Author Topic: Innocent Hillary  (Read 5807 times)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Innocent Hillary
« on: October 19, 2019, 12:34:28 PM »
I found this comment interesting:

Quote
Some still here would still insist that Clinton should be in jail despite her never having been found guilty or liable for any criminal actions, but have no concern that Trump is still running loose causing havoc across the entire globe despite his dismal record and sociopathic personality.

The reason it’s interesting:

Quote
State Department investigators probing Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state discovered nearly 600 security incidents that violated agency policy, according to a report the Daily Caller News Foundation obtained.

The investigation, conducted by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, found 38 individuals were culpable for 91 security violations. Another 497 violations were found, but no individuals were found culpable in those incidents.

...

Investigators determined personal email use to conduct official State Department business "represented an increased risk of unauthorized disclosure." Clinton's use of the private server "added an increased degree of risk of compromise as a private system lacks the network monitoring and intrusion detection capabilities of State Department networks," the report stated.

...

One reason that investigators were unable to assign culpability in the 497 incidents was because of the duration of the investigation. Many of the subjects of the probe, including Clinton and her circle of aides, has left the State Department by the time the investigation began.

And, given Hillary’s declaration that essentially everyone is a Russian agent, along with her litany of failures as SecState, it really highlights the disconnect the left has when it comes to Trump. Hillary is literally everything they accuse Trump of yet she’s pure as the driven snow.

Uh-mazing.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2019, 12:59:02 PM »
Pure as the driven snow?   :o
Voting for her was one of the most disappointing things I've done at the ballot box, but despite all her failings, I'd still take her over Trump any day. 

While there are some who no doubt feel the way you do, don't assume just because some of us didn't want Trump in office we somehow supported his opponent.  That was the first election I voted against someone, rather than for someone.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2019, 02:05:13 PM »
I voted with the same rationale, not for but against someone.

But after all the caterwauling about Trump, you’d still like take Hillary despite her being literally what Trump is only accused of being. It’s as if you don’t care about what is being done, it only matter who’s doing it. In a weird way, you’re consistent.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2019, 02:22:03 PM »
It never gets old, does it?  :) . From https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/state-department-probe-of-clinton-emails-finds-no-deliberate-mishandling-of-classified-information/2019/10/18/83339446-f1dc-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html.  That echoes the lack of findings of criminal activity from the previous 6 Congressional investigations, but all of this is just facts, so don't be persuaded if you feel strongly about her needing to be thrown in jail.

"A multiyear State Department probe of emails that were sent to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s private computer server concluded there was no systemic or deliberate mishandling of classified information by department employees, according to a report submitted to Congress this month.
...
In the end, State Department investigators found 38 current or former employees “culpable” of violating security procedures — none involving material that had been marked classified — in a review of roughly 33,000 emails that had been sent to or from the personal computer system Clinton used.
...
Overall, investigators said, “there was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” The report cited “instances of classified information being inappropriately” transmitted, but noted that the vast majority of those scrutinized “were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them.
...
The State Department suspended its internal review while the FBI probe was active, before resuming work in 2017. In total, the report found 91 violations by 38 individuals, and another 497 violations “where no individual was found to bear culpability."

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2019, 09:30:29 PM »
I don't think she would be making us a laughing stock abroad.  I don't think she would be AS divisive (though still a good deal too divisive) to this country.  I don't think she would be encouraging racism.  I don't believe she is an idiot. 

I want a president.  Not a sad pathetic joke of a shady businessman turned reality star trying to dismantle this government piece by piece as if he was going to earn a bonus check based upon how good a job he does tearing apart and weakening this country.

In short, even if the worst of what you believe about Hillary was the case, I'd rather have her in office right now and under investigation waiting for the system to remove her.  I wouldn't be wondering how many decades it would take to un*censored* what she's doing while still in power. 

That my bar is now that low, is depressing beyond belief to me, but here we are. 

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2019, 02:34:21 AM »
'I want a president."

Does a person exist in the spectrum of possibility who meets your personal criteria?  If so, name him/her.  If not, describe such a person and explain how he/she can come into the picture for consideration.

