Queen of Chaos, The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton

233 posts / 0 new
Last post
contrarianna

Rev Pesky wrote:

I think the question is, would Donald Trump do something different. Would he, for instance, be more circumspect about using USA military around the world?

That's the crucial question, unfortunately with no clear answer.

He would likely do something different, though what is hard to say given his propensity to arbitrarly say anything.

In his favour Trump has no history of war crimes, unlike Clinton, and has suggested (receiving widespread vilification for it) a less belocose posture towards Russia. 

On the other hand he is rather stupid, irrationally impulsive and thin-skinned--a dangerous mix.

The question I think, though, is pretty moot with Clinton a clear winner unless further criminal revelations become so egregious even the pro-Clinton media can't gloss over it (unlikely). 

 

bekayne

Here's a couple of examples of self-delusion about Trump from Stephen Lendman:

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/raging-anti-trumpism/5540503

Others suggest important steps in the right direction if implemented – including a new role for NATO, rapprochement with Russia (the best hope for preventing WW III), perhaps better relations with China, Iran

Only one candidate has promised to tear up the deal with Iran, the same one who devoted a section of his acceptance speech to bashing China.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nyt-insinuates-trump-wants-hillary-assassin...

Its propaganda turned truth on its head, suggesting Trump wants “gun rights supporters…tak(ing) matters into their own hands” by assassinating Clinton if she prevails in November.

What prompted such outrageous rubbish? At an August 9 North Carolina rally, he said “Hillary wants to abolish the Second Amendment…If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks.”

Notice something missing there? the actual words Trump was criticized for.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think the question is, would Donald Trump do something different. Would he, for instance, be more circumspect about using USA military around the world?

That would depend on whether an outright ban on Muslims ends terrorism.  To his credit, he's willing to give the non-violent solution a chance.

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I think the question is, would Donald Trump do something different. Would he, for instance, be more circumspect about using USA military around the world?

That would depend on whether an outright ban on Muslims ends terrorism.  To his credit, he's willing to give the non-violent solution a chance.

Well, I suppose that would depend on what is meant by an 'outright ban on Muslims'. You can't ban them in the USA, and I wonder if it would even be possible to make a law that said you could ban them from entering the USA. In any case, it's a bit difficult to imagine what he meant by 'an outright ban on Muslims'.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Trump doesn't agree that you can't outright ban Muslims. He's also said he will send Muslims out of the country in addition to the Mexicans. Whether that's legal or constitutional is irrelevant to him.

Rev Pesky

Timebandit wrote:
Trump doesn't agree that you can't outright ban Muslims. He's also said he will send Muslims out of the country in addition to the Mexicans. Whether that's legal or constitutional is irrelevant to him.

Well, ok. He can say it all he wants, but the constitution is very clear, so whatever he says, he cannot do. 

My comment was more about the meaning of 'an outright ban'. Magoo offered it as the 'non-violent' solution (which I think was a bit facetious), but I'm not so sure Trump meant it in a 'non-violent' way.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Thuggish Ukrainian politics, state-sponsored terrorism foiled, and how the Kiev regime is cheering for Clinton.

Ukraine’s ‘October Surprise’ – may be coming in September

Quote:
And certainly Hillary Clinton is ready, willing, and able to use a looming Ukrainian “crisis” to claw her way to the White House – even if she has to risk a nuclear showdown with the Russians. After all, what’s the mere prospect of World War III compared to the supreme importance of installing the First Woman President in the Oval Office?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Timebandit wrote:

Trump doesn't agree that you can't outright ban Muslims. He's also said he will send Muslims out of the country in addition to the Mexicans. Whether that's legal or constitutional is irrelevant to him.

The US did it to natives in the 19th century and Latinos in California in the '30's and of course they interned Japanese citizens during WWII. This would be part of the War on Terror so who knows whether it is legal or constitutional he has history on his side. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
My comment was more about the meaning of 'an outright ban'. Magoo offered it as the 'non-violent' solution (which I think was a bit facetious), but I'm not so sure Trump meant it in a 'non-violent' way.

