Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (7 Viewers)

[Guest]

So, i was thinking this morning - all this Monday morning quarterbacking about why Clinton lost - but if the Clintons are being really introspective, Hillary lost this campaign 8 years ago when she negotiated to become Obama's Secretary of State.

Its easy to look back in retrospect, and I can understand why she pushed for the SOS job - she wanted to bolster her foreign policy credentials.  But, that one move cost her the presidency - and I think it was completely unnecessary.

If you look at the three things that really really hurt the campaign throughout the cycle - Benghazi, Email Server, and Clinton Foundation - none of those would have been an issue if Clinton was not Secretary of State.

If Clinton had remained in the Senate, she would have been a 3-term Senator from New York.  That is enough time to attach her name to enough stuff to look like she did something.  She would not have Benghazi, and all the hearing associated with that.  Nobody would even know how she had her emails set up.  And, as a Senator, the Foundation would not be an issue - in fact, she could have used the Foundation to boost her foreign policy chops - by meeting with foreign officials on behalf of the Foundation.  She probably would have been part of the Democratic Leadership in the Senate, and could easily have gotten herself on some choice committees - if she wanted to boost her foreign policy credentials.

At the same time, she could still have used the Clinton brand to remain a prolific fund-raiser for herself, and to gain political favors in Washington.  When she started this campaign, she would have had everything she needed to become president - minus all most of the baggage. 

Speaks to heart of Clinton corruption. She wanted to extend her power and influence globally and she did.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Speaks to heart of Clinton corruption. She wanted to extend her power and influence globally and she did.

She accepted a promotion, which is what 95% of people do when they're offered a promotion.

Congratulations.  You won.  She's gone from public service likely for good.  Let it go.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

I'm not sure about the bolded. There's some truth to what you said in the rest of the post.  And it's understandable to be emotional and angry considering the consequences of the loss. But Obama beat her popular vote margin by just 2%. She's currently only 2 million behind his raw vote total despite the far more significant presence of third party candidates in 2016 (about 5 million more votes) and new voting laws and policies aimed at limiting minority turnout. 

She made strategic mistakes, but I think those were mostly geographic.  It's not like there are no women or African-Americans in Pennsylvania and Michigan, she just didn't target those states specifically as much as she should have because she wasted time and money chasing Georgia and Arizona and North Carolina.

2 million votes behind O, and in key states as you point out, she definitely wasted resources. The failing in the strategy was both in geography and messaging. Her GOTV effort in Milwaukee was criticized for not having paid canvassers out there, because the Brooklyn HQ said they never lost a poll in WI. Big miss there. They spent more on ads in Omaha then in MI & WI combined in the last week of the race. That's why Mook deserves a lot of blame, he ran Obama's strategy but that's not the candidate he had. Her messaging never reached Millennials either, Obama had enthusiastic support there, Hillary, more like "meh".

For the national number, for Trump to have cracked 45% going in would have been a pretty big surprise by most accounts. That's my point regarding repudiation among women. I thought he had no chance at 44-45% given the women demo alone, and he surpassed that, which I found striking. 

Not emotional here, and I appreciate the continued solid posting among the noise. Sometimes I get caught by the  , need to avoid that, but overall it's a new chapter. Should be interesting, to say the least.

 

[Loan Sharks]

What?

You said "anything to get him out of power is fine with me." I interpret that to mean anything, So is your statement true? That you are fine with murdering the president? 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

To be fair, she didn't have any real positions on any issue.

Trump's campaign slogan was "Make America Great Again"

Hillary's slogan was "It's My Turn To Rule You Idiots"

That's when the battle was lost.

In a world of headlines, slogans and tweets, there's a lot of truth to this. That's one of the ways she lost the messaging battle.

 

[beavers]

You said "anything to get him out of power is fine with me." I interpret that to mean anything, So is your statement true? That you are fine with murdering the president? 

