US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

Fair enough.Disagree about the reporting on Trump but do agree he sets himself up with some very ill-thought remarks and is very thin-skinned, any perceived slight triggering foolish over the top responses. The thing with Trump and facts is that so far we've seen plenty of hot air. The thing with Clinton is that we have facts on her record in office. My own interpretation of those facts is that they aren't pretty. Clinton is a shrewd manipulator. In that respect, she's a clever politician, very clever.... but as for being any use in office - which IMO should carry the greater weight - I think she's been pretty poor and lacked judgement.

I don't think that you know that much about Hilary's time in public office. You seem to completely forget that she was a senator for New York for nearly 8 years. She did a lot of good things for my state while there and enjoyed a 74% approval rating before she left office to become the Secretary of State. She worked across the aisle, as we say to express bipartisanship efforts, to foster relationships and move bills forward. You can look up her record yourself. And I'm not sure why you think that everything she did as Sec. of State was so poor. She certainly was a tireless glad-hander, nearly non-stop traveling the globe and meeting world leaders face-to-face. You would do well to remember that her opposition has worked very hard to create a picture of ineptitude and self-service in your mind and that of others, but that it's worth a closer look, if you want to be actually fair to her.

 

[Moxie]

The New York Times has created a timeline of what Trump said, and when and why it made prominent Republicans disavow him. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...on=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article&_r=0

You can say they're reporting him unfairly, if you like, but I would say that they report can mostly just report what he says and stand out of the way. He's hanging himself. As Federberg says, even when Hilary has a bad week, the Donald manages to grab the headlines with even larger gaffes. I have no idea what his initial hopes were, or what he hopes to gain by this run, but I'll guarantee you we'll never see his tax returns. He's blowing smoke trying to make a lot out of his health records and trying to make out that Clinton is not well. That's a distraction from his taxes.

 

[Federberg]

The New York Times has created a timeline of what Trump said, and when and why it made prominent Republicans disavow him. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...on=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article&_r=0

You can say they're reporting him unfairly, if you like, but I would say that they report can mostly just report what he says and stand out of the way. He's hanging himself. As Federberg says, even when Hilary has a bad week, the Donald manages to grab the headlines with even larger gaffes. I have no idea what his initial hopes were, or what he hopes to gain by this run, but I'll guarantee you we'll never see his tax returns. He's blowing smoke trying to make a lot out of his health records and trying to make out that Clinton is not well. That's a distraction from his taxes.

Lol! Did you see his doctor? Some hippy looking dude. They pressured him to write something about Trump's health, and when you read it, it sounds as if Trump himself wrote it. Meanwhile Clinton's doctor had already sent out detailed information about her health, and this was added to in response to the insinuations of Trump surrogates (particularly Guiliani - he who claims no terrorism occurred in the US before Obama came to power - the Mayor of NYC no less!). Meanwhile Trump himself has only supplied that derisory health report. It would be laughable if it wasn't serious. I don't expect the man has any health issues, maybe he's had his you know what enlarged, lord knows his hands are tiny! Same thing with his taxes. If there's nothing to hide why not come clean? All very well pointing the finger at HRC, but all I say is be fair

 

[Moxie]

My mother thinks that MD is Trump in doctor-drag. LOL! Giuliani is more than a joke. When he was running for office, he couldn't utter a sentence without inserting "9/11." Now he's forgotten it happened. These people think if they just say stuff, they can re-write history and reality.

 

[teddytennisfan]

My mother thinks that MD is Trump in doctor-drag. LOL! Giuliani is more than a joke. When he was running for office, he couldn't utter a sentence without inserting "9/11." Now he's forgotten it happened. These people think if they just say stuff, they can re-write history and reality.

Moxie -- don't forget -- serena coming up!!

 

[Moxie]

Moxie -- don't forget -- serena coming up!!

Oh, don't you worry...I've got it on!

 

[britbox]

I don't think that you know that much about Hilary's time in public office. You seem to completely forget that she was a senator for New York for nearly 8 years. She did a lot of good things for my state while there and enjoyed a 74% approval rating before she left office to become the Secretary of State. She worked across the aisle, as we say to express bipartisanship efforts, to foster relationships and move bills forward. You can look up her record yourself. And I'm not sure why you think that everything she did as Sec. of State was so poor. She certainly was a tireless glad-hander, nearly non-stop traveling the globe and meeting world leaders face-to-face. You would do well to remember that her opposition has worked very hard to create a picture of ineptitude and self-service in your mind and that of others, but that it's worth a closer look, if you want to be actually fair to her.