I was definitely being facetious.  But the very fact that we're discussing this suggests to me that there may very well be some subtle differences between Trump and Clinton -- e.g. one wants to build a huge wall to keep the brown people out and the other doesn't -- and it's always possible that these small differences may influence some voters.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think that Hillary is now a shoo in. She is a Republican running for the Democrats so she is likely to win with one of the largest pluralities in modern history. Even if Bernie's supporters by and large take a pass she is going to take Republican states from the windbag.

Quote:

All these woebegone Republicans whining that they can’t rally behind their flawed candidate is crazy. The G.O.P. angst, the gnashing and wailing and searching for last-minute substitutes and exit strategies, is getting old.

They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up — unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.

The Republicans have their candidate: It’s Hillary.

They can’t go with Donald Trump. He’s too volatile and unhinged.

...

Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights?

Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about “Second Amendment people” taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS. And he still blindly follows his ego, failing to understand the fundamentals of a campaign. “I don’t know that we need to get out the vote,” he told Fox News Thursday. “I think people that really wanna vote are gonna get out and they’re gonna vote for Trump.”

Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don’t shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone.

You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving “aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda,” repeating the Bush administration’s phony case for war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-perfect-gop-nominee...

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Rev P - Magoo is often facetious. It's how he rolls. ;)

That said, though, I meant "can't" in the sense that the US constitution would not support it.

As kropotkin points out, there is a historical precedent for doing such a thing anyway. So in that sense, yes it could happen. But not without violating the constitution, which is generally a bad thing.

Funny how Trump figures the constitution is malleable on this point, but not the 2nd amendment. (not funny ha ha)

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Follow the words of Jesus. Christians ignore it to their own peril. It really is that simple.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Follow the words of Jesus. Christians ignore it to their own peril. It really is that simple.

Jesus says quite a lot of things in the gospels. Which particular words of his are you referring to?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

The problem is, we don't actually know what he said*. Nothing was recorded until he was dead about 30 years. And I'm loath to impose religious interpretation on matters of government. So I'm figuring the Jesus bit is a Very Bad Idea.

*Or if he actually existed. Which would kind of preclude him saying anything at all.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Timebandit wrote:

The problem is, we don't actually know what he said*. Nothing was recorded until he was dead about 30 years. And I'm loath to impose religious interpretation on matters of government. So I'm figuring the Jesus bit is a Very Bad Idea.

*Or if he actually existed. Which would kind of preclude him saying anything at all.

Yes, I know this, which is why I specified "in the gospels", which may be works of fiction, but nonetheless do contain the words commonly attributed to Jesus.

mark_alfred

Quote:
The problem is, we don't actually know what he said*. Nothing was recorded until he was dead about 30 years.

Presumably he rose from the dead (Mark 16:9), so a line of communication to those recording his words thirty years later could likely have been established to ensure a correct transcription.

mark_alfred

Quote:

Follow the words of Jesus. Christians ignore it to their own peril. It really is that simple.

I'm relieved it's only Christians who potentially are imperilled if they ignore these words. I'm terrible at following directives exactly to the letter.

swallow

You know, the idea of Jesus returning from the dead to act as proofreader/fact checker is my favourite thought of the day. The world needs more good editors anyway.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You know, the idea of Jesus returning from the dead to act as proofreader

It's probably even more humble than when he was a carpenter.  Don't carpenters earn, like, $25/hour?

iyraste1313

re posts on Clinton´s health.....

"I've honestly never seen anything like this.  This is happening in the United States in 2016.  It's frankly chilling.  I'm a little scared.  I'm doing this video also to say, I'm not suicidal right now; I am not a particularly clumsy person; I don't own a car at the moment.  So if I'm to slip in the shower over the next couple of days or something silly like that you have to really employ probability and statistics here because I'm not a clumsy person, right, and I'm also not a depressed person right now.  I'm a person who is spooked out though."