Are you serious? I never said anything about assination and am appalled you suggested it. Is that a representation of just how low you can go? Eww

 

[timschochet]

You said "anything to get him out of power is fine with me." I interpret that to mean anything, So is your statement true? That you are fine with murdering the president? 

I've liked your posts more recently, LS, but this is really awful. I mean WTF? 

 

[Loan Sharks]

I've liked your posts more recently, LS, but this is really awful. I mean WTF? 

Sorry Tim but what do you think she meant when she said she fine doing anything to get Trump out of power? There really aren't that many options for getting a duly elected President out of power. 

 

[Loan Sharks]

Are you serious? I never said anything about assination and am appalled you suggested it. Is that a representation of just how low you can go? Eww

Ok I apologize if I mis read your post. What did you mean when you said you are fine with anything to get the president out of office? What tactics are you thinking about, court challenges and such? 

 

[beavers]

Ok I apologize if I mis read your post. What did you mean when you said you are fine with anything to get the president out of office? What tactics are you thinking about, court challenges and such? 

Impeachment. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You said "anything to get him out of power is fine with me." I interpret that to mean anything, So is your statement true? That you are fine with murdering the president? 

Well to be fair Trump is currently considering the son of a presidential assassin for the USSC and AG so it's really not that big a deal.

 

[Ksquared]

I try to be accepting of all viewpoints initially. But this kind of sentiment is a non starter. Knock it off. You want to disagree with Tobes, that's fine, but this kind of language has dangerous repercussions whether you intended it in a McCarthy kind of way or not.

That is my reason for posting such things. I understand and you can see my posting in the past would never make that assumption from a specific item or two I would disagree on with someone.  But I have gotten more active in the last week because I see most on here label anyone voting for Trump as bigot, racist, sexist, etc.  You are absolutely correct this is a McCarthy style attack, the left has been doing this for the last 4-6 months.  But it seems to have gone ballistic since the election.

I am trying to do the same name calling/labeling in ways that are likely not true and offensive that the left is doing right now.  I may be demonstrating this in a poor way but somehow reasonable people on the left have got to understand why many on the right are fed up with this stuff and telling you to go pound sand.  Somehow we need to get back to being able to agree to disagree on topics.  Like I said, I may be doing a poor job of demonstrating this.

 

[Slapdash]

We need more than net benefit. We need even benefit. The TPP's IP, labor and environmental provisions are either dead set against the workers or so vague as to be non-existent. You can't make blanket statement claims about the positive quality of the thing when it has massive problems in it like that. Even HRC was smart enough to recognize that and walk her support of it back (which I give her credit for). And this is my problem with you. You haven't bothered to get familiar with these problems, you just assume that because it says it's free trade it's a universally good thing. Stop doing that. I'm not against free trade, I'm not against globalism. I fully realize both of those things can be beneficial. Further, globalism (this election, brexit, rise in nationalism all over the place not withstanding) is inevitable. So we have to make sure free trade deals are good for everyone, not just the heavy monied interests who've been writing them the last few decades. We have to make sure more people reap the benefits of globalism. Otherwise you're headed for either plutocracy or anarchy. We're having a tiny taste of anarchy right now through who just got elected and the riots in response. You keep blanket statement supporting anything bearing the free trade brand, you'll experience more.

Not all tariffs are bad. We need to enforce tariffs on those who deliver cheap goods through neglect of the environment and race to the bottom labor approaches. If your production does not meet U.S. environmental and/or labor law standards, then your products need to be taxed accordingly. Otherwise we're just temporarily outsourcing ecological damage and  labor exploitation. We end up paying for it in the long run. If a TFT ends up costing $5 more a unit as a result, fine. That's not going to kill the economy, and it's not going to unduly harm U.S. workers. If anything it might direct more jobs back to the U.S. if the workers here get a level playing field with workers elsewhere because that field has been elevated rather than lowered.

This is a really great post.  Wish I could give it more likes.  Shame it will fall on deaf ears.

 

[Guest]

She accepted a promotion, which is what 95% of people do when they're offered a promotion.