I'll be forward on this and say that many of the Democrats now vying are acceptable to me, but it doesn't matter who is President in this political era unless their Party also controls both Houses of Congress.

FWIW, the candidate nearest to my heart and mind is Mayor Pete.  He's done good things, has good principles and beliefs about people and policy, is able to think clearly and speak just as clearly.

Nobody here (apparently) will agree with me on this, but I thought Hillary wasn't great, but was good enough.  When was the last time a sitting President (besides Obama) was better?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2019, 02:24:23 PM »
When I say "I want a president" I'm measuring by the bar set by those before Trump.  Did I make jokes about Bush Jr. being a little dim?  Ya, guilty.  But even he acted in a demeanor I consider "presidential".  Does that sometimes lean on prepared speeches and a whole team of advisiors propping one up to make one look MORE presidential?  Sure.  That's the job.

The person holding the office is intended to represent the nation.  Even if they more heavily represent their party's interest, they are still suppose to represent who we are as a nation and project what we (at least claim to) represent on the international stage. 

Trump presents himself as ONLY a TV star or sometimes, a businessman looking for the next deal.  He is obsessed with attention grabbing (increasing ratings/viewership) and causing chaos/distractions (business tactics?)  None of it leads to an image of someone level headed and informed, responsible for guiding this country forward (as his politics see best fit for all of us).  It goes way beyond Democrat vs Republican.  I just want someone who seems like a grown up, and up to the significant challenge of that office.

So yes, that person has existed in every case up until this one.  They may not be there persuing the policies I want, but there are people out there who can act "presidential".  Just not Trump.  (apparently)  I mean, I've seen him give a couple scripted speeches that nail it.  Unfortunately even those, in several cases, he "clarified" to the point of making them meaningless shortly after.  He WANTS to be seen as unpredictable and chaotic.  That's who he is and how he operates.  It does not fit with the office of the president.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2019, 03:24:40 PM »
I wouldn't cheapen my vote with the less shady of two shady alternatives.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2019, 03:27:26 PM »
Well said, DW.  I don't mind a President who has (some) policies I disagree with, just as I don't mind a Supreme Court that doesn't always decide cases as I would have them do.  Trump is so far out of bounds that I almost can respect GW Bush.  Except that when I think for a minute I remember all the things he did for which the world paid and is continuing to pay an enormous price.

I may start a thread on Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).  If you don't know what it is I'll tease for the moment that the US would not have invaded Iraq after 9/11 and 9/11 may not have even happened if Florida had used RCV in the 2000 Presidential election.

"I wouldn't cheapen my vote with the less shady of two shady alternatives."

You've heard the saying that "perfect is the enemy of the good"?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2019, 03:58:29 PM »
"
"I wouldn't cheapen my vote with the less shady of two shady alternatives."

You've heard the saying that "perfect is the enemy of the good"?
"

Forgot to add...: But you voted for Trump, right?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2019, 07:01:54 PM »
What would you say is the single most egregious, out of bounds thing that Trump has done? The one thing that would be at the top of your list.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2019, 07:28:23 PM »
That's a tough challenge.  Imagine that he had massacred 13,435 people (that's how many lies he's told since taking office), and you were asked which body looked most twisted and unrecognizable?  Or think about how many times he has referred to himself as a genius or that he knows more than any expert in over a dozen fields where the next best person to him has a PhD and maybe a Nobel prize.  Or consider that he has left 7 Cabinet positions unfilled longer than any other President because they just hinder his freedom to make decisions.  Or look at how many military heroes and public figures he has attacked and denigrated because they said something unkind about him, or how many US allies he has offended because they are weak, or how many enemies and dictators he has embraced because they are strong.  Or just plain how many ways he has twisted the operation of the government to suit his whims, business interests or personal vendettas.

You can see how hard this is, almost impossible to pick one thing that stands out in that crowded field of contenders for the title of Most Egregious.  I could almost pick something at random that most normal people will agree they couldn't believe he possibly could have said or done it, but he did.

