The Commish
Footballguy
judgment, character and integrity are the foundation for most things....the rest is just a symptom to an issue in one of these areas.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Hillary ClintonVerified account @HillaryClinton 44m44 minutes ago
"Clinton is one of the brightest people in Congress & she would be an excellent choice” —Sen. Sanders on Hillary as Sec. of State, Nov. 2008
"Clinton is one of the brightest people in Congress & she would be an excellent choice” —Sen. Sanders on Hillary as Sec. of State, Nov. 2008
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Do you think **** Cheney was qualified to be VP in 2000?
Do you think he would be now?
How about this guy?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
- btw all Hillary did was go up on the Senate floor at a crucial time and buttress what Bush was saying by referring back to her husband's administration based on her personal experience in it. This allowed countless Democrats reason and cover to vote for the war. - Actually come to think of it did the same for countless Americans to support it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Parrothead
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/clinton-portrays-herself-as-a-pro-gun-churchgoer/?_r=0
- Hillary 4/12/08: is someone pro-gun qualified to be POTUS?
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Excellent choice for what? Oh, Secretary of State. Sorry, we're having a Presidential campaign now. Or am I misunderstanding, and she's trying to lobby for the same spot in Sanders's cabinet?
Last edited by a moderator:
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
As Secretary of State.
Working for the President, who would tell her what to do. I thought that was the reasoning why Obama could justify bringing on the pro-Iraq people into his administration after he had so pointedly spent 18 months explaining how "stupid" it was and what poor "judgement" Hillary showed in supporting it.
The same guy who Hillary said was not qualified because of his lack of experience.
squistion
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/04/comey-pledges-no-outside-influence-on-clinton-email-case-221665
- It seems to me that again, resources and technology and people points to the FBI recovering Hillary's emails and recreating the whole net of what she had received and where it went, including sources and all effects.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ok good, just checking, I'm surprised you think someone pro-gun is qualified to be president. Fair enough.
G
Guest
Guest
Person I report to has direct responsibility for over $7 billion in P&L. Recently I recommended a significant strategic decision, which he supports under one condition: I am expected to hang my career on the result. It inspired some more contemplation, including mapping out what could go wrong in detail. I respect his position because some decisions are more important than others.
If I'm wrong, I wouldn't expect this history to prevent me from working again, and even assuming greater heights. But if I didn't own up to the mistakes I made and wasn't able to clearly state lessons leaned, then I probably wouldn't be gunning for any CEO positions.
squistion
Footballguy
I wasn't suggesting that. Unlike some people here, I don't usually disqualify a candidate I like overall based on one speech, one position or one vote I disagree with. Of course the joke is that the people pointing to her Iraqi war authorization vote as a complete disqualifier in and by itself, would never support her even if she had voted against it - it is not like, "Well, if it wasn't for that one vote I would be supporting her."
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
This. I have great admiration for her intelligence and her work ethic. As I've stated before about small gaffes, the endurance required of all of these candidates is so far beyond my capacity to imagine, I tip my cap to them all. It takes superhuman stamina and determination to run for President, and Hillary is as smart as they come. (Much smarter than this guy). Her intelligence and acumen are not seriously at issue. It's her judgment and her integrity that are.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Actually I tend to agree with you. In principle. What was Hillary's point in calling to "disqualify" Sanders then? Wasn't she disqualifying him based on his one interview with the NYDN and his ideology? Why is he not free to do the same then?
Last edited by a moderator:
pettifogger
Footballguy
On the "who is qualified," here is a discussion with embedded video.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_04/what_clintonsanders_diddidnt_s060182.php
For some reason many politicians feel the need not to say anything gracious or conceding any merit to the opponent. Instead of saying "of course he's qualified, but I would do better, here's why..." she declined to respond to the repeated invites, and re-framed the question without responding to it. Sanders to his credit is more gracious than any of the Presidential candidates. I have other concerns about him, but that is an area where he shines.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_04/what_clintonsanders_diddidnt_s060182.php
For some reason many politicians feel the need not to say anything gracious or conceding any merit to the opponent. Instead of saying "of course he's qualified, but I would do better, here's why..." she declined to respond to the repeated invites, and re-framed the question without responding to it. Sanders to his credit is more gracious than any of the Presidential candidates. I have other concerns about him, but that is an area where he shines.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Sorry, the thing about Hillary's flaws again: The math for Sanders has seemed not impossible but extremely challenging for a while now. But why is she in this fight, again? It seems to me Sanders had long ago signaled he was not going to go all out to try to win this thing, he would concede graciously in time and he would make his points. Hillary just had to let him. What is this hornet's nest? She flipped out on the Greenpeace supporter, then the "disqualify" message she put out. Sanders is liked, Hillary by and large is not. I'm just talking numbers and a major challenge to her campaign. Even if she thought internally she had to do this because she feared losing NY, and even if she wins this, or even if they make up in the next couple hours, this just seems to worsen a preexisting problem for her.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Little hazy on the specifics, but from what I recall from the link I posted yesterday, the intent was pointing out to voters that he was unelectable, which would be disqualifying but (once again) is not saying the same thing as that he is unqualified for the office - one can be eminently qualified for the office but that means little if one can't get the votes. Bernie's camp misinterpreted that to mean that she had specifically said he was not qualified, which she didn't do despite Scarborough repeatedly trying to get her to go there.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ok, when I hear her she is saying that his ideas and programs won't work. Then she says we need a Democrat in the office, now I can see how at first blush might sound like if he's the nominee he won't make it, but it also sounds like she is suggesting he is not a real "Democrat" and then Joe goes on to ask her to explain if he is not qualified because he won't be able to get things done, and she makes clear that is why she thinks he is not qualified.
