Queen of Chaos, The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton

141 posts / 0 new
Last post
voice of the damned

Aristotled wrote:

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.

So, as long as anti-abortion terrorism remains a reality, we shouldn't worry about whether Republicans appoint SCOTUS judges who want to abolish the right to abortion across the board? That's like arguing who cares if the government brings back anti-sodomy laws and starts arresting gays again, because gay-bashing by individual thugs is going to happen no matter what.

josh

JKR wrote:

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.

Libertarian Johnson took far more potential votes from Trump than Stein took from Clinton.  It's just disengenuous to blame those progressives who voted for Stein or who sat it out for her loss.  She was a problematic candidate for reasons other than ideology who ran a totally lousy campaign.  Not to mention being undermined by Russian meedling in the election.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
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?

Of course they wouldn't magically disappear, or change their views.

I think the question is why anyone -- right-wing OR left -- would prefer a President who actively courts those neo-Nazis and appreciates their support.  I'm sure the last couple of days have clarified that.

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
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?

Of course they wouldn't magically disappear, or change their views.

I think the question is why anyone -- right-wing OR left -- would prefer a President who actively courts those neo-Nazis and appreciates their support.  I'm sure the last couple of days have clarified that.

Ah the great American trade off! With Hillary, the world would have had new military campaigns, expanded Syrian war and who knows what else? But hey hey hey everyone, she would have had some nice things to say when the US starts to turn in on itself! Keep in mind her words wouldn't do shit for nothing. Don't believe me? Ask  a Libyan how many of his countrymens lives were saved when Barak sang amazing grace?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Ah the great American trade off! With Hillary, the world would have had new military campaigns, expanded Syrian war and who knows what else?

Evidently your imagination knows.

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Ah the great American trade off! With Hillary, the world would have had new military campaigns, expanded Syrian war and who knows what else?

Evidently your imagination knows.

What's the matter MrMagoo? Amazing grace not saving enough lives in Yemen for you? Would it make you feel better if Hillary got a nobel peace prize?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

You seem to be not addressing what I did say in favour of addressing something I didn't say.

Tell us, did you have a DREAM about Clinton running roughshod around the world on the back of a U.S. War-Bot?

Why don't you answer in Chinese?  That's always super impressive.  Respond in Mandarin, because you're the only babbler who speaks another language.

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

You seem to be not addressing what I did say in favour of addressing something I didn't say.

Tell us, did you have a DREAM about Clinton running roughshod around the world on the back of a U.S. War-Bot?

Why don't you answer in Chinese?  That's always super impressive.  Respond in Mandarin, because you're the only babbler who speaks another language.

Not at all actually. I'm providing evidence that I used to shape my opinion. No need to answer in Chinese either. But it sounds like you're wheels are starting to fall off brother, maybe you should give it a rest?

Aristotleded24

voice of the damned wrote:

Aristotled wrote:

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.

So, as long as anti-abortion terrorism remains a reality, we shouldn't worry about whether Republicans appoint SCOTUS judges who want to abolish the right to abortion across the board? That's like arguing who cares if the government brings back anti-sodomy laws and starts arresting gays again, because gay-bashing by individual thugs is going to happen no matter what.

That talking point was used in 2004 in an attempt to scare people into voting for the Democrats. Guess what? It didn't happen, abortion is still legal, and this is a repeat of that exact same scare tactic used before.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Not at all actually. I'm providing evidence that I used to shape my opinion.

Funny that I'd be named in it.

Quote:
No need to answer in Chinese either.

Same with all the times you've posted something in Chinese.

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

You seem to be not addressing what I did say in favour of addressing something I didn't say.

Tell us, did you have a DREAM about Clinton running roughshod around the world on the back of a U.S. War-Bot?

Why don't you answer in Chinese?  That's always super impressive.  Respond in Mandarin, because you're the only babbler who speaks another language.

oh and by the way,  the Chinese I use in written form is simplified, not Mandarin. Mandarin is a spoken dialect. In Taiwan the people also speak Mandarin dialect but use traditional script. On the mainland even in Guangdong province where Cantonese is spoken, simplified is the text used. Just trivial info. 

