How Would We Better Off With President Clinton After A Year?

[LoAmmi]

Debating 101, insults are not suitable stand-ins for arguments. Those who rely on them lose the argument before it even begins.

Good for them. I don't typically do that outside of a joke.

 

[Basil the Great]

Some claim that Hillary will run again in 2020, but I think that the current sex abuse allegations sweeping the country has pretty much killed any chances of that happening, for she would not want to face questions about what she said about some of the women that accused Bill.

 

[tulc]

Of course Obama would downplay it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Point is, we would not be better with Hillary, we'd likely be at war given her platform. Is that what you support?

wow, people seem to forget: it's the Republicans that start wars and then leave it up to the Democrats to clean up the mess. So voting Republican to "Keep us out of war!!" doesn't seem to be what modern history tells us happens.
tulc(just another of those pesky facts that get in the way of Republican talking points)

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

wow, people seem to forget: it's the Republicans that start wars and then leave it up to the Democrats to clean up the mess.

All four major conlicts that US was involveded in during the 20th century were presided over by Democratic presidents. Other than Iraq, what example do you have of "Republicans starting wars"? And how many times did Hillary Clinton's husband make use of military force during his presidency?

 

[Fantine]

It appears you have not been paying attention or studied Kim in any kind of way.
M-Bob

My son lives on South Korea where they have been studying Kim's behavior closely for years. They view Trump as a greater threat to peace. They demonstrate against him on the beaches. They see Kim as motivated by fear to be tough---but he has never been confronted with anyone so uninformed, impulsive, narcissistic, and unfit-to-lead before.

 

[wing2000]

Where does one acquire the sight glass that shows alternative timelines that so many people seem to have?

...it's good for books sales in the prophecy section of Christian bookstores.

Sound theology....not so much.

 

[Fantine]

Do you think Trump is a Republican? He'd start a war because he is a megalomaniac----or to shore up support for his tattered, failed presidency. Bush 41 started the Gulf war. Bush 43 started the Iraq war.

He wanted the tax cut because his family will make a billion dollars from it. His businesses profit right and left. 180 grand to rent Secret Service golf carts? That's not Republican. That's grand larceny.

 

[tulc]

All four major conlicts that US was involveded in during the 20th century were presided over by Democratic presidents. Other than Iraq, what example do you have of "Republicans starting wars"? (snip)

you mean the two wars in the 21st century? two of the longest wars in US history? that modern history?
tulc(20th century? that was almost 2 decades ago!)

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Do you think Trump is a Republican?

Only in the sense that he used the party to get into the White House.

He'd start a war because he is a megalomaniac----or to shore up support for his tattered, failed presidency.

But he hasn't - which in itself makes him better than Hillary Clinton.

you mean the two wars in the 21st century? two of the longest wars in US history? that modern history?

Just my point. Other than Iraq, nothing.

tulc(20th century? that was almost 2 decades ago!)

In 5000 years of recorded history, do you think 20 years is a long time? I mean, it's within most people's memory. If you do, I suppose your entitled to that opinion, but don't think it's going to make you sound sharp in any discussion of history. You think that the Bill Clinton's presidency was too long ago to be relevant - but you supported his wife for president last year?

...and as far as your comment about Democrats cleaning up the mess - it was in fact Putin who cleaned up the mess, just as he cleaned up the mess in Chechnya. You want to talk about "spanking their little bottoms when they act up" - is that how you thank him?

 

[mark46]

Point is, we would not be better with Hillary, we'd likely be at war given her platform. Is that what you support?

You BELIEVE that politicians act consistently with their campaign platforms?
Really?
OK, let's stop all discussion of decreasing SS, Medicare and Medicaid payments and growth.

 

[archer75]

@Terminal_Marxicity

Alright, fair enough. Care to justify your wild comments about white supremacy, then? Because that is clearly manufactured outrage generated by the corporate media in order to sell headlines and push their partisan political agenda. Now if you don't consume that media, I'd love to know how you independently came to these conclusions that sound exactly like those from the CNN types.

I don't agree that my comments were "wild," but I will say more, sure.

My comment to which you replied was "We'd be better off in that we'd have a moderately alert career politician in the office instead of a delusional narcissist desperate to be liked by white supremacists and apocalypse-cult types, even at the cost of destroying the order of the world."

Please note - I didn't say Trump was a white supremacist. Please don't respond to this post, no matter how wrong you may think I am, telling me that I think that Trump is either racist or a white supremacist. Because not only did I not say that, I don't think it.

But why would I think he wants to be liked by them?

Let's look at his often quoted and often poorly interpreted remarks from a couple months ago.

"TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay?"

Trump is not clueless about how public speaking works. He and people like him are experts in how remarks will be interpreted.

Any other president - Obama, Clinton, Bush, HRC if she had become president - would have made some cookie-cutter remarks here that would have included some "condemnation" of white supremacist movements.

Literally every anglophone adult in the USA knows to expect that.

But Trump doesn't do that. Instead, he says what's quoted above. He knows or understands that the "very fine people on both sides" bit will make the news and be hated by people who already hate him. That makes no difference to him. But white supremacists are also listening. And not hearing the usual cookie-cutter talk makes them take notice! He doesn't say that white supremacists are very fine people. He doesn't say that SOME white supremacists are very fine people. He says there are very fine people on both sides. He suggests a moral balance between the two "sides." And white supremacists take this as recognition and as a moral victory for them.

[Let me be clear. I think that white supremacists are people. Regular people.

I don't subscribe to any such ideology, but I think that people who do are still people. People like me, who want basically the same things.

