US election 2016

[Rayvin 4964]

my mrs reckons it's because she's a woman, incidentally. i advised her to keep her opinions in her handbag. 

 

That's a shame actually, because her gender has been a sideshow to the whole thing and been an easy thing to use for deflecting criticism of her. Annoyingly though, the Democrats could have had Warren (I remain amazed that Hillary didn't choose her as VP). Warren would have been a much more supportable candidate.

[Happy Face 29]

That's a shame actually, because her gender has been a sideshow to the whole thing and been an easy thing to use for deflecting criticism of her. Annoyingly though, the Democrats could have had Warren (I remain amazed that Hillary didn't choose her as VP). Warren would have been a much more supportable candidate.

Her paymasters at Goldman Sachs wouldn't have that. Clinton is only a flu jab away from deaths door.

[Rayvin 4964]

From a little while ago but still class:

 

That's awesome.

[Rayvin 4964]

Her paymasters at Goldman Sachs wouldn't have that. Clinton is only a flu jab away from deaths door.

 

 

True. Both Trump and Clinton are arguably too old for this anyway. Although you could say the same about Sanders so there wasn't really much choice this time around.

[Howay 12452]

Evidence of fraud, corruption, tax evasion, for example. Can you summarise in maybe 3 bullets why she's practically regarded as the Antichrist by some people, including this forum?

I listened to Dan Carlin talk about it recently on a podcast and he said a lot of issue people take with Clinton is that for a couple that have been under the microscope for as long as they have (going back to his Governorship of Arkansas in the 80's) they seem to hang out in that gray area a lot, with the private server business, the lack of consistency with her statements of what the FBI said and what the FBI put out, the issue people take with the Clinton foundation, etc (there's also some pretty odd conspiracy theory stuff about the Clinton's in Arkansas).

Fwiw I just view her as a normal politician, I do think she should properly be looked at mind as saying "well she's not as bad as Trump" shouldn't excuse any misdemeanors on her part but I think there is definitely an extra over-the-top quality to some of the flak she gets and it could be down to the fact she's a woman.

[Renton 17744]

I don't see her as the antichrist (who does?) I see her as a liar and standard bearer of the establishment. They may not be big issues to you, but they are to me.

 

For the things you've mentioned, I've googled a bit to see if I can help you out with why other people take issue with her:

 

Her bid to prevent her emails from causing her problems by pressuring the FBI certainly doesn't look good. The mass deletions of emails, coupled with the fact that the FBI found she and her associated had been deleting classified emails and claiming they were personal and therefore not of interest, is problematic. The FBI didn't charge her for that in the end, but called her extremely careless, and set out that no reasonable person could have been ignorant of what she was doing.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/hillary-clinton-accused-of-collusion-and-corruption-over-secret/

 

This article in the Economist on the Clinton Foundation is also worth a look - it sounds problematic at best:

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/02/economist-explains-4

 

Put it this way, if she was David Cameron, and he had the kind of financial infrastructure and corporate lobbying bods around him, we'd be crying foul all over the place. Not sure why Hillary gets a free pass.

 

There are of course plenty of crazy theories as well, but these two seem to have some credence. She's certainly a member of the super rich elite, and one of the most powerful families in the the US.

Thanks for clarifying for me I haven't missed anything. I'm still none the wiser for your dislike however.

 

Hilary had a fairly normal middle class background and went to a state school btw. She's no Bush or Trump, she was also independently successful from her husband.

[ewerk 26282]

Think it's more that her campaign wanted to publicly tout the line that they wanted all 55k handed over having got an agreement that less than 1% of that number ever would be.

 

Correcting the mistake would have been to state that only the small number of mails that they perceived to be related to the investigation were handed over.

 

In politics that's nothing though. Yes the statement wasn't 100% truthful but you'd be hard pressed to find a single politician who is.

[Renton 17744]

Her paymasters at Goldman Sachs wouldn't have that. Clinton is only a flu jab away from deaths door.

Canny low that and distasteful, you're one step away from being a conspiracist.

