ROSENCRANTZ: Give me three examples o–
GUILDENSTERN: Google them!
29 Likes
Trump has spent forty plus years as a real estate pitchman. Anyone who has dealt with the type knows that his vocation is to sell stuff for more than its worth, and this invariably leaves a trail of bagholders in his wake. Bullshit is his stock in trade.
The Clintons on the other hand have been energetic little machines, toiling away for almost as long to gain political power and to leverage that power into personal wealth. No one can deny they’ve been effective at it, or that they know very well how to stay between 1-5 microns on the right side of the law.
I’m happier than ever to be voting for Jill.
5 Likes
I’m more than a little curious as to what your definition of progressive is as the example you give of Clinton’s (alleged) corruption (putting the donor to a charity on an advisory panel which they were allegedly unqualified for) being morally worse than Trump discriminating against African-Americans, (allegedly) bribing at least two state governments to drop criminal investigation, (the subject of the investigation) participating in a scam to fleece poor people who wanted a better job, withholding payment to contractors over work being merely satisfactory, et cetera indicates that it not even on the same planet as my idea of progressive values. I’m not sure how Hillary giving a donor to her family’s legitimate charity a minor advisory role is anything more than disappointing. Similarly, thinking that we wouldn’t sell weapons to any country we have a half-way friendly relationship with is silly; no bribery required. Today’s story about the Clinton’s making 18 million off inviting a for-profit college to a panel is the worst I’ve seen so far, and it’s not exactly putting babies on spikes.
Edit: On second thought, I think I read into what you were saying too far in the wrong direction. You’re concerned not because you judge her to be worse but because you judge her to be not good enough. And that’s why you tried to avoid contrasting her with Trump: you’re comparing her to your standard, not Trump. Because yeah, he’s a pretty low bar.
On the other hand, I completely disagree with the idea that her failing to meet a standard on corruption as poorly as Trump means that she’s worse, because one of them is going to be president, and I don’t want the one who’s morally bankrupt in office. All the more given that Hillary’s not even that corrupt after decades of politics.
8 Likes
Some of that is simple partisanship, though. In the worst days of the Bush admin when the disastrousness of the Iraq invasion was evident, and the scandals were pouring in, and his utter incompetence was evident to most, there was that 35%, all die-hard Republicans, who approved of him. Clinton is the #1 demogorgon for the GOP, and has been heavily demonized by the far left to boot, and nothing can really change that. Clinton’s approval numbers among Dems. are at the same level as Obama’s in 2012 at this point in the race, FWIW.
I wanted Sanders to win in part because he didn’t have all that baggage that really can’t be dropped, though if Sanders were in the race now, you can rest assured the hate machine on the right against the socialist would be in full force and his numbers wouldn’t be stellar either. There are partisan Dems who loathed Sanders who’d be likely to continue bearing grievances, just as some Sanders backers bear grievances against Clinton from the ugly primary.
14 Likes
The other dynamic here is we are comparing the business world with the political world. Politicians are tasked with working in the public interest, businessmen are not (with the caveat being “shareholders”, thus Romney could screw over employees in the service of the shareholders.) Politicians are under a lot more scrutiny 24-7, they are on the verge of losing their jobs every election, all an opponent has to do is publicize an indiscretion. New Yorkers are well aware of Trump’s myriad business and personal problems, but he was never in danger of losing his job, they couldn’t ‘vote him out.’
Regarding Jill Stein, as progressive as I am I still don’t see her as up to the task of actually running the country. I would worry more about her setting back the progressive movement with incompetence and intransigence. Whatever Hillary’s faults she is still a seasoned vet who knows all the players involved-- getting legislation passed isn’t just dictating goals, it’s also making deals with congressmen on both sides of the aisle. Example: Obama wanted a health care bill that was a lot more progressive than what we got, but even his own party wasn’t up to the task and we got something watered down. It was still better than nothing. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Again, I think the bigger issue is the corruptible way that Washington DC works, and faulting the Clintons for being good at playing the game is pointless.
6 Likes
Don’t be disingenuous. You said something dumb, you’re being called out on it.
You kind of blew it then, by adding in “Clinton’s corruption (which dwarfs Trump’s in my opinion)” because that’s not only fucking absurd, but it implies that the serious accusations of corruption against Clinton are valid - but they exist only in conspiracy theories. So you just utterly demolished your own initial point. Any potentially valid accusations against Clinton are so far below what Trump is not just accused of, but has admitted to (and multiple times over). Which all just goes to reinforce the point of the articles under discussion.
