Comparing Trump and Clinton's careers is funny, ironic and sad

Ok. How about: Hillary Clinton is the best of any of the lot running?


There’s another one where she went undercover to expose racial prejudice in landlords at the same time that he was being sued for racial prejudice in his real estate business.


Neither, but I’d sure as hell vote for Eleanor.


That is an excellent point!


misogynist billionaire blowhard.

LIES. You should be ashamed of yourself. You’re despicable.

I’ve talked to people, lots of people, and the Vulgar Talking Yam isn’t a billionaire.


The first presidential election in which I was able to cast my meaningless Southern ballot was 1992, so I’ve watched the unadulterated vitriol lodged against this woman my entire adult life. Let me be clear: She is not my ideal candidate nor does she reflect the full range of beliefs I hold dear. However, she has dedicated her life to public service, some to the good, and some to much ill. The misogyny she has had to endure and continue moving forward in her life is beyond all our imagining. Sure, some guy at worked called me abrasive, but that’s just a slow Tuesday in her world. The very fact that the US, as a country, is in a place where we are comparing these two is not funny, ironic, or sad. It is offensive to me on every, single level.


Yeah that one. All modern presidents either approved of or ordered nefarious shit. Internment camps are very sadly some of the least offensive stuff many of our modern presidents have done. I don’t want to downplay how abhorrent the Japanese internment camps were, but just on a one-to-one comparison, they were better than Bush’s Gitmo or Obama’s collateral damage from non-judicial drone strikes. They still shouldn’t have happened and the $20k each in reparations the survivors received decades later is an insult. But domestically, FDR did wonders that the Republicans have been trying to undo for decades. Heck, I’d even vote for Eisenhower over any Republican president after him.


Not really. The true progressives did all the work, and then Hillary pivoted when all was over but the shouting, and took credit for being on the winning side.


Maybe in terms of how badly the individual detainees were treated, but not in terms of their scale or the legal justification for their existence.

Remember, the internment camps in WWII imprisoned entire families of American citizens who were not even suspected of any crime. Bush did some messed up stuff, but he didn’t throw American children in prison for years based solely on their racial background.

I recognize that FDR did a lot of good things for this country but I flatly reject the suggestion that he didn’t do anything worse than Hillary.


Are you running for something? Would you? Please?


So much of the discussion about HRC over the years has been framed by the right wing, and more recently by political opponents in the Party (first Obama then Sanders) that it is easy for people to think that they know her when they really don’t. The goal of political tools like this one is to remind you that she’s not the sum total of just those parts her opponents have wanted you to see.

Obama and Sanders both recognized that their campaign framing of Clinton was designed to emphasize her slight differences from them and downplay the vast agreement. Understanding this is why it has been easy for me, and some of the other strong Sanders supporters here on BB, to transition to be pretty enthusiastic for HRC.

The Clintons were active campaigners for George McGovern the way that some on BB have been active campaigners for Sanders. This had a profound effect on both, but especially on Bill, since it convinced them that the country was not yet ready for candidates running from the left. I’m not sure I agree, but their subsequent pragmatic politics was certainly rewarded with success, and the fact that they chose their path to progressive policies through a less-direct, more compromising route than Sanders or I might have doesn’t men they’re evil, just that they have a different strategy.

Remember, Hillary was heavily influenced when young by Saul Alinsky, who was all about making pacts with the devil in order to accomplish your ultimate goals.


@Jilly would have my vote, that’s for damn sure.


“Hidden emails” would be a slow Tuesday in what they would uncover in any campaign I ran. And moreover, hell no.

ETA: But thank you! That was a nice compliment after a crap day. :slight_smile:


I didn’t suggest that he didn’t do anything worse than Hillary. But I do think he did better things than Hillary will do, given the context. It might be an unfair comparison though since he had a great depression and a world war to deal with, but social security and some other things are still great compared to what came before him. Hillary will probably still extra-judicially kill foreign citizens as collateral damage of drone strikes. I imagine she’ll still hunt down whistleblowers and also be completely opaque while claiming to be transparent like Obama has.

Harry S. Truman. FDR. Lincoln. Polk (kept his campaign promise to serve only one term, which is more than most of them have done). Jefferson.

Let’s remember, too, that these men had lots of pressure to which they had to bow down at times. Yes, they all did things that many people find heinous. But does that truly outweigh what they did that was good?

I’d go with one term from all of them. But that’s just me.

Larry Lessig was my hopeful, by the way. But even he admitted it was dumb to say he’d resign after being elected.

1 Like

Aw, shucks. But seriously, I have a past. Now I’m starting to like how I sound – all mysterious and such! Like I was formerly married to a Cuban and we had to leave the country quickly after he tried to assignate Castro. Or, oh, oh, oh, my husband knows who really killed Kennedy and there’s no way “they” will allow me to run. It’s really not that interesting.

And, as I’ve stated elsewhere, I have a very, very thick Southern accent and there’s no way I would have gotten through that last debate without saying, “Bless your heart.”

ETA: I really, really misspelled assassinate.


Well, that’s kind of the crux of the matter.

She’s a career politician, with all that entails. When it comes to being corrupt, lying, beholden to Wall Street, et al., she’s no worse than anyone in Washington, and quite a bit better than most. I’d go so far as to say she’s one of the best at what she does.

And as I’ve heard it put, she’s the right person in the right place at the wrong time.

We’re at a point where the system is unsustainable, our economic models no longer apply to the world we live in, and people are waking up to just how corrupt our government is. Nearly everyone agrees that we need change, and a large number are starting to believe that it’s not going to come from someone within the system.

Which means that she’s hitting her peak at exactly the time when being really good at working within that system is seen as a detriment, rather than a qualification.


So it’s something more interesting than the Kennedy or Castro things.



Yes, or I composed that sentence poorly. You’ll never know.