 

"For Huffington Post to delete those posts without any notice, that is Orwellian.  That is something I've read about happening in mainland China."

NDPP

Why Foreign Gov'ts Seem Reluctant To Expose Clintons' Alleged Fraud

https://sptnkne.ws/fdZP

"So far governments that could act to investigate [including donor Canada] and prosecute evident wrongdoing haven't yet seen fit to act..."

 

What It Will Finally Take To Put Hillary Clinton Behind Bars

https://youtu.be/WjLoqu_X540

"Charles Ortel on the Clinton criminal charity conspiracy and fraud machine. Ortel, has called the Clintons the 'Bonnie and Clyde' of charity fraud who make Bernie Madoff look like a piker."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What It Will Finally Take To Put Hillary Clinton Behind Bars

If you're personally curious, I'm sure Fox News has an FAQ for you.

JKR

NDPP wrote:

Why Foreign Gov'ts Seem Reluctant To Expose Clintons' Alleged Fraud

https://sptnkne.ws/fdZP

"So far governments that could act to investigate [including donor Canada] and prosecute evident wrongdoing haven't yet seen fit to act..."

 

What It Will Finally Take To Put Hillary Clinton Behind Bars

https://youtu.be/WjLoqu_X540

"Charles Ortel on the Clinton criminal charity conspiracy and fraud machine. Ortel, has called the Clintons the 'Bonnie and Clyde' of charity fraud who make Bernie Madoff look like a piker."

With all this diversionary chatter about a former presidential candidate, it seems that Trump and his supporters are becoming more and more frightened by the day about what the legal investigations into his conduct might end up finding!

Could Trump try to fire the people who are legally investigating his conduct?

josh

NDPP wrote:

Why Foreign Gov'ts Seem Reluctant To Expose Clintons' Alleged Fraud

https://sptnkne.ws/fdZP

"So far governments that could act to investigate [including donor Canada] and prosecute evident wrongdoing haven't yet seen fit to act..."

 

What It Will Finally Take To Put Hillary Clinton Behind Bars

https://youtu.be/WjLoqu_X540

"Charles Ortel on the Clinton criminal charity conspiracy and fraud machine. Ortel, has called the Clintons the 'Bonnie and Clyde' of charity fraud who make Bernie Madoff look like a piker."

Getting hard to tell the difference between a lot of NDPP's posts and Trump's tweets.

SeekingAPolitic...

My Goal:  To see the democratic party does not go with another centrist corporistists democratic and howfully we NDP'ers vote more leftist candiate.

How to achieve this : Destroying the credibilty of centrist who lost the last election.  Going after Mulcair has no poticial value any more so I wish him the best in political retirement.  But bringing Hillary and the DNC down another political peg is usful to because can be used to be proxy for a warning story for Canadian political parties of the danger centrist politics.  For those wondering why I have so tough politically on DNC and lesser part Hillary this the reason. 

Realistic result.  To average US voter is my prospects are zero.  But maybe I able swing a few NDP voters reading rabble to see that centristism is a dirty world.  I understand the DNC and Hillary do not make a perfect proxy for Canadian politics but there is potential overlap.  

I understand that the election is over but DNC and Hillary are fortresses of corportist policy.  In a word they are relevant unlike Muclair.  One last thing is a critism of Dem's policy is differnet then some sort witch hunt of Hillary that Trump has been using try to defect some of the critism that Trump is facing.  I was accused of being a trump supporter before the election but merely I was conviced the Hillary would lose.  In no way my critism DEMS a defacto sign I support trump policy in anyway.

voice of the damned

If Hillary Clinton is brought down in a corporate scandal, I don't think the result is voters thinking "Oh, these corporate candidates are all a bunch of scum, time for some left-wingers in the White House." Rather, it will be voters thinking "These Democrats are all a bunch of scum, might as well vote for the Republicans again."

Whatever the merits of any case against Clinton, I don't think "Pursuing her helps the left win votes" is one of them. We shouldn't make the mistake of thinking the whole electorate analyzes things the way babblers do.

