The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Hilldawg 2016: The Most Unvetted Candidate of 2016
Posts
you give my posts and opinions on it as much respect as anyone else's on here, and maybe try to be a bit less of a goose when replying.
i see it as a tactic, nothing more. i could of course be completely wrong about that. it will be some time before we find out and we may never know*. but for now i'll continue to post my views on these things same as everyone else does.
*the situation may be resolved before then or hell, she may not even make it to the white house.
That's not what he's talking about. Obviously it gives insight to her career, but there's nothing particularly scandal worthy. Hillary attacking Obama, Hillary making a terrible mistake (imagine if there was something in there that could lead to more blame for Benghazi), things like that. If there were, it would be trumpeted.
There was one email where she said she disagreed with the decision to change "mother" and "father" to "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" as the default on passports, and that's the most damning thing I've seen, the only email that actually had anything that might make me lose respect for her... but even that ended up being grossly exaggerated in articles.
Also to me the exchange reads more like "Which one of you did something I didn't authorize without pre-clearing it with someone above you?"
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's kind of disgusting to me that they have been hauled out for public scrutiny. It's no different than the Climate Gate bullshit; the sort of attack you'd conduct if you really had no other avenue for criticism and wanted to take the cheapest shot you could.
which is kinda of the rights M.O. at this point. take what ever it can, no matter how small or petty and try and spin it into something they can tar her with. i'm sure there will be a new 'scandal' every week if she does make it to the general. until then, i hope that the Dems that would rather someone else don't buy to heavily into the bullshit.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/dems-gops-benghazi-committee-start-play-hardball
While this is welcome, I really grow tired of the dems letting Gowdy lie and be fuckers and yet only react after he does it. This whole thing is a farce, they should have walked from the committee as they planned on doing delegitimize the whole fucking thing.
pleasepaypreacher.net
...It's difficult to believe that Benghazi! still has legs at this point.
If the GOP keeps it afloat, perhaps we can get another, "Proceed, governor," moment.
It's afloat because the media keeps it that way. It's one thing I can't stand about McCarthy's comment. He admitted what has been true this whole freaking time, and the media has been eating up half truths from Gowdy's commission, and now they act like its a revelation this farce is complete horseshit.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Strong history on women's rights, decent support of labor and LGBT rights, gun control, probably good on race relations, and not being a Republican when multiple SCOTUS nominations are inbound, more executive experience than Sanders are the answers I've seen. She has less concrete than Bernie but she hasn't been campaigning nearly as hard as he has.
It's not really about policy positions. She's a pretty generic Democrat, de facto right in the center of the party. Probably personally a little bit farther to the left on most issues.
It's about the fact that she's a very pragmatic politician. People who support Hillary do so because they think she'd do a great job at being able to maneuver past a Republican House, and help restore the Senate to Democrats (and maneuver past potential filibusters).
Ultimately she won't make any big revolution. We're not going to see universal healthcare passed under Hillary. We're not going to see free college or greatly expanded welfare. But we won't see that under any other president, either, and she has a great chance at making solid incremental progress.
On top of that she's had years of being shit on by the right, so what's 8 more. She's out last best hope for democracy. Well until Sheridan comes back from Zahadum.
pleasepaypreacher.net
So, you're not actually interested in her policy positions - you just see her as established, and ergo you'll vote for her regardless of what she proposes she'll do for you?
I mean she's established enough as a Democrat I find it hard to believe she'd do anything egregiously bad for people who lean left. It's not like she's going to start defunsing planned parenthood; at worst she's going to fail to act on some issues, not make anything worse.
The next president will not be able to achieve shit for at least 4 years possibly more if the democrats don't get off their fucking hands in 2020 and do something about gerrymandered to hell districts. So you need someone who won't fuck up SCOTUS noms and keep the world from blowing up. Outside of that next to nothing of what they want will get past congress.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Once again, Hedgie's First Rule of Politics: politics is about establishing policy. I'm tired of idealists grasping at the brass ring and failing to establish good policy.
