Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is a political opportunist.
She is owned by Wall Street.
She supported bankruptcy "reform," harming poor people and helping rich bankers, because Citi and others gave her millions.
She supported the Defense of Marriage Act because it was politically correct in the 1990s, when some of us supported gay rights and paid a political cost.
She voted for the war because it was the "patriotic" <rolls eyes> thing to do. Bernie spoke out eloquently against the war on the floor of the Senate.
She and her husband "ended welfare as we know it" in the 90s, devastating millions living in poverty.
She was for free trade, then she was against free trade when it was politically unwise.
She was an enabler for her sexual predator husband.
The list goes on and on and on.
She is part of the arrogant Debbie Wasserman/Nancy Pilozi/Donna Brazile/Chelsea Clinton Park Avenue crowd that spent all their time cavorting with the rich and famous and grooming the "superdelegates" <rolls eyes> of the arrogant Democratic Party to rig the election against Bernie, whose campaign, whether you like him or not, had a grassroots energy that was similar to Trump's. Hillary's support was from the top down. Bernie would have spanked The Donald from sea to shining sea.
The Democrats got what they asked for.
The New York Times elites will never "get it" why Hillary lost.
She was an awful, grotesque, career politician. People out in the real world are fed up with that crowd.
Thus, they elected Donald J. Trump.
Despite all of her grotesqueness, she would have probably squeaked it out but for Comey's interfering.

Jim,
I'll pick just one of your characterizations - that she is a career politician.
She has only held one elective office in her life.

Your comments look more like hate speech than an accurate representation of Mrs. Clinton's public life. <rolls eyes>

Wow, I think "hate speech" is a bit strong Chris, no?
It's called taking a different position.
Not everybody thinks the same way you do.
I truly believe a lot of people voted against Clinton because of the types of reasons I mentioned above.
They are fed up.
And the Democrats just don't get it.
There are actually some out there who, incredibly, are blaming Bernie for Clinton's loss. So pathetic. What unbelievable arrogance.
And the Dems are poised to make the same mistake again, as they are grooming lightweights like Corey Booker and Andrew Cuomo.
The Democratic Party is in big trouble.

I voted for her even though I dislike her immensely. Trump, though is just a power hungry buffoon who reminds me of a third world dictator.
I agree with David that it was more than one factor, I just don't buy the "coup" idea.

And as for the "hate speech" of Jim, I agree with every word.

Jim, most of what you say is factually inaccurate. It is typical of the caricature that has followed Hillary around since she said that she would not be baking cookies. I find her to be one of the most admirable people of our time. With the Bernie phenomenon, the relentless abuse is now coming from the left, and it continues to be almost wholly inaccurate.

For example, she didn't "vote for the war". She voted to authorize the President to use force if necessary in the context of a UN resolution and a series of other diplomatic actions. That is NOT the same thing. It is a simplification of reality that is typical in today's media environment.

I have pretty much given up on supporting Progressives at this point because of the way that they mangled and distorted the career of Hillary Clinton for their own ideological pursuits. Yes, the Democrats need to change. But the people that they are losing right now are the rational moderates.

Yes, "hate speech" is an extreme characterization.
What I read in your post was a list of purely emotional-based judgements, most of which have only superficial basis in actual events.
When one relies on emotion rather than logic to characterize another person, it usually says more about the speaker than the one being described.

Don't get me wrong Jim, I like reading your posts whether I like what you say or not.
And by the same token, I have no problem if you want to push back on what I write.
I'm certainly not afraid to espouse an unpopular or controversial view, so I'm no stranger to criticism.
As an avid student of self-awareness for much of my life, my point of view has become quite different than that of most americans.

I supported Bernie during the primary but there's no way to know how he would have fared in the general election.
He admitted that if he had started campaigning sooner he might have won more states in the primary.
So I find it inappropriate to blame his loss on the DNC chair, etc., etc.

OTOH, I have no trouble seeing a connection between Russian meddling and the results of the presidential election.
As the former CIA intelligence officer Malcolm Nance said yesterday on MSNBC, "coincidence requires a lot of planning".