SeekingAPolitic...

Let me ask VOD can I voice critism of the NDP or DEMS from the left.  Believe or not there are people who very critical of the NDP (Horwath,Muclair) from the left.   You propose a direct link to votes is not there, attacking the standard bearers of left is counter produictive(Is that fair representation of your thoughts).  

Let do a case study, Horwath's last crusade to out do the liberals in Ontario.  The ONDP picked up a few seats and called it day.  But lets dig a little deeper into the period of history.  This election respresented the best opportuinty for the ONDP to take power in a generation.  The liberals had a government record of incomptence and scandal but they won again.  And most importanly many years of liberal rule should have a tiring effect of the voters, "its time for change".  I dont think you can estmiate the weakness of Mr. Hudak platfrom, first he was totally ineffective as politican(he had no spark).  Now to the famous platfrom, cut 100,000 civil servants jobs this was barabarians at the gate stuff.  And if I remember correctly the promise 1 million new jobs, which out to be really 1 000 000 man hours of work.  

The liberals brain trust was brilliant, it branded Hudak as a barbarian trying destroy the civil service.  Plus off course he will eat your first born, media campagin against the CONS was over the top.  I was politically awaken about 20 years since and form that time I never witness hurricane of negative branding agaisnt the CONS that LIBS did on Hudak.  Effectviely the Liberals destroyed the Hudak as political threat in the election.  

That just left the ONDP to deal with.  The ONDP just self expolded.  1.  The election was called because the NDP voted in confidence measure, I think it budget change.  The NDP was blamed for the election(enabling the Horde(Hudak) to ride the Ontario political plians.  The exmplation for this triggering of the early election was nonsence and believed that its crass opportuitness. 2. The platform and  the"letter" here is a link.

https://www.sudbury.com/local-news/horwath-ndp-returns-to-roots-in-seeki...

The letter goes on to say that in Horwath's “rush to the centre,” she's abandoned the party's values. “If the NDP does not stand with working people, poor people, with women, with immigrants, then what does it stand for?” the letter said.

​And yes the liberal came to the rescue as guardians of the marganlized in society.  I bow to the brilliant peope why run liberals elections in Ontario.  I still remember thinking the fed election is going a diaster because the mulcair will out flanked on the left like Horwath was. And so the best opportunty in geneartion to ONDP win power was scuttled.

Why was this story relevant to critism of the parties that proport to stand leftists ideas.  Accountability.  If the left in the party can not be critical of the leadership then we will never learn from mistakes.  Accountabiltiy is the first step to getting more voters and political power.  

NDPP

"This pathology has been purposely cultivated and isn't going anywhere..." - Glenn Greenwald

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/894732544658296832

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

People are still talking about Clinton? I'd expect that from the Trump cult but here?

She's no longer in government and her political career is over.

GET. OVER. IT.

Sean in Ottawa

What will it take to put Clinton behind bars?

That's easy -- the US to move more to a Fascist authoritarian state where the government can make her a continual distraction and scapegoat.

I am not a fan but the purpose of the Clinton stuff now is to hide the Trump stuff. If anyone does not get this they need to stop an think a little.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

You can find a whole bunch of interesting pages if you google "Trump sore winner".

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

You can find a whole bunch of interesting pages if you google "Trump sore winner".

Certainly. And you can also see that many of her "crimes" have been debunked  and were in fact fabrications.

She and her husband were not nice characters but not worse than other White House residents. The desire to have people think they were is in part to normalize the daily scandal that is the present administration.

The Democratic Party is quite pathetic and that is why it lost to this present carnival but the idea of going after her now is quite repugnant when you consider its motivations and basis in false news stories.

NDPP

Hillary Clinton: "Donald Trump is Too Friendly With North Korea"

https://twitter.com/MoonofA/status/895257315649224705

voice of the damned

NDPP wrote:

Hillary Clinton: "Donald Trump is Too Friendly With North Korea"

https://twitter.com/MoonofA/status/895257315649224705

That's from 2016. At the time, it was true, Trump was the more dovish of the two candidates, as he was endorsing direct talks with the North Koreans without the North Koreans first having to renounce their nuclear weapons program. In contrast to the long-standing US policy, which requires them to give up their nukes before any talks can take place. 

