AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Any further postings unrelated to the thread will be deleted.
MoD
MoD
|
|
|
Who would you like to see win the 2016 US election?
- Thread starter wild goose chase
- Start date
- Status
ksun
Senior Member
Duly noted and I apologize.
I will rephrase: I dislike her because she is a greedy, corrupted hypocrite who is completely bought by the major corporations. Her experience as the US secretary of state is a complete failure. She flew literally millions of miles to meddle in affairs in Middle East and Asia, and achieved nothing. Nada. Completely waste of taxpayers money. And she knows little, or cares little about domestic affairs. Her greatest selling point seems to be her gender (I don't know why many think "it is time for the US to have a female president" as if gender should matter) and her supposedly friendliness to the LGBT (ironically only several years ago she was opposed to sex same marriage but for political gains she became a gay icon overnight!).
I will pick Trump over her any day and this is how much I despise her. With Hilary Clinton, the US will remain the same cliché as ever. I would rather risk having Trump with his braggadocio. At least he is honest.
ADRM
Senior Member
Those are facsimile arguments of nearly every (usually right wing but not always) Hillary Clinton basher, and most of them don't stand up to even a cursory objective analysis of reality.
1. "Greedy", "Bought by the major corporations", "Corrupt"
- How is she greedy? Because she's wealthy? Punishing people for being financially successful is so childish it's not even worth responding to. Because she accepted speaking fees from Wall St. banks (that's perhaps the most common one)? That represents a problematic double standard; there's a very long list of individuals in this world (including current and former Canadian politicians) who aren't ever popularly characterized as being greedy or "bought" despite having accepted speaking or conference fees from investment banks and other financial institutions. It's also worth noting that the Clintons have spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars of their own personal money on political campaigns; they didn't create the horrendous system of campaign finance that exists in America, yet have been willing to spend massive amounts of their own money to operate within it.
Does having accepted money from financial institutions lessen Secretary Clinton's ability to impose common sense financial regulation reform? We'll see what policies she winds up enacting as president but, for now, all we have to go on are the policies she supports (and the same must be said of any non-incumbent politician on the campaign trail), which include promises to:
> Veto Republican-led efforts to reverse or repeal parts or all of Dodd-Frank legislation (some of the most stringent financial sector regulation in the Western world)
> Enact risk fees on large financial institutions corresponding to the size and risk of particular firms
> Address the Volcker Rule's hedge fund loophole, which is intended to curb banks' speculation using customers' money
> Introduce banker bonus pay docking rules that would restrict executives' pay when their firms perform poorly
> Institute a tax on high frequency trading
Here's a direct quote from Clinton: “Our banking system is still too complex and too risky … While institutions have paid large fines and in some cases admitted guilt, too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with limited consequences – or none at all, even when they’ve already pocketed the gains. This is wrong, and on my watch, it will change.”
Is she just coming to this now because it's politically convenient? No. As a Senator, before the financial crisis, Clinton called for increased regulation of the subprime mortgage market. In the aftermath of the crisis, she lobbied Congress to more stringently regulate the shadow banking system and high-risk derivative financial instruments, curb executive pay, and close tax loopholes often used by those who work in the financial sector.
Despite Bernie Sanders' tough talk on "big, greedy, Wall St. banks and a rigged financial system", there's a decent academic argument to be made that the Secretary has outflanked Bernie on Wall St. reform. Doesn't sound very bought or greedy to me.
I could go on about this one issue alone, but I'll just rest here (I do have to get back to work at some point) and assume that there aren't actually any valid, fact-based counterpoints to any of these in the place of lazy, tired, rote, arguments likely based on seeing a few people write some angry stuff on Twitter or say it on Fox News (or similar).
2. "Her experience as Secretary of State was a complete failure."
> First off, regarding "She flew literally millions of miles to meddle in affairs in Middle East and Asia", that is quite literally and specifically the job of a US Secretary of State. That's like complaining because a garbage collector is collecting garbage on your street.
> Now, it would of course be silly to suggest that Clinton's stint at the State Department was a blissful, easy ride. But it's unreasonable expect that of the tenure of top diplomat of the most powerful country in the world, and one can point to failures of any previous Secretary of State. What's more, it is the very nature of the job that it is likely that there were crises deftly handled or averted that the general public will never hear about. As such, it's impossible to fully assess the tenure of a Secretary of State, Democrat or Republican. Still, we try, of course, although very often when we do, we forget that Secretaries of State do not control foreign policy; presidents do. As such, we can't blame Clinton for Syria (Obama didn't agree with her position), Afghanistan or Pakistan (Obama didn't get on board with her recommendation to pursue Richard Holbrooke's recommendations), and so on. Libya and Egypt wound up being disasters, yes, but it's horribly reductionist to suggest that she should be held solely or even largely accountable for each.
