Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

Which is very puzzling to me and also irrational and self-defeating IMHO.

I think it demonstrates a sense of foreboding inevitability among the electorate.

[Hannibal]

I'm not sure if it is widespread dislike, there is some of that, but she is just not a natural candidate.

Why? When I see her speak she isn't fumbling all over herself. She doesn't look lost in debates. She doesn't come across as empty-headed ala Nancy Pelosi. WRT to ideology, she's a solid DemLib but not an impractical, radical idealogue. She's also infinitely more electable than Bernie Sanders. IMHO her character issues are what I would classify as "average for a politician" (in other words, she sucks but so does mostly everyone else).

IMHO she would win the general if the party was united behind her.

Maybe she has just pissed a bunch of people off behind doors? Even the liberal media has largely turned on her which is shocking to me.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Nationally, Hillary has a 15 point lead.

Perhaps she's not disliked by a majority, but there is def widespread dislike and occasionally even hate for her on the far left. Her positions change with the wind, though you can ensure her support through big sacks of money. Wall Street has learned this.

The enthusiasm for Hillary is as real as the enthusiasm for McCain in 2008. "This is who we got? Well...ok...I guess".

[Hannibal]

If that's true then it's irrational and self-defeating. Hillary is far more sympathetic to her base than McCain was for the Republicans. McCain spent the entire 8 Bush years making a name for himself by siding with the Democrats on almost every domestic issue. His selling point was "I am going to reach across the aisle and work with the other side", which is wildly out of touch with what most Republicans want to hear. He was nominated by crossover Dems and by people who believed that he was the magical key to wrapping up the "moderates".

Hillary, on the other hand, is widely disliked among Republicans. She is a solid DemLib. She hasn't betrayed the base on many, if any issues. She seems to me to be more like Mitt Romney. I liked Romney a lot and if I were a Dem I think that I would like Hillary a lot. Romney was very solid Conserv/Repub. He had his inconsistencies but that just shows that he's not a red meat ideologue and he will probably give up some stuff. But you knew where his heart was. Same with Hillary. I know where her heart is and you have to be pretty blind not to see it.

JMO

[Wild Hoss]

I'm not sure if it is widespread dislike, there is some of that, but she is just not a natural candidate. Policy wonks do not drive the crowds wild.

This. Sanders' populist, podium-pounding, but ultimately fanciful, campaign has the more appealing message, and Hillary doesn't have an ounce of natural charm with which to counter.

[Ghengis Jon]

Why? When I see her speak she isn't fumbling all over herself. She doesn't look lost in debates. She doesn't come across as empty-headed ala Nancy Pelosi....Maybe she has just pissed a bunch of people off behind doors? Even the liberal media has largely turned on her which is shocking to me.

First off, the media is a conservative tool. The domination of Fox and their ilk of the news media is staggering. Sure, many ground level grunt reporters/casters may be liberal, but the actions and editorials of the media in general is only as liberal as their uber-conservative corporate masters are. Which is virtually nil.

As a liberal-tarian, I am appalled by Hillary. She's basically Republican lite. She is very poll driven. She speaks to gathering votes, not to convictions or what idealist policy should be. She is untrustworthy. She refuses to make a public stand on which side of the NSA surveillence debate she stands. That's an issue of huge importance to me. Knowing she would be attacked for either position she would take, she refuses to reveal her stand. That speaks of cowardice. Given her support the horrific Patriot Act and other Big Brother-esque laws spewed out by the legislature, I can pretty much guess her position. She's also a military hawk, (not a totally bad thing), and refuses to advocate any real reform and reduction of excessive/wasteful spending in the DOD and DHS for fear she would labeled 'soft on terrorism' and 'anti-military'. She is arrogant and speaks down to those she considers an intellectual inferior. She gets 'outside' opinions from a small circle of advisors that basically amount to an echo chamber. She is the Democrats version of Dick Cheney.