Not sure what Hillary would say now. Personally, for me, the problem with Trump is not so much that he's an ideological hawk(in fact, I think deep down he's probably a sincere isolationist) but that he shoots his mouth off in a highly irresponsible fashion. In private conversation, I've probably said things that are as outrageous as some of the stuff he comes up with; the difference is, I don't have the whole world basing their military policies on what I say. 

JKR

NDPP wrote:

Hillary Clinton: "Donald Trump is Too Friendly With North Korea"

https://twitter.com/MoonofA/status/895257315649224705

That's from an old article before the 2016 presidential election still during 2016 Democratic primaries.

Trump supporters are spewing so much fake news!

bekayne

"So we elected the candidate that wasn't the warmonger. Then, you'll never believe this..."

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

JKR wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Hillary Clinton: "Donald Trump is Too Friendly With North Korea"

https://twitter.com/MoonofA/status/895257315649224705

That's from an old article before the 2016 presidential election still during 2016 Democratic primaries.

Trump supporters are spewing so much fake news!

Lately,everything NDPP posts is fake news. I'm surprised he hasn't added Pepe The Frog Memes to go with them as well.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Perhaps babble needs an explicit "Pro Trump" forum, where everyone can talk about how he's the innocent victim of a witch hunt, and how private citizen Hillary Clinton is still the REAL threat to world order. 

bekayne

alan smithee wrote:

JKR wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Hillary Clinton: "Donald Trump is Too Friendly With North Korea"

https://twitter.com/MoonofA/status/895257315649224705

That's from an old article before the 2016 presidential election still during 2016 Democratic primaries.

Trump supporters are spewing so much fake news!

Lately,everything NDPP posts is fake news. I'm surprised he hasn't added Pepe The Frog Memes to go with them as well.

 

Aristotleded24

alan smithee wrote:
People are still talking about Clinton? I'd expect that from the Trump cult but here?

She's no longer in government and her political career is over.

GET. OVER. IT.

I would love to get over Clinton. The problem with that is that she keeps inserting herself in the limelight and when she is asked about 2016 is not capable of any self-awareness of why she lost. People keep talking about Clinton because Clinton keeps talking, and as long as she stays around she remains a very easy foil for the Republicans to challenge.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I would love to get over Clinton. The problem with that is that she keeps inserting herself in the limelight and when she is asked about 2016 is not capable of any self-awareness of why she lost.

Neither of those compels you to maintain your interest in her.  And it's a bit dishonest, when so many Trumpies remain obsessed with her, to pretend that she's somehow forcing herself onto the public's eyes.

Take ownership of your resentment of her.  These aren't the reasons you still care.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Perhaps babble needs an explicit "Pro Trump" forum, where everyone can talk about how he's the innocent victim of a witch hunt, and how private citizen Hillary Clinton is still the REAL threat to world order. 

I agree.They can have great conversations about how tremendous he is and share vital information of Clinton's pedophile ring at a pizzeria. And testify how he was hand picked by gawd.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
People are still talking about Clinton? I'd expect that from the Trump cult but here?

She's no longer in government and her political career is over.

GET. OVER. IT.

I would love to get over Clinton. The problem with that is that she keeps inserting herself in the limelight and when she is asked about 2016 is not capable of any self-awareness of why she lost. People keep talking about Clinton because Clinton keeps talking, and as long as she stays around she remains a very easy foil for the Republicans to challenge.

Obama's gone and Clinton is gone and people still blame everything on them. Some do it as a distraction and some are simply obsessed with them.

It's like pointing the finger at Pearson or Diefenbaker for all our ills. I'm over those 2,good or bad. They are long since expired.