I don't know much about her time on the domestic front, granted. Maybe you could furnish me with the great things she accomplished? The main domestic issue I recall was Hillary-care. Wasn't that when the Democrats held the presidency, the congress, and the senate? ...and the whole thing fell on it's arse... a political shambles.

As secretary of state, the whole email episode was laughable. I used to work in the defence sector and if a member of staff would have a taken a single classified document off site, they'd have been sacked on the spot... yet the secretary of state is running a whole private server from her house?

You know my feelings on Benghazi already... and which competent Secretary of State would go on the record making such childish, foolish comments about Putin like she did? Once again,playing to the crowd... or laughing about the way in which Gadaffi was killed by the rebels in Libya... "We, came, we saw, he died" - she makes me cringe.

I find her nauseous... sorry.

 

[Moxie]

I don't know much about her time on the domestic front, granted. Maybe you could furnish me with the great things she accomplished? The main domestic issue I recall was Hillary-care. Wasn't that when the Democrats held the presidency, the congress, and the senate? ...and the whole thing fell on it's arse... a political shambles.

As secretary of state, the whole email episode was laughable. I used to work in the defence sector and if a member of staff would have a taken a single classified document off site, they'd have been sacked on the spot... yet the secretary of state is running a whole private server from her house?

You know my feelings on Benghazi already... and which competent Secretary of State would go on the record making such childish, foolish comments about Putin like she did? Once again,playing to the crowd... or laughing about the way in which Gadaffi was killed by the rebels in Libya... "We, came, we saw, he died" - she makes me cringe.

I find her nauseous... sorry.

I won't recount her record in the Senate, as you can google it yourself, and specifics of legislation are rather boring. But I will say she was my Senator, and we, in New York, felt that she served us well, and she was very popular. I don't think you should take that lightly. It's not easy to be a popular Senator from New York, as our upstate is very Republican, and our downstate is very liberal. She appealed to and pleased both constituencies. If you don't think that's good chops for the Big Office, I don't know what. I don't know what Hillary said about Putin, so you can enlighten me on that.

I agree with you that her quote when Gaddaffi died is crass and shocking. I'm rather surprised you're so dainty about it, though. As a conservative. I thought being sensitive and politically correct about the deaths of dictators was reserved for progressives and the left. Would you have been so appalled if it had come out of the mouth of a man? I do think, like Maggie Thatcher, she feels the need to be a bit butch on national security and military issues.

 

[britbox]

When it comes to foreign policy Moxie, I'm probably way further left than you based on your commentary. On domestic stuff, more right of centre.

Now the thing is, Hillary Clinton was giggling about Libya like a little schoolgirl playing a game of the board game RISK. What you fail to acknowledge is the utter carnage that has taken place in that country... and still is taking place in that country. Libya was a far better and safer place under Gadaffi. Hey, he even got rid of the countries WMD's to rejoin the "international community"... and then made the fatal mistake of proposing a pan-African currency... which obviously the Americans won't like because it's bad news for the petro-dollar. Send in Hillary with her cowboy hat to kick some ass eh?

 

[Moxie]

You failed to acknowledge anything I said about her terms as senator from my state, which you asked about. As I said, you can look it up, because what legislators do is generally a bit subtle and complicated to elaborate in bullet points, but she did well by NY and was very popular and well-respected when she left office. You've latched onto Libya, like everyone else who doesn't like Hilary. It's one country, and one front when there are many. Also, you should remember that the Secretary of State doesn't make policy, only helps carry it out. Clinton was also widely respected for her work as Sec. of State. You may not like the source for this, but it's worth a glance: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/opinion/us-policy-on-libya-hillary-clinton-and-obamas-roles.html

 

[Ricardo]

You failed to acknowledge anything I said about her terms as senator from my state, which you asked about. As I said, you can look it up, because what legislators do is generally a bit subtle and complicated to elaborate in bullet points, but she did well by NY and was very popular and well-respected when she left office. You've latched onto Libya, like everyone else who doesn't like Hilary. It's one country, and one front when there are many. Also, you should remember that the Secretary of State doesn't make policy, only helps carry it out. Clinton was also widely respected for her work as Sec. of State. You may not like the source for this, but it's worth a glance: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/opinion/us-policy-on-libya-hillary-clinton-and-obamas-roles.html

Anyone who said the above automatically qualifies as a foul-mouthed, mean spirited and low life dishonest degenerate.

One doesn't get lower than that, period.