On the plus side, we can credit her for helping democratic forces take root in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Russia, and China, vis a vis her efforts to expand technological connectivity to pro-democracy influencers, and technology infrastructure networks that were harder for authoritarian regimes to curtail the use of during information crackdowns. Clinton was a forceful voice in convincing the President to attack Osama bin Laden's compound. She was influential in establishing the US pivot to Asia to serve, in part, as a counterbalance to a reinvigorated and ascendent China. She advocated for the re-engagement in diplomacy with Russia, which paved the way for US-Russia cooperation that was essential to negotiating the Iran nuclear deal. She engineered a forceful outreach to Myanmar, which helped lead to political reforms that are still accelerating today. She initiated the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, which moved US foreign policy on global food shortage from reactive and emergency-based, to a proactive, always-on approach, delivering need wherever it currently exists. And so on.
Now, if you have the Benghazi email non-controversy in mind, don't even start—if that's the case, you should just return to the Fox News message boards.
3. "She knows little...about domestic affairs"
> In the slew of ridiculous comments, this is actually perhaps the most ludicrous (and that's a real race to the bottom). People across the political spectrum—allies and enemies, alike—pretty roundly accept that Clinton is about as well versed in policymaking as anyone to have recently sought higher office in the US. Many of her allies anonymously concede that the Secretary would be much better served if she was less of a policy wonk and more of a surface-flashy politician. I'm personally glad that's not the case.
4. "Her greatest selling point seems to be her gender"
>Despite challenging the accusations of sexism previously levied at you on this thread, and then finally apologizing, you've again resorted to very thinly veiled gender-based criticism. Whether unintentional or deliberate, it's still wrong, and you need to check yourself. You may claim, as many like you do, that I am simply "doing the liberal/lefty thing" whereby we characterize any attack on a public figure who is either female or a member of a visible minority as emanating from a racist, sexist, or otherwise ignorant place. That is not the case. You have given the very impetus for me to criticize you, yet again, for being sexist, by claiming that a woman who is a Yale-educated lawyer and two-term US Senator, Secretary of State, two-time US presidential candidate, First Lady of the US (and Arkansas), and soon-to-be presumptive nominee for President of the United States has achieved "nothing."
The final point I'll disagree with, this one without facts (to take a page out of your book) only because it's entirely un-provable and subjective, is to say that yes, of course it matters that she is a female. One doesn't have to resort to the inspiration-based argument; she's made real progress in this regard, including her support of women's empowerment projects such as the "No Ceilings" and "Women in Public Service" initiatives or her repeated attendance as a keynote speaker at women's rights conferences all over the world, including in places where generally abhorrent treatment of women is far too common (despite the diplomatic issues that advocacy may have caused).
Why do many people think that, as you say, "it is time for the US to have a female president"? Because there's never been one, despite women having made up roughly 50% of the US population since its inception. 44 US presidents, hundreds of millions of women in US history, zero female presidents. Really think that's just by chance? Really think that's not a historical injustice that shouldn't be rectified?
P.S. For those of you more thoughtful bystanders wondering why I spend the time to refute all this dribble, there are really two main reasons: 1) I enjoy thoughtful, critical debate, and loathe the opposite, and I think it's good practice (and good fun) to partake in careful and logical refutations of either; and 2) On any particular issue, if just a single fence sitter reads something I write and changes his or her mind or even just thinks differently about something for a minute, I'm happy to have contributed to that slightly expanded realm of thought in some small way. So, as my work days, patience, and blood pressure allow, you'll probably continue to find me doing the same from time to time. I'll work on making them shorter in the future.
1. "Greedy", "Bought by the major corporations", "Corrupt"
- How is she greedy? Because she's wealthy? Punishing people for being financially successful is so childish it's not even worth responding to. Because she accepted speaking fees from Wall St. banks (that's perhaps the most common one)? That represents a problematic double standard; there's a very long list of individuals in this world (including current and former Canadian politicians) who aren't ever popularly characterized as being greedy or "bought" despite having accepted speaking or conference fees from investment banks and other financial institutions. It's also worth noting that the Clintons have spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars of their own personal money on political campaigns; they didn't create the horrendous system of campaign finance that exists in America, yet have been willing to spend massive amounts of their own money to operate within it.
Does having accepted money from financial institutions lessen Secretary Clinton's ability to impose common sense financial regulation reform? We'll see what policies she winds up enacting as president but, for now, all we have to go on are the policies she supports (and the same must be said of any non-incumbent politician on the campaign trail), which include promises to:
> Veto Republican-led efforts to reverse or repeal parts or all of Dodd-Frank legislation (some of the most stringent financial sector regulation in the Western world)
> Enact risk fees on large financial institutions corresponding to the size and risk of particular firms
> Address the Volcker Rule's hedge fund loophole, which is intended to curb banks' speculation using customers' money
> Introduce banker bonus pay docking rules that would restrict executives' pay when their firms perform poorly
> Institute a tax on high frequency trading
Here's a direct quote from Clinton: “Our banking system is still too complex and too risky … While institutions have paid large fines and in some cases admitted guilt, too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with limited consequences – or none at all, even when they’ve already pocketed the gains. This is wrong, and on my watch, it will change.”
Is she just coming to this now because it's politically convenient? No. As a Senator, before the financial crisis, Clinton called for increased regulation of the subprime mortgage market. In the aftermath of the crisis, she lobbied Congress to more stringently regulate the shadow banking system and high-risk derivative financial instruments, curb executive pay, and close tax loopholes often used by those who work in the financial sector.