It seems to me the progressives and moderates need each other and need to find a way to coalesce around a common goal.
With regard to grooming people for higher office, I support Tammy Duckworth, Amy Klobuschar, even Liz Warren as potential leaders of the party.

The press and the Rs would have had a field day with Sanders' socialist leanings and connections to socialist South American dictators. Which is sadly ironic given the Trump/Putin Axis of Evil.

I also agree with Tim that most (not all) of what Clinton got tagged with that actually hurt her with voters was either inflated or manufactured out of whole cloth and incessantly shouted from every network outlet.

But that's now water under the bridge. What will we learn from it? I will agree with Jim that a lot of Clinton's policies (both President Bill's and nominee Hillary's) were pretty far right for Democrats. Some further right than Reagan's. Do the Ds need to tack hard left? As hard left as Sanders? I think that would be a mistake. But I'll also agree with Jim that Hillary did not run a good campaign. We need a leader with more populist appeal, more charisma, and more commitment to doing the hard work of campaigning.

Hillary did well in the debates and put on a good convention, but she ran a wholly lackluster campaign and her tactical decisions in October will be studied for years as a cautionary tale in electoral over reach (e.g. chasing Arizona, ignoring Wisconsin until it was too late). If Nate Silver had good enough data to see that states like PA, WI, etc were still close enough to be in play weeks before Comey threw the election, the Hillary campaign should gave been way out in front of that.

But even so, she would have won without Comey. The real issue now is seeing the FBI's role clearly so we can fight to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Having thought a bit, I would like to revise my comment about hate speech since that term is generally reserved for disparagement of an entire class of people rather than an individual.
That list of negatives is an example of "post truth",
where one accepts something because it supports how one feels, not because it's true.

JimHow wrote:Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is a political opportunist.
She is owned by Wall Street.
She supported bankruptcy "reform," harming poor people and helping rich bankers, because Citi and others gave her millions.
She supported the Defense of Marriage Act because it was politically correct in the 1990s, when some of us supported gay rights and paid a political cost.
She voted for the war because it was the "patriotic" <rolls eyes> thing to do. Bernie spoke out eloquently against the war on the floor of the Senate.
She and her husband "ended welfare as we know it" in the 90s, devastating millions living in poverty.
She was for free trade, then she was against free trade when it was politically unwise.
She was an enabler for her sexual predator husband.
The list goes on and on and on.
She is part of the arrogant Debbie Wasserman/Nancy Pilozi/Donna Brazile/Chelsea Clinton Park Avenue crowd that spent all their time cavorting with the rich and famous and grooming the "superdelegates" <rolls eyes> of the arrogant Democratic Party to rig the election against Bernie, whose campaign, whether you like him or not, had a grassroots energy that was similar to Trump's. Hillary's support was from the top down. Bernie would have spanked The Donald from sea to shining sea.
The Democrats got what they asked for.
The New York Times elites will never "get it" why Hillary lost.
She was an awful, grotesque, career politician. People out in the real world are fed up with that crowd.
Thus, they elected Donald J. Trump.
Despite all of her grotesqueness, she would have probably squeaked it out but for Comey's interfering.

What's funny is that even though I'm on the other side of the aisle as the BD, I mostly agree with all of the above.

And even if there are some points in the above that people might disagree with from a factual standpoint, the above does reflect the perception built up over 30 years in public life.

Perception becomes the reality.

========

Anyways, the Presidency has tilted a lot of power toward that branch of government over the last 30 years, and perhaps now both Democrats and Republicans will have some mutual interest in rebalancing that, so that Congress can contain not just this one President, but future ones. Running the nation via executive orders, regulatory overreach, unconfirmed agency heads, dubious enforcement actions etc. is not a long term viable replacement for a durable, political consensus, bargained solution.

For all the howls about what will happen to Obamacare - this is a good example of what happens when transformative change is attempted unilaterally. I saw a study showing how it was the most partisan piece of major legislation passed in the last 130 years, and thus not surprising that when the whip is seized by the slave, the master will taste the lash. FDR was not so high handed with SS, nor LBJ with Medicare and so on. They had some political wisdom in including others, so that everyone would have a longer term stake in making the changes stick.