So I'll pick a simple one that everybody can understand, that he never, never admits he's wrong and never, never apologizes for anything he does, no matter who or how many people he hurts.  In other words, the worst thing about him isn't what he does, but what he is. 
« Last Edit: October 20, 2019, 07:37:22 PM by Kasandra »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2019, 10:28:12 PM »
So I'll pick a simple one that everybody can understand, that he never, never admits he's wrong and never, never apologizes for anything he does, no matter who or how many people he hurts.  In other words, the worst thing about him isn't what he does, but what he is.

I would like to applaud this incredibly clear and IMO honest answer to a tough question. It strikes me as being both on point and also probably representative of the opinions of many others. I would like to also point out that a corollary of the worst thing about Trump being who he is rather than what he does, it follows that no matter what he does he will still be who he is, and therefore still be committing the worst thing he could commit (i.e. behaving how he does). I believe this accords with my observations of many people who criticize Trump, where it appears that the minutiae of his reasons seem to most secondary to the fact that it's him doing them; and often what's underlines is how he does them rather than that he does them. This is fair insofar as if indeed the very worst thing is to have an un-presidential President (which seems to be D.W.'s point in the other thread) then Trump will by definition be the worst, even if you changed up all his policies and all of his success/failure scenarios. Basically it means that just by virtue of being elected he is a failure and that beyond that anything he does is condemned out of the gate because of who he is. It's sort of like a very specific version of identity politics, if I may, where having the identity of Donald Trump is a black mark on anything that follows.

I'm just trying to be clear about this, because I sympathize with this perspective; it's very hard to accept anything that comes from a tainted person. You won't find too many people arguing that Hitler's reign was mitigated by the various things he was successful at. But the flipside of that is that on any given issue the issue itself seems to always be merely the means to demonstrate again how Trump is bad (as Crunch colorfully likes to remind us of) rather than weighing it on its own merits. I don't think, for example, that Trump's approach to tariff wars would have been so attached if Reagan or Bill Clinton had done the same thing.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2019, 12:43:46 AM »
I agree Fenring, it’s an honest and representative answer. The Hitler reference is interesting because, ironically, I don’t think Hitler was viewed as that much of an outlier from a personality perspective as Trump is. Admittedly I could be wrong here. The key difference obviously is that any legitimate successes Hitler had would always be meaningless next to his horrific policies and actions. With Trump, his successes seem to be mitigated purely on the perceived vileness of his personality. To your point, his “being” is not acceptable regardless of any larger net positives that may result from his actions. This seems to be the sticking point; some can deal with it for mostly pragmatic reasons, others cannot. Steve Jobs by all accounts was a real *censored*, but as an Apple shareholder, I’m pleased with the foundation he laid. Of course the head of Apple doesn’t represent “the country” so I realize it’s a thinner comparison, but it’s directionally the way a lot of conservatives think.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2019, 07:53:26 AM »
I appreciate the clarity of both of your responses and for the contrast with two other "outstanding" notables, Hitler and Jobs.  The Hitler comparison is too painful for me to try to analyze dispassionately, but the Jobs analogy is simply off-base.  Scott has no problem at all with what Jobs did, only that he has incidentally learned that he wasn't a nice person.  The worst thing I've ever heard anyone say about what Jobs did was that he got more of the credit for some of Apple's product innovations than he deserved.

"It's sort of like a very specific version of identity politics, if I may, where having the identity of Donald Trump is a black mark on anything that follows."

If you see no connection between Trump's intrinsic personality disorders (of which there appear to be several) and his actions then you can draw the conclusion that what he is taints what he does almost incidentally.  That's the hopeful interpretation Trump's supporters make, that he is hated by people like me because we choose to hate him, and what he does bears no connection to that.  Almost every honest Republican (an oxymoron, perhaps) will admit that they don't like him, but they like his policies (even if that barrier is starting to crack in places).  So, as long as the trains run on time...