Despite Bernie Sanders' tough talk on "big, greedy, Wall St. banks and a rigged financial system", there's a decent academic argument to be made that the Secretary has outflanked Bernie on Wall St. reform. Doesn't sound very bought or greedy to me.
I could go on about this one issue alone, but I'll just rest here (I do have to get back to work at some point) and assume that there aren't actually any valid, fact-based counterpoints to any of these in the place of lazy, tired, rote, arguments likely based on seeing a few people write some angry stuff on Twitter or say it on Fox News (or similar).
2. "Her experience as Secretary of State was a complete failure."
> First off, regarding "She flew literally millions of miles to meddle in affairs in Middle East and Asia", that is quite literally and specifically the job of a US Secretary of State. That's like complaining because a garbage collector is collecting garbage on your street.
> Now, it would of course be silly to suggest that Clinton's stint at the State Department was a blissful, easy ride. But it's unreasonable expect that of the tenure of top diplomat of the most powerful country in the world, and one can point to failures of any previous Secretary of State. What's more, it is the very nature of the job that it is likely that there were crises deftly handled or averted that the general public will never hear about. As such, it's impossible to fully assess the tenure of a Secretary of State, Democrat or Republican. Still, we try, of course, although very often when we do, we forget that Secretaries of State do not control foreign policy; presidents do. As such, we can't blame Clinton for Syria (Obama didn't agree with her position), Afghanistan or Pakistan (Obama didn't get on board with her recommendation to pursue Richard Holbrooke's recommendations), and so on. Libya and Egypt wound up being disasters, yes, but it's horribly reductionist to suggest that she should be held solely or even largely accountable for each.
On the plus side, we can credit her for helping democratic forces take root in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Russia, and China, vis a vis her efforts to expand technological connectivity to pro-democracy influencers, and technology infrastructure networks that were harder for authoritarian regimes to curtail the use of during information crackdowns. Clinton was a forceful voice in convincing the President to attack Osama bin Laden's compound. She was influential in establishing the US pivot to Asia to serve, in part, as a counterbalance to a reinvigorated and ascendent China. She advocated for the re-engagement in diplomacy with Russia, which paved the way for US-Russia cooperation that was essential to negotiating the Iran nuclear deal. She engineered a forceful outreach to Myanmar, which helped lead to political reforms that are still accelerating today. She initiated the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, which moved US foreign policy on global food shortage from reactive and emergency-based, to a proactive, always-on approach, delivering need wherever it currently exists. And so on.
Now, if you have the Benghazi email non-controversy in mind, don't even start—if that's the case, you should just return to the Fox News message boards.
3. "She knows little...about domestic affairs"
> In the slew of ridiculous comments, this is actually perhaps the most ludicrous (and that's a real race to the bottom). People across the political spectrum—allies and enemies, alike—pretty roundly accept that Clinton is about as well versed in policymaking as anyone to have recently sought higher office in the US. Many of her allies anonymously concede that the Secretary would be much better served if she was less of a policy wonk and more of a surface-flashy politician. I'm personally glad that's not the case.
4. "Her greatest selling point seems to be her gender"
>Despite challenging the accusations of sexism previously levied at you on this thread, and then finally apologizing, you've again resorted to very thinly veiled gender-based criticism. Whether unintentional or deliberate, it's still wrong, and you need to check yourself. You may claim, as many like you do, that I am simply "doing the liberal/lefty thing" whereby we characterize any attack on a public figure who is either female or a member of a visible minority as emanating from a racist, sexist, or otherwise ignorant place. That is not the case. You have given the very impetus for me to criticize you, yet again, for being sexist, by claiming that a woman who is a Yale-educated lawyer and two-term US Senator, Secretary of State, two-time US presidential candidate, First Lady of the US (and Arkansas), and soon-to-be presumptive nominee for President of the United States has achieved "nothing."
The final point I'll disagree with, this one without facts (to take a page out of your book) only because it's entirely un-provable and subjective, is to say that yes, of course it matters that she is a female. One doesn't have to resort to the inspiration-based argument; she's made real progress in this regard, including her support of women's empowerment projects such as the "No Ceilings" and "Women in Public Service" initiatives or her repeated attendance as a keynote speaker at women's rights conferences all over the world, including in places where generally abhorrent treatment of women is far too common (despite the diplomatic issues that advocacy may have caused).
Why do many people think that, as you say, "it is time for the US to have a female president"? Because there's never been one, despite women having made up roughly 50% of the US population since its inception. 44 US presidents, hundreds of millions of women in US history, zero female presidents. Really think that's just by chance? Really think that's not a historical injustice that shouldn't be rectified?
P.S. For those of you more thoughtful bystanders wondering why I spend the time to refute all this dribble, there are really two main reasons: 1) I enjoy thoughtful, critical debate, and loathe the opposite, and I think it's good practice (and good fun) to partake in careful and logical refutations of either; and 2) On any particular issue, if just a single fence sitter reads something I write and changes his or her mind or even just thinks differently about something for a minute, I'm happy to have contributed to that slightly expanded realm of thought in some small way. So, as my work days, patience, and blood pressure allow, you'll probably continue to find me doing the same from time to time. I'll work on making them shorter in the future.
typezed
Active Member
At times I have been perversely cheering inside for Trump. Not my country, not my responsibility, I'm just rubber-necking the pileup. That country couldn't even change the laws concerning assault rifles in the smallest way when 20 something 5 year olds were murdered; it's broken already. People would have rather seen religious zealots and true believer conservatives like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio with a chance to be president? Once Trump was far ahead I wanted to see him challenged because I was looking forward to the Republicans blowing up nuclear at their contested convention.