=========

I see that Dems are casting about for their mantle bearer, with names like Martin O'Malley, Kamala Harris, Liz Warren and so on being proposed. These seem like the same sorts of institutional Dems that would basically be a repeat of this year, perhaps they would make it closer, but they don't seem like really step function changes. Perhaps they should look farther afield for something different, like Elon Musk, or Oprah Winfrey. It seems crazy, but the last cycle was crazy too, and maybe more Politics of the Same is not going to work anymore. Megyn Kelly could be tempted in picking up the lance and jousting with the Orange Dragon, no? Oh what rich fun those debates would be.

AKR wrote:
... Obamacare - this is a good example of what happens when transformative change is attempted unilaterally.

This I find laughable. Throughout the process the dems attempted to include the repubs in the discussion but rather than give the president any credibility the repubs obfuscated at every turn instead of offering their honest participation in good governance.
The unilateral approach was only a last resort - and the majority of what was approved was originally part of a republican plan.

Just like the Clinton's "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military, the ACA is an incremental step in the right direction.
When a substantial majority of the public is ready to embrace single payer healthcare in the USA, the problem will largely go away.

AKR wrote: And even if there are some points in the above that people might disagree with from a factual standpoint, the above does reflect the perception built up over 30 years in public life.

Perception becomes the reality.

This pretty much says it all. The attacks on Hillary were NOT factual. They were political based on falsehoods and misrepresentations. Shame on those Progressives that used this to further a political agenda.

Racer Chris wrote:

AKR wrote:
... Obamacare - this is a good example of what happens when transformative change is attempted unilaterally.

This I find laughable. Throughout the process the dems attempted to include the repubs in the discussion but rather than give the president any credibility the repubs obfuscated at every turn instead of offering their honest participation in good governance.
The unilateral approach was only a last resort - and the majority of what was approved was originally part of a republican plan.

Just like the Clinton's "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military, the ACA is an incremental step in the right direction.
When a substantial majority of the public is ready to embrace single payer healthcare in the USA, the problem will largely go away.

Correct. The ACA was a Republican plan dopted almost wholly intact by Obama. The Rs fought it because Obama proposed it. Not for any of the reasons they now claim.

tim wrote:

AKR wrote: And even if there are some points in the above that people might disagree with from a factual standpoint, the above does reflect the perception built up over 30 years in public life.

Perception becomes the reality.

This pretty much says it all. The attacks on Hillary were NOT factual. They were political based on falsehoods and misrepresentations. Shame on those Progressives that used this to further a political agenda.

Welcome to the reality TV era of American politics. We do get what we deserve, and at this point we all deserve to be voted off of the island.

We stand together or we fall apart. Maybe Putin can unite us.

DavidG wrote:

tim wrote:

AKR wrote: And even if there are some points in the above that people might disagree with from a factual standpoint, the above does reflect the perception built up over 30 years in public life.

Perception becomes the reality.

This pretty much says it all. The attacks on Hillary were NOT factual. They were political based on falsehoods and misrepresentations. Shame on those Progressives that used this to further a political agenda.

Welcome to the reality TV era of American politics. We do get what we deserve, and at this point we all deserve to be voted off of the island.

We stand together or we fall apart. Maybe Putin can unite us.

Oh, totally agree with that. Trump is what the US deserves. What they don't realize is what they deserve will destroy them.

Racer Chris wrote:

AKR wrote:
... Obamacare - this is a good example of what happens when transformative change is attempted unilaterally.

This I find laughable. Throughout the process the dems attempted to include the repubs in the discussion but rather than give the president any credibility the repubs obfuscated at every turn instead of offering their honest participation in good governance.
The unilateral approach was only a last resort - and the majority of what was approved was originally part of a republican plan.

Just like the Clinton's "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military, the ACA is an incremental step in the right direction.
When a substantial majority of the public is ready to embrace single payer healthcare in the USA, the problem will largely go away.

Obama in 2008 had won an election -- NOT an unconditional surrender involving the entire Republican party. If he wanted a political deal to be bipartisan it would have to involve some horsetrading, even of things he might have been disinclined to, given that he felt that he had the Congressional votes to ram through anything he wanted....for that moment.