But his actions are reflections of his profoundly disturbed mental framework and can't be detached from that.  I'll leave it for you to ask yourself *why* he does so many thoughtless and cruel things, so often on sheer impulse.  I'm reminded of the scene in Schindler's List where the Camp General, Goeth, orders the woman prisoner who has just solved a construction problem to be shot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKie_34cpJI).  He likes and uses her solution, but shoots her because he refuses to be seen as having been corrected by her.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2019, 08:13:08 AM »
You know I hear what everyone is saying about people just hate Trump so much with a deep visceral loathing so that nothing he ever did would be worth anything and while that's very true I actually question whether it is because it is Trump himself or just the way politics, especially from the left, is leaning these days with a take no prisoners, make no compromise, demonize the enemy approach and Trump's personal idiosyncrasies make the inborn hatred just easier to rationalize. What I mean is that even if it hadn't been Trump who won, for instance let's say it was Cruz or Romney or even Rubio; it wouldn't matter. The gloves are off and no matter who it was they would be getting the exact same treatment as Trump. Just like W. Bush did then and as the Ellen encounter proves if anything it's even worse now. No forgiveness. No understanding. No meeting anyone half way or trying to see things from their point of view. No agreeing to disagree. No mercy. Kavanaugh is a good example of this.

When Pence becomes President after Trump finishes his second term and is term limited out my prediction is that as bad as Trump is treated right now, and hated, Pence will be treated and hated even worse. It's not Trump or Pence themselves so much as the people who hate them. They'd hate anyone else just as much and it's not that they'll hate Pence more just because he's worse in any way but just because that's how things will flow as time goes on. It's only going to get worse.

Kind of like the it's not you, it's me. Or it's not me, it's you. In this case it's not him, it's them.

I could be wrong though. And hopefully I am.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2019, 08:53:59 AM »
"You know I hear what everyone is saying about people just hate Trump so much with a deep visceral loathing so that nothing he ever did would be worth anything and while that's very true I actually question whether it is because it is Trump himself or just the way politics, especially from the left, is leaning these days with a take no prisoners, make no compromise, demonize the enemy approach and Trump's personal idiosyncrasies make the inborn hatred just easier to rationalize."

You pack a lot of viscera into that sentence.  I'll offer the single observation that your attribution of opposition to Trump is due to "visceral hatred" precludes there being a rational basis for it. I imagine that if you and I were on opposite ends of a seesaw you would viscerally think I was a liberal because I was opposing your efforts. If we switched ends you'd still think that.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2019, 09:38:29 AM »
"
"I wouldn't cheapen my vote with the less shady of two shady alternatives."

You've heard the saying that "perfect is the enemy of the good"?
"

Forgot to add...: But you voted for Trump, right?

Third party, Johnson. The saying presumes the other choice is good. It's not the perfect is the enemy of the deeply flawed.

Don't look at me, I voted for Kodos.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2019, 09:41:35 AM »
I should have prefaced my statement with the disclaimer that none of what I was about to say necessarily applies to anyone here. Maybe Trump is a singularity. Perhaps families wouldn't be breaking themselves apart if it wasn't for Trump and people wouldn't be beating each other up in the streets, hitting someone for wearing the wrong kind of hat and so forth. It's possible things would be much more civilized. I don't want to say I doubt it because I'm not quite that sure. If I had to put odds on it I'd say there is maybe a 65% chance that if a Republican other than Trump had won things wouldn't be this vitriolic, abrasive, divisive and sometimes downright violent. But there is a 35% chance that they would. Or perhaps another way to look at it is if a Republican other than Trump had won maybe 65% of the people who hate Trump would disagree with that person but wouldn't be as hateful about it and 35% of the people who hate Trump would hate the other Republican exactly as much. Just kind of stray thoughts here.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2019, 09:44:19 AM »
As far as visceral hatred goes, yes without more moderate policy it wouldn't change much. Any president dismantling government is going to be strongly rejected by people who think government is needed.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2019, 09:47:01 AM »
This seems to brush opposition to Trump based on only WHO he is.  I think that's a part of it but seems too much of an excuse.  It's also HOW he does things. 

The President taking steps to force congress to act on immigration?  I am behind that.  I could probably even excuse some draconian measures to force their hand.  But HOW Trump has approached this?  Walls, scare tactics and increasing human suffering in a way that all seems to be more a goal than a tactic for true reform?  I cannot excuse that.

