Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

[bhsmte]

I wasn't sure you did, so I worded my statement to not say conclusively that you did or did not, which means that when I said "like many Trump voters", I was referring to the reasons you gave why Hillary was seen as a bad candidate.

She was a bad national candidate and the history shows it.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm staunchly opposed to Trump, and I believed, even before the last election began in earnest, that Hillary was a bad candidate. In addition to the reasons I dislike Hillary, from a "bad candidate" perspective, she isn't tremendously charismatic, and she comes off as aloof.

I don't dislike her because of Benghazi or the email scandal (both of which, were largely politically driven and given much more attention than they warranted), but because she is a corrupt establishment politician. I still (reluctantly) voted for her, because I knew that Trump would be far worse for America (while politicians tend to be corrupt, Trump's corruption is on a different scale altogether), and as election day approached, it seemed like it was going to be a very tight race. The fact that she was an establishment politician plays into why she was also a bad candidate in 2016, as, on both sides of the aisle, people were looking for an outsider. It was clear to me during 2016 that Bernie generated much more enthusiasm among Democrats than Hillary did, and he also didn't elicit the same level of hatred that the right had for Hillary - Hillary created more enthusiasm for the Republicans in their opposition to her than she did for Democrats in supporting her.

I appreciate your candor. I agree Sanders was a better candidate than Clinton as far as being likeable. I am not prone to being cynical concerning government and public service, so as pertains to being corrupt, I must evaluate some evidence to determine if such claims are legitimate. You'll understand that I don't just believe it because someone says it.

But I do think Hillary did show the signs of being worn down by politics. I don't like the thought that a non-charismatic person can't win an election. It kind of speaks to the reason why a con-man makes a good politician or supposedly a "good candidate". And that means the real problem with our democracy is not as much about the candidates but about the electorate.

 

[childeye 2]

She was a bad national candidate and the history shows it.

I truly wish people would not just make vague assertions. State the history you are referring to. Define a "bad candidate".

 

[Aldebaran]

My point was that people can't help but be moved by certain thoughts presented in words or pictures. Certain beliefs can even be placed in the subconscious without people even being consciously aware of it. For example, your loaded question which contained a premise which I would have subconsciously accepted had I not noticed it and answered the question.

I'm glad you're coming to an understanding of what I was explaining to you about the mainstream media's reporting.

 

[bhsmte]

I truly wish people would not just make vague assertions. State the history you are referring to. Define a "bad candidate".

I already stated her poor national track record. Also, of all the candidates that ra. In 2016, she was a close 2nd to trump, of being unlikable in the polls.

 

[childeye 2]

I already stated her poor national track record. Also, of all the candidates that ra. In 2016, she was a close 2nd to trump, of being unlikable in the polls.

I don't recall where you stated her "poor national track record". What does that mean exactly?
Are you saying that the "poor national track record" is she was a close 2nd to Trump of being unlikeable in the polls?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't recall where you stated her "poor national track record". What does that mean exactly?
Are you saying that the "poor national track record" is she was a close 2nd to Trump of being unlikeable in the polls?

Read my posts.

Obama was supposed to get clobberd by clinton in 2008 and obama clobbered her. Sanders won several of they key battle ground states against clinton in 2016, which she also lost to trump.

The hand writing was on the wall with her track record.

 

[childeye 2]

Read my posts.

Obama was supposed to get clobberd by clinton in 2008 and obama clobbered her. Sanders won several of they key battle ground states against clinton in 2016, which she also lost to trump.

The hand writing was on the wall with her track record.

I do read your posts, but for all I knew "history" meant some issues in her past and "track record" could be referencing her accomplishments or lack thereof. When I think of establishment politicians I tend to think of how they performed as pertains to their time in office and/or the baggage accumulated through political attacks and rumors.

So you're referring to her loss to Obama when you say history/track record. Let's leave Bernie out because she did ultimately secure the nomination over Sanders. I'm not one to say she was a bad candidate because she lost to Obama. I'd simply say that Obama was better than her, but she was better than Trump.

You'll please forgive me. I study semantics and have done so all of my life. Many words/phrases carry more than one meaning and I don't want to misunderstand you, and I do not want to be misunderstood.

For that reason I must comment on two different thoughts contained in what it means to be a good candidate. One way of thinking is that a good candidate is one that would make a "good public servant", and the other one implies the candidate that has the best chance of "winning". I realize that these might not be mutually exclusive in some cases, but also therefore that they are in other cases. While ideally a good candidate would have both qualities, it stands to reason that being a good public servant is the more important criteria than being someone who can win. If a bad public servant wins, then everyone loses.