He ended up choosing that path.

If Obamacare was such right side of the aisle loved GOP plan, why was it not implemented in any of the myriad of states that were predominantly Red before or after? This idea that because a Massachusetts moderate had, in a liberal blue bastion, implemented some precursor is a thin reed to stand on. That MA variant never found traction in any other state.

I find the whole 'single payer' meme very glib - do you realize that means turning US medical professionals into the equivalent of postmen and teachers? It would be like the VA system, just bigger. And it also means significant adjustment in compensation for that trade -- US doctors typically earn about the 5x the local skilled wage (think HVAC specialists or something) while globally doctors tend to earn about 3x their local comparison. A socialised system would not tolerate what medical professionals currently extract.

The Dems drove that entire process during those years, and own the result.

Of course turnabout is fair play, when Ocare gets shelved, whatever troubles people have can easily be blamed upon DJT if the Dems/NYT are smart about it.

And thus the cycle will continue.

Arv, it really was simpler than all that. It was put forth by Obama. A democrat. And a black man. Didn't matter that it was based on Republican policy proposals (not just Romney's MA plan). Too much for many of the right wing zealots to accept, either in Congress or in the States. There was zero willingness to work with him on anything. If I fault him, it was for not realizing that sooner and pushing more through before the midterms. Trump and the Rs won't make that mistake.

The problem with healthcare costs in the US isn't what doctors get paid, it's what we order. Hospitals, SNFs, drugs, DME - that's where the money goes. CMS is trying to control MD spending habits with threats of 5-10% pay penalties and bonuses. But they don't have a clue whether it will work. I'm skeptical. A more drastic solution might just convince the 55+ crowd to retire or limit Medicare patients, leading to a major exacerbation of an impending physician shortage. We have already bent the curve in cost increases. How much was due to the recession and how much due to the ACA is debatable, but both contributed.

What bothers me most about about the Clintons is their arrogance and perception of being above the law. They start by bending the rules, then they attack, deny, and obfuscate and finally they offer a half hearted apology. This was true with Bill's philandering, with Hillary's emails, and even with building an extension and a pool to their Chappaqua house without a permit (http://www.lohud.com/story/news/politic ... /92878768/)
Another issue is their greed. I don't begrudge Hillary giving speeches to Wall Street execs for $250k a pop. But creating a charity that relies on billionaires donations and in return grant access to the Clinton couple stinks. I find it a bit disingenuous for her to claim to fight for the unfortunately while cavorting with billionaires and celebrities.
You can think and say all you want about the Bushes but the family always comported itself with dignity.
That is, I still voted for her, I thought (and still think) that Trump as president could easily end in disaster and at best will only help him and his fellow billionaires get even richer and more powerful. If that's the best we can hope for, the heaven help us

DavidG wrote:Arv, it really was simpler than all that. It was put forth by Obama. A democrat. And a black man. Didn't matter that it was based on Republican policy proposals (not just Romney's MA plan). Too much for many of the right wing zealots to accept, either in Congress or in the States. There was zero willingness to work with him on anything. If I fault him, it was for not realizing that sooner and pushing more through before the midterms. Trump and the Rs won't make that mistake.

The problem with healthcare costs in the US isn't what doctors get paid, it's what we order. Hospitals, SNFs, drugs, DME - that's where the money goes. CMS is trying to control MD spending habits with threats of 5-10% pay penalties and bonuses. But they don't have a clue whether it will work. I'm skeptical. A more drastic solution might just convince the 55+ crowd to retire or limit Medicare patients, leading to a major exacerbation of an impending physician shortage. We have already bent the curve in cost increases. How much was due to the recession and how much due to the ACA is debatable, but both contributed.

You really hit the nail on its head...

