did not involve an embassy. It was a temporary mission. Thus by its nature it wasnt as secure as a permanent embassy.
3. Stevens did ask for 5 total security agents for the Benghazi mission. There were 5 there at the time of the attack. There were not always 5 there, but there were during the attack. Moreover, State has said that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the attack. You get a big enough armed mob and it really doesnt matter whether there are 3 or 5 or 10 people attacking a semi-secure structure. So what is your point?
I've already addressed the video above.
But we get the point. Bad things only happen because Hillary and Obama is bad and made them happen. I think the outrage here is that Congress hasnt even looked into Benghazi! What are they waiting for?
I'm a hack - just the pot calling the kettle..... Great, Anybody with an opposing view is a hack.
You are right it was a "mission" and I should have said that and was going to put that in but did not and neither did manhgeorge, but no he asked for additional security which was turned down.
And a Marine Fast team would have fended off that attack. Woods and Dougherty killed between 80 and 100 attackers by themselves and they arrived at the place unarmed.
So what is the problem if Hillary acts by Executive Order where allowable? I mean, if she said do X when a statute specifically said dont do X (say, by supplying weapons to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment) then it would be illegal.
The interesting thing about Hillary is that there are actually a bunch of quotes from Republicans who served with her in the Senate and worked with her in her capacity at State to the effect that she is very good to work with. I dont expect some grand new era of bipartisanship if she is elected, but I am pretty positive that she will do a much better job than Obama did in reaching out to the Congressional GOP.
So what is the problem if Hillary acts by Executive Order where allowable? I mean, if she said do X when a statute specifically said dont do X (say, by supplying weapons to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment) then it would be illegal.
The interesting thing about Hillary is that there are actually a bunch of quotes from Republicans who served with her in the Senate and worked with her in her capacity at State to the effect that she is very good to work with. I dont expect some grand new era of bipartisanship if she is elected, but I am pretty positive that she will do a much better job than Obama did in reaching out to the Congressional GOP.
I've heard two versions. One is that she is a wretched human being, a horrible and unlovable piece of human garbage who is mean and vindictive to those who cross her over even the most trivial of stuff. And the other is that regardless of whether or not she is capable of inching the personal thermometer north of 32 degrees she is a capable leader and that compared to her tenure Kerry's has been almost rudderless. Now the former may be an exaggeration, the latter may simply be the slanted takes of people who admire her, but I'm not sure those are irreconcilable.
So what is the problem if Hillary acts by Executive Order where allowable? I mean, if she said do X when a statute specifically said dont do X (say, by supplying weapons to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment) then it would be illegal.
The interesting thing about Hillary is that there are actually a bunch of quotes from Republicans who served with her in the Senate and worked with her in her capacity at State to the effect that she is very good to work with. I dont expect some grand new era of bipartisanship if she is elected, but I am pretty positive that she will do a much better job than Obama did in reaching out to the Congressional GOP.
I've heard two versions. One is that she is a wretched human being, a horrible and unlovable piece of human garbage who is mean and vindictive to those who cross her over even the most trivial of stuff. And the other is that regardless of whether or not she is capable of inching the personal thermometer north of 32 degrees she is a capable leader and that compared to her tenure Kerry's has been almost rudderless. Now the former may be an exaggeration, the latter may simply be the slanted takes of people who admire her, but I'm not sure those are irreconcilable.
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
Sheldon Adelson, one of the Republican Party's most sought-after contributors, is leaning increasingly toward supporting Marco Rubio — and the Florida senator is racing to win the backing of other uncommitted megadonors who have the potential to direct tens of millions of dollars his way and alter the contours of the Republican primary fight.
And while she's not my ideal candidate, I'll certainly take it. The Republicans have basically made the trade of the House of Reps for the Presidency with the Senate swinging back and forth.
I dont doubt it. The establishment money has to go somewhere. The "problem" with Rubio is that his momentum seems to be by process of elimination (a corollary of the HRC problem of no competition whatsoever). I mean, he's not doing well in the polls - still at only 10% (Romney never fell below 20% even during the Perry-Cain-Newt monthly spotlights). Is the money flocking to him because Rubio is good, or because the other "serious" candidates (Bush, Walker, Christie, Kasich) have been bad?
Now, that's not to say Rubio is a bad candidate. He has a lot of good political qualities/skills and is solidly conservative. But he isnt generating the excitement of say a 2008 Obama.