[Rayvin 4964]

Thanks for clarifying for me I haven't missed anything. I'm still none the wiser for your dislike however.

 

Hilary had a fairly normal middle class background and went to a state school btw. She's no Bush or Trump, she was also independently successful from her husband.

 

 

I've told you repeatedly why I dislike her. I've not trusted her since she claimed to land under sniper fire in Bosnia and was actually greeted by a small girl holding a flower or something like that. And more generally, it's the stuff about the centreground, prolonging the inevitable, the establishment and the ultimate downfall of Western civilisation

[Renton 17744]

I listened to Dan Carlin talk about it recently on a podcast and he said a lot of issue people take with Clinton is that for a couple that have been under the microscope for as long as they have (going back to his Governorship of Arkansas in the 80's) they seem to hang out in that gray area a lot, with the private server business, the lack of consistency with her statements of what the FBI said and what the FBI put out, the issue people take with the Clinton foundation, etc (there's also some pretty odd conspiracy theory stuff about the Clinton's in Arkansas).

Fwiw I just view her as a normal politician, I do think she should properly be looked at mind as saying "well she's not as bad as Trump" shouldn't excuse any misdemeanors on her part but I think there is definitely an extra over-the-top quality to some of the flak she gets and it could be down to the fact she's a woman.

I agree. I just think for someone who has been under the microscope so much she's not coming out particularly bad.

 

Seems there's a lot of bitterness that Sanders didn't get the nomination.

[Renton 17744]

 

I've told you repeatedly why I dislike her. I've not trusted her since she claimed to land under sniper fire in Bosnia and was actually greeted by a small girl holding a flower or something like that. And more generally, it's the stuff about the centreground, prolonging the inevitable, the establishment and the ultimate downfall of Western civilisation

I understand the general "establishment" point but I'm struggling with the specific. As I said though I thought I was missing something from wikileaks or the likes, but apparently I'm not.

[Howay 12452]

 

Hilary had a fairly normal middle class background and went to a state school btw. She's no Bush or Trump, she was also independently successful from her husband.

I think that is something she really isn't playing up enough, she's been wealthy for a long time now obviously but as you say she's not from an 'elite' background. She mentioned her background at a debate recently iirc but that's maybe the first time I've heard it, her father was a curtain fitter or something and she worked hard and went to an Ivy league school, became a lawyer and she really did do a lot of stuff for families and children in that area. Somehow Trump has made it seem like he's this successful everyman who came from little and now he's what he is today when really that is more fitting of her background.

[Rayvin 4964]

I understand the general "establishment" point but I'm struggling with the specific. As I said though I thought I was missing something from wikileaks or the likes, but apparently I'm not.

 

How can you be struggling with the specific, I've been posting about it all day... the bit about how she's a vote for the status quo and the kicking down the road of the metaphorical can? And how the longer the status quo clings on, the more Brexit style shit we'll get?

 

 

I think that is something she really isn't playing up enough, she's been wealthy for a long time now obviously but as you say she's not from an 'elite' background. She mentioned her background at a debate recently iirc but that's maybe the first time I've heard it, her father was a curtain fitter or something and she worked hard and went to an Ivy league school, became a lawyer and she really did do a lot of stuff for families and children in that area. Somehow Trump has made it seem like he's this successful everyman who came from little and now he's what he is today when really that is more fitting of her background.

 

This is a fair point, although compared to Sanders she's minted. His personal net worth is something like a $300k. Hers is about $31m. (With Bill it's $111m)

[Park Life 70]

Absolutely can't wait for the Clinton presidency now.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Park Life

[Howay 12452]

I agree. I just think for someone who has been under the microscope so much she's not coming out particularly bad.

 

Seems there's a lot of bitterness that Sanders didn't get the nomination.

Aye, as I say that's Carlin's take and it's probably right that a lot of this stuff is really just in gray areas rather than being any sort of major issue or scandal. Is there not evidence that Powell etc used private servers? Iirc after that the argument shifted to well how many emails did she give over and how many devices did she have etc. 