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/clinton-i-have-a-record-a-plan-and-i-m-committed-660020291798
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
You know, when someone uses quotes and follows it with a name, it usually means the person said those words. I wonder if that's what Secretary Clinton meant by them, because it was a spokesperson of Sanders who said those words.
And I wonder if Secretary of State has any different important qualities than President.
The Commish
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Okay. And do you believe that Secretary of State has the same qualification requirements as President?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I mean, it might be just bad luck that we haven't had a Secretary of State become President since Martin Van Buren, but it seems like maybe they're very different offices.
squistion
Footballguy
I think John Kerry was qualified to be both President and SOS. But, no, not the same qualification requirement, although some people on the right enthusiastically talked up in the past Condi Rice and Colin Powell as potential Presidential nominees so on both sides of the aisle there seems a belief that there is some overlap.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
So, basically, Senator Sanders' spokesperson saying Clinton was qualified in 2008 to be Secretary of State doesn't actually contradict what Sanders said? Then what's the point of posting that?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I think I have to disagree with this one. Anybody capable of dealing with the ME, Russia, China, etc. is going to at least clear the bar of "qualified" to be president. I don't think it's possible for someone to be intellectually capable of working with high-level foreign policy issues but who wouldn't also be capable of getting up to speed on domestic legislation. (Same basic argument as why any decent governor would be at least "qualified" to be president despite an inherent lack of foreign policy experience).
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I don't think intellectual capability is the only qualification for President. I think character heavily counts in a bully-pulpit role in a way it simply doesn't in a cabinet position.
squistion
Footballguy
As I noted, there is belief by people in both parties that there is some overlap in qualifications, so it can be seen as a contradiction (as it was by Hillary). If you don't agree, fine.
Just to be clear, it's now fair game to criticize Clinton for anything her spokespeople say?
squistion
Footballguy
If she specifically authorized them to say it on her behalf, then yes. If you read the exact phrasing it was "through a spokesman," which implies that person was specifically authorized by Bernie to say that on his behalf.
Last edited by a moderator:
pettifogger
Footballguy
Here is my rant/summary of where I am on Sanders and Clinton.
Sanders seems to have his heart in the right place and I give him a lot of credit for pushing a progressive agenda, with which I largely agree. My concern is that he has a stubborn streak and something of a loner, holier-than-thou attitude. He's too good to actually be a member of the Democratic Party, apparently. I've seen him give speeches calling it "the establishment" and part of the problem. For 30 years he's been giving the same speech about how the last 20 years have seen the greatest rise in income inequality, ever. But I can't think of any major legislation he has sponsored to do anything about it, and he hasn't really built any legislative coalitions to accomplish progress. He promises Medicare for all, well yes, of course I would like to see that, but the Democratic Party expended every inch of its political capital to pass the ACA with no votes to spare, costing itself a legislative majority (just as it did in 1994 after passing Clinton's deficit reduction plan on a party line vote). Many Blue Dogs lost their jobs over the ACA vote. I have no interest in seeing the Democratic Party go on a kamikaze mission to try to have the federal government take over the health insurance industry (as opposed to federalizing regulation of it, which is what the ACA did). Even if I think it would be a good idea, it won't pass, and I am skeptical of its promised benefits. A lot of Medicare's cost savings are based on imposing a payment schedule that does not pay for administrative and overhead costs, and forces them onto private insurers; if you eliminate the health insurance industry and pay Medicare rates for all customers, most of our hospitals will go bankrupt. (What I am saying is that Medicare for all may be a good idea on balance, but it is not going to save all the money that is being promised by Sen. Sanders.)