Congratulations.  You won.  She's gone from public service likely for good.  Let it go.

Why take (for example) a million bucks from Qatar off the books? 

 

[Smack Tripper]

She accepted a promotion, which is what 95% of people do when they're offered a promotion.

Congratulations.  You won.  She's gone from public service likely for good.  Let it go.

She likely negotiated a promotion, considering the acrimony between their camps and the suddenness of her giving up on the brokered convention.  Its a bit different than being offered one.  Why in gods name would Obama want the Clinton stank anywhere near him with the wave he rode to office, otherwise?

 

[David Dodds]

No one is going to guess as to whether Obama stains his legacy and pardons Clinton and her cronies for crimes they did not commit?

 

[Henry Ford]

No one is going to guess as to whether Obama stains his legacy and pardons Clinton and her cronies for crimes they did not commit?

Let me know when charges get filed for the insane accusations you've made against Clinton.

 

[The Commish]

We need more than net benefit. We need even benefit. The TPP's IP, labor and environmental provisions are either dead set against the workers or so vague as to be non-existent. You can't make blanket statement claims about the positive quality of the thing when it has massive problems in it like that. Even HRC was smart enough to recognize that and walk her support of it back (which I give her credit for). And this is my problem with you. You haven't bothered to get familiar with these problems, you just assume that because it says it's free trade it's a universally good thing. Stop doing that. I'm not against free trade, I'm not against globalism. I fully realize both of those things can be beneficial. Further, globalism (this election, brexit, rise in nationalism all over the place not withstanding) is inevitable. So we have to make sure free trade deals are good for everyone, not just the heavy monied interests who've been writing them the last few decades. We have to make sure more people reap the benefits of globalism. Otherwise you're headed for either plutocracy or anarchy. We're having a tiny taste of anarchy right now through who just got elected and the riots in response. You keep blanket statement supporting anything bearing the free trade brand, you'll experience more.

Not all tariffs are bad. We need to enforce tariffs on those who deliver cheap goods through neglect of the environment and race to the bottom labor approaches. If your production does not meet U.S. environmental and/or labor law standards, then your products need to be taxed accordingly. Otherwise we're just temporarily outsourcing ecological damage and  labor exploitation. We end up paying for it in the long run. If a TFT ends up costing $5 more a unit as a result, fine. That's not going to kill the economy, and it's not going to unduly harm U.S. workers. If anything it might direct more jobs back to the U.S. if the workers here get a level playing field with workers elsewhere because that field has been elevated rather than lowered.

   

 

[Sinn Fein]

Clinton finally responds to all the 2nd guessing of the campaign choices

 

[Gr00vus]

That is my reason for posting such things. I understand and you can see my posting in the past would never make that assumption from a specific item or two I would disagree on with someone.  But I have gotten more active in the last week because I see most on here label anyone voting for Trump as bigot, racist, sexist, etc.  You are absolutely correct this is a McCarthy style attack, the left has been doing this for the last 4-6 months.  But it seems to have gone ballistic since the election.

I am trying to do the same name calling/labeling in ways that are likely not true and offensive that the left is doing right now.  I may be demonstrating this in a poor way but somehow reasonable people on the left have got to understand why many on the right are fed up with this stuff and telling you to go pound sand.  Somehow we need to get back to being able to agree to disagree on topics.  Like I said, I may be doing a poor job of demonstrating this.

If that's your intent, I'd implore you (and anyone else trying to make this point) to rise above and, rather than add to the problem by making more unfounded and potentially damaging statements, just call out the problem and continue to discuss it reasonably.