Now let's just say, it takes one to 'support' one..... yeah Hillary and the likes, downright cheap.

 

[Ricardo]

what's your argument when you stuffed up a country where millions of people suffer?

It's just one country, when there are many.

what do you say when you set up email server at home so classified info gets leaked?

you conveniently forgot to mention it.

when asked about specifics of her 'achievement'?

yeah just be vague about it, 'she was doing well, was popular and respected'.....hmmmm

if you ever dare to criticise her and look into her wrong-doings,

'you wouldn't be appalled if it was a man'.....sexist, mysogynist, how convenient!!!

now you know what kind of people support HRC.

 

[Ricardo]

I have not seen someone being so mean spirited, and i've seen many crooks i thought.

Same logic, if someone shoots Moxie in the head.....it's just one woman, when there are many. It doesn't matter.

how else can you explain this?

 

[britbox]

You failed to acknowledge anything I said about her terms as senator from my state, which you asked about. As I said, you can look it up, because what legislators do is generally a bit subtle and complicated to elaborate in bullet points, but she did well by NY and was very popular and well-respected when she left office. You've latched onto Libya, like everyone else who doesn't like Hilary. It's one country, and one front when there are many. Also, you should remember that the Secretary of State doesn't make policy, only helps carry it out. Clinton was also widely respected for her work as Sec. of State. You may not like the source for this, but it's worth a glance: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/opinion/us-policy-on-libya-hillary-clinton-and-obamas-roles.html

I said already, I don't take much notice of domestic policy... but even so, you didn't acknowledge the failure of Hillary-care in any event, at a time when the Democrats had the presidency, the senate and the congress. It was an abject failure when she held all the cards.

I didn't "latch onto Libya" because I didn't like Hillary. Some of us actually followed it at the time... it's not something "new" that's cropped up because Hillary is an election race... and it's not on political party tribal lines... Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were even worse... but that doesn't hide the fact the Libyan intervention was a disaster. Did the United States learn nothing from Afghanistan, Iraq, The Balkans? It was more of the same... and people are looking for less of the same. Hillary is just an extension of the status quo. Nothing new with Hillary, just another politico playing political games, climbing up the slippery political ladder to grab power... not really concerned with actually making much of a difference to the people on the ground.

 

[Federberg]

I said already, I don't take much notice of domestic policy... but even so, you didn't acknowledge the failure of Hillary-care in any event, at a time when the Democrats had the presidency, the senate and the congress. It was an abject failure when she held all the cards.

I didn't "latch onto Libya" because I didn't like Hillary. Some of us actually followed it at the time... it's not something "new" that's cropped up because Hillary is an election race... and it's not on political party tribal lines... Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were even worse... but that doesn't hide the fact the Libyan intervention was a disaster. Did the United States learn nothing from Afghanistan, Iraq, The Balkans? It was more of the same... and people are looking for less of the same. Hillary is just an extension of the status quo. Nothing new with Hillary, just another politico playing political games, climbing up the slippery political ladder to grab power... not really concerned with actually making much of a difference to the people on the ground.

She definitely failed with Hillary-care. No question about it. Lack of political experience in my view, and she probably cost the Dems their majorities in Congress and the Senate, but if you're going to bring that up, why don't you talk about the children's health care act, or her push for better checks for breast cancer and prostrate cancer? Why don't you talk about Gulf War Syndrome? You see, it's easy to pick the failures, but all you do is highlight the good causes she's been heavily involved in. Listen, I repeat, I'm no Clinton fan. I hate the idea of dynastic politics in what should be an advanced democracy, but state the facts and try to be fair. Even in her failures I see a genuine desire to promote good causes. I don't see that from Trump. I see a cynical attempt, on his part, to divide America. What has he ever done for the good of the American people? All I see, in terms of the case against Clinton, is the accusation of corruption (unproven), I see her being given sole responsibility for Libya (wasn't Obama the Commander in Chief?), and the email controversy. I don't see these things as enough to eliminate all the good works, I certainly don't see these as a good enough reason to forget the fact that she has always had exceptionally high approval ratings when she's actually held positions in public office. What I see is an attempt to revise history, and a lot of gullible people who believe a narrative that has such an obvious political reason behind it. If that reason isn't obvious to some then let me spell it out for you. There is a high probability that the next President will have the pick of a number of Supreme Court Justices that could dramatically change the legal landscape in America. If it wasn't for that I suspect that even the likes of Ryan and McConnell would have disavowed Trump a long time ago

 

[Moxie]

Very fair assessment, federberg. I've said this before about the Clinton's first attempt at revising the US healthcare system: their approach was radical and pretty naive. They took on the big insurance companies and wanted to basically eliminate them in favor of a national health service. They really didn't realize how entrenched and powerful the insurance companies were, nor that the US wasn't really ready for the baby-boomer agenda in the changing of the social contract. One of the other things Bill first took on was gays in the military, and the best he could get was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It's very possible that the reason the right went after them with such venom in character attacks and wildly expensive witch hunts is that they had the audacity to try to make big changes.