The oddest bunch for me are the Sanders supporters that are now backing Trump, I get that they are anti-establishment but fucking hell man Trump stands directly against the vast majority of the things Sanders was wanting to bring in .

 

So as you say I think that bunch are just being petulant, whether there was a 'fix' against him or not is worthy of investigating to a degree but I don't think Hillary had a big hand in it anyway and the fact is he was never going to get the nomination as in all honesty he's a fucking loon, while I like a lot of the ideals he was preaching he was in cloud cuckoo land if he thought he was going to bring in Universal healthcare, free state college, a 'living' minimum wage, etc all in a 4 year term, look what Obama had to do just to fucking force through his healthcare bill and even then it was fucked with to such a degree it ended up barely resembling what he wanted. 

[Rayvin 4964]

Aye, as I say that's Carlin's take and it's probably right that a lot of this stuff is really just in gray areas rather than being any sort of major issue or scandal. Is there not evidence that Powell etc used private servers? Iirc after that the argument shifted to well how many emails did she give over and how many devices did she have etc. 

The oddest bunch for me are the Sanders supporters that are now backing Trump, I get that they are anti-establishment but fucking hell man Trump stands directly against the vast majority of the things Sanders was wanting to bring in .

 

So as you say I think that bunch are just being petulant, whether there was a 'fix' against him or not is worthy of investigating to a degree but I don't think Hillary had a big hand in it anyway and the fact is he was never going to get the nomination as in all honesty he's a fucking loon, while I like a lot of the ideals he was preaching he was in cloud cuckoo land if he thought he was going to bring in Universal healthcare, free state college, a 'living' minimum wage, etc all in a 4 year term, look what Obama had to do just to fucking force through his healthcare bill and even then it was fucked with to such a degree it ended up barely resembling what he wanted. 

 

People voting for a change in a system that doesn't work for them should be encouraged. Although I can't imagine many of them would countenance voting for Trump now. I'd far rather the left overhauls the establishment personally, but sometimes you feel like either side would at least move things forward. Trump, however, is not the person to do that.

 

You're probably right that Sanders wouldn't have gotten much of his legislation through - but the fact that he was voted in, and that he was trying, would have been a significant step. Opinions can only shift when the unthinkable becomes normal.

[Howay 12452]

 

This is a fair point, although compared to Sanders she's minted. His personal net worth is something like a $300k. Hers is about $31m. (With Bill it's $111m)

Oh aye she's of course worth a hell of a lot compared to Sanders but as I said in my previous post the blokes a cook, you don't get politicians like him very often at all. As I say people can level the 'she's in the pockets of banks and special interest groups' etc all they like at her and I'll agree but that's just like any politician, the President makes $400k a year and yet a few years after their presidency they're worth fucking millions (Chelsea Clinton's wedding was something like $3m) but again that's not unique to the Clinton's. 

 

The real joke for me is that Trump fans think he's really above any of these special interest groups, he's even been on record multiple times now clearly dodging questions about putting his business dealings into a blind trust, I personally don't see a massive amount of difference between someone being paid by a special interest group and someone making decisions based on what's best for their large multinational business, it's both essentially self dealing. 

[Rayvin 4964]

Between Trump and Clinton, I agree. I'd prefer her by a long shot. Trump is fucking loopy.

 

Between Clinton and someone who isn't a career politician with millions on the side - essentially the type you've just described - I'll take the alternative.

[Howay 12452]

People voting for a change in a system that doesn't work for them should be encouraged. Although I can't imagine many of them would countenance voting for Trump now. I'd far rather the left overhauls the establishment personally, but sometimes you feel like either side would at least move things forward. Trump, however, is not the person to do that.

 

You're probably right that Sanders wouldn't have gotten much of his legislation through - but the fact that he was voted in, and that he was trying, would have been a significant step. Opinions can only shift when the unthinkable becomes normal.

I fully agree but when they don't get their way in the first election they've tried it's no good hoying their toys out of the pram (honestly I've deleted some of these numpties off facebook because of the utter shite they've spouted). I think Sanders was a great thing as it pushed Hillary left and she adopted some of his ideals, he also refused to step aside until she won him over. 