And at some level Trump seems like what the American political establishment deserves for acting like royal courts to the Bush and Clinton families. (It is probably time for a female leader, but electing the wife of a former president isn't advancing anywhere past all sorts of far from progressive third-world places like Pakistan or the Philippines, who have elected wives or sisters or daughters of beloved former leaders.)
Mostly any sympathy I've had for Trump comes from a long-held belief that he was going to do much better than all the experts were predicting. And I like to be proven right, even if I'm only keeping score in my own head. Like many people on this forum, I suffered from obsessive interest in the times of Rob Ford. Like Trump, he was a viewed as a clown and an outsider who would quickly burn out. If I remember correctly, he received little support from fellow right councillors. But once he gained power they all quickly scurried to him, looking to be favoured, wanting to be behind, not before, the bully. Even the provincial Liberals, wary of his power in the burbs, bent to him on things like the Scarborough subway. And Stephen Harper came grovelling right up until the last moments of the Federal election. I believed all along that the same dynamic that brought us Rob Ford would benefit Donald Trump. And remember, a conspiracy loving ex-wrestler and a bodybuilder/action movie star were already elected governors in the U.S., in states that I believe are thought to be relatively progressive. And a B-movie actor president. So who knows going forward. I still believe Trump has a better chance than experts are giving him. Hillary has many flaws, and the fight will be full-on biting, scratching and kicking. I will always remember how far my jaw dropped on seeing the first returns from Ford-Smitherman-Pantelone. Maybe democracy has always been screwed, but it seems especially screwed in an age of celebrity, constant media, and growing economic disparity.
And at some level Trump seems like what the American political establishment deserves for acting like royal courts to the Bush and Clinton families. (It is probably time for a female leader, but electing the wife of a former president isn't advancing anywhere past all sorts of far from progressive third-world places like Pakistan or the Philippines, who have elected wives or sisters or daughters of beloved former leaders.)
Mostly any sympathy I've had for Trump comes from a long-held belief that he was going to do much better than all the experts were predicting. And I like to be proven right, even if I'm only keeping score in my own head. Like many people on this forum, I suffered from obsessive interest in the times of Rob Ford. Like Trump, he was a viewed as a clown and an outsider who would quickly burn out. If I remember correctly, he received little support from fellow right councillors. But once he gained power they all quickly scurried to him, looking to be favoured, wanting to be behind, not before, the bully. Even the provincial Liberals, wary of his power in the burbs, bent to him on things like the Scarborough subway. And Stephen Harper came grovelling right up until the last moments of the Federal election. I believed all along that the same dynamic that brought us Rob Ford would benefit Donald Trump. And remember, a conspiracy loving ex-wrestler and a bodybuilder/action movie star were already elected governors in the U.S., in states that I believe are thought to be relatively progressive. And a B-movie actor president. So who knows going forward. I still believe Trump has a better chance than experts are giving him. Hillary has many flaws, and the fight will be full-on biting, scratching and kicking. I will always remember how far my jaw dropped on seeing the first returns from Ford-Smitherman-Pantelone. Maybe democracy has always been screwed, but it seems especially screwed in an age of celebrity, constant media, and growing economic disparity.
ksun
Senior Member
ADRM, it is OK that you support her and don't agree with me, but so far you haven't pointed out a single important achievement Clinton made during her supposedly successful career in either foreign or domestic policies that made the world a better place, except that it is a tough job and that many think she is "well versed".
"Successfully convincing the president to establish the US pivot to Asia to serve as a counterbalance to a reinvigorated and ascendent China"? Curiously, why China's ascendance in Asia, which is far from the US and its core interest, needs to be "counter-balanced" in the first place? Should China counter balance US's influence in Canada or Latin America? Would that be considered China's achievement if that happens? This is simply horrible policy advice and will prove to be completely futile.
" Helping democratic forces take root in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Russia, and China, vis a vis her efforts to expand technological connectivity to pro-democracy influencers", you mean stick its nose where it doesn't belong? To foster all sorts of anti-government forces that serve to destabilise those countries which the US doesn't like? Great move. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, did people's lives dramatically improved under the US imposed "freedom"? Look at Syria, how did that work out? It is exactly such policies that give the US a bad reputation in the world.
By the way, did she advise the president to eavesdrop Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Dilma Rousseff? Should put that on her resume as well.
"Clinton called for increased regulation of the subprime mortgage market" - Come on, even an unimportant mortgage broker in suburban California needs that needs to be regulated. Bank managers at Lehman brothers know that. Even my ex-boss in Hong Kong knew it was out of control back in 2004. How is that her achievement? Unfortunately her husband is largely responsible for the huge mess that fell on Obama.
As to her current promises, since when we are naïve enough to believe in political promises? For the banks, she is not going to bite the hand that feeds her and that's for sure.