The President taking a hard-line economically with China?  I am behind that.  A one man trade war that teeters on his whims while he is increasingly unpopular enough that China would be silly not to wait it out and see if there is a backlash to him placing someone in office eager to hit the "undo button" on everything about his administration (just as Trump is when it comes to Obama)...  Ya, not so much.  Come up with a PLAN!  Sowing chaos in an attempt to get China to make a deal while we play economic chicken is not a tactic that inspires confidence.

The President bringing our troops back home when our objectives have been met?  I am behind that as well.  Doing so in a way that all but guarantees a tragedy with zero time for anyone on the international stage to even attempt to mitigate it?  That is disgusting and tarnishes our national representation.

Then there's the other policies of his I cannot stand, but, most of those are just R. vs D. or conservative vs progressive, or caveman theocrat vs actual evolved humans.  :P

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2019, 09:56:29 AM »
Quote
Maybe Trump is a singularity. Perhaps families wouldn't be breaking themselves apart if it wasn't for Trump and people wouldn't be beating each other up in the streets, hitting someone for wearing the wrong kind of hat and so forth.
I think that's a pretty sure bet, unless Trump has forever tipped us towards celebrity politics.  Can you remember another president having a "brand", let alone people displaying that on a hat?  His pompousness and in your face "fight" towards "the enemy", be that the press, the liberals, the illegals or whatever, is what some people gravitate towards.  His "brand" is shorthand for that. 

People were frustrated (on both sides), that's kinda the nature of this point in history.  Trump, to his credit, noticed this, and tapped into it (or just got REALLY REALLY lucky and his personality just struck a chord right now?).  People wanted to fight.  Being passive was no longer acceptable.  Trump showed he wanted to fight.  I'm pretty nauseated by WHAT he chooses to fight, but he is unapologetically confrontational. 

People keep talking about how the left has changed.  Yes, just like ALL of the U.S. did.  Just like Cherry said, "No forgiveness. No understanding. No meeting anyone half way or trying to see things from their point of view. No agreeing to disagree. No mercy."  There are some like that for sure.  The common thread, is A LOT more people refuse to be passive.  Our world is more connected, we're all "wired in" and we see direct and sometimes instant results in what happens to this world and politics.  Of course both sides are more passionate now.  You have to make an effort to "unplug" enough not to feel a sense of urgency anymore.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 10:00:21 AM by D.W. »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #22 on: October 21, 2019, 01:14:32 PM »
This seems to brush opposition to Trump based on only WHO he is.  I think that's a part of it but seems too much of an excuse.  It's also HOW he does things. 

These are sort of linked, no? It would be hard to qualify him as a braggart, if his ways of doing things didn't involve bragging, right? And it would hard to qualify him as being a bully if that didn't involve bullying people, right? So treating who he is and how he does things would seem to be a bit like saying the same issues is two issues, making it sound more complicated than it is.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2019, 01:59:18 PM »
Quote
This seems to brush opposition to Trump based on only WHO he is.  I think that's a part of it but seems too much of an excuse.  It's also HOW he does things.

These are sort of linked, no?

If Character and truth mattered they would be linked, however its narrative that matters not character or truth.
Essentially, IMO its a philosophical difference in the notion of the Ends justifying the means.
If the ends justify the means, who Trump is and how he does things may be linked but don't matter.   
If the ends don't justify the means, who Trump is and how he does things are linked and matter.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2019, 02:18:44 PM »
I know some people who can still do their job, and put on a publicly acceptable face, who know better than to express the disgust they feel for coworkers or customers or even the general public.

They aren't linked. 

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2019, 02:45:30 PM »
Quote
I know some people who can still do their job, and put on a publicly acceptable face, who know better than to express the disgust they feel for coworkers or customers or even the general public

I don't know. Its possible however if at your core your the kind of person that can without nuance view others with total disgust its going to show in how you deal with them.