Healthcare in the US is an area where there are too many players that can play and that creates huge effort to reform it. The Patients, physicians, hospitals and providers, insurance companies, drug companies, medical device manufacturers, malpractice industry, etc. etc. Too many cogs in the wheel that have special interests to make it work for everybody to their liking. Expanding medicare under Bush did not help either to control costs...

jal wrote:What bothers me most about about the Clintons is their arrogance and perception of being above the law. They start by bending the rules, then they attack, deny, and obfuscate and finally they offer a half hearted apology. This was true with Bill's philandering, with Hillary's emails, and even with building an extension and a pool to their Chappaqua house without a permit (http://www.lohud.com/story/news/politic ... /92878768/)
Another issue is their greed. I don't begrudge Hillary giving speeches to Wall Street execs for $250k a pop. But creating a charity that relies on billionaires donations and in return grant access to the Clinton couple stinks. I find it a bit disingenuous for her to claim to fight for the unfortunately while cavorting with billionaires and celebrities.
You can think and say all you want about the Bushes but the family always comported itself with dignity.
That is, I still voted for her, I thought (and still think) that Trump as president could easily end in disaster and at best will only help him and his fellow billionaires get even richer and more powerful. If that's the best we can hope for, the heaven help us

This is a perfect example of fact framing. You have a preconceived notion of the Clintons as arrogant and being above the law, and therefore you frame the home renovation in that context. If it were in the context of a Bush for some people, it would be considered a bumbling oversight. If it were in the context of Trump for some, it would be considered a get-the-job-done attitude that would be praised.

I find Hillary to be among the least arrogant. When she was elected Senator, did she grandstand? No, she worked hard for her constituents and mostly stayed out of the public spotlight except when necessary. When she became Secretary of State, did she grandstand? No, she became among the most well-traveled, hardest working people in government. Yes, there is a certain amount of ego there, but anyone that runs for President is going to have ego. Bernie was the biggest ego next to Trump in the entire race.

The hatred for the Clintons was created by the right wing and propagated through the media. It is so disappointing to see those on the left buy into it.

Something like this, maybe?

DavidG wrote:Arv, it really was simpler than all that. It was put forth by Obama. A democrat. And a black man. Didn't matter that it was based on Republican policy proposals (not just Romney's MA plan). Too much for many of the right wing zealots to accept, either in Congress or in the States. There was zero willingness to work with him on anything. If I fault him, it was for not realizing that sooner and pushing more through before the midterms. Trump and the Rs won't make that mistake.

The problem with healthcare costs in the US isn't what doctors get paid, it's what we order. Hospitals, SNFs, drugs, DME - that's where the money goes. CMS is trying to control MD spending habits with threats of 5-10% pay penalties and bonuses. But they don't have a clue whether it will work. I'm skeptical. A more drastic solution might just convince the 55+ crowd to retire or limit Medicare patients, leading to a major exacerbation of an impending physician shortage. We have already bent the curve in cost increases. How much was due to the recession and how much due to the ACA is debatable, but both contributed.

Again, if these were all such beloved GOP core principles, why have they not been implemented anywhere in Red State Land?

This is no different than the right taking one proposal that they like that comes out of the thousands from the left, by one faction, and then implementing it with no bipartisan support, and then saying its supported by both sides.

This whole 'BHO is Black' meme as well is a sad excuse for not being able to find common ground, or willing to work with others, or accepting that they may have objections. Instead political opposition is merely demonized as being racist, or somehow beyond the pale, rather than sitting down and thinking through what might make a deal happen. It looks like the Left is now taking the 2016 results and distilling it into "Comey Robbed US, or America hates women" or whatever rather than having some serious thoughts on adjusting the message. Maybe America doesn't want to march down the path of Europe, and eventually Greece?

Compare this to Reagan who was able to work with a Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neal and deliver a huge bipartisan tax reform bill. I remember one of his phrases was that sometimes one can't get the whole loaf in one discussion, take the half loaf, and wait for another election. Maybe the imperial presidency of BHO knew that time was not on their side and they had to ram through their maximalist agenda in the window they had.

AKR wrote: This whole 'BHO is Black' meme as well is a sad excuse for not being able to find common ground, or willing to work with others, or accepting that they may have objections. Instead political opposition is merely demonized as being racist, or somehow beyond the pale, rather than sitting down and thinking through what might make a deal happen. It looks like the Left is now taking the 2016 results and distilling it into "Comey Robbed US, or America hates women" or whatever rather than having some serious thoughts on adjusting the message. Maybe America doesn't want to march down the path of Europe, and eventually Greece?