As to her gender, I made it very clear that gender should play any role in this. If one doesn't want to be discriminated based on sex, then she shouldn't expect to be given preferential consideration based on sex either, so the fact the US never had a female president should bear zero significant on the election. If she is elected eventually, that should be solely because she is the best candidate for the job, and nothing else. That's what I call equal. To treat women better BECAUSE of their sex is still sexist.
"Successfully convincing the president to establish the US pivot to Asia to serve as a counterbalance to a reinvigorated and ascendent China"? Curiously, why China's ascendance in Asia, which is far from the US and its core interest, needs to be "counter-balanced" in the first place? Should China counter balance US's influence in Canada or Latin America? Would that be considered China's achievement if that happens? This is simply horrible policy advice and will prove to be completely futile.
" Helping democratic forces take root in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Russia, and China, vis a vis her efforts to expand technological connectivity to pro-democracy influencers", you mean stick its nose where it doesn't belong? To foster all sorts of anti-government forces that serve to destabilise those countries which the US doesn't like? Great move. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, did people's lives dramatically improved under the US imposed "freedom"? Look at Syria, how did that work out? It is exactly such policies that give the US a bad reputation in the world.
By the way, did she advise the president to eavesdrop Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Dilma Rousseff? Should put that on her resume as well.
"Clinton called for increased regulation of the subprime mortgage market" - Come on, even an unimportant mortgage broker in suburban California needs that needs to be regulated. Bank managers at Lehman brothers know that. Even my ex-boss in Hong Kong knew it was out of control back in 2004. How is that her achievement? Unfortunately her husband is largely responsible for the huge mess that fell on Obama.
As to her current promises, since when we are naïve enough to believe in political promises? For the banks, she is not going to bite the hand that feeds her and that's for sure.
As to her gender, I made it very clear that gender should play any role in this. If one doesn't want to be discriminated based on sex, then she shouldn't expect to be given preferential consideration based on sex either, so the fact the US never had a female president should bear zero significant on the election. If she is elected eventually, that should be solely because she is the best candidate for the job, and nothing else. That's what I call equal. To treat women better BECAUSE of their sex is still sexist.
ADRM
Senior Member
ksun, I sense you're being deliberately obtuse, at this point; I provided a litany achievements of Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. Copying and pasting from my previous post:
"On the plus side, we can credit her for helping democratic forces take root in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Russia, and China, vis a vis her efforts to expand technological connectivity to pro-democracy influencers, and technology infrastructure networks that were harder for authoritarian regimes to curtail the use of during information crackdowns. Clinton was a forceful voice in convincing the President to attack Osama bin Laden's compound. She was influential in establishing the US pivot to Asia to serve, in part, as a counterbalance to a reinvigorated and ascendent China. She advocated for the re-engagement in diplomacy with Russia, which paved the way for US-Russia cooperation that was essential to negotiating the Iran nuclear deal. She engineered a forceful outreach to Myanmar, which helped lead to political reforms that are still accelerating today. She initiated the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, which moved US foreign policy on global food shortage from reactive and emergency-based, to a proactive, always-on approach, delivering need wherever it currently exists. And so on."
And for her time as a senator, she didn't pass any policy because that's not what individual senators do; at least a majority of 100 senators and 435 Congressmen and Congresswomen pass legislation.
Taking your new attempts, one-by-one:
1. "'Successfully convincing the president to establish the US pivot to Asia to serve as a counterbalance to a reinvigorated and ascendent China'? Curiously, why China's ascendance in Asia, which is far from the US and its core interest, needs to be "counter-balanced" in the first place?"
- There are simply no rational grounds on which suggest relations with China are not close to the core interests of the US. To name just a few easy ones: China, by some measures, is now the US' largest trading partner. It has a massive military that has recently seen significant modernization. In almost every year for two decades, it has increased military spending by double digit percentages, and is now the second-biggest military spender in the world. It has significantly increased its assertiveness in international diplomacy and foreign affairs, perhaps most notably in the South China Sea, in forceful opposition to the claims of other countries to which the US is bound to support be treaty, history, or both. It is the largest non-US holder of both US debt and US dollars. It is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gasses. It has a vital role to play in the containment of nuclear weapons aggression in North Korea. And so on and so on.
"Should China counter balance US's influence in Canada or Latin America? Would that be considered China's achievement if that happens? This is simply horrible policy advice and will prove to be completely futile.""
- China has attempted to do exactly that in Canada, Latin America, Africa, South Asia, and beyond. Significantly. I'm not passing judgment on whether that's good or bad, but it is a simple fact it has. And if I were advising Chinese leaders, I would recommend that they do exactly that—diversification and the broadening of hard, soft, and economic power is wise if you desire your country to possess more clout on the global stage.
2. "Helping democratic forces take root in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Russia, and China, vis a vis her efforts to expand technological connectivity to pro-democracy influencers", you mean stick its nose where it doesn't belong? To foster all sorts of anti-government forces that serve to destabilise those countries which the US doesn't like? Great move. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, did people's lives dramatically improved under the US imposed "freedom"? Look at Syria, how did that work out? It is exactly such policies that give the US a bad reputation in the world."