As well if your a person without ethical grounding that to will show in how you get things done, no matter how good you are at covering it up.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 02:49:18 PM by rightleft22 »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2019, 02:53:59 PM »
I tend to agree.  But making the effort, is generally a pre-condition to retaining one's job/position.  Those unable to act... sociable, are not often welcome socially.  At least not in the long term.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2019, 02:55:33 PM »
I know some people who can still do their job, and put on a publicly acceptable face, who know better than to express the disgust they feel for coworkers or customers or even the general public.

They aren't linked.

I've underlined the most important part of your statement: you know some people. They are people you've known IRL, about whom presumably you know more than just how they present in public. So you can disentangle in their case what they are "really like" versus how they present. But, unless I'm grossly mistaken, you don't know Donald Trump. All you see of him is the publicly-presented character; and yes, it's a character because every public person is presenting a character, even if sometimes it's closer or futher from their 'normal self'. But you don't really know him, you know the celebrity TV guy who kept that persona up as President. In fact if I read you correctly that's one of your chief grievances with him: that he didn't alter his persona to fit the President job, as opposed to his other jobs like TV-man where being larger than life is maybe par for the course. But you can't say that his persona at present - including how he does things, speaks to people etc - is a different matter from who he is, because the "who he is" is based on that exact same persona, which is the same as rich guy/TV guy/real estate guy. So to whatever extent you personally know people who can switch on their game face for work, what you see of Trump *is* his game face; you've never met the other guy, whoever that is. The fact that it's the same game face as he had on TV may annoy you (and I quite understand why), but your assumption that he refuses to act according to the job seems to me to miss the possibility that he is doing exactly that, just not in a way you condone.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2019, 03:37:28 PM »
Quote
But, unless I'm grossly mistaken, you don't know Donald Trump. All you see of him is the publicly-presented character; and yes, it's a character because every public person is presenting a character, even if sometimes it's closer or futher from their 'normal self'.
Good points.  I don't know him.  My problem is with his "persona".  That persona is not presidential.  It's barely that of a functioning adult.  I understand that persona was seen as entertaining to others to watch on TV.  I even understand, in theory, how that persona could (maybe?) function in a business setting.  At least one based upon tending to competing ego's as a major component to getting anything done.

But none of that translates to the prestige of the office or as someone representing all of the people of the United States of America.  Or the commander in chief of our troops. 

Maybe the pettiness, the bungling, the appointing sycophants (or family), the lying, the (appearance of?) refusal to take advice... maybe these are all just part of a persona. 

How is that not worse?  That changes it from being unfit for the office into active sabotage!

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2019, 03:51:22 PM »
Quote
But, unless I'm grossly mistaken, you don't know Donald Trump. All you see of him is the publicly-presented character; and yes, it's a character because every public person is presenting a character, even if sometimes it's closer or futher from their 'normal self'.

Malcolm Gladwell makes a interesting case that Trump is very transparent. That who he is and how he presents himself is exactly who he is.
He is not pretending to be anyone other then who he is.

If you view who he is as problematic (the who and how not justifying the means) your going to have problems with almost everything he does. 

For me it Trumps communication style and philosophy that I think is the most dangerous thing about the man, even more so then his relationship to ethics.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2019, 03:54:40 PM »
I think what you see in Trump is somebody who has never had to answer to anybody. Never had to be political. Never had to marshal support for an idea. Never had to let someone else take partial credit for his work. Never had to be self-deprecating or gracious. Never had to worry about leaving a good impression. Never had to have a quick wit or a clever turn of phrase. Never had to be subtle.

His supporters embrace him for this, as we have talked about before. His detractors loathe him for it. The political press has no idea how to handle it.

Richard Nixon was a much bigger SOB, but he had the life experiences to keep it private. Well, until the tapes came out. Pence might turn out to be a bigger SOB, but he knows the rules and follows them. So will most future candidates, if not all.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2019, 04:09:34 PM »
If you view who he is as problematic (the who and how not justifying the means) your going to have problems with almost everything he does. 