 

[timschochet]

We need more than net benefit. We need even benefit. The TPP's IP, labor and environmental provisions are either dead set against the workers or so vague as to be non-existent. You can't make blanket statement claims about the positive quality of the thing when it has massive problems in it like that. Even HRC was smart enough to recognize that and walk her support of it back (which I give her credit for). And this is my problem with you. You haven't bothered to get familiar with these problems, you just assume that because it says it's free trade it's a universally good thing. Stop doing that. I'm not against free trade, I'm not against globalism. I fully realize both of those things can be beneficial. Further, globalism (this election, brexit, rise in nationalism all over the place not withstanding) is inevitable. So we have to make sure free trade deals are good for everyone, not just the heavy monied interests who've been writing them the last few decades. We have to make sure more people reap the benefits of globalism. Otherwise you're headed for either plutocracy or anarchy. We're having a tiny taste of anarchy right now through who just got elected and the riots in response. You keep blanket statement supporting anything bearing the free trade brand, you'll experience more.

Not all tariffs are bad. We need to enforce tariffs on those who deliver cheap goods through neglect of the environment and race to the bottom labor approaches. If your production does not meet U.S. environmental and/or labor law standards, then your products need to be taxed accordingly. Otherwise we're just temporarily outsourcing ecological damage and  labor exploitation. We end up paying for it in the long run. If a TFT ends up costing $5 more a unit as a result, fine. That's not going to kill the economy, and it's not going to unduly harm U.S. workers. If anything it might direct more jobs back to the U.S. if the workers here get a level playing field with workers elsewhere because that field has been elevated rather than lowered.

Not surprised that lots of people have congratulated you for this post. It won't surprise YOU that I have lots of problems with it. 

1. We're never going to have even benefit. Economic change doesn't work that way. Trains killed riverboat traffic. Automobiles killed the carriage industry. And so on. Free trade in the form of NAFTA hurt our traditional manufacturing base, yet created new industry in different regions of the country. Such change is inevitable: you can't stop it, and you can't even it out. 

2. I have never written that free trade is a universal good thing. It isn't, for the reasons I've stated above. I have only pointed out that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, and I believe this is true of TPP as well. 

3. The problem with your notion that some tarrifs are good is that they never produce the sort of results you're demanding. Other countries respond,not by improving their labor conditions or environmental conditions, but by retaliating against our exports with tarrifs in kind. This doesn't happen some of the time, it happens EVERY time. And it ends up being not only an extra tax on our consumers but a negative to our manufacturing as well. The jobs you try to protect with tarrifs vanish that much sooner as a result of them. 

My goals are the same as yours. I don't want labor exploited either here or in other countries. I don't want the environment damaged either here or in other countries. I want a prosperous country and a prosperous world. And I firmly believe, as a capitalist, that the best way to achieve this is to allow goods to flow as freely as possible between societies- that is the only way in the long run to advance the income levels of consumers in other countries where they can afford to buy our products, and that in turn will end their exploitation. Obama understands this which is why, even with all of its faults, he is for TPP. 

 

[Gr00vus]

Not surprised that lots of people have congratulated you for this post. It won't surprise YOU that I have lots of problems with it. 

1. We're never going to have even benefit. Economic change doesn't work that way. Trains killed riverboat traffic. Automobiles killed the carriage industry. And so on. Free trade in the form of NAFTA hurt our traditional manufacturing base, yet created new industry in different regions of the country. Such change is inevitable: you can't stop it, and you can't even it out. 

2. I have never written that free trade is a universal good thing. It isn't, for the reasons I've stated above. I have only pointed out that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, and I believe this is true of TPP as well. 

3. The problem with your notion that some tarrifs are good is that they never produce the sort of results you're demanding. Other countries respond,not by improving their labor conditions or environmental conditions, but by retaliating against our exports with tarrifs in kind. This doesn't happen some of the time, it happens EVERY time. And it ends up being not only an extra tax on our consumers but a negative to our manufacturing as well. The jobs you try to protect with tarrifs vanish that much sooner as a result of them. 

My goals are the same as yours. I don't want labor exploited either here or in other countries. I don't want the environment damaged either here or in other countries. I want a prosperous country and a prosperous world. And I firmly believe, as a capitalist, that the best way to achieve this is to allow goods to flow as freely as possible between societies- that is the only way in the long run to advance the income levels of consumers in other countries where they can afford to buy our products, and that in turn will end their exploitation. Obama understands this which is why, even with all of its faults, he is for TPP. 