Compare this to Reagan who was able to work with a Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neal and deliver a huge bipartisan tax reform bill. I remember one of his phrases was that sometimes one can't get the whole loaf in one discussion, take the half loaf, and wait for another election. Maybe the imperial presidency of BHO knew that time was not on their side and they had to ram through their maximalist agenda in the window they had.

I find this to be a bit revisionist. The GOP Congress has demonstrated no interest in compromise. This is, in my opinion, a direct result of the right wing media machine that empowers the radical elements and punishes those that are willing to seek a middle ground.

Most on the left firmly believe that Obama was entirely too willing to work with Republicans when the Republicans had no intention of working with him. The ACA is a result of that. It is not a system designed by progressives, who by and far wanted a European or Canadian-style single payer system. It is a system that started out as the Romney compromise, with all of the flaws intact. Had Obama started with a more progressive bill, and if he didn't have a couple of DINO's in the Senate, the result would have been either a) a single-payer system with only Democratic support, or b) an ACA-type system that had bi-partisan support. Obama was too naive to be President when he was elected. He needed a few more years in the Senate or as VP to be effective out of the gate.

tim wrote:
This is a perfect example of fact framing. You have a preconceived notion of the Clintons as arrogant and being above the law, and therefore you frame the home renovation in that context. If it were in the context of a Bush for some people, it would be considered a bumbling oversight. If it were in the context of Trump for some, it would be considered a get-the-job-done attitude that would be praised.

I find Hillary to be among the least arrogant. When she was elected Senator, did she grandstand? No, she worked hard for her constituents and mostly stayed out of the public spotlight except when necessary. When she became Secretary of State, did she grandstand? No, she became among the most well-traveled, hardest working people in government. Yes, there is a certain amount of ego there, but anyone that runs for President is going to have ego. Bernie was the biggest ego next to Trump in the entire race.

The hatred for the Clintons was created by the right wing and propagated through the media. It is so disappointing to see those on the left buy into it.

Silly me, here i thought I was presenting fact to explain my position, but apparently my opinion was already made and I was just framing the facts to support my preconceived notions. You and I are not friends and have never exchanged more than two words yet you seem to know what my opinions and preconceived notions are better than I do.
Maybe instead of calling voters stupid you should try to listen to opinions that are different than yours, who knows? Maybe you missed something, like some kind of legitimate reason why someone would vote one way and not the other.

This whole 'fact framing' is strange to me. As well as the the whole HRC is disliked by the LEFT because of "evil Republicans and their vast conspiracy" concept, as opposed to any of the tangible actions that she took over 30 years? Seriously, what other national politician, of either party has left the trail of wreckage among their associates over the years. Its astonishing that they have any allies left, today.*

It sounds like the Left has to undergo a few years in the wilderness like the UK Labour til they stop using excuses (voters are too stupid? don't vote their own interest?) and realizing that policies have results, and people can see what is happening. Ask a small businessperson what they experienced with Ocare, and then try to explain to them that should listen to BHOs flapping lips on their life improvement and they should ignore their own lying eyes.

* fully expect that in a few years DJT will have built a list of enemies on the right and left that will rival the Clintons. But he's so precociously narcisstic he'll do it even faster. Maybe it's be like Nixon.

jal wrote:
Silly me, here i thought I was presenting fact to explain my position, but apparently my opinion was already made and I was just framing the facts to support my preconceived notions. You and I are not friends and have never exchanged more than two words yet you seem to know what my opinions and preconceived notions are better than I do.
Maybe instead of calling voters stupid you should try to listen to opinions that are different than yours, who knows? Maybe you missed something, like some kind of legitimate reason why someone would vote one way and not the other.

You were not "presenting fact to explain [your] position", you were taking a fact (renovation without proper permits) and attributing a negative attribute (thinking someone is above the law) to that fact when that attribute was not supported by the evidence. You made it clear what your preconceived notions of the Clintons are in what you wrote. Certainly your attitude toward the Clintons predated that home renovation.