Most sickening of all, is that the GOP is offering far worse options. I refuse to believe the GOP couldn't offer up anything better than that pack of shitheads. There must be bright, articulate, compassionate repubs out there...just why aren't they running for president? Perhaps, as discussed in previous posts, that so-called moderates have been drummed out of the party. Its sad that ideological extremism is now required to participate in GOP processes. I think the same extremist uprising is in store for the Dems too. Possibly the next election cycle and certainly in 2024. Sanders is just an indication of things to come.

Hopefully those ejected (from both parties) for being 'moderate' or 'compromising' will finally form a viable third party. Viva la Hossian Centrists!

This election has become a case of really, really awful versus oh-my-god-don't-pick-THAT-one. Its why I AM voting for Hodgeman this year.

[Da Geezer]

Mike said:

Why do you have to drag your hatred for teachers into everything? Shouldn't you be siphoning off tax dollars with a failing charter school somewhere?

Actually, I do have an interest in 81 charter schools in 9 states, but it's a good thought. We receive 69% of the amount that government schools get and we get better results by about 10%. There would be no school tax if all schools were public charters.

My daughter is a teacher. My best friends are government school teachers. What folks in other states do not realize is that median remuneration for government teachers in Michigan is around $ 100,000, ranking 4th nationally, but first nationally by a wide margin when cost of living is considered. In Michigan, the median home price is less than a single year's compensation for a teacher. Anyone else know of another state where this is the case?

I do hate teachers unions. They have systematically destroyed this country since 1970.

[Hannibal]

As a liberal-tarian, I am appalled by Hillary. She's basically Republican lite. She is very poll driven. She speaks to gathering votes, not to convictions or what idealist policy should be. She is untrustworthy. She refuses to make a public stand on which side of the NSA surveillence debate she stands. That's an issue of huge importance to me. Knowing she would be attacked for either position she would take, she refuses to reveal her stand. That speaks of cowardice. Given her support the horrific Patriot Act and other Big Brother-esque laws spewed out by the legislature, I can pretty much guess her position. She's also a military hawk, (not a totally bad thing), and refuses to advocate any real reform and reduction of excessive/wasteful spending in the DOD and DHS for fear she would labeled 'soft on terrorism' and 'anti-military'. She is arrogant and speaks down to those she considers an intellectual inferior. She gets 'outside' opinions from a small circle of advisors that basically amount to an echo chamber. She is the Democrats version of Dick Cheney.

See -- I just don't get it. I understand that she on some issues has gone against some core things that you believe in. I sympathize with you and I respect that, but she is still overall very solid LibDem. She won't go that way all the time, which is why I say that she's not a hardcore ideologue. She will make deals. She will bend in some areas and she will not use ideological rhetoric to try and sway the public on an issue where she doesn't have 50% support. She won't abuse the excecutive order as an end-run around Congress. She will take money from shady donors because politicians do that. But she's still solid LibDem. "Good is not the enemy of perfect". I said the same thing about Mitt Romney to conservatives who didn't like him.

I think that if you really stop and think about it, she is an average politician WRT dishonesty and untrustworthiness. When it comes to all of the negative attributes that get attributed to her, she isn't as bad in those attributes as her predecessors.

For example. Do you think that she speaks down to people? I guess that's valid. But she's an absolute piker in that department compared to Al Gore and especially John Kerry. So why the hate for her and not those guys?

[Da Geezer]

Jon: What did you think of Rand Paul last night?

[froot loops]

I couldn't really tell you why she isn't connecting, she will be OK for a general election this Republican primary is giving them so much ammunition. If I had to guess, it is half Clinton fatigue and her campaign never seems to have big ideas.

She would be a solid executive, but a lot of running for President is based on some sort of overarching theme. I couldn't tell what hers is other than being next in line. Sanders and Trump are only big ideas, they wilt on providing specifics.

[hack]

Good exchange here on Hillary. I share Jon's disgust with her. She beleives in nothing but gaining power. Democrat Dick Cheney - shudder. That might be spot-on.

I think the thing here is that people are just sick of politics-as-usual, and when someone shows up and is able to really differentiate themselves, like Trump and Sanders are, people really respond to that. Those two are two sides of the same coin. Without Sanders, people on the left would be relatively fine and happy with Hillary.

