192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 09:28 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I didn't follow his first campaign. Would you say he presented himself to be dovish?


I thought you were all Obama from day 1?
revelette1
 
  4  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 09:31 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Would you say he presented himself to be dovish?


Not particularly. He said he would work with other countries such as Iran, and he did. He said he close Gitmo, he didn't. He said he would change torture techniques (something like that)and he did. He never said anything about drones though he was accused of it. He said he would end the war in Iraq, by chance he did.

I think Hillary would have been more hawkish than Obama was, but, not stubbornly or obnoxiously not willing to reason and explore other options. Unlike Trump, I don't think she would mouth provocations to nations who have or are developing nukes or have shown themselves to be aggressive. Or would have been in favor of any kind of travel ban against Muslim nor aggressively being in favor of harsh immigration rules or the stupid wall, or disbanding many of the needed rules and regulations such as the Trump has been doing. The latest has to do with separation of church and state. I am sure I could go on, but I think most reasonable people see the difference between a centrist democrat and Trump.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 09:38 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Here's an interview with the New Yorker's David Remnick from Friday:

https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/hillary-clinton-explains-what-happened

You know, for people who are interested.

Contrary to what many of the reviews say, she accepts responsibility for her defeat. She does blame a lot of people and other factors — Comey, Sanders, Wikileaks — but I don't hear her laying the fault on them exclusively, just that they all combined to derail her campaign.



Here's what happens in her book: Page after page after page of a Hillary whinefest. Who wants to waste his or her time reading that crap?

NYT: Publisher Won't Make Back Hillary's Large Book Advance
maporsche
 
  4  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 09:44 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

hightor wrote:

Here's an interview with the New Yorker's David Remnick from Friday:

https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/hillary-clinton-explains-what-happened

You know, for people who are interested.

Contrary to what many of the reviews say, she accepts responsibility for her defeat. She does blame a lot of people and other factors — Comey, Sanders, Wikileaks — but I don't hear her laying the fault on them exclusively, just that they all combined to derail her campaign.



Here's what happens in her book: Page after page after page of a Hillary whinefest. Who wants to waste his or her time reading that crap?

NYT: Publisher Won't Make Back Hillary's Large Book Advance


What does a 2014 article have to do with the point you're trying to make?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -4  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 09:45 am
@maporsche,
I don't know where you got that.

Between Obama and McCain, I didn't see much difference, so since I imagined how it would probably affect many of my students to see a black man become president, I supported Obama.

That's not my equivalent for 'being for him from Day 1,' but it had good reverberations. I hate a lot of the crap he did, but he's just like everybody else for the most part. A little craftier hiding it.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  3  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 09:45 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

That video is spreading right wing memes. You really believe Hillary Clinton is a Neocon? Based on what?


She's not a progressive.
MontereyJack
 
  5  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 09:54 am
@Debra Law,
Those are not the only options
BillW
 
  5  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 10:05 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Those are not the only options

Plus, nobody is not, not anything. They are a mixture of everything. It is the voters responsibility to figure out what that mixture is. Clinton was the right pick because she is a Centrist, not a loony like tRump. Not the best campaigner, but a lot of what we needed, not what we got!
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 10:33 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Those are not the only options


I always thought Clinton's line about the term progressive was particularly apt. Not to mention that no-one is one thing on all the issues. Sanders himself is a moderate on gun control. Despite his often quoted line of "You can't be a moderate and a progressive."

"I'm a progressive who likes to get things done."
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  6  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 10:37 am
@Debra Law,
Quote:
She's not a progressive.


Unless you define "progressive" in such an open-ended way that it loses its meaning, neither are the majority of voters.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 11:09 am
@revelette1,
You are among the friends of glitterbag who repeatedly pointed out HRC won the popular vote so how exactly did the gender factor materially hurt her?

She could have increased her margin of victory in all the states she won by 50% and she would have won the popular vote in an even more lopsided fashion, but she still would have lost the election.

Too many woman-haters in Wisconsin?

She got a lot of votes simply because she is a woman, offsetting the votes cast for Trump solely because she is a woman.