Trumpsters are the most ignorant,self absorbed assholes out there. Even if you present them with facts,video facts,audio facts proving Trump is a pathological liar and a con man,a majority of them will blame Obama.The rest would blame Clinton. These people are too far gone. They should be totally ignored and never mentioned again the minute this administration disappears.

NDPP

With New DC Policy Group, Dems Continue To Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons    -    by Glenn Greenwald

https://t.co/ZijwBE1cmt

"Both Democrats and neocons share far more than revulsion toward Trump, particularly once Hillary Clinton became the party's standard-bearer. They share the same fundamental beliefs about the US role in the world and how to assert US power. In other words, this alliance is explained by for more than antipathy to Trump. Democrats find large amounts of common cause with neocons when it comes to foreign policy."

So too apparently do their 'progressive' Canadian fans...

bekayne

NDPP wrote:

With New DC Policy Group, Dems Continue To Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons    -    by Glenn Greenwald

https://t.co/ZijwBE1cmt

"Both Democrats and neocons share far more than revulsion toward Trump, particularly once Hillary Clinton became the party's standard-bearer. They share the same fundamental beliefs about the US role in the world and how to assert US power. In other words, this alliance is explained by for more than antipathy to Trump. Democrats find large amounts of common cause with neocons when it comes to foreign policy."

So too apparently do their 'progressive' Canadian fans...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZZngTkp54I

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

While I acknowledge her horrible flaws on foreign policy and her uncomfortable closeness to corporations-I'd like to ask those still think they were right to see Hillary as the greater evil in the fall campaign...would any of you be prepared to defend the idea that keeping her out of the White House was more important than anything else, if you were asked to do so before an audience of Muslim-Americans, African-Americans, Latinx-Americans, LGBTQ Americans, and women who still wish to make their own reproductive decisions?  Are any of you still of the belief that letting Trump take power, and forcing everyone in the above-mentioned groups into battles for their very survival, was preferable to electing Hillary and, with her flaws, at least creating the conditions in which all of those people would actually have a real chance of making some gains?

I backed Bernie in the primary, too.  And his campaign made enough of a difference to justify voting for her in the fall.  The party platform a lot of his policies.  Bernie and those of us who backed him would have had a massive say on policy had HRC become president.  Now, all progressives are powerless.  Is there anybody who would still argue that she was so terrible that it's more important to fight her, a retired politician, than it is to try to find some way to save the planet from Trump?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

From almost exactly one year ago (OK, one year, one day):

Quote:
Quote:
I think the question is, would Donald Trump do something different. Would he, for instance, be more circumspect about using USA military around the world?

That's the crucial question, unfortunately with no clear answer.

 

NDPP

Hillary's Pals Made Ads For Saudis To Influence Trump

https://t.co/qR7GKTmnQO

"A lobbying shop co-f0unded by Hillary Clinton's campaign chair is behind slick TV ads aimed at influencing President Donald Trump..."

Aristotleded24

Oh brother. Here we go again:

Ken Burch wrote:
I'd like to ask those still think they were right to see Hillary as the greater evil in the fall campaign...would any of you be prepared to defend the idea that keeping her out of the White House was more important than anything else, if you were asked to do so before an audience of Muslim-Americans, African-Americans, Latinx-Americans, LGBTQ Americans, and women who still wish to make their own reproductive decisions?  Are any of you still of the belief that letting Trump take power, and forcing everyone in the above-mentioned groups into battles for their very survival, was preferable to electing Hillary and, with her flaws, at least creating the conditions in which all of those people would actually have a real chance of making some gains?

I'll get to the issue of "stopping Hillary" later on. The issue here is that the Democrats made the same fatal mistake they did in 2004, that being that their candidate could be elected on a platform of "I'm not a Republican." People hate politicians by default, so if you want people to vote for you, you need to give them a reason. Hillary in particular came off with an air of expecting to be treated like royalty and she bristled at anyone who didn't treat her likewise.