I do call voters stupid when they are stupid. There are legitimate reasons to vote for a particular candidate. And there are ignorant reasons also. I understand the reasons, but that doesn't change that some are based in abject ignorance. And in this election, the ignorance won.

The reasons that people give for being against Hillary are often BS. They are not based on evidence. Like the whole "liar" silliness. Sure, there were times when she exaggerated, but the evidence clearly demonstrates that she was more truthful than any other candidate in the race (save perhaps Bernie).

Yes, there are opinions that differ from my own. But not all opinions are equal (and not all votes are equal). Just because someone has an opinion doesn't make the opinion a valid one. And I have yet to hear a valid opinion as to why moderates and liberals would either a) vote for Trump or b) sit out the election because they were "equally bad" (a false narrative that was perpetuated by the media), save for perhaps the one on the next post.

AKR wrote:This whole 'fact framing' is strange to me. As well as the the whole HRC is disliked by the LEFT because of "evil Republicans and their vast conspiracy" concept, as opposed to any of the tangible actions that she took over 30 years? Seriously, what other national politician, of either party has left the trail of wreckage among their associates over the years. Its astonishing that they have any allies left, today.*

Hillary has allies across the political spectrum. It was one of the things she was known for, building trusting relationships with those that she worked with. So I'm not sure what you mean by that. As for being disliked, I'm not trying to say that she was disliked on the left solely due to the "vast right wing conspiracy" (a term which is true but was used against her relentlessly). She was initially disliked by the far left because she was more conservative in her policies and was part of the "triangulation" politics of Bill's Administration. That is understandable. The problem is that they far left then adopted the false narratives of the right in order to try to put their preferred candidate into the nomination, and in doing so they gave those narratives more credibility and muscle.

AKR wrote:It sounds like the Left has to undergo a few years in the wilderness like the UK Labour til they stop using excuses (voters are too stupid? don't vote their own interest?) and realizing that policies have results, and people can see what is happening. Ask a small businessperson what they experienced with Ocare, and then try to explain to them that should listen to BHOs flapping lips on their life improvement and they should ignore their own lying eyes.

Even with the positive (how many million people newly insured?) and the negative (increased burden, unintended consequences), such a dramatic overhaul as the ACA takes a while to demonstrate enough results to adequately evaluate.

But in terms of issues, the big one this election cycle was isolationism versus globalism, especially regarding trade. Trade tends not to follow traditional left-right models. Isolationism sits at the extremes of both parties. Moderates tend to be more open trade and globalization. Both Bernie and Trump were isolationist. And so in that respect, there is a case that can be made that Bernie would have been more palatable to those Rust Belt voters that put Trump into office. My problem with that is that Trump is such a narcissistic petulant dangerous child that he could do more to destroy the country in four years than any President in history, regardless of your politics.

And yes, I do get a little bit more animated about Trump than I do about other politicians. That is because he is so undeserving of the Presidency. He didn't get there honestly. And he appealed to the worst in people for support. I did not feel the same about Romney or other Republicans. Nor about Bernie or other Democrats, even though I was not a Bernie supporter. There is no one less fit for office than Donald Trump. If he had been running as a Democrat, I would have voted Republican.

Everything about him is poison. His greed. His arrogance. His lying. His ego. His shallowness. His inability to let go of a grudge. His treatment of women. His nepotism. His cruelty to others. His chauvinism. His pettiness. His vindictiveness. Almost everything about his character is bad.

And it is also frustrating when people continue to spread the false narratives about Hillary in order to blame her for the loss. Hillary has many flaws. She does not naturally energize people. She often avoids taking a position on a controversial topic. She is wonkish. She isn't a particularly good public speaker. She sometimes shifts her position to adapt to a political climate (some might call that a strength). But she is fundamentally honest, modest, intelligent, diplomatic, and hard working. Of those positive qualities, Trump only shares the last one.

I am not getting into a pissing contest with you about how I form my opinions. I could care less about what you think.
One decision I just made is to ignore everything you say from this point. I will no longer answer any of your comments and will not post on any threads you start.