And Sanders' "break up the big banks" and "take on Wall Street" seems relatively pointless to me. The antitrust laws have been largely de-fanged for 35 years now. A lot of the consolidation of banks was with the direct encouragement of the federal government and/or the product of market forces. We are a big country with big companies. Of course we have big banks. So do other developed nations. Consolidation is a development largely caused by economic forces. Breaking them up is not going to reduce the influence of the banking industry on politics, it just means there will be more people in the room when Mitch McConnell shamelessly meets with them in closed session to promise his fealty in return for support, as he did in opposing Dodd-Frank. I don't see how it would promote the economic growth of the middle class.
I give Sanders credit for putting minimum wage front and center, and maybe for pushing for higher and faster change than many Democrats, but that's more a difference in degree than in principle.
Campaign finance reform? All for it, but the reality is that a rabid partisan faction on the Supreme Court has gutted it in shameless acts of judicial activism in the apparent hope that they were helping Republicans. (With ironic results, probably not to their party's benefit.) What I don't want to see is unilateral disarmament by the Democratic Party, being buried in campaign spending following a quixotic quest to prove its purity. The only way to get campaign finance reform is to change the Supreme Court majority, and that will only happen with a Democratic president. And that is not going to happen if the Democratic Party does not raise money.
As for Clinton, back when Bill was President she was viewed as among the most liberal of the "kitchen Cabinet" members. Of course I was not there in the White House, but reading the papers at the time and all of Woodward's books, it appears she was in the front of pushing Bill to put in DADT immediately (which at the time was a big step forward from court martials for gays, and was way ahead of the congressional Democrats, who shamefully ran for cover, and would have handed Bill a major initial setback had Colin Powell not come to the rescue). She apparently was the loudest voice in the administration against he Welfare bill, but not in a position to criticize it publicly.
As for NAFTA, I have mixed feelings. Loss of manufacturing jobs is being crated by worldwide market forces, lower costs in transportation and communication, and a natural rise in prosperity by third world nations going through an industrial revolution that we went through 100 years before. The big auto plant in Flint, MI, closed 4 years before NAFTA, not because of it. NAFTA opened export markets for us, too. I am all for using trade to leverage better labor and environmental standards elsewhere, but opposing trade agreements is not going to bring those jobs back.
There As to her term in the Senate, yes she voted for the Iraq War resolution, along with Kerry, Edwards, and half the D caucus; I did not agree with it at the time (would have kept the no fly zone and embargo going, thought the threat from Iraq was exaggerated) but I don't assign to her all of the subsequent mishandling: going in with too few troops, disbanding the Iraqui Army, supporting a Shiite government, etc. Woodwards' books paint her as something of a hawk; when Sen. McKrystal asked for a 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan, Obama advisers with no military experience were trying to micromanage it and pare it down to show the Pentagon who was in charge (they were afraid they were being rolled by the Pentagon Westmoreland style), and of course Biden wanted to say no and just withdraw, or send a few troops with a public withdrawal deadline. Clinton said in the crucial meeting, we are the United States of America, we don't go to war to lose, we should give the General what he asks for, unless we are going to change his mission. Petraeus (who appears to be Woodward's source) thought she was the only one in the room who "got it." When she was in the Senate, she was on the quadrennial review commission, and was described by multiple sources as one of the few Senators who did the homework and took military issues seriously.
Libya? She and Powers and the military-force-to-protect-human-rights faction favored a no fly zone (backing the British and French, who already decided to do it but did not have the capacity we did to sustain it) to keep Quadafi from butchering the civilian population. I think it was the right move; yes Libya is a mess now, but the alternative was not a peaceful Libya, it was letting Quadafi commit mass murder. As far as I can tell it was an internal revolt, not as if we engineered a coup.
On Syria, she advocated a no fly zone (which as Obama pointed out is useless since ISIL does not have planes) and more military presence, and as far as I can tell, that is what Obama is reluctantly doing right now -- we have considerable special ops in there right now.
In fact, one of the things that surprises me is how virulent the neocon opposition to her is when she's probably the best D they could hope for.
One other thing I will say about Clinton is that she is speaking in an entirely different political language than the other candidates. The MSM spends little or no time talking about it, but if you listen to her stump speeches through, she is talking about the need for more availability of child care, family leave, medical leave (Sanders talks about it but more as part of a list of economic benefits, not details on how and why it is important in family life). I have not heard a speech this year in which she does not mention LGBT rights multiple times. There is a gender gap in the vote, but it is not all "just because she is a woman." She speaks to issues in a more personal way. (Though I will say Sanders' speech Tuesday night was the best he has given, in