Re Shelly: I do hate how much our politics can be dictated by a few mega donors. NYTimes had a big piece about how half the giving so far is from <200 families. GOP is getting a lot more of its money from that small base, but even the Dems have 20 givers or so who are megafunding them. It is just so bad for democracy. And we get policy outcomes favored by this small cadre rather than what is popularly wanted.
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
Nixon, at least temperamentally, is a good comparison. It makes a HRC presidency with our current security apparatus that much more terrifying.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
See that I buy in some form (Nixonian comp aside). Will read the article, thanks. It at least makes sense given what facts we can observe from the outside. E.g. the email fuckup obviously started with a drive for privacy/secrecy.
The "worst person ever" stuff just doesnt make any sense to me. I'd just think you'd hear elected officials she dealt with coming out and saying this. If she's so awful, how come the whole party lined up behind her? And before people say they're scared of her, remember that she was inevitable in 2008 and Obama got plenty of supporters in the 2008 primary, including Kennedy. If there was ever fear of Billary, it would have to be diminished 15 years after Bill left the WH, right? It just doesnt seem plausible to me that you dont have people from her caucus ever parroting this worst person shit.
Now, I bet she isnt so warm and fuzzy. I could see her not passing the "do I want a beer with this person test". I just think that's a stupid test. I wasnt some asshole in my leader. It's a scary world.
Hillary Clinton is a dirtbag, I don't care she has ovaries Â
I'm not cutting her any slack. And I'm a registered Democrat. No way is she ever getting my vote. And quite a few Democrats feel that way in urban cities. She has the perfect candidate to go up against this time in Sanders. The man is too scared to correct a woman let alone debate them.
Her whole life is a big lie and no one calls her out on anything anymore. I mean that TPP should be hammering stuff from the media. Gay marriage reversal after a whole two years. 1999 Financial Act. Don't ask don't tell. Iraq vote. The 1994 crime bill. NAFTA.
A better debate would be between current as of today Hillary vs past Hillary which apparently can include a few months ago Hillary too. They seem to disagree with each other on some many topics.
She just dismissed her so called gold standard achievement as SOS. So... what's left to rely on then as evidence of her achievements or some great bill that she championed before. See above.
But when it comes to poitics, the only reason why you hate her is because she does not representing your views or your interests. This will probably be 47% of the country, or about 150 million people. That's alot of hate.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
See that I buy in some form (Nixonian comp aside). Will read the article, thanks. It at least makes sense given what facts we can observe from the outside. E.g. the email fuckup obviously started with a drive for privacy/secrecy.
The "worst person ever" stuff just doesnt make any sense to me. I'd just think you'd hear elected officials she dealt with coming out and saying this. If she's so awful, how come the whole party lined up behind her? And before people say they're scared of her, remember that she was inevitable in 2008 and Obama got plenty of supporters in the 2008 primary, including Kennedy. If there was ever fear of Billary, it would have to be diminished 15 years after Bill left the WH, right? It just doesnt seem plausible to me that you dont have people from her caucus ever parroting this worst person shit.
Now, I bet she isnt so warm and fuzzy. I could see her not passing the "do I want a beer with this person test". I just think that's a stupid test. I wasnt some asshole in my leader. It's a scary world.
Ted Kennedy, and it holds pretty much for the whole Kennedy family, didn't have to be afraid of anyone, particularly in the Democratic Party.
but I do hear her critics rail on everything she does and everything she is, every single day.
And then, every now and then, I see her at a press conference or giving a speech, and I always have the same feeling - "Really? She's not *that* bad."
There are a lot of people I trust more than Hillary Clinton, but among the people I trust a lot LESS are the folks who insist that she's the worst human being in the world, and demonstrates it every single day.
But when it comes to poitics, the only reason why you hate her is because she does not representing your views or your interests. This will probably be 47% of the country, or about 150 million people. That's alot of hate.
That's the point right there. NO ONE is sure who views she represents. Because she keeps flipping all the time. And no one seriously calls her out. It's just oh that Hillary has changed her mind. Or she has reviewed the matter BS. Come on. It's flipping for polls. The lady needs handlers and pollsters to tell her to be warm and have heart. That ridiculous that they even her campaign had to announce it.
but the wider characterization is cobbled together from everything from personal snippets (most of which are pretty complimentary of Bill and even Obama) to the stories about the way this and that Democratic political figure was treated, the veritable peace treaty with the Obamas that saw Hillary take over state, etc etc. The fact that the NYT editorial page has had enough of her should tell you all that you need to know.