Re. point 1. Granted, but is orthogonal to the point being discussed. We're not talking about technological progress changing industries and job markets.

Re. point 2. You believe is not sufficient. You don't understand the negative components of the TPP well enough, and apparently can't be bothered to read them for yourself to gain understanding, to make a determination about net benefit. Thus you haven't earned credibility in regards to your belief about it. This is one of the main issues I have with your blanket statements.

Re. point 3. "Never" is a silly claim from the outset. If countries don't respond with improvements to come up to ecological and labor consideration standards, they lose the U.S. market, or they pay the fine. If that means more things get produced here to fill the void, it's an even bigger win for U.S. workers. Until then, we continue to externalize real costs, which end up as a tax on all U.S. citizens to mitigate those costs. Your brand of laissez faire free market capitalism is grossly ignoring the true cost of production - it's a poor model and is failing us in the face of globalism.

You would do nothing to address ecological costs or working conditions globally. That's an antiquated and failed notion. We can't afford your level of naivete when it comes to these things anymore.

 

[Slapdash]

Re. point 2. You believe is not sufficient. You don't understand the negative components of the TPP well enough, and apparently can't be bothered to read them for yourself to gain understanding, to make a determination about net benefit. Thus you haven't earned credibility in regards to your belief about it. This is one of the main issues I have with your blanket statements.

 

[timschochet]

I've read plenty about intellectual property rights by now Groovus. I hadn't before; about 6 months ago Slapdash raised the issue and so I took time to read more about them. I've also read a lot about labor and environmental concerns with TPP (though these I was more familiar with beforehand). 

But have you read about the expanding Pacific Rim marketplace? About the amazing growth in consumers in Asia in recent years, and how most economists believe a further explosion is right around the corner? This is the future for our exports and we need to take advantage of it. It's really in the long run the only way to grow our economy. I believe these positives outweigh the negatives, but my credibility on this issue shouldn't be a factor. Listen to what most economists say, even progressive ones like Paul Krugman. Or do you question their credibility as well? 

 

[timschochet]

BTW, here is a good summary of IP rights under TPP: 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9544428

Contrary to what guys like Slapdash have been claiming, the agreement is not exactly a destroyer of IP rights. US negotiators didn't get everything they wanted, but they did get some of the important stuff. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've read plenty about intellectual property rights by now Groovus. I hadn't before; about 6 months ago Slapdash raised the issue and so I took time to read more about them. I've also read a lot about labor and environmental concerns with TPP (though these I was more familiar with beforehand). 

But have you read about the expanding Pacific Rim marketplace? About the amazing growth in consumers in Asia in recent years, and how most economists believe a further explosion is right around the corner? This is the future for our exports and we need to take advantage of it. It's really in the long run the only way to grow our economy. I believe these positives outweigh the negatives, but my credibility on this issue shouldn't be a factor. Listen to what most economists say, even progressive ones like Paul Krugman. Or do you question their credibility as well? 

There is a debate to be had.

Problem is we never had it. First the TPP got rushed through Congress instead of having a prolonged national debate on it. And then maybe the biggest free trade proponent in government Hillary dissembled then flip flopped on it instead of making the case.

 

[Gr00vus]

BTW, here is a good summary of IP rights under TPP: 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9544428

Contrary to what guys like Slapdash have been claiming, the agreement is not exactly a destroyer of IP rights. US negotiators didn't get everything they wanted, but they did get some of the important stuff. 

I don't think you really understand the problems @Slapdash and I have with current U.S. IP "rights."

This:

TPP will provide for higher standards of IPR protection that better reflect existing US law.

Is not a good thing. It's a globalization of already oppressive U.S. IP laws that serve an entrenched few.