Clinton's foreign policy is generally very militaristic, and tends to resemble that of the political right rather than the left or even center. No fly zones in Syria is a terrible idea, and I don't think we should so readily ignore her statements on the subject by saying "eh, she's probably just bluffing." Based on her horrifying record, I'm inclined to think that her statement reflects an actual policy position (though maybe US military leaders could talk her down).
That's kind of a goosey response... obviously her policy positions matter. If she had the platform of a conservative Republican, I would strongly oppose her as a candidate. I'm sure everyone here who currently likes her would oppose her if that were the case. You asked what made us "excited for her candidacy", not "list every single thing she's done that you don't disagree with."
I'm saying that her experience and skill as a politician is what sets her apart from candidates like, say, Martin O'Malley who has pretty similar policies but I think would be a pretty terrible president. And even though I will likely vote for Sanders over her in the primary, that's one of several areas where I favor her over him. There are areas where I would like to see her improve, but those are also areas where the Republicans would block progress beyond a point anyway.
Hedgie, are you an actual political expert? If not, perhaps you should not make this kind of absolutist, sure-fire statement.
I don't even know what 'establishing policy' in this context is supposed to mean. I personally look over platforms and vote for what I feel will be in the best interests of the state I'd like to see. This is 'grasping at the brass ring', somehow, because [???].
For example: Mrs. Clinton includes in her platform a pledge to construct about half a billion solar collectors across the U.S. This is a pretty lofty, idealist goal.
...Have you actually even read her platform?
The arms shipments in Syria is misleading and is often misused as an example of her being terribly militaristic.
What actually happened was arms were being shipped to rebels anyway. Arab states were sending over all the weapons the rebels could want, and they didn't really care which group got them.
Hillary and the DoS tried asking them to stop, the US didn't want to see weapons in the hands of groups like, say, ISIS. But the Arab states told the US that we had no skin in the game. As long as we weren't helping supply weapons, we didn't really have a right to argue. Hillary's plan was to send the same amount of weapons as would've been sent over anyway, except to concentrate them in the hands of the less terribly evil group. She didn't want another Hekmatyar.
none of her past actions/stances have been as president though, something Obama called attention to in the article you linked to. even her time as Secretary of State could be interpreted as her playing Bad Cop to Obama's Good Cop, calling for a harder stance to give his administration some extra teeth, but ultimately towing the line that he dictated.
maybe she really will be as hawkish as she has appeared to be in the past, but i don't think she'll be as quick to action as others seem to believe. and me thinking that she's using the threat of a no-fly zone as a negotiation tactic doesn't mean i think she's bluffing, just that i think she'll try to use the threat to find another solution before she resorts to it. a threat is no good if you aren't willing to back it up.
incidentally, NATO and Russia are currently having some words over Russian jets violating Turkish airspace.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34448942
seems to me that Hilary will continue along the same path as the current administration. peaceful negotiation preferred, a few threats when needed and action only when she feels its absolutely necessary. of course, i understand that a lot of people believe that she'll see action as being necessary almost as often as any Bush would, so that's probably just something we'll be disagreeing on till we see otherwise.
I didn't ask you to list every single thing that you don't disagree with - just what about her platform had engaged you. Your response was really nebulous & vague. Maneuver what past a Republican House & filibusters?
I'm glad Hillary is out calling this shit what it is.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Do you have links that support Clinton's State Department asking the KSA/Qatar/Turkey to stop arming the rebels, or the claim that Clinton's plan would not have resulted in a larger amount of weapons being shipped to Syria? It's worth noting that the Obama administration did eventually start arming select Syrian rebel groups (with al-Qaeda frequently ending up in control of the weapons); Clinton's disagreement with Obama was that she thought we should have sent more weapons earlier on in the conflict. The primary goal behind all of this "arm the Syrian rebels" nonsense is to remove an Iranian/Russian ally from the Middle East. Your suggestion - that Clinton's main reason for advocating US arm shipments to Syrian rebel groups was concern over other Syrian rebel groups being armed by the US's allies - seems rather unintuitive.