I'm a partisan conservative, I vote Republican the overwhelming majority of the time, I make no bones about that. My dislike for Hillary isn't because she is especially electable or because she might be too effective as a Democrat, I just find nothing redeeming about her. Given a choice between Trump or Carson or Cruz and Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb I'd give the Democrat a shot. Given a choice between Hillary and any of those three I'd vote third party and feel very pessimistic about America's chances.
forever. It's not recent. It's from the 1990s. I dont know why.
There are many reasons but the biggest one is her treatment of some of those women who came forward accusing her husband. Despite the claims now, Hillary wasn't some lily, she went on the offensive to disparage some of those women. It was a lot more than just stand by your man stuff.
RE: RE: The NY Times has been horrible to Hillary Â
forever. It's not recent. It's from the 1990s. I dont know why.
There are many reasons but the biggest one is her treatment of some of those women who came forward accusing her husband. Despite the claims now, Hillary wasn't some lily, she went on the offensive to disparage some of those women. It was a lot more than just stand by your man stuff.
And of course at odds with her "come forward and you will be believed" rhetoric now.
Again I think that's a historically naive characterization and that matters. I also feel a Sanders presidency (again not happening) would be push towards moderate-left positions by the rest of the party and other republicans, where as HRC begins as a third way liberal whose instincts are basically center-right.
Quote:
I'll just call him an extreme statist. He most certainly is that.
Again I think that's a historically naive characterization and that matters. I also feel a Sanders presidency (again not happening) would be push towards moderate-left positions by the rest of the party and other republicans, where as HRC begins as a third way liberal whose instincts are basically center-right.
But isn't that simply a brainier version of the guy who thinks everyone without the Glenn Beck seal of approval is a RINO? It's establishing the Center on your terms, in your case based on concepts of left and right that were true for a period of time and aren't necessarily true now.
- ( New Window )
george - in exactly how many of the 13 attacks was the ambassador left to die?
In exactly how many of those 13 embassy attacks did the attackers breach the embassy walls?
In exactly how many of those embassy attacks did the ambassador ask for additional security and was denied?
In exactly how many of those embassy attacks did outside contractors come to the aid of the embassy (without weapons)?
In exactly how many of those embassy attacks did the administration blame a small time video producer for causing the riots.
241 Marines? - in Lebanon 1983, The Reagan Administration?
Why don't you bring up Mogadishu - Blackhawk Down. If you're going back to Reagan, why did you bypass Bill and Les Aspin denying the Army's request for Bradleys and armored vehicles. Now that is a better comparison because there, a request for additional aid was denied, just like Benghazi. But what difference does it make.......
Quote:
is part of his charm given the pretty appalling lack of social mobility and skewed wealth distribution in this country, but I'm just an angry dude who thinks general immiseration is a shitty strategy for political stability.
I get anger, I just don't get the moral and practical certainty that can so fervidly and angrily defend policy prescriptions that aren't obviously the best way of addressing income inequality or the plight of the poor. You (the generic you, not the personal you) have to be open to the notion that others, especially those on your side, are well-intentioned and are advancing prescriptions because they genuinely believe they are the best way of helping those who need help. In Vermont, progressives fighting other progressives - the old wagon wheel joke - were clearly fighting over the best way to attack what they perceived to be the same ills.
A very smart post, especially the bolded part. Here's the thing -- Bernie is trailing in the Dem race, and I think he's hit his absolute high point. He's going to fade from here. Because he is well, well, well to the left of most Dems.
Now can we apply the same question on the GOP side? The only policy prescription we've heard from the right since 2000 is more tax cuts. Tax cuts when times are good, tax cuts when times are bad, tax cuts all the time. And make believe dynamic scoring math that makes the tax cuts look like they're not blowing a hole through the budget. Is there anyone running on the right who isnt advocating for big tax cuts?
Quote:
In comment 12547511 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
I'll just call him an extreme statist. He most certainly is that.
Again I think that's a historically naive characterization and that matters. I also feel a Sanders presidency (again not happening) would be push towards moderate-left positions by the rest of the party and other republicans, where as HRC begins as a third way liberal whose instincts are basically center-right.
But isn't that simply a brainier version of the guy who thinks everyone without the Glenn Beck seal of approval is a RINO? It's establishing the Center on your terms, in your case based on concepts of left and right that were true for a period of time and aren't necessarily true now.