I'm aware of the Pacific Rim market place (I've been investing in mutual funds specializing in the region for a while now). If they get labor at $1 a day with no health, accident, disability, etc. coverage, no pension plans and they have no environmental regulations, it ends badly for most workers and everyone on the planet when their increase in production capacity shoves more pollutants into the local and global environment. Also, they'll buy their own cheaper products at every turn rather than U.S. products - U.S. workers just get the shaft in that case as we honor labor and environmental protections.

Appeals to Paul Krugman?

 

[Politician Spock]

Tim,

I say this with all respect and honesty.... I think many of the things your are passionate about suffer from the fallacy of wishful thinking. The NSA issue, Hillary, etc.... Many examples of it occurring. But lets just keep it to how you are processing the topic at hand. I appreciate that you looked into the TPP IP rights issue after Slapdash challenged you on them, but I think your processing of what you've found is influenced by your wishful thinking and desire for open trade. A person with no preconceived notions of the issue reads that and sees a net loss for IP rights. Because of your wishful thinking, you either don't, or you chose to ignore it. Either way, it ends up making you wrong once again.  

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

I say this with all respect and honesty.... I think many of the things your are passionate about suffer from the fallacy of wishful thinking. The NSA issue, Hillary, etc.... Many examples of it occurring. But lets just keep it to how you are processing the topic at hand. I appreciate that you looked into the TPP IP rights issue after Slapdash challenged you on them, but I think your processing of what you've found is influenced by your wishful thinking and desire for open trade. A person with no preconceived notions of the issue reads that and sees a net loss for IP rights. Because of your wishful thinking, you either don't, or you chose to ignore it. Either way, it ends up making you wrong once again.  

Fair enough. I appreciate your opinion and I will consider it. I truly will. I think that whenever there is a dispute about issues most thoughtful people tend to read and agree with the arguments made by those who share their general philosophy. I am certainly guilty of this, though I try to be open minded. I will try harder. 

I should note that even if I accepted Slapdash's concerns about IP under the TPP agreement as 100% valid and true, I would still, at this point, regard the overall agreement as a net benefit. That can always change. I should also note that the specific discussion about TPP is probably moot anyhow because it appears to be dead in the water- if an agreement is eventually reached it will be far different from the one we have now, so as to make all of our debate here quite possibly irrelevant. 

 

[timschochet]

I don't think you really understand the problems @Slapdash and I have with current U.S. IP "rights."

This:

Is not a good thing. It's a globalization of already oppressive U.S. IP laws that serve an entrenched few.

I'm aware of the Pacific Rim market place (I've been investing in mutual funds specializing in the region for a while now). If they get labor at $1 a day with no health, accident, disability, etc. coverage, no pension plans and they have no environmental regulations, it ends badly for most workers and everyone on the planet when their increase in production capacity shoves more pollutants into the local and global environment. Also, they'll buy their own cheaper products at every turn rather than U.S. products - U.S. workers just get the shaft in that case as we honor labor and environmental protections.

Appeals to Paul Krugman?

These are good arguments though I really disagree with the second one. They will buy our products because there is great love for American products.

 

[Gr00vus]

They will buy our products because there is great love for American products.

Oy vey.

You seem to already have forgotten @Politician Spock's assessment:

I think many of the things your are passionate about suffer from the fallacy of wishful thinking.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't think you really understand the problems @Slapdash and I have with current U.S. IP "rights."

This:

Is not a good thing. It's a globalization of already oppressive U.S. IP laws that serve an entrenched few.

Exactly.  The current IP system has gone too far and now serves to reduce innovation (Tabarrak Curve).  It is another key driver of inequality globally and within the US.  Furthermore, it is the main item (along with financial liberalization for Wall St) the US seeks to expand and enforce globally during trade deals.  This makes the currently constructed trade deals a 1-2 punch for inequality.  There is no good reason this should be the focus of trade deals as opposed to environmental and labor concerns except who is funding our politicians...

 

[timschochet]

Oy vey.