NDPP

'X-Files'

https://youtu.be/So6YNjLOOOI

"FBI won't reveal Clinton emails due to 'lack of public interest.'

Yeah right...

bekayne

NDPP wrote:

'X-Files'

https://youtu.be/So6YNjLOOOI

"FBI won't reveal Clinton emails due to 'lack of public interest.'

Yeah right...

Whereas some people are obsessed with her

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Yes, the "median" or the "mode" of interest in her would be low, but the "mean" interest in her would be wildly inflated by the life-consuming interest that some Trumpers and some lefties seem to maintain, even after her return to private citizenship.

Like a "cult" movie.  Not that many fans, but the few that there are are just over-the-top about it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NDPP wrote:

'X-Files'

https://youtu.be/So6YNjLOOOI

"FBI won't reveal Clinton emails due to 'lack of public interest.'

Yeah right...

Hillary's political career is over.  What possible point would there be in revealing the emails of a former presidential candidate?  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What possible point would there be in revealing the emails of a former presidential candidate?  

To prove that Trumpies and K00k-job lefties were right about her all along.

SeekingAPolitic...

Lets see what this retired politican says about Bernie in her new book.  If she goes after Bernie she is far game.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-wh...

Sorry folks when someone like Clinton stature attacks my politics dont expect me just give up and not defend them. But I save judgement for when the book can be reviewed in the community.

 

josh

Sanders was the candidate who defended her from the email business.  "I'm sick of hearing about your damn emails."  He ran a relatively genteel campaign against her compared to most other party nomination fights.  Attacking her over big money was fair game.  Maybe he should have attacked her on the idiotic email business if this is how she's going to repay him.

NorthReport

All she is doing presently is hurting both herself and the Democrats. She needs to move on by, as she is only reinforcing her image of being yesterday's news. 

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

All she is doing presently is hurting both herself and the Democrats. She needs to move on by, as she is only reinforcing her image of being yesterday's news. 

Let's work in the real world: She is not going to. The Democrats need to move on from her.

SeekingAPolitic...

This is right wing publication but it looks some one prominent Hillary supporter saying is Russia was (perhaps) involved with Bernie campaign.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/09/top-hillary-clinton-advisor-sugg...

Here is who this gentlemen is.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-hires-two-former-cam...

I actually went and have look  of twitter feed, yep that twit is on the his account.  I doubt this helpful for the DEM party, this Russia thing is political tool that is being used to attack the left now.  

 

Geoff

You've got to love the Russians. They're involved in everyone's campaign. Busy, busy, busy.

NDPP

Hillary Hates Again

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/08/hillary-hates-again/

"It's Russia's fault. It's Comey's fault. It's Bernie's fault. Hillary Clinton was always a tough sell. One thing Trump got right: Hillary is 'nasty'."

josh

That Clinton might have done well to temper her technocratic style with some populist outrage of her own only dawns on her towards the end of the book, by which point it is too late.

Not to mention impossible. Hillary Clinton simply cannot escape her satisfied white-collar worldview – compulsively listing people’s academic credentials, hobnobbing with officers from Facebook and Google, and telling readers how she went to Davos in 1998 to announce her philosophy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/12/hillary-clintons-book-what-happened-clear-message

 

NDPP

US War Criminals Clinton and Obama Welcome in TO

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2017/09/08/what-happened-toronto-sp...

Because that's what vassals are for...

Mobo2000

Ug.   Wonder what the ticket prices are?

NDPP

$2400 a pop for her I'm told. I think you get a picture with that to show all your friends. Dubya explained why he couldn't refuse these tours: 'It's ridiculous money'..."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
$2400 a pop for her I'm told.