As for your points about women exercising reproductive choice? That is pretty hard to do in deep Republican states that don't fund services and when doctors themselves won't perform the procedure for fear of getting shot, and that's been going on for a long time. As to the argument that "vote for Clinton because these neo-nazis support Trump?" What was supposed to happen? Was Clinton supposed to wave a magic wand and all of a sudden the neo-nazis would either disappear or stop being racist? (Never mind that minorities themselves didn't even come out for her in the same numbers with which they came out for Obama) I think you could have made a compelling argument that a Clinton election would have been difficult as well, for the simple reason that these neo-nazis would have felt frustrated with Clinton's election and even taken out their frustrations on members of minority communities. If there's one silver lining I see in Trump's election, it's that the darkness of the American psyche is now on full display, people are becoming more aware, and they are standing up to challenge it, moreso than what happened under Obama or would have happened under Clinton because "well, we stopped the Republicans, all is well in our country."

Ken Burch wrote:
I backed Bernie in the primary, too.  And his campaign made enough of a difference to justify voting for her in the fall.  The party platform a lot of his policies.  Bernie and those of us who backed him would have had a massive say on policy had HRC become president.  Now, all progressives are powerless.  Is there anybody who would still argue that she was so terrible that it's more important to fight her, a retired politician, than it is to try to find some way to save the planet from Trump?

First of all, in terms of saving the planet from Trump: I don't like that he withdrew from the Paris Accord, however he said that he would on the campaign trail. I think getting angry at him for doing what he said he would do when there's nothing we can do to make him change his mind is counterproductive. Instead, focus on making renewable energy viable and it will displace fossil fuels just on the basis of economics regardless of whether Trump likes it or not. I think what happened at the recent G-20 Summit, where the other 19 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement and decided to soldier on towards meeting that target and thereby sidelining him completely was the right approach.

In terms of party platform, talk is cheap. Her husband also won on a progressive platform and message and failed to deliver. Plus Clinton has such a long track record of taking policy positions based on what she perceives as popular and will win votes in the moment that many people simply did not trust her to push for them. And her people fought tooth and nail against adding any progressive elements to this platform. And I really doubt that progressives would have had any sway because of several things. From openly courting Republican voters, to choosing a corporatist running mate rather than someone like Nina Turner, even to ignoring offers of help from Bernie supporters in key areas. Not only that, there was never any scenario in which the House was expected to go back to Democratic control. In that situation, she would have moved further and further right to try to appease the Republicans. And if you think her popularity dropped during an actual election campaign, how much more would it have dropped when she made decisions as President that would have alienated people? So the anger and the frustration towards her builds, the Republicans take back both the House and Senate in 2018. The stage is now set for a Donald Trump 2.0 to capitalize on Clinton's unpopularity and then becomes inevitable.

Furthermore, why do we even trust the Democrats to stand up to Trump, when so many Democratic Senators voted for his Cabinet picks? When Tulsi Gabbard bravely spoke out against Trump on Syria, she was visiously maligned by people within her own party.

What it boils down to is that to some people, some things are simply unacceptable no matter who does them or says them. Would people have overlooked Laura Bush calling black youth super predators? If Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz had connections to a big city Republican mayor possibly complicit in the cover-up of a police shooting of an unarmed black male (think Rahm Emanuel) would that be acceptable? If a Republican politician accepted money from prison lobbyists, would people have overlooked that? If a Republican voted for the Patriot Act and against same-sex marriage (the only time I've ever heard Hillary give a straight answer to a question was being asked about supporting same-sex marriage and clearly saying "no) would that be acceptable?

The Republicans will always be crazier than the Democrats, the same like I expect to see the sun rise in the eastern sky tomorrow. But the question I have, Ken, is: how fucking horrible does a Democratic nominee for President have to be before we can say, "no, I can't accept this" without being accused of enabling the Republicans?

JKR

Progressives will be accused of enabling Republicans as long as they oppos democratic nominees who are much better than Republican nominees. It will be interesting to see how Trump's presidency unfolds and how much regret it causes for people who opposed Hillary.

Pages