You seem to already have forgotten @Politician Spock's assessment:

This isn't wishful thinking. 

http://www.brainjet.com/world/2891/11-american-things-other-countries-are-obsessed-with/#page=1

Theae are just a few examples. America continues to be thought of as the creator or trends around the world. 

 

[Gr00vus]

This isn't wishful thinking. 

http://www.brainjet.com/world/2891/11-american-things-other-countries-are-obsessed-with/#page=1

Theae are just a few examples. America continues to be thought of as the creator or trends around the world. 

:chuckle:

 

[Politician Spock]

This isn't wishful thinking. 

http://www.brainjet.com/world/2891/11-american-things-other-countries-are-obsessed-with/#page=1

Theae are just a few examples. America continues to be thought of as the creator or trends around the world. 

So now that the election is over, you've abandoned your "main stream media" rules and are back to using sites like "Brainjet"? 

 

[Slapdash]

Always interesting that people claim with such certainty they know the net-benefit from trade deals.  Income inequality and pollution are two of the biggest drawbacks.  They are both items that are getting worse and whose negative effects have yet to be fully felt or priced in.  Maybe if those lauding these trade deals were also proposing wealth redistribution (BIG great here) and carbon tax/cap and trade policies to address the shortcomings we could have a different conversation.  But they typically don't and the impact of wealth concentration on government policies are exacerbating those items.

 

[Slapdash]

Always interesting that people claim with such certainty they know the net-benefit from trade deals.  Income inequality and pollution are two of the biggest drawbacks.  They are both items that are getting worse and whose negative effects have yet to be fully felt or priced in.  Maybe if those lauding these trade deals were also proposing wealth redistribution (BIG great here) and carbon tax/cap and trade policies to address the shortcomings we could have a different conversation.  But they typically don't and the impact of wealth concentration on government policies are exacerbating those items.

It not just a US phenomenon either; radicalism is on the rise globally and this is a big part of what is to blame.

 

[timschochet]

Always interesting that people claim with such certainty they know the net-benefit from trade deals.  Income inequality and pollution are two of the biggest drawbacks.  They are both items that are getting worse and whose negative effects have yet to be fully felt or priced in.  Maybe if those lauding these trade deals were also proposing wealth redistribution (BIG great here) and carbon tax/cap and trade policies to address the shortcomings we could have a different conversation.  But they typically don't and the impact of wealth concentration on government policies are exacerbating those items.

I am very much for the carbon tax and have no problem with BIG 

 

[squistion]

Joy ReidVerified account ‏@JoyAnnReid 7h7 hours ago

Will those who had such determined umbrage about email servers and the Clinton Foundation get exercised about this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumphotel-915pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to be

About 100 foreign diplomats, from Brazil to Turkey, gathered at the Trump International Hotel this week to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel.

The event for the diplomatic community, held one week after the election, was in the Lincoln Library, a junior ballroom with 16-foot ceilings and velvet drapes that is also available for rent.

Some attendees won raffle prizes — among them overnight stays at other Trump properties around the world — allowing them to become better acquainted with the business holdings of the new commander in chief.

“The place was packed,” said Lynn Van Fleit, founder of the nonprofit Diplomacy Matters Institute, which organizes programs for foreign diplomats and government officials. She said much of the discussion among Washington-based diplomats is over “how are we going to build ties with the new administration.”

Back when many expected Trump to lose the election, speculation was rife that business would suffer at the hotels, condos and golf courses that bear his name. Now, those venues offer the prospect of something else: a chance to curry favor or access with the next president.

 

[Slapdash]

I am very much for the carbon tax and have no problem with BIG 

Yet you continuously support politicians who are not in favor of the carbon tax and do not favor significant wealth redistribution  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Joy ReidVerified account ‏@JoyAnnReid 7h7 hours ago

Will those who had such determined umbrage about email servers and the Clinton Foundation get exercised about this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumphotel-915pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to be

About 100 foreign diplomats, from Brazil to Turkey, gathered at the Trump International Hotel this week to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel.