That is more or less the point I was making. I think who he is and how he does it are going to be always linked for him, so addressing them as separate concerns seems to me beside the point. Whether there's a 'real him' behind the public persona I don't know; almost always there is, but you never know. I'm referring here largely to Kasandra's point that who Trump is seems to be the #1 worst concern (for Kasandra, but I think also for many others). So many arguments about what he's doing or saying on a given day will sort of boil down to something like:

Detractor: Can you believe what Trump's done this time!?
Supporter: Well there is a certain logic to it, even if his approach was rough.
Detractor: No, it's an unacceptable situation and what he did is abhorent.
Supporter: What exactly about this move is abhorent? Please give details.
Detractor: Look, we know Trump is repellant, and this is yet another example.
Supporter: Yes but what is your actual objection to this action of his?
Detractor: Let's start with the fact that it's vile.
Supporter: I'm talking about its technical merits; let's save evaluation for after we see how it goes.
Detractor: We already see how it's going. He's horrible.
Supporter: Are we still discussing today's news?
Detractor: No, we're discussing how Trump should never have been elected in the first place.

I think this general format may possibly explain a majority of arguments about Trump. They will all sort of boil down to he never should have been elected, and his presence is a blight. Those might even be completely true, but either way there is never really another debate going on then that one at bottom, if you cut through all the fat. Even our lengthy discussion about Ukraine and the memorandum almost seemed just to boil down to motive speculation about Trump's actions and how corrupt he probably is for investigating his opponent. The facts of the case seemed in a way secondary, or at least merely a vehicle for, both sides keeping their basic positions about Trump intact. I will admit to having taken 'sides' against the detractors on that thread, primarily because I want to actually inspect the details of these situations while trying to keep preconceptions about him out of it. To an extent that won't ever happen, but what I would like to at least promote is to run Crunch's "Orange Man Bad" out of town by finally proving it isn't true; but for that to happen it has to actually not be true. I try in these discussions to find details both sides might agree on, but it's tough I tell you.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2019, 04:10:12 PM »
I sometimes wonder if the Man just stayed off of twitter I might not find him so loathsome. I suspect I might be better able to separate his policies from what I see he represents.
And then I wonder how much his twitter works for him. If Trump ability to dominate a news cycle with a tweet is't the source of his power.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2019, 04:27:47 PM »
Take a simple one.
Obama had child separation happening on his watch.
While the media admittedly didn't point this out, such that I didn't even know it was a thing until Trump came along, it happened.  I think most on the left accept/justify/rationalize this as a terrible unintended consequence of our laws and see it as proof that the current system is flawed and needs addressed now.

On Trump's watch though, it is viewed as a cudgel, meant to terrify those contemplating coming here with the threat their children will be taken from them, potentially kept here while the parents are sent back.  If we don't, you know, loose them, or let them get sick, or even die on our watch.  But you know, those are the chances you take!  It's YOUR fault you terrible parents for even contemplating breaking our laws. 

Same policy, optics matter.  In this case, Obama no doubt had the media on his side.  He also wasn't broadcasting a threat to prospective illegal crosser or asylum seekers.  HOW a thing is done, is often more important than IF a thing is done when it comes to politics.

Trump's "sin" is shattering the illusion that we are all good people in this together who happen to have some differences of opinion on how that happens.  It wasn't all kittens and rainbows when Obama was in office, but I'm still convinced (barring some legit gripes about Executive power consolidation) that was mostly about the backlash of closet racism outraged some of the country felt ready for a black president.  Also related to the audacity of those who felt we were ready for a woman president... 

I'm truly sorry for those who still do fit in the "I want what's best for this country but think you Democrats got it all wrong" category.  It's not fair you get hit as collateral damage.  But, like Trump's supporters.  We also need to keep fighting.  I suppose as compensation you get to hold your nose for HOW policy is being made, and just look at the technical merits of what is being done.  So that's something, I guess.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2019, 05:08:06 PM »
Quote
Obama had child separation happening on his watch.

Nowhere near equivalent. "Under Obama, children were separated from parents only when authorities had concerns for their well-being or could not confirm that the adult was in fact their legal guardian, but not as a blanket policy."