Not necessarily. Whereas the person who indiscriminately throws around RINO is drawing from some ideal conception of a conservative, my and political scientists' spectrum is drawn more from historical precedent, one that goes beyond the last 35 years.
I think that's fair.
Well I think the big government/small government divide is a little silly, since Reagan was hardly a small spender. The better question is where government does its spending as a way of capturing the right/left spectrum.
Certainly. It's therefore disconcerting to see that same brand of ethnic or implicitly ethnic populism being used to good effect by Carson and Trump. Romney was more palatable than most of the candidates this year.
I love how every republican starts off with "i'm not a scientist" HAHAHAHA!! No shit, we couldn't tell.
Now back to telling us about the global warming hoax.
1. An ambassador was not left to die. That's a slur. The House Intel committee refuted that notion. And is an ambassador's life that much more valuable? Nothing else matters?
2. Benghazi did not involve an embassy. It was a temporary mission. Thus by its nature it wasnt as secure as a permanent embassy.
3. Stevens did ask for 5 total security agents for the Benghazi mission. There were 5 there at the time of the attack. There were not always 5 there, but there were during the attack. Moreover, State has said that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the attack. You get a big enough armed mob and it really doesnt matter whether there are 3 or 5 or 10 people attacking a semi-secure structure. So what is your point?
I've already addressed the video above.
But we get the point. Bad things only happen because Hillary and Obama is bad and made them happen. I think the outrage here is that Congress hasnt even looked into Benghazi! What are they waiting for?
Well as a dyed in the wool libertarian, that it what overwhelmingly matters to YOU. But that is not the only measure of what is conservative.
I guess you are proposing that the entire scientific population is Democrats? Are they all atheists too?
Jesus - at least your stupidity goes further than football posts.
I dont know a lot about Bunga-Bunga other than the scandal, but a lot of people throw him around as an apt comparison to Trump.
Quote:
In comment 12547495 Ash_3 said:
Quote:
is part of his charm given the pretty appalling lack of social mobility and skewed wealth distribution in this country, but I'm just an angry dude who thinks general immiseration is a shitty strategy for political stability.
I get anger, I just don't get the moral and practical certainty that can so fervidly and angrily defend policy prescriptions that aren't obviously the best way of addressing income inequality or the plight of the poor. You (the generic you, not the personal you) have to be open to the notion that others, especially those on your side, are well-intentioned and are advancing prescriptions because they genuinely believe they are the best way of helping those who need help. In Vermont, progressives fighting other progressives - the old wagon wheel joke - were clearly fighting over the best way to attack what they perceived to be the same ills.
A very smart post, especially the bolded part. Here's the thing -- Bernie is trailing in the Dem race, and I think he's hit his absolute high point. He's going to fade from here. Because he is well, well, well to the left of most Dems.
Now can we apply the same question on the GOP side? The only policy prescription we've heard from the right since 2000 is more tax cuts. Tax cuts when times are good, tax cuts when times are bad, tax cuts all the time. And make believe dynamic scoring math that makes the tax cuts look like they're not blowing a hole through the budget. Is there anyone running on the right who isnt advocating for big tax cuts?
There are plenty of avowedly ideological, virtually humorless Republicans. In the field I'd say Cruz is probably the closest to that, perhaps a good bit of why he is utterly despised by most of his Senate colleagues, but that is as much an issue of ambition as it is purity.
Maybe because she cannot give a straight answer on anything?
Maybe because after 8 years as Senator and 4 years as Sec State she does not have a defined policy on anything? She cannot give a straight answer or say what she if for. At least Donald Trump swears he will build a wall on the Mexican border (not agreeing with that - just that he has said something definite as far as a policy.)
Look, you can crap on the Republicans all day long and they deserve it. But HRC is as bad as any of those, and maybe worse than some. There is NOTHING she brings to the table that will help this country, NOTHING.
She just wants to be president to be the 1st woman.
Quote:
I don't have the ability to read a lot of literature on this. I can't quantify this statement, but given the expansion of government going back to the Bush administration, I don't see how anything that's happened in at least the past 15 years or so reflects any real shift towards conservatism.
Well as a dyed in the wool libertarian, that it what overwhelmingly matters to YOU. But that is not the only measure of what is conservative.