$89

Mobo2000

Looks like $3000 if you want a meet and greet and photo, $89 if you want to sit in the "Silver"
 section.     More expensive than the last Rush concert at Molson Park in Toronto.

contrarianna

$89 to $3000 at Toronto, depending on how close you want to be to her.
Surprisingly, they charge less to be farther away--$0 if you run the other way.
----
A good comparison by SOPHIA A. MCCLENNEN at Salon

New books by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton emphasize their differences
Bernie’s new book is a forward-thinking guide for the young; Hillary’s looks back at who she can blame for 2016

http://www.salon.com/2017/09/09/a-tale-of-two-leaders-of-the-left-new-bo...
-----
See also:

The Clinton Book Tour Is Largely Ignoring the Vital Role of Endless War in the 2016 Election Result

Glenn Greenwald
September 13 2017, 

....
This is not so much a critique of Klein’s specific interview (which, again, is worthwhile) as it is reflective of the broader Democratic Party desire to pretend that the foreign wars it has repeatedly prosecuted, and the endless killing of innocent people for which it is responsible, do not exist. Part of that is the discomfort of cognitive dissonance: the Democratic branding and self-glorification as enemies of privilege, racism, and violence are directly in conflict with the party’s long-standing eagerness to ignore, or even actively support, policies which kill large numbers of innocent people from Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia to Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza, but which receive scant attention because of the nationality, ethnicity, poverty, distance, and general invisibility of their victims.
....
But a major part of this minimization is a misperception of the domestic political importance of these policies. From the beginning of his candidacy through the general election, Donald Trump rhetorically positioned himself as a vehement opponent of endless war, inveighing against both parties when doing so.

Though there is now a revisionist effort underway to falsely depict those who pointed this out as being gullible believers in Trump’s dovish and antiwar credentials, the reality is that most of us who warned of the efficacy of Trump’s antiwar campaign theme made explicitly clear that there was no reason to believe Trump would actually be dovish if he were elected. Indeed, from Trump’s history of endorsing the wars he was denouncing to his calls for greater and more savage bombing to his desire to nullify the Iran deal, there was ample reasons to doubt that he would usher in dovishness of any kind. But the point was that Trump’s antiwar posturing was a politically potent approach because of how unpopular endless war and militarism have become....

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/13/the-clinton-book-tour-is-largely-ign...

 

 

Mobo2000

Great article.   To me this quote says it all so well I want to post it again.

"Democratic branding and self-glorification as enemies of privilege, racism, and violence are directly in conflict with the party’s long-standing eagerness to ignore, or even actively support, policies which kill large numbers of innocent people from Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia to Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza, but which receive scant attention because of the nationality, ethnicity, poverty, distance, and general invisibility of their victims."

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

While I agree fully with his critique of the Democratic party, I think Greenwald is mistaken when it comes to his conclusion from the Trump campaign that U.S. voters are against endless war. In my opinion, what the Trump campaign shows is that U.S. voters are against losing in endless wars. As long as they perceive that America is winning, they love war.

Mobo2000

I guess I'm more of an optimist on that front.   I think much of the public needs to be scared into supporting war, or be flattered that the war effort is for some greater good.   In my experience it's fairly rare to come across an American who believes that US foreign policy is entirely self interested, and also believes that an entirely self-interested foreign policy is a good thing for them.    It's usually couched as self defense or for the good of the people being attacked.

Here's hollywood's lastest effort to drum up more support for the new cold war:

"Red Sparrow"  trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQUBjoGm1ls

 

 

NDPP

Hillary Happened 

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/15/hillary-happened/

"So someone has ghost-written another Hillary Clinton memoir..."

contrarianna

Michael Moriarity wrote:

While I agree fully with his critique of the Democratic party, I think Greenwald is mistaken when it comes to his conclusion from the Trump campaign that U.S. voters are against endless war. In my opinion, what the Trump campaign shows is that U.S. voters are against losing in endless wars. As long as they perceive that America is winning, they love war.

I mostly agee, but Greenwald's repetition of the "endless war" theme refers to the inconclusive drain on personel and resources on wars with no win in sight. He is right to argue its lack of popularity, and Trump's deceptive and successful exploitation of that sentiment.
 Central for Clinton:

"— as a senator and especially as secretary of state — is her advocacy of multiple wars and other military actions, many, if not all, of which were rather disastrous, rendering it quite strange to spend an hour discussing why she lost without so much as mentioning any of that. "

However, Greenwald is wrong in this article in conflating anti-endless war sentiment (which I do think had inflence on the election) with any pervasive anti-militarism.