A point where I disagree on Hillary is the media. They don't hate her. In fact they appear to be most solidly on her side. They declared her the winner of earlier debates in which polling showed people liked Sanders a lot more. WaPo just came out with an anti-Sanders editorial that was utter shit. Had I submitted it in j-school I would have gotten a D. Very easy to poke holes in. Boston Globe endorsed Hillary because of Bernie's position on guns. LOL!

[hack]

Who read Lawrence Lessig on why he ran and why he dropped out? Well worth your time:

Lessig on why he ran: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...-for-president

Lessig on why he failed: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...-i-dropped-out

He wants to cut even deeper into the rot. His position appears to be that Bernie believes that good policy can be created and implemented in a corrupt environment. Lessig instead gets to the core medium-is-the-message idea behind democracy -- that it is not an outcome but a process. IOW, how policy is made and implemented matters just as much as the nature of the policy itself. In this corrupt environment, even the most enlightened of policies -- whatever you believe those are -- are going to get railroaded by corrupt people working the system to their own benefit. I agree. I think we all, no matter our beliefs, can agree that corruption is bad. Cleaning up the system, or redoing it so we can have another good run before it gets too riddled with loopholes, should be perhaps the top priority. We are at that point in the cycle.

[Da Geezer]

I absolutely agree with both of your posts, Hack, and that ought to concern you.

I despise Hillary because her corruption entails zero concern for whom she hurts. Does anyone believe the Clintons were broke when they left the white house? She clearly put the Obama campaign ahead of the safety of the 4 guys in Benghazi. Her private server was for convenience, according to Hillary, but she has lied so much about it that no story now really matters.

Hillary simply has no core beliefs, IMO. There are folks on this forum who believe man is evil, and folks who believe man is good. There are those who believe power corrupts, and those who believe we can have heaven on earth with the right person in charge.

I have never seen Hillary defend an unpopular position. She will follow the polls wherever they lead, and she cares too much about power/money, which I believe are interchangeable. She is crude to those folks who protect her. What kind of person does that? She botched national health care badly in 1993, and her term as SoS has resulted in at least 250,000 persons being killed in the ME. As I always ask, where are her accomplishments. Over half the folks in the US have the same qualification that she stresses the most. She has a pussy. Not enough.

[hodgkal]

I fully agree with Hack and Geezer here.

Actually, there is NOBODY running that I am really for. I was a Republican until the Reagan years, although in retrospect he was better than I thought at the time. My issue is keeping us out of another War! That brings me to the biggest disaster for this country in my lifetime, the invasion of Iraq! And what constituency was most responsible for that? Some with say the oil interests but there is no doubt in my mind it was the Zionist movement. And "W" was too ignorant to recognize the folly of this enterprise. And to say this publically makes you vulnerable to being labeled anti-Semitic.

Hillary voted for the Iraq war, she was the driving force behind the war in Libya, and she is one of the big proponents of escalation in Syria. And what has all this done for our country, in lives and dollars? If anyone wants to see some documentation read the current book, "Queen of Chaos" by Diana Johnstone.

I have distrusted this woman since her ultra-secretive task force to reshape the
American health care system in 1993. I would take too long to try to document all the reasons the majority of the American people currently believe she is not trustworthy.

Hillary's biggest donor is billionaire Haim Saban. She was quoted as saying (paraphrasing) that she will do whatever he directs in regards to Middle East policy. And Saban has publically said "I am a one issue guy and my issue is Israel". How's that about putting America first?

I've been following this thread with interest. It runs the risk of becoming toxic and I hope we can maintain the level of civility currently in effect.

[hack]

Heh. Yeah. She grew roots in Washington and has to stay and play. Can't leave the game. Maybe she really did believe in something way back when. Dunno. But even Robert Mugabe once beleived in something. If I ever find it again I'll post a wonderful piece on him. Great poster child for ``power corrupts''.

Geezer we know that we agree on quite a bit despite some very big differences as well. Once you get to the fringes in general, where we both are on our respective sides, I think there's room for common cause. I know the libertarian right is focused on the size of government, and that's a matter of real disagreement, but there can and should be agreement that where government must exist it should be done cleanly. Take corruption seriously.