- "Stick its nose where it doesn't belong?" The philosophy underpinning that statement represents a laughably unintelligent view of the world and of history. Should the Allies not have "stuck their noses" in the business of Nazi Germany? Would Tunisians who were executed by their deposed government have possibly disagreed with your assertion that they'd rather not have been helped by foreign interests before they were executed? What a ridiculous notion that there are no grounds on which to lend a hand to people in need. For the other countries you mentioned, Hillary Clinton was neither Secretary of State nor President during the decisions to invade Iraq or Afghanistan, and President Obama disagreed with Secretary Clinton's advice on Syria and the policies she recommended were not pursued.
3. "By the way, did she advise the president to eavesdrop Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Dilma Rousseff? Should put that on her resume as well."
- The State Department and the NSA are two different organizations, and the Secretary of State has no purview over the NSA, which administered the surveillance program to which you refer. She has repeatedly identified the need for increased transparency at the NSA.
4. "'Clinton called for increased regulation of the subprime mortgage market' - Come on, even an unimportant mortgage broker in suburban California needs that needs to be regulated. Bank managers at Lehman brothers know that. Even my ex-boss in Hong Kong knew it was out of control back in 2004. How is that her achievement? Unfortunately her husband is largely responsible for the huge mess that fell on Obama."
- I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here. You asserted that Hillary Clinton was corrupt and "bought" by Wall St. banks and I refuted that baseless accusation on the grounds that, as a sitting US Senator, she advocated for regulation that was vehemently opposed by many of those on Wall St.
Oh, and Secretary Clinton is not her husband and in no way bears responsibility for any of the policies he pursued or enacted.
5. "As to her current promises, since when we are naïve enough to believe in political promises? For the banks, she is not going to bite the hand that feeds her and that's for sure."
- To the bank comment, again, I refuted that clearly in my last post, and you haven't provided a shred of fact- or logic-based retort to any of it; you've just repeated the same assertion using slightly different language without justifying or corroborating it in any other way.
Now, is it healthy to approach the claims made by any politicians with a degree of skepticism? Sure—I agree that that's vital to a well functioning democracy with critical commentary. But we have to apply that same lens to every politician, whether Hillary Clinton or anyone else. This is a discussion about the next US presidential election, and of the two likely presumptive nominees for president, I think I'll bet the house on Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness over that of Donald Trump, thank you very much.
6. As to her gender, I made it very clear that gender should not play any role in this. If one doesn't want to be discriminated based on sex, then she shouldn't expect to be given preferential consideration based on sex either, so the fact the US never had a female president should bear zero significant on the election. If she is elected eventually, that should be solely because she is the best candidate for the job, and nothing else. That's what I call equal. To treat women better BECAUSE of their sex is still sexist.
- Good God, pal. Where to start? "To treat women better BECAUSE of their sex is still sexist"? Honestly, I can't really bring myself to refute that without profanity or without more vociferously attacking your character or intellect, so I'm just going to leave it here.
"On the plus side, we can credit her for helping democratic forces take root in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Russia, and China, vis a vis her efforts to expand technological connectivity to pro-democracy influencers, and technology infrastructure networks that were harder for authoritarian regimes to curtail the use of during information crackdowns. Clinton was a forceful voice in convincing the President to attack Osama bin Laden's compound. She was influential in establishing the US pivot to Asia to serve, in part, as a counterbalance to a reinvigorated and ascendent China. She advocated for the re-engagement in diplomacy with Russia, which paved the way for US-Russia cooperation that was essential to negotiating the Iran nuclear deal. She engineered a forceful outreach to Myanmar, which helped lead to political reforms that are still accelerating today. She initiated the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, which moved US foreign policy on global food shortage from reactive and emergency-based, to a proactive, always-on approach, delivering need wherever it currently exists. And so on."
And for her time as a senator, she didn't pass any policy because that's not what individual senators do; at least a majority of 100 senators and 435 Congressmen and Congresswomen pass legislation.
Taking your new attempts, one-by-one:
1. "'Successfully convincing the president to establish the US pivot to Asia to serve as a counterbalance to a reinvigorated and ascendent China'? Curiously, why China's ascendance in Asia, which is far from the US and its core interest, needs to be "counter-balanced" in the first place?"
- There are simply no rational grounds on which suggest relations with China are not close to the core interests of the US. To name just a few easy ones: China, by some measures, is now the US' largest trading partner. It has a massive military that has recently seen significant modernization. In almost every year for two decades, it has increased military spending by double digit percentages, and is now the second-biggest military spender in the world. It has significantly increased its assertiveness in international diplomacy and foreign affairs, perhaps most notably in the South China Sea, in forceful opposition to the claims of other countries to which the US is bound to support be treaty, history, or both. It is the largest non-US holder of both US debt and US dollars. It is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gasses. It has a vital role to play in the containment of nuclear weapons aggression in North Korea. And so on and so on.
"Should China counter balance US's influence in Canada or Latin America? Would that be considered China's achievement if that happens? This is simply horrible policy advice and will prove to be completely futile.""
- China has attempted to do exactly that in Canada, Latin America, Africa, South Asia, and beyond. Significantly. I'm not passing judgment on whether that's good or bad, but it is a simple fact it has. And if I were advising Chinese leaders, I would recommend that they do exactly that—diversification and the broadening of hard, soft, and economic power is wise if you desire your country to possess more clout on the global stage.