The event for the diplomatic community, held one week after the election, was in the Lincoln Library, a junior ballroom with 16-foot ceilings and velvet drapes that is also available for rent.

Some attendees won raffle prizes — among them overnight stays at other Trump properties around the world — allowing them to become better acquainted with the business holdings of the new commander in chief.

“The place was packed,” said Lynn Van Fleit, founder of the nonprofit Diplomacy Matters Institute, which organizes programs for foreign diplomats and government officials. She said much of the discussion among Washington-based diplomats is over “how are we going to build ties with the new administration.”

Back when many expected Trump to lose the election, speculation was rife that business would suffer at the hotels, condos and golf courses that bear his name. Now, those venues offer the prospect of something else: a chance to curry favor or access with the next president.

I said this right here.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Joy ReidVerified account ‏@JoyAnnReid 7h7 hours ago

Will those who had such determined umbrage about email servers and the Clinton Foundation get exercised about this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumphotel-915pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to be

About 100 foreign diplomats, from Brazil to Turkey, gathered at the Trump International Hotel this week to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel.

The event for the diplomatic community, held one week after the election, was in the Lincoln Library, a junior ballroom with 16-foot ceilings and velvet drapes that is also available for rent.

Some attendees won raffle prizes — among them overnight stays at other Trump properties around the world — allowing them to become better acquainted with the business holdings of the new commander in chief.

“The place was packed,” said Lynn Van Fleit, founder of the nonprofit Diplomacy Matters Institute, which organizes programs for foreign diplomats and government officials. She said much of the discussion among Washington-based diplomats is over “how are we going to build ties with the new administration.”

Back when many expected Trump to lose the election, speculation was rife that business would suffer at the hotels, condos and golf courses that bear his name. Now, those venues offer the prospect of something else: a chance to curry favor or access with the next president.

You and tim and others spent the better part of the last two years pretending not to understand why it was a problem for Bill and Hillary Clinton to collect speaking fees from people who had or will have business with the government.  Glad to see you're starting to get it now.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Also, you guys kept telling us that unless we have definitive proof of an actual quid pro quo, we have no basis for complaining about the mere appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest.  

Still think that way?  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In other words, screw you.  And tim, if you're reading this, screw you too.  You two guys in particular have zero standing to complain about corruption in the Trump administration.  You've been defending this stuff all all along when it was your candidate.

 

[squistion]

You and tim and others spent the better part of the last two years pretending not to understand why it was a problem for Bill and Hillary Clinton to collect speaking fees from people who had or will have business with the government.  Glad to see you're starting to get it now.  

Joy Reid was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Hillary critics.

 

[RCon]

Joy Reid was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Hillary critics.

What hypocrisy?  Was there a quote from a Clinton critic excusing this behavior by Trump?

I'm a Clinton critic, and I find this stuff abhorrent no matter who does it.

And, yeah, Clinton defenders don't get too criticize this kind of behavior.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Joy Reid was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Hillary critics.

And I was pointing out yours.  

 

[squistion]

And I was pointing out yours.  

It is not hypocrisy to point out lack of umbrage among those who were apoplectic about the Clinton Foundation.   

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What cracks me up about Squiz's/Joy Reid's post is there's no explanation for their umbrage.

During the Wikileaks debate there were a lot of claims made about Russia being behind it and interfering with our process.... but really there was no statement about why we should object to Russia. Did Hillary fans view them as an enemy or geopolitical foe? No, not really much mention of that.

And now we have this about Trump and his conflicts of interest. Yes please tell us how a public official shouldn't be involved with entities which are potentially taking in money from corporations and countries with business before the US Gov. Please unpack that and lay out the moral and ethical argument why that is corrosive. Looking forward to it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It is not hypocrisy to point out lack of umbrage among those who were apoplectic about the Clinton Foundation.   

See my (first) post above. Why don't we argue together on this in the Trump thread? Glad to help you now that you've been converted. Do you understand now why this kind of thing is a problem?