13 Likes
Tangential anecdote:
Friend recently recounted the Emperor’s New Cloths for a younger audience who’d not heard it.
Original point of story was lost amid audience accusations the emperor had been body shamed.
6 Likes
I Googled him and he seems perfectly qualified to be on an advisory board. Degrees in Economics and History and was a CEO dealing with market technology and security.
ABC news’ assessment that his “only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how”, seems subjective to me.
And what would be the point of being assigned to a security advisory board, seems stressful.
Usually aren’t big donors made a diplomat of someplace like Jamaca or Guam or somplace nice?
2 Likes
Do you, just don’t forget the downticket elections.These can matter much more than who gets stuck in the white house.
This is part of why I think her strategy to go hard for conservative right-wing voters on the presumption that there’s a lot of disaffected Trump supporters who don’t want him in office has some flaws. From where I’m sitting, it looks like the people who support Trump do it because he - in some twisted, fun-house-mirror way - can echo the concerns that they have, however racist and bonkers and naive. Trying to get those people on board with smart policy and America’s Dad Joke doesn’t seem like it would pay big dividends. (I could be under-estimating the people abandoning the Trump Ship, of course!) If she wants to shake his support, she should be taking more cues from Sanders and his ilk, less form Tim Kaine and his milquetoast pandering.
Meanwhile, Clinton supporters are a motley crew of people brought together to mostly hold their nose and pick the least offensive option. It shouldn’t be too hard - strategically - to get a lot of them to abandon her. Especially since, you know, she’s struggling to get her practical ideas heard over “Trump Bad!”
All this focus on how awful and racist and awful and also awful Trump is doesn’t look from my perspective to change the game in any meaningful way. If she wants to hit Trump’s base, she needs to sound like she gets it. That’s something she struggles with, though.
3 Likes
the second link in the article – with the text “plain facts about Trump’s corruption aren’t covered much” – seems broken. in my browser it leads to: --http://%3Ca%20href%3D/
can do 
was it supposed to be this one?
3 Likes
I guess that depends on how you define “corruption.” I am amazed at the long list of stains on Trump’s record, some of which are legal but morally suspect (abuse of eminent domain laws, for example), a lot of this stuff wasn’t common public knowledge until he decided to run for President, and it just keeps coming out. I mean. . . buying up all the land around a mansion and posting “no trespassing” signs, thus devaluing the mansion, allowing him to snatch it up for pennies on the dollar-- I guess it’s not “corruption” but it’s something only a cartoon villain would do, and Trump bragged about it. Is there an analogue of that for Hillary Clinton?
4 Likes
Did you really just do that?
Fuckin’ A, Rob.
When did the standards for intellectual discourse start to resemble a freakin’ limbo contest???
7 Likes
Trump is blatantly crooked, and this is obvious to everyone observing (although his supporters see this as a positive). It’s a “dog bites man” story.
Clinton is crooked in a more subtle/sophisticated way; she’s the embodiment of modern American pay-to-play politics. It’s a story that requires more detail, and one which is likely to have a much greater long-term impact on the world.
Trump is suicidal lunacy that probably won’t succeed. Clinton is suicidal lunacy that almost certainly will succeed.
4 Likes
Guess you missed the part where I said I was postibg from an adroid phone.
Expecting intellectual discourse in a thread about a presidential election is a tough ask. You’re not going to point out long time BB’er calling other long time BB’er a ‘Fox news troll’ for being critical of HRC?(which is apparently verboten around here now).
1 Like
Fair point, but that still doesn’t mean accepting the bare minimum.
I get it that you’re on a phone, but at least say that you’ll link them later when you’re on a better interface device; otherwise, it just seems like intellectual laziness.
“Google it” is an obtuse response used by the lowliest dregs of the internet… and frankly, it’s beneath you.
8 Likes
Did she? Cite please. Also, how about C. Powell and Dubbya? Do they get a pass?
Bullshit.
5 Likes
Wish I could. Internet is off because I am moving. It’s equally low when discussing Clinton’s ethics, to say ‘give me three unambiguous examples’. Clinton behaviour is quintessentially ambiguous. It’s the neccessary ingredient. She’s not going to respond to a goldman sachs lobbyists request with a memo saying ‘$225k and I’ll think about it’. But she’ll accept grotesque speaking fees from them with a wink. Not trying to drag you into this, just explaining why the whole argument is just stupid to begin with. This is modern politics, Clinton isn’t especially evil, she’s just good at it.
Also, the waters be muddy:
1 Like
Justification tactic; hard pass.
We’re done here.
Hope your move goes well, and that you have a wonderful day.
1 Like