The US system is without doubt flawed (which system isn't really) and people should push for change but it's going to take a long time if it occurs, Sanders was never going to win and I just think what Renton said about a lot of them being bitter is true. 

[ewerk 26282]

Between Trump and Clinton, I agree. I'd prefer her by a long shot. Trump is fucking loopy.

 

Between Clinton and someone who isn't a career politician with millions on the side - essentially the type you've just described - I'll take the alternative.

 

You mean someone like Bernie Sanders?

[Howay 12452]

Between Trump and Clinton, I agree. I'd prefer her by a long shot. Trump is fucking loopy.

 

Between Clinton and someone who isn't a career politician with millions on the side - essentially the type you've just described - I'll take the alternative.

Fair enough but when has that really ever happened? Bloomberg being Mayor of NYC is probably the most recent, as I said in the post before though I don't see a massive amount of difference between a politician who is paid up by a special interest group and a bloke who could really help make up one of those special interest groups running, the latter is really just cutting out the middle man of the former.

 

Of course, a Bill Gates type who is above it all wealth wise and is perhaps not worrying about his business at all anymore who comes in without ideas of self-dealing would be great but in all honesty it's a fairy tale and they would still have to compete against a house of representatives full of the very politicians we all moan about to get owt done.

[Rayvin 4964]

I fully agree but when they don't get their way in the first election they've tried it's no good hoying their toys out of the pram (honestly I've deleted some of these numpties off facebook because of the utter shite they've spouted). I think Sanders was a great thing as it pushed Hillary left and she adopted some of his ideals, he also refused to step aside until she won him over. 

The US system is without doubt flawed (which system isn't really) and people should push for change but it's going to take a long time if it occurs, Sanders was never going to win and I just think what Renton said about a lot of them being bitter is true. 

 

Well, I guess we'll see. Another 5 years of Neo-Liberal bullshit await, and it'll be interesting to see the lay of the land when it comes to the next election.

 

 

You mean someone like Bernie Sanders?

 

...yes? Is this where you zing me about the millions that were supporting his campaign? I meant more personal wealth and the connections it buys, but I've checked, and he raised $234m. Hillary has managed $740m, more than even Trump. I'm pleased to see he raised as much as he did.

[ewerk 26282]

...yes? Is this where you zing me about the millions that were supporting his campaign? I meant more personal wealth and the connections it buys, but I've checked, and he raised $234m. Hillary has managed $740m, more than even Trump. I'm pleased to see he raised as much as he did.

 

Well it was more about the fact that he has spent the last thirty five years as a professional politican and has a net worth of seven figures. 

[Renton 17744]

Between Trump and Clinton, I agree. I'd prefer her by a long shot. Trump is fucking loopy.

 

Between Clinton and someone who isn't a career politician with millions on the side - essentially the type you've just described - I'll take the alternative.

When I said specific before I meant specifically about her, there seems to be an almost personal dislike from what I can tell.

 

Both her and bill are from exceptionally modest backgrounds to be president of the USA. Of course they're rich now compared to Joe Bloggs but they've done it off their own backs which surely is at least partly admirable? I guess you could accuse them of being from a political dynasty but again that's self made.

[Rayvin 4964]

Fair enough but when has that really ever happened? Bloomberg being Mayor of NYC is probably the most recent, as I said in the post before though I don't see a massive amount of difference between a politician who is paid up by a special interest group and a bloke who could really help make up one of those special interest groups running, the latter is really just cutting out the middle man of the former.

 

Of course, a Bill Gates type who is above it all wealth wise and is perhaps not worrying about his business at all anymore who comes in without ideas of self-dealing would be great but in all honesty it's a fairy tale and they would still have to compete against a house of representatives full of the very politicians we all moan about to get owt done.

 

Perhaps I've been too enthused by what's gripping Europe, maybe the US really is impenetrable to change. It feels like it'd be easier over here.