In another article, accurately, he refers to Trump's cruise missile attack on Syria in terms of the  popularity  of "new" wars:

New wars trigger the worst in people: their jingoism, their tribal loyalties, their instinct to submit to authority and leaders. The incentive scheme here is as obvious as it is frightening: great rewards await political leaders who start new wars. 

He also mistakenly overlaps the substantial anti-"endless war" sentiment with his moral distaste against military aggression and slaughter of innocents in foreign lands.

His legitmate  concern is largely met with indifference, not only from the hawks that dominate both parties but by the media and the bulk of our media-led populace--unless, of course, a designated enemy is alleged to be doing the killing, then popular moral outrage for victimized foreigners is triggered, along with the" Right to Protect" intervention excuse.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Very insightful comments, contrarianna, thanks.

jerrym

Michael Moriarity wrote:

While I agree fully with his critique of the Democratic party, I think Greenwald is mistaken when it comes to his conclusion from the Trump campaign that U.S. voters are against endless war. In my opinion, what the Trump campaign shows is that U.S. voters are against losing in endless wars. As long as they perceive that America is winning, they love war.

U.S. voters are against themselves or their children having to fight endless wars. They don't mind a volunteeer military filled with the working class and the poor fighting on even after 16 years of killing with no end in sight, as evidenced by the fact their are almost no antiwar protests unlike Vietnam when there was a draft that despite its many loopholes for the elite and educated meant some of the middle class could in end up on the battle field.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Good point, jerrym.

Aristotleded24

jerrym wrote:
Michael Moriarity wrote:

While I agree fully with his critique of the Democratic party, I think Greenwald is mistaken when it comes to his conclusion from the Trump campaign that U.S. voters are against endless war. In my opinion, what the Trump campaign shows is that U.S. voters are against losing in endless wars. As long as they perceive that America is winning, they love war.

U.S. voters are against themselves or their children having to fight endless wars. They don't mind a volunteeer military filled with the working class and the poor fighting on even after 16 years of killing with no end in sight, as evidenced by the fact their are almost no antiwar protests unlike Vietnam when there was a draft that despite its many loopholes for the elite and educated meant some of the middle class could in end up on the battle field.

The reason that there is no anti-war movement of any strength in the US right now is that in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq war, the Democratic Party co-opted the anti-war movement, to the point where people were told to support pro-war Democrats against anti-war Republicans. And as is common, when the Democrats are in power, the left tends to mute its criticism lest the Evil Republicans get in and do the exact same things that the Democrats do with nice smiles and good manners. How else do you explain liberals twisting their principles like pretzels to justify supporting the policies of George W Bush last November?

Mobo2000

"In my opinion, what the Trump campaign shows is that U.S. voters are against losing in endless wars. As long as they perceive that America is winning, they love war."

"His legitmate  concern is largely met with indifference, not only from the hawks that dominate both parties but by the media and the bulk of our media-led populace.."

I agree in part with the comments in Post 136, 138 and 140, but I think it is somewhat of a mistake to put down the weakness of the antiwar movement down to a moral failure on the part of American population.   Most people do not care much about things that do not affect them personally, and even less about things that don't affect them that they think they cannot control.  

The American population has been the subject of a mass media experiment since mass communications technologies were invented.   The public relations industry was born and has been perfected in the US, and the US military intelligence industrial complex, and it media, is the most sophisticated, well funded and successful machine for thought control in the world.    The Pentagon got to learn the art of propaganda post WWII, and now have over 70 years of institution knowledge and expertise.

But you can see by the way war is conducted now that basic human empathy still remains an obstacle for US foreign policy.   No draft.   Extensive reliance on airpower, and now drones.   No images of US victims in US media.   All aggressive acts by the US are described in US media as self-defense or magnanimous defences of the defenceless.    Extensive Hollywood media narratives about the civilizing role of the US in the world, and the awful savagry of whatever the enemy of the day is.   And it is now more difficult for the US to actually put US troops somewhere than in the 70's to the 90's.

I believe the antiwar sentiment in the US could be turned on in an instant, if we lived in a world where the cameras on the ends of US missiles were feeding directly into US televisions. 

 

 

Pages