Compromise policy is how laws are made. It's why we got the ACA, rather than nothing.
edit: basically if the gop gets to replace RBG with another shitty justice like they did to thurgood marshall i will die inside.
Hillary isn't in congress anymore as president, she's outside it. While she's not the best skilled orator, neither is Bernie. They both pale in comparison to Obama in charisma. You know what she has that he doesn't? A Democratic party that is dominated by like minded individuals and a political machine that's one of the best in the country.
The ACA has saved many lives and made health a less destructive factor to the poorer classes. It was a success by every metric. That wasn't a compromise that went too far.
One compromised law that wound up toothless in exchange for the ACA is a hell of a lot better than passing literally nothing because neither side gets a unicorn.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm skeptical of the idea that Mrs. Clinton is the best candidate for defeating Mr. Trump, whose entire platform is essentially an anti-establishment rant punctuated by petty insults & racist remarks.
(...That said, she would still beat him regardless).
No, but I'm sure you could find some easily enough. I got it from Hard Choices.
Edit: Oh, and to respond to the bit at the end, about her policy being unintuitive, that's why I mentioned Hekmatyar. There is historic precedent to Islamists getting armed by American allies because we decided not to take a direct role. When the US decided to aid Afghan rebels against the Soviets, we didn't take direct part in arming them. We used Pakistan as a middle man, giving them weapons and supplies with the understanding that they would in turn go to Afghan rebels. The US wanted to fund people like Ahmad Shah Massoud, a nationalist and western friendly leader. He later headed up the Northern Alliance in resistance to the Taliban. However, Pakistan ended up supplying people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a radical Islamist who became one of the most powerful insurgents and one of the biggest allies to the Taliban post our invasion. It bit us in the ass then, and it's understandable if Hillary didn't want it to bite us in the ass again.
It's only "really nebulous and vague" in the sense that I didn't answer the question the exact way you wanted it to be answered.
I mean, what do you expect? I can list green energy, gun control, more progressive taxation, better education funding, a higher minimum wage, more inclusive healthcare and so on. But all of that should be super clear to anyone paying attention to the Democratic platform for the last few decades.
I know you're smart and informed enough to have a basic inkling of Democratic policy, and you chided someone just a few posts ago about Hillary's platform, so obviously you're at least somewhat informed there. I'm not sure what more you want.
If elected president, I don't know exactly what bills she will propose, what bills she will back, and what she will end up signing. No one does. They don't know it about Sanders, either. So, no, I'm sorry I can't answer your gotcha question by looking in my crystal ball and giving you exact positions. But I do know she will push left--exactly what I said in my first post.
That's a loaded question based off of a false premise. You're assuming she would be useless in the house. That's ignoring all of the big budget bills that MUST be passed every year (and which the current House has reliably passed, even if a bit late on occasion). And it's assuming that the character of the house won't change at all, even though whomever is elected president next year will still be president almost six years from now. If the next president is around for two terms, they'll be around almost a decade from now, including a redistricted Congress in the last couple of years of their term. That's a long time to be making your choice of president based on how the House looks over a year before the presidential election even takes place.
With respect to executive orders, that is a big part of why I am planning on voting for Bernie. But you're mistaken if you think it'll be some big, massive difference between the two. The president doesn't get to do whatever he wants, while a powerless Congress says "Man, I would've voted against that if it were a bill, but aww shucks I can't do anything about an executive order." The power is limited and must be treated as such--Congress can pass bills neutralizing an executive order. Last I knew, the Gitmo detention center was still in business. The more active a president is, the more Congress will aim to stop them. And of course, the president can't make laws with their executive orders, so we wouldn't see a, eg, $15 minimum wage order from Bernie.