2. "Helping democratic forces take root in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Russia, and China, vis a vis her efforts to expand technological connectivity to pro-democracy influencers", you mean stick its nose where it doesn't belong? To foster all sorts of anti-government forces that serve to destabilise those countries which the US doesn't like? Great move. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, did people's lives dramatically improved under the US imposed "freedom"? Look at Syria, how did that work out? It is exactly such policies that give the US a bad reputation in the world."
- "Stick its nose where it doesn't belong?" The philosophy underpinning that statement represents a laughably unintelligent view of the world and of history. Should the Allies not have "stuck their noses" in the business of Nazi Germany? Would Tunisians who were executed by their deposed government have possibly disagreed with your assertion that they'd rather not have been helped by foreign interests before they were executed? What a ridiculous notion that there are no grounds on which to lend a hand to people in need. For the other countries you mentioned, Hillary Clinton was neither Secretary of State nor President during the decisions to invade Iraq or Afghanistan, and President Obama disagreed with Secretary Clinton's advice on Syria and the policies she recommended were not pursued.
3. "By the way, did she advise the president to eavesdrop Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Dilma Rousseff? Should put that on her resume as well."
- The State Department and the NSA are two different organizations, and the Secretary of State has no purview over the NSA, which administered the surveillance program to which you refer. She has repeatedly identified the need for increased transparency at the NSA.
4. "'Clinton called for increased regulation of the subprime mortgage market' - Come on, even an unimportant mortgage broker in suburban California needs that needs to be regulated. Bank managers at Lehman brothers know that. Even my ex-boss in Hong Kong knew it was out of control back in 2004. How is that her achievement? Unfortunately her husband is largely responsible for the huge mess that fell on Obama."
- I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here. You asserted that Hillary Clinton was corrupt and "bought" by Wall St. banks and I refuted that baseless accusation on the grounds that, as a sitting US Senator, she advocated for regulation that was vehemently opposed by many of those on Wall St.
Oh, and Secretary Clinton is not her husband and in no way bears responsibility for any of the policies he pursued or enacted.
5. "As to her current promises, since when we are naïve enough to believe in political promises? For the banks, she is not going to bite the hand that feeds her and that's for sure."
- To the bank comment, again, I refuted that clearly in my last post, and you haven't provided a shred of fact- or logic-based retort to any of it; you've just repeated the same assertion using slightly different language without justifying or corroborating it in any other way.
Now, is it healthy to approach the claims made by any politicians with a degree of skepticism? Sure—I agree that that's vital to a well functioning democracy with critical commentary. But we have to apply that same lens to every politician, whether Hillary Clinton or anyone else. This is a discussion about the next US presidential election, and of the two likely presumptive nominees for president, I think I'll bet the house on Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness over that of Donald Trump, thank you very much.
6. As to her gender, I made it very clear that gender should not play any role in this. If one doesn't want to be discriminated based on sex, then she shouldn't expect to be given preferential consideration based on sex either, so the fact the US never had a female president should bear zero significant on the election. If she is elected eventually, that should be solely because she is the best candidate for the job, and nothing else. That's what I call equal. To treat women better BECAUSE of their sex is still sexist.
- Good God, pal. Where to start? "To treat women better BECAUSE of their sex is still sexist"? Honestly, I can't really bring myself to refute that without profanity or without more vociferously attacking your character or intellect, so I'm just going to leave it here.
wild goose chase
Active Member
Apparently, Bernie Sanders is leaving open the possibility of, if he doesn't get the nomination, accepting being Hillary Clinton's running mate.
Not sure if this has a high probability of happening or not, but perhaps if it does, it could be interesting.
Not sure if this has a high probability of happening or not, but perhaps if it does, it could be interesting.
Jessica87
New Member
Honestly I'm recently a naturalized American citizen and if it comes down to Clinton vs. Trump, I'm voting Trump. Clinton's run as secretary of state has been a disaster: Benghazi, the entire destabilization of the Middle East, the email scandal, flip flopping on everything pretty much.
I never considered myself "right wing" and I'm not the stereotypical Republican demographic. My cousin, who is my best friend, is lesbian and I haven't dated a white guy since undergrad (my boyfriend is black) so I'm not the typical racist homophobic white caricature you would think of when voting Republican. That's how bad Hilary Clinton is.
I never considered myself "right wing" and I'm not the stereotypical Republican demographic. My cousin, who is my best friend, is lesbian and I haven't dated a white guy since undergrad (my boyfriend is black) so I'm not the typical racist homophobic white caricature you would think of when voting Republican. That's how bad Hilary Clinton is.
Jessica87
New Member
Re the bitch comment
From lurking, I've noticed that the great majority of posters on this forum are men so I thought I would share a female perspective. If a guy or a girl calls another girl a bitch, I don't find that comment sexist at all. I mean if it's directed towards Hilary Clinton then I would assume that the guy doesn't like her but that doesn't mean he hates all women. I've lived for a while in Toronto and now I'm in Chicago and I've never heard the word bitch being used as an insult for women in general. It's a swear word yes but not an anti-women word lol.