Having explained that, I will state that I don't accept the premise that a "good candidate" is actually about who can win but rather who should win. And I ask you to ask yourself which criteria the carnal minded in their vanity would be pondering when addressing what a good candidate is, a winner or a good servant? And by extension which mind spiritual/carnal is prone to display tribalism and personal triumph in their assessment that winning is what matters? My point is that part of the electorate is gullible and can be swayed by propaganda to choose a candidate that appeals to carnal vanity. Good candidates have a lesser chance of winning if the electorate would rather hear exciting gossip than boring facts.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm staunchly opposed to Trump, and I believed, even before the last election began in earnest, that Hillary was a bad candidate. In addition to the reasons I dislike Hillary, from a "bad candidate" perspective, she isn't tremendously charismatic, and she comes off as aloof.

I don't dislike her because of Benghazi or the email scandal (both of which, were largely politically driven and given much more attention than they warranted), but because she is a corrupt establishment politician. I still (reluctantly) voted for her, because I knew that Trump would be far worse for America (while politicians tend to be corrupt, Trump's corruption is on a different scale altogether), and as election day approached, it seemed like it was going to be a very tight race. The fact that she was an establishment politician plays into why she was also a bad candidate in 2016, as, on both sides of the aisle, people were looking for an outsider. It was clear to me during 2016 that Bernie generated much more enthusiasm among Democrats than Hillary did, and he also didn't elicit the same level of hatred that the right had for Hillary - Hillary created more enthusiasm for the Republicans in their opposition to her than she did for Democrats in supporting her.

I appreciate this post, and I respectfully ask that you read post #488.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm glad you're coming to an understanding of what I was explaining to you about the mainstream media's reporting.

Yes I have understood what you meant from the get go but the examples you gave were not as clear cut as many others I have seen. And I also would point out that pride is an inhibitor to the realization that sometimes bias is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[bhsmte]

I do read your posts, but for all I knew "history" meant some issues in her past and "track record" could be referencing her accomplishments or lack thereof. When I think of establishment politicians I tend to think of how they performed as pertains to their time in office and/or the baggage accumulated through political attacks and rumors.

So you're referring to her loss to Obama when you say history/track record. Let's leave Bernie out because she did ultimately secure the nomination over Sanders. I'm not one to say she was a bad candidate because she lost to Obama. I'd simply say that Obama was better than her, but she was better than Trump.

You'll please forgive me. I study semantics and have done so all of my life. Many words/phrases carry more than one meaning and I don't want to misunderstand you, and I do not want to be misunderstood.

For that reason I must comment on two different thoughts contained in what it means to be a good candidate. One way of thinking is that a good candidate is one that would make a "good public servant", and the other one implies the candidate that has the best chance of "winning". I realize that these might not be mutually exclusive in some cases, but also therefore that they are in other cases. While ideally a good candidate would have both qualities, it stands to reason that being a good public servant is the more important criteria than being someone who can win. If a bad public servant wins, then everyone loses.

Having explained that, I will state that I don't accept the premise that a "good candidate" is actually about who can win but rather who should win. And I ask you to ask yourself which criteria the carnal minded in their vanity would be pondering when addressing what a good candidate is, a winner or a good servant? And by extension which mind spiritual/carnal is prone to display tribalism and personal triumph in their assessment that winning is what matters? My point is that part of the electorate is gullible and can be swayed by propaganda to choose a candidate that appeals to carnal vanity. Good candidates have a lesser chance of winning if the electorate would rather hear exciting gossip than boring facts.

A good candidate, is someone that earns people's vote, by being in touch with what will reach enough voters to win.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm glad you're coming to an understanding of what I was explaining to you about the mainstream media's reporting.

Which media is mainstream?

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes I have understood what you meant from the get go but the examples you gave were not as clear cut as many others I have seen.

Then you've seen better examples of what I've been saying? Well, whether it was me or someone else who gave you the examples that helped you to understood, I'm glad you've seen it.

And I also would point out that pride is an inhibitor to the realization that sometimes bias is in the eyes of the beholder.

All you have to do is watch what they do and notice it. Watch a news reporter from a liberal-leaning news organization interview a Republican or Conservative and listen to the confrontational style of the questions, and the "GOTCHA!" type of questions they ask. Then watch the same people interview a liberal-leaning or Democrat and listen to the softball and open-ended questions and friendly banter about "how their kids are doing" and things like that.

 

[childeye 2]

A good candidate, is someone that earns people's vote, by being in touch with what will reach enough voters to win.