One can call Hillarycare a failure, but I think it's fair to say that it laid some groundwork, and gave Obama a blueprint for what you can and cannot get done, as the first effort. Big changes don't happen fast, and they are generally built on the earlier failures of others.

 

[teddytennisfan]

POEM by a retired US AIR FORCE MAJOR.

===========================

→
Politics
Share
Oh Why Oh Why Can We Not Choose a Man or a Woman Who We Could Use?


Verse on the beginning of Fall 2016

Theodore McIntire
(The Vinyard of the Saker)
8 hours ago | 577 3
Donate!
24
4

Originally appeared at The Vinyard of the Saker
The author is a Major (Retired) of the US Air Force, a peace activist and a regular RI contributor









Oh to be a Citizen
and look with disgust
at our elected leaders
who we do not trust.

Too many bureaucrats
who are of no use.
Those who rise the highest
through fraud, waste and abuse.

Just look back
for hundreds of years or more
so many criminals
rotten down to their core.

Who slaughtered the natives,
was their land taken by stealth?
Who enslaved our brothers
in the pursuit of great wealth?

Others warned of Russian evil,
they posed a great threat.
In the end our own worst enemy
was us that we met.

Are such things in our past,
do they pollute our soil…
Will our debts be paid off?
Drone an Arab. Grab his oil.

And now we elect
with a grimace and a smile
another liar or thief
from our own reject pile.

They all have great PR
and egos to boot
matched only by their hunger
for sex, power or loot.

Neither a crony crook
nor psychopath is choice.
Neither one do I want
nor need for my voice.

We are sick of secret deals
and criminal ties
followed by coups,
scandals and lies.

Oh why Oh why
can we not choose
a man or a woman
who we could use?

Someone to follow the laws
and the oath they vowed
as an example to others
and to make us proud.

Somethings wrong with our democracy,
some things need to change with us.
Our leaders are scum,
our capitals filled with pus.

A revolt is at hand,
a need for change does grow.
Will it come from on high,
will it rise from below?

 

[teddytennisfan]

I MUST say - and share another thing from my short experience in ST PETERSBURG RUSSIA.

it is this

as i became more acquianted with them there -- a few of them , knowing i was coming from NYC -- asked - politely :

"so todor , is it true , what world news says that much of the leadership and many americans think we are what they say we are? a threat?"

and i said - yes it is quite so or at least they seem unwilling to see it from your concerns...that you may have real concerns for your own security with all the american nato forces right at your door..and then i asked them

"but what do YOU think about it all? about the way americans perceive you - and the leaders and their media for decades keep saing russia is this and that bad thing?"

their response -- all of them was very shocking in a sense:

"we feel so SORRY for them...we pity them".

and i asked another question:

"but what if there is war ? the american leaders have always wanted that if they can be sure they have the advantage...that's why the NATO is used to surround you...."..

their asnwer:
"we are always afraid of war, any war...we hate it because no country has been invaded more often and lost so many of our own to defend ourselves than russia....so we hate war...but no...we are not afraid of them..we are afraid of war...but not anyone...this is why we only pity the americans for their thinking like this about us".

 

[Moxie]

Teddy, you have to be fucking kidding. You don't read the thread, and then you throw in a load of unrelated crap, including a poem. What in the world makes you think anyone wants to read a poem? Couldn't you try to talk about what we're talking about, and then add your random other thoughts and poems to a more related thread, if there even is such a thing? Anyway, I, for one, will not be reading all of that crap if you can't be bothered to follow the conversation. Fair is fair.

 

[teddytennisfan]

Teddy, you have to be fucking kidding. You don't read the thread, and then you throw in a load of unrelated crap, including a poem. What in the world makes you think anyone wants to read a poem? Couldn't you try to talk about what we're talking about, and then add your random other thoughts and poems to a more related thread, if there even is such a thing? Anyway, I, for one, will not be reading all of that crap if you can't be bothered to follow the conversation. Fair is fair.

it's all related Moxie. you just don't see it that way.

so -- like the russians told me -- ''pity them".