Greg is a libertarian and I am not, but it's certainly a tension for a lot of people who consider themselves to be conservatives. Yes law and order, yes strong defense, but at what point have you surrendered too much liberty or encouraged too large a government to effect those? The simple and unfortunate answer is who gives a fuck, I'm not the one who is going to get cavity searched at the airport or get pulled over because my tag light is dim, but for the people who actually think about such things and/or aren't assholes that's not acceptable.
Your earlier post is essentially the Matt Yglesias take on it, the notion that she would be effective precisely because she is willing to ignore or at least play fast and loose with the rules and is unlikely to be bound by mere formalities. How that is distinguished from the whole "trains run on time" bit is perhaps too nuanced for me, other than that she would flout that authority in the service of a perceived good.
Link - ( New Window )
1. An ambassador was not left to die. That's a slur. The House Intel committee refuted that notion. And is an ambassador's life that much more valuable? Nothing else matters?
2. Benghazi did not involve an embassy. It was a temporary mission. Thus by its nature it wasnt as secure as a permanent embassy.
3. Stevens did ask for 5 total security agents for the Benghazi mission. There were 5 there at the time of the attack. There were not always 5 there, but there were during the attack. Moreover, State has said that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the attack. You get a big enough armed mob and it really doesnt matter whether there are 3 or 5 or 10 people attacking a semi-secure structure. So what is your point?
I've already addressed the video above.
But we get the point. Bad things only happen because Hillary and Obama is bad and made them happen. I think the outrage here is that Congress hasnt even looked into Benghazi! What are they waiting for?
I'm a hack - just the pot calling the kettle..... Great, Anybody with an opposing view is a hack.
You are right it was a "mission" and I should have said that and was going to put that in but did not and neither did manhgeorge, but no he asked for additional security which was turned down.
And a Marine Fast team would have fended off that attack. Woods and Dougherty killed between 80 and 100 attackers by themselves and they arrived at the place unarmed.
The interesting thing about Hillary is that there are actually a bunch of quotes from Republicans who served with her in the Senate and worked with her in her capacity at State to the effect that she is very good to work with. I dont expect some grand new era of bipartisanship if she is elected, but I am pretty positive that she will do a much better job than Obama did in reaching out to the Congressional GOP.
The interesting thing about Hillary is that there are actually a bunch of quotes from Republicans who served with her in the Senate and worked with her in her capacity at State to the effect that she is very good to work with. I dont expect some grand new era of bipartisanship if she is elected, but I am pretty positive that she will do a much better job than Obama did in reaching out to the Congressional GOP.
I've heard two versions. One is that she is a wretched human being, a horrible and unlovable piece of human garbage who is mean and vindictive to those who cross her over even the most trivial of stuff. And the other is that regardless of whether or not she is capable of inching the personal thermometer north of 32 degrees she is a capable leader and that compared to her tenure Kerry's has been almost rudderless. Now the former may be an exaggeration, the latter may simply be the slanted takes of people who admire her, but I'm not sure those are irreconcilable.
Quote:
So what is the problem if Hillary acts by Executive Order where allowable? I mean, if she said do X when a statute specifically said dont do X (say, by supplying weapons to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment) then it would be illegal.
The interesting thing about Hillary is that there are actually a bunch of quotes from Republicans who served with her in the Senate and worked with her in her capacity at State to the effect that she is very good to work with. I dont expect some grand new era of bipartisanship if she is elected, but I am pretty positive that she will do a much better job than Obama did in reaching out to the Congressional GOP.
I've heard two versions. One is that she is a wretched human being, a horrible and unlovable piece of human garbage who is mean and vindictive to those who cross her over even the most trivial of stuff. And the other is that regardless of whether or not she is capable of inching the personal thermometer north of 32 degrees she is a capable leader and that compared to her tenure Kerry's has been almost rudderless. Now the former may be an exaggeration, the latter may simply be the slanted takes of people who admire her, but I'm not sure those are irreconcilable.
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
All proceeding as I have foreseen.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
I'll take that deal 10 out of 10 times.
Now, that's not to say Rubio is a bad candidate. He has a lot of good political qualities/skills and is solidly conservative. But he isnt generating the excitement of say a 2008 Obama.
Re Shelly: I do hate how much our politics can be dictated by a few mega donors. NYTimes had a big piece about how half the giving so far is from <200 families. GOP is getting a lot more of its money from that small base, but even the Dems have 20 givers or so who are megafunding them. It is just so bad for democracy. And we get policy outcomes favored by this small cadre rather than what is popularly wanted.