I am disappointed you feel that way. I certainly don't hold any ill will toward you. If it makes you feel better I will try to ignore this thread moving forward. Apologies.

Oh come on, if anything, either Jacques or Tim should be more annoyed with me than each other.

After all, I like GPL.

And let there be no doubt, I totally agree with Tim's assessment of sneaky DJT's character, although I'm not even sure where the hard working credit for him comes from. And I don't think enough of America knows about him being a teetotaler either. Let's see who is still is a fan once they start taking away Joe's Six Pack.

(I visited Sweden this summer and that is a society where they have made every effort to exterminate the drinking class by crushing taxation, state apparatchiks running the wine stores, and limited access to decent estates/vintages, and so on. Imagine the worst PLCB store, run by blondes)

AKR wrote:
Again, if these were all such beloved GOP core principles, why have they not been implemented anywhere in Red State Land?

Because they were proposed by Obama, and the Republicans demonized him. Especially in Red Star Land. It's that simple. We don't even need to go into the reasons they demonized him, but they did. It was pretty hard to miss.

jal wrote:What bothers me most about about the Clintons is their arrogance and perception of being above the law. They start by bending the rules, then they attack, deny, and obfuscate and finally they offer a half hearted apology. This was true with Bill's philandering, with Hillary's emails, and even with building an extension and a pool to their Chappaqua house without a permit (http://www.lohud.com/story/news/politic ... /92878768/)
Another issue is their greed. I don't begrudge Hillary giving speeches to Wall Street execs for $250k a pop. But creating a charity that relies on billionaires donations and in return grant access to the Clinton couple stinks. I find it a bit disingenuous for her to claim to fight for the unfortunately while cavorting with billionaires and celebrities.
You can think and say all you want about the Bushes but the family always comported itself with dignity.
That is, I still voted for her, I thought (and still think) that Trump as president could easily end in disaster and at best will only help him and his fellow billionaires get even richer and more powerful. If that's the best we can hope for, the heaven help us

There is a good deal of truth in this. I just don't find it out of the ordinary for most politicians, and believe the same could be said about any of the candidates and supported with evidence given enough time to dig for the details. Sanders played fast and loose with his finances, but it didn't get the same type of attention.

Where I do disagree vehemently is with your characterization of the Clinton Foundation. Not the factual part, but your conclusion that it stinks. I wish we had more like them.

DavidG wrote:
Where I do disagree vehemently is with your characterization of the Clinton Foundation. Not the factual part, but your conclusion that it stinks. I wish we had more like them.

Fair enough David, the foundation does good work and maybe the end does justify the means. I just find granting access to the Clintons based on donations in poor taste.

AKR wrote: Oh come on, if anything, either Jacques or Tim should be more annoyed with me than each other.

I am not annoyed with you Arv, you have the right to your opinions, and I totally respect them even if we disagree. I just thought it was rude to suggest that my opinions were invalid because I supposedly formed them a while ago and then framed the facts to fit them. In any case that's in the past.

I find it interesting that the article about the Clintons failing to take out the required permits for work at their home is cited as an example of their arrogance and attitude of being above the law.
My wife is the property appraiser in a university town assessors office. She inspects houses to ascertain their value for taxation purposes.
The stories I hear of people refusing to allow access, of extensive alterations which were never permitted, of residents with hostile attitudes toward anyone from the town hall, and so on make the Clinton story pale in comparison. Nothing in the article suggests they were intentionally avoiding their responsibility, or that they had a hostile relationship with their local officials.

On the other hand, the same article goes on to describe how D Trump found a way to avoid paying extensive taxes on property not far from the Clintons' in upstate NY, by bullying them in a clear display of arrogance and torture of the law to find a personal advantage.

Well, feel free to think whta you want, but I think it's arrogance. I lived in Chappaqua for seventeen years and I have never heard of anyone doing anything without a permit. Maybe I should travel in broader more infamous circles.
By now my feelings about Trump should be known. I don't believe there's an equivalence between the two. Imo, one is greedy and arrogant, the other is greedy, arrogant and a hell of a lot worse than that.

When people wonder how Zachys gets away with their prices, visit Scarsdale/Chappaqua etc. and one will see why!