From lurking, I've noticed that the great majority of posters on this forum are men so I thought I would share a female perspective. If a guy or a girl calls another girl a bitch, I don't find that comment sexist at all. I mean if it's directed towards Hilary Clinton then I would assume that the guy doesn't like her but that doesn't mean he hates all women. I've lived for a while in Toronto and now I'm in Chicago and I've never heard the word bitch being used as an insult for women in general. It's a swear word yes but not an anti-women word lol.
Mislav
New Member
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL re-engagement diplomacy with Russia? The relations with Russia are now the worst than they've been since the cold war. Great accomplishment!
Re: Benghazi, it's not just Fox News that reported it! But then again the best way to refute what somebody says is by saying his sources are invalid. I guess only the Star is a valid source? If you're going to get worked up about this like a left wing extremist, why not support Bernie Sanders? At least he's consistent and doesn't flip flop.
Mislav
New Member
Oh wow! My posts got deleted (and they weren't even offensive) and I can't even PM the Admins or moderators! Classy!
Videodrome
Senior Member
In exit polls for primaries, Trump did well among self described moderates, so you aren't alone. Cruz got most of the ultra-conservative vote.
ADRM
Senior Member
The quality of conversation on this thread is perhaps the lowest of any I've seen on this forum (though I've deliberately avoided any of the Rob Ford threads). Is there no one out there in this community who wants to engage in a rational, fact-based discussion about the election?
"Benghazi" and "the email scandal" are the same thing. And it's not a thing; it's just become a catch phrase for conservatives who hate Hillary and has no basis in reality. It's the peak of absurdity that it remains in the national (and, in this case, international) discourse. It's even sillier to chalk up "the entire destabilization of the Middle East" to one person; if that's an actual claim being levied, and not just someone looking engaging in a bit of hyperbole or looking to stoke the fire, there's really no point in this thread continuing.
Also, to those who casually suggest supporting Trump because they have some sort of personal distaste for Secretary Clinton, remember that you are supporting someone who has:
> Pledged to ban Muslims from entering the country (it's sort of wonderfully ironic, in a very morose sense, that the new mayor of one of the most important cities in the world would be barred entry under Trump's policy)
> Repeatedly engaged in blatant misogyny, including blaming a critical news anchor's line of questioning on the stage of her menstrual cycle
> Cheated and scammed thousands of would-be students through Trump University
> Started a discussion of his penis size during a Republican candidates debate
> Been bankrupt on multiple occasions and has overseen a investments that haven't beaten the S&P 500 over the course of his adult life
> Called Mexican immigrants rapists and drug runners
> Advocated for more countries to arm themselves with nuclear weapons
> Suggested that US troops should ignore the Geneva Conventions and commit war crimes
> Pledged to pursue legal punishments for women who seek abortions
> Started a campaign claiming that President Obama wasn't born in the US
> Said this about Secretary Clinton: "If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?"
> Said this about Carly Fiorina: "Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"
> Said this about sexual assault in the military: "26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military and only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men and women together?"
And I could of course literally go on all day pulling quotes that, if uttered by anyone on this forum, would have to be taken down by the moderators for running afoul of the very reasonable forum rules.
So, yes, if you want a bombastic, unintelligent, misogynistic, insecure, racist, retrograde demagogue, then support Trump. But don't be surprised when you get called out for supporting such a wretched figure.
Jessica87
New Member
Wow so much hatred and anger coming from somebody who's criticizing a candidate for being hateful and angry?
So the email scandal and Benghazi mean nothing to you? Wow... Perhaps they are a "conservative conspiracy" theory. Btw I'm not even conservative just a first time American voter but really it's people like you sound completely angry and fanatic about your candidate that put me off.
Yes Trump is a shit talker but Ms. Clinton had a horrible go at Secretary of State for the reasons I've mentioned. What about her "bring democracy to the Middle East" policy which is really a code word for "bring down countries that don't listen to us" that ended in a disaster that destroyed millions upon millions of lives? That means nothing? When given a choice between a destroyer and a shit talker, I'll take a shit talker. Yes Trump MAY be a bad president but I know Clinton will be a horrible one. All you have with Trump are words but with Clinton we have actions, horrible actions so until Trump gets a chance to prove how bad he is, I'll take him over the devil I know.
So the email scandal and Benghazi mean nothing to you? Wow... Perhaps they are a "conservative conspiracy" theory. Btw I'm not even conservative just a first time American voter but really it's people like you sound completely angry and fanatic about your candidate that put me off.
Yes Trump is a shit talker but Ms. Clinton had a horrible go at Secretary of State for the reasons I've mentioned. What about her "bring democracy to the Middle East" policy which is really a code word for "bring down countries that don't listen to us" that ended in a disaster that destroyed millions upon millions of lives? That means nothing? When given a choice between a destroyer and a shit talker, I'll take a shit talker. Yes Trump MAY be a bad president but I know Clinton will be a horrible one. All you have with Trump are words but with Clinton we have actions, horrible actions so until Trump gets a chance to prove how bad he is, I'll take him over the devil I know.
Videodrome
Senior Member
Trump isn't stupid, but he says stupid things. It gets him attention! However, this isn't a reality show, it is an election to decide the leader of the free world. I really think that he is trolling everyone at this point.
- Status