So what you didn't have was hundreds of migrant kids being separated from their parents in a general way. I think you see this a lot from Trump defenders "Look! The Same!" Except it isn't. Moreover, Trump made no attempt to keep it quiet. He Trumpeted it in order to try and create a deterrent to migrant families. The message was clear - come across the border and we're taking your kids away, whether they are weaned or not.

The accompanying adults in those situations were not being thrown in jail either, which was what prompted the whole mess.

Expecting that these two policies would be treated similarly by immigrant groups, business leaders, doctors, religious leaders, human rights groups, domestic press, or international press is just silly.

I'm not here to rehash the merits of immigration policy, just making the point that these are nowhere near equivalent. In a Bizarro Trump propaganda world, the press could avoid quoting the many groups that protested and filed lawsuits, while interviewing staunch anti-immigration groups like CIS exclusively. Note that the mainstream press did in fact interview people from CIS and quoted them.

Quote
THE CENTER FOR Immigration Studies, a far-right, anti-immigrant group, was frequently cited by major U.S. newspapers in the first two years of Donald Trump’s presidency — without mention of the group’s deep ties to the Trump administration, according to a report released Thursday.

Ninety percent of news articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today that cited the Center for Immigration Studies from 2014 to 2017 did not mention “the extremist nature of the group or its ties with the Trump administration,” according to “The Language of Immigration Reporting: Normalizing vs. Watchdogging in a Nativist Age.” The report, which was produced by researchers at Define American, a nonprofit media and culture organization, and Media Cloud, a project of the Center for Civic Media at the MIT Media Lab and Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, focuses on immigration reporting in those outlets over a four-year period starting in 2014.

The researchers found that the Center for Immigration Studies — which was founded by the late John Tanton, a white nationalist considered to be the father of the modern anti-immigrant movement — was often cited as a neutral authority in providing expert opinion or data. In 2018, the news outlets did a slightly better job of identifying the group, with context missing only 82 percent of the time, and negative sentiment expressed in 13 percent of references.

Complaints that the media worked hard to present the hardline immigration view

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2019, 01:21:05 PM »
"
"I wouldn't cheapen my vote with the less shady of two shady alternatives."

You've heard the saying that "perfect is the enemy of the good"?
"

Forgot to add...: But you voted for Trump, right?

Third party, Johnson. The saying presumes the other choice is good. It's not the perfect is the enemy of the deeply flawed.

Don't look at me, I voted for Kodos.

I voted for McMullin in 2016. We'll see what I do in 2020, but I doubt any of the Dems I might give some consideration of, despite the problems I have with them already, will make it to the general election. So it'll likely come down to finding a third party candidate again, or worry about which way I think my state's EC vote may go. But I have doubts about the EC votes going in a direction I'm unfavorable towards, even if I don't vote for that person.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2019, 01:32:56 PM by TheDeamon »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #36 on: October 24, 2019, 08:50:29 PM »
Quote
Obama had child separation happening on his watch.

Nowhere near equivalent. "Under Obama, children were separated from parents only when authorities had concerns for their well-being or could not confirm that the adult was in fact their legal guardian, but not as a blanket policy."

So what you didn't have was hundreds of migrant kids being separated from their parents in a general way.

Um ... I defended undocumented migrants under Obama, and I even spoke about the horrible anti-family policies on this forum back in 2008-10.  How does  deporting  undocumented parents away from their citizen children *not* involve "separating migrant kids from their parents in in a general way?" 

If you mean that Obama didn't fill up abandoned walmarts with the kids of migrants, then say that.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Innocent Hillary
« Reply #37 on: October 25, 2019, 08:37:16 AM »
Done. It still isn't equivalent.

Its also worth noting :

Quote
The rescinded 2014 memo would have granted work permits and reprieves from deportation to 4 million parents of U.S. citizens and green card holders, provided that they passed a criminal background check and met other requirements. It also would have expanded the number of undocumented immigrants who came here as children who could apply for DACA.

There was less of a hue and cry for several reasons. Republicans weren't likely to criticize. Democrats opposing would have kept quiet to not weaken the president. The kids were staying and entering foster care, which is often terrible but not as arresting as the idea of mass housing of kids together in the same place.