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
Nixon, at least temperamentally, is a good comparison. It makes a HRC presidency with our current security apparatus that much more terrifying.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
See that I buy in some form (Nixonian comp aside). Will read the article, thanks. It at least makes sense given what facts we can observe from the outside. E.g. the email fuckup obviously started with a drive for privacy/secrecy.
The "worst person ever" stuff just doesnt make any sense to me. I'd just think you'd hear elected officials she dealt with coming out and saying this. If she's so awful, how come the whole party lined up behind her? And before people say they're scared of her, remember that she was inevitable in 2008 and Obama got plenty of supporters in the 2008 primary, including Kennedy. If there was ever fear of Billary, it would have to be diminished 15 years after Bill left the WH, right? It just doesnt seem plausible to me that you dont have people from her caucus ever parroting this worst person shit.
Now, I bet she isnt so warm and fuzzy. I could see her not passing the "do I want a beer with this person test". I just think that's a stupid test. I wasnt some asshole in my leader. It's a scary world.
Her whole life is a big lie and no one calls her out on anything anymore. I mean that TPP should be hammering stuff from the media. Gay marriage reversal after a whole two years. 1999 Financial Act. Don't ask don't tell. Iraq vote. The 1994 crime bill. NAFTA.
A better debate would be between current as of today Hillary vs past Hillary which apparently can include a few months ago Hillary too. They seem to disagree with each other on some many topics.
She just dismissed her so called gold standard achievement as SOS. So... what's left to rely on then as evidence of her achievements or some great bill that she championed before. See above.
But when it comes to poitics, the only reason why you hate her is because she does not representing your views or your interests. This will probably be 47% of the country, or about 150 million people. That's alot of hate.
Quote:
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
See that I buy in some form (Nixonian comp aside). Will read the article, thanks. It at least makes sense given what facts we can observe from the outside. E.g. the email fuckup obviously started with a drive for privacy/secrecy.
The "worst person ever" stuff just doesnt make any sense to me. I'd just think you'd hear elected officials she dealt with coming out and saying this. If she's so awful, how come the whole party lined up behind her? And before people say they're scared of her, remember that she was inevitable in 2008 and Obama got plenty of supporters in the 2008 primary, including Kennedy. If there was ever fear of Billary, it would have to be diminished 15 years after Bill left the WH, right? It just doesnt seem plausible to me that you dont have people from her caucus ever parroting this worst person shit.
Now, I bet she isnt so warm and fuzzy. I could see her not passing the "do I want a beer with this person test". I just think that's a stupid test. I wasnt some asshole in my leader. It's a scary world.
Ted Kennedy, and it holds pretty much for the whole Kennedy family, didn't have to be afraid of anyone, particularly in the Democratic Party.
And then, every now and then, I see her at a press conference or giving a speech, and I always have the same feeling - "Really? She's not *that* bad."
There are a lot of people I trust more than Hillary Clinton, but among the people I trust a lot LESS are the folks who insist that she's the worst human being in the world, and demonstrates it every single day.
But when it comes to poitics, the only reason why you hate her is because she does not representing your views or your interests. This will probably be 47% of the country, or about 150 million people. That's alot of hate.
That's the point right there. NO ONE is sure who views she represents. Because she keeps flipping all the time. And no one seriously calls her out. It's just oh that Hillary has changed her mind. Or she has reviewed the matter BS. Come on. It's flipping for polls. The lady needs handlers and pollsters to tell her to be warm and have heart. That ridiculous that they even her campaign had to announce it.
I'm a partisan conservative, I vote Republican the overwhelming majority of the time, I make no bones about that. My dislike for Hillary isn't because she is especially electable or because she might be too effective as a Democrat, I just find nothing redeeming about her. Given a choice between Trump or Carson or Cruz and Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb I'd give the Democrat a shot. Given a choice between Hillary and any of those three I'd vote third party and feel very pessimistic about America's chances.
There are many reasons but the biggest one is her treatment of some of those women who came forward accusing her husband. Despite the claims now, Hillary wasn't some lily, she went on the offensive to disparage some of those women. It was a lot more than just stand by your man stuff.
Quote:
forever. It's not recent. It's from the 1990s. I dont know why.
There are many reasons but the biggest one is her treatment of some of those women who came forward accusing her husband. Despite the claims now, Hillary wasn't some lily, she went on the offensive to disparage some of those women. It was a lot more than just stand by your man stuff.
And of course at odds with her "come forward and you will be believed" rhetoric now.