BTW - You have the concept of PC wrong although, given the term as it reads, it's understandable. Bringing up the gender factor is perfectly PC. Something is politically incorrect when it cuts against the grain of progressive social dogma. No one calls politically incorrect a claim that the GOP is a bunch of old, white privileged fat cats, but it would be politically incorrect to say that HRC lost the election because she was a tired old woman.

For good or bad, the term only has relevance in connection with progressive dogma, and you can tell when something is politically incorrect by how widely and vociferously it is criticized.

Since blaming misogyny for the lack of women's success (in general or particular) is standard fare that isn't greeted by a backlash from Salon, MSNBC, college campuses, social media in general and other numerous sources, it is politically correct, which is to say acceptable to most progressives. In the case of Clinton, its hogwash but perfectly PC.
revelette1
 
  4  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 11:29 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Perhaps in times past you would have been correct about it being politically correct to point out the gender factor, but it isn't anymore. People just think it is an excuse regardless of the facts to prove it.

There were polls taken among conservative women, and gender did play a roll. I left a link earlier if you bothered to read it.
snood
 
  4  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 11:35 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

snood wrote:

That video is spreading right wing memes. You really believe Hillary Clinton is a Neocon? Based on what?


She's not a progressive.


I asked Edgar what makes her fit the neocon label, but you can try to answer if you like. Saying "she's not a progressive " in answer to "what makes her a neocon" makes about as much sense as saying "he's not American" if someone demands substantiation for the accusations that Obama was Kenyan. Kenyans are born in Kenya. Neocons support vast and unlimited global military
involvement in the interest of empire. Neocons believe in free market capitalism and support supply-side economics. Neocons are moral traditionalists.

It's great political sport to call someone a "socialist" or a "nazi". It's expedient. Makes it easy to dismiss someone. If you catch me calling Trump a fascist I expect I will be able to say why.

Besides it being fun and easy, what support is there for calling Hillary a neocon?
BillW
 
  2  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 11:56 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
She's not a progressive.


Unless you define "progressive" in such an open-ended way that it loses its meaning, neither are the majority of voters.


And, taken the other way around hightor, ....., so are the majority of voters. This is what I like about truth in politics - the majority rules and sees the best in everything.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  3  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 12:15 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

Perhaps in times past you would have been correct about it being politically correct to point out the gender factor, but it isn't anymore. People just think it is an excuse regardless of the facts to prove it.

There were polls taken among conservative women, and gender did play a roll. I left a link earlier if you bothered to read it.

Of course it plays a role - someone would have to be an idiot to believe that the gender of the first female nominee for POTUS didn't play a role. Some people will try to dismiss the statement that it played a role as liberal whining; and the other trick they use is to pretend the liberal argument was that it was definitely the determining factor.when all we're saying is that it played a role. Just as race plays a role.
BillW
 
  2  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 12:43 pm
@snood,
snood, just face it - there is no equality in America. Judgement of myself is not equal to the judgement I give to others - well, at least I try to be somewhat equal - uhh, no I don't! Good luck anyways!
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 02:16 pm
@snood,
Quote:
21st Century Fox's bid to buy Sky faces further hurdles after the culture secretary said she was "minded" to refer the deal to regulators over concerns about broadcasting standards.
Karen Bradley had already said she was minded to refer the £11.7bn tie-up over concerns about media plurality.
Fox owns 39% of Sky but wants full control of the satellite broadcaster.
However, some fear it would give Rupert Murdoch's family, which controls Fox, too much sway over the UK media.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41239576

Fox News' behaviour, standards of journalism and sexual harassment cases were reasons for the referral. When the BBC reported on this they showed Bill O' Reilly discussing why a woman could not be president as an example of poor broadcasting standards.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 02:18 pm
Lash and Finny have done their job well here. This thread is supposed to be about Trump, and contemporary events. Instead, they have people discussing Clinton and the past.

Kudos, regretfully, to them for their success in diverting the discussion away from the topic and on to Clinton and the Democrats.
maporsche
 
  2  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 02:25 pm
@Setanta,
I do keep taking that bait...dammit.
Setanta
 
  2  
Mon 18 Sep, 2017 03:32 pm
@maporsche,
I have, too. But we need to keep on topic.

President Plump has a big hard-on, and wants a military parade in Washington next July 4th. From The Washington Post:

Trump says he wants a massive military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on July 4
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.49 seconds on 06/30/2022 at 12:38:08