But under that definition a good liar could qualify as a good candidate.

 

[bhsmte]

But under that definition a good liar could qualify as a good candidate.

All candidates lie and change positions to fit a certain crowd. Some do it more than others and some are better at it than others.

You seem to have a very idealistic view point of politics. Good luck with that.

 

[childeye 2]

Then you've seen better examples of what I've been saying? Well, whether it was me or someone else who gave you the examples that helped you to understood, I'm glad you've seen it.

I've seen them myself, no one showed me.

All you have to do is watch what they do and notice it. Watch a news reporter from a liberal-leaning news organization interview a Republican or Conservative and listen to the confrontational style of the questions, and the "GOTCHA!" type of questions they ask. Then watch the same people interview a liberal-leaning or Democrat and listen to the softball and open-ended questions and friendly banter about "how their kids are doing" and things like that.

It's more complicated than that. If I told you that a buyer and a seller have two opposite views of what constitutes a good/bad deal, then you'd see that both can be legitimately right from their point of view and yet both legitimately wrong from the other. That is in fact why left and right dichotomies exist, so as to establish that what is equitable is in the center. Therefore any application of liberal or conservative terminology used to denote and promote a divisive tribalism is already poisoned by bias.

 

[whatbogsends]

I appreciate your candor. I agree Sanders was a better candidate than Clinton as far as being likeable. I am not prone to being cynical concerning government and public service, so as pertains to being corrupt, I must evaluate some evidence to determine if such claims are legitimate. You'll understand that I don't just believe it because someone says it.

But I do think Hillary did show the signs of being worn down by politics. I don't like the thought that a non-charismatic person can't win an election. It kind of speaks to the reason why a con-man makes a good politician or supposedly a "good candidate". And that means the real problem with our democracy is not as much about the candidates but about the electorate.

Mind you, i'm not saying that Hillary is necessarily more corrupt than other career Washington politicians who have been in Washington as long as she was, but through lobbying, we essentially have legalized bribery in our government, and the influence of big money on national politicians is relentless. To an extent, experience in Washington is a double-edged sword, as they gain knowledge of how things work in those level government, but at the same time are exposed to the corrupting influence. The mere length Hillary's tenure in Washington gave her both experience as well as becoming more entrenched in her support for monied interests.

I agree with you about the "worn down" comment. In addition to the natural toll those positions seem to take on people, she had also been the most investigated politician for the previous 6 years going into the 2016 election.

I also, unfortunately, agree with you on the characteristics that the electorate evaluates Presidential candidates on.

 

[childeye 2]

Mind you, i'm not saying that Hillary is necessarily more corrupt than other career Washington politicians who have been in Washington as long as she was, but through lobbying, we essentially have legalized bribery in our government, and the influence of big money on national politicians is relentless. To an extent, experience in Washington is a double-edged sword, as they gain knowledge of how things work in those level government, but at the same time are exposed to the corrupting influence. The mere length Hillary's tenure in Washington gave her both experience as well as becoming more entrenched in her support for monied interests.

I greatly appreciate the explanation of what you meant by corruption. All things are built on faith. The issue you are addressing is always the whole point of electing trustworthy people. It's impossible to not have lobbyists since a representative is going to be lobbied by some part of their constituency. That is what they are there for in that sense. Campaign finance reform is a difficult issue. The laws cannot keep up with the loopholes and now money is free speech. I can't be sure that no one comes out unstained in some degree, but I also know that those who don't know the ropes are also vulnerable to being manipulated by those who do.

I agree with you about the "worn down" comment. In addition to the natural toll those positions seem to take on people, she had also been the most investigated politician for the previous 6 years going into the 2016 election.

So true.

I also, unfortunately, agree with you on the characteristics that the electorate evaluates Presidential candidates on.

Thank you for that. I'm not alone.

 

[childeye 2]

All candidates lie and change positions to fit a certain crowd. Some do it more than others and some are better at it than others.

You seem to have a very idealistic view point of politics. Good luck with that.

No I'm not an idealist. I study semantics. By the way it's incorrect to make a statement with an assumption and follow it with a statement that asserts a conclusion based on the previous statement's assumption.

All candidates don't lie and change positions to fit a certain crowd. The problem is that the connotations of many words reverse depending upon the perspective of the listener and so it can appear that someone is changing positions when in fact they are simply displaying a knowledge of both points of view. For example a person who missed a bus and has to walk to work has applied a negative denotation of walking, while a person who is in a wheelchair and wishes they could walk to work applies a positive denotation of walking.