Further, I think that white resentment - that, sadly, can ripen into white supremacist thought - is understandable. Working-class people have been ever more abused in the USA for decades. They have seen their jobs sold for pennies, their factories closed, their once-vibrant towns wrecked. Rust belt towns that used to house family after working family are now turning back into mountainsides, properties abandoned by the owners because they would sell for less than the cost of tidying them up.

And while all this was going on, polite public discourse has gotten to be more and more about race and how touch black people and other non-whites have it - and lately, about how GOOD all whites have it.. "There are no jobs in my entire county." - "Check your privilege." And white people feel ignored and excluded. Black people ALSO do - and for very good reason! - but plenty of white people don't see that.

So white supremacist thought as a kind of pushback is not unexpected. It is an unfortunate ideology with evil results - for all - but it is a "natural" response to the abuse that ALL working-class people have endured when that abuse is viewed in a certain way.]

Trump rode to this on hatred of HRC and his ability to play to the camera, but also on white resentment. The thing is, his playing to white supremacists or others doesn't actually help them in any way. But that doesn't matter. The goal of these remarks is to let the "core" of his base know that he is willing to see them on equal terms with others.

Now, to them, that means "we're getting recognition!" To him, this means that they're all (protesters, counter-protestors) just so much raw material to be used. But in the meantime, he continues to encourage them and fan their anger, because that's useful to him, rather than actually do anything for them, which wouldn't be in his interest.

So yeah, I think Trump needs - is desperate, as I said - to be liked by white supremacists. Not because he's one of them, but because they represent the most "woke" (in their own worldview) element of his supporters, the element he needs to be most charged up and keep believing that he's there for them.

Further, his suggestion of hypocrisy on the part of the anti-statue types is accurate enough. However, his talking point about changing history is patently ridiculous, in my opinion. But that's for another thread, I guess.

So: if we had HRC, we'd have a moderately savvy careerist in the WH. I think HRC would have been a truly terrible president - one of the worst, really - BUT I think her administration would have been better than this.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

But Trump doesn't do that. Instead, he says what's quoted above. He knows or understands that the "very fine people on both sides" bit will make the news and be hated by people who already hate him. That makes no difference to him. But white supremacists are also listening. And not hearing the usual cookie-cutter talk makes them take notice! He doesn't say that white supremacists are very fine people. He doesn't say that SOME white supremacists are very fine people. He says there are very fine people on both sides. He suggests a moral balance between the two "sides." And white supremacists take this as recognition and as a moral victory for them.

The same antifa that attacked the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville also attacked his campaign rallies the previous year. Did you expect that Trump would just forget that?

 

[Terminal_Marxicity]

wow, people seem to forget: it's the Republicans that start wars and then leave it up to the Democrats to clean up the mess. So voting Republican to "Keep us out of war!!" doesn't seem to be what modern history tells us happens.
tulc(just another of those pesky facts that get in the way of Republican talking points)

This isn't 2008, do try to keep up with current events.

 

[USincognito]

She's actually proven to be a career liar and crook more investigations everyday getting kind of old wrote a book about how everybody else did her wrong.

And yet after, what, 50 Benghazi hearings and investigations, nada..

Made very stupid remarks such as calling Trump supporters deplorables that I see as the final nail that was put into her election coffin.

Because Trump supporters would have voted for her had she not said that?

 

[Terminal_Marxicity]

You BELIEVE that politicians act consistently with their campaign platforms?
Really?
OK, let's stop all discussion of decreasing SS, Medicare and Medicaid payments and growth.

When she puts forth a position that would lead to world war 3, it would be lunacy to ignore that in favor of what?

 

[chevyontheriver]

It is said that Clinton could have won if she hadn't taken the trip to Arizona in the last few days. A campaign trip to MN, WI, MI and PA (especially non-city areas) might have won her the election, but no more senate seats.
========================
I've been a Democrat for over 50 years. I don't think that we would be better off now had Clinton been elected.

So, I'll listen. How would we be better off? Surely, no legislation would have been passed. I suppose that we'd still have the youth paying the Obamacare penalty.

She won Minnesota narrowly. So I suppose a Minnesota visit would have been to influence the Wisconsin portion of the Twin Cities media market. Maybe it would have tipped Wisconsin. I don't know.

Very interesting is that Minnesota is considered the safest of states for Democratic Party presidential candidates. But in this last election the third party vote was significant. Evan McMullen, formerly quite Republican and frankly mostly attracting disaffected Republicans, got more votes than Hillary beat Trump by. Which is to say that if the Republicans ran anybody else but Trump they may actually have won Minnesota instead of Hillary. That would have been politically earth shattering.

In Alabama, Moore lost by less than the third party and write-in totals. Meaning not so much that the other guy won but Moore lost. In the Minnesota case, where Hillary should have won by a landslide if she was someone else, she almost blew it there too.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Because Trump supporters would have voted for her had she not said that?

Some of them might have stayed home. Insulting your opponent's supporters is a excellent way to motivate them to get to the polls.

 

[USincognito]

Some of them might have stayed home. Insulting your opponent's supporters is a excellent way to motivate them to get to the polls.

Trump certainly excelled at that. He got 3,000,000 more Sec. Clinton supporters to show up than those who showed up for him.

 

[USincognito]

My son lives on South Korea where they have been studying Kim's behavior closely for years. They view Trump as a greater threat to peace. They demonstrate against him on the beaches. They see Kim as motivated by fear to be tough---but he has never been confronted with anyone so uninformed, impulsive, narcissistic, and unfit-to-lead before.

Hear hear!

 

[archer75]

The same antifa that attacked the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville also attacked his campaign rallies the previous year. Did you expect that Trump would just forget that?

As far as I can tell, your reply doesn't address my post. I don't mean to ignore you, but it seems you're asking about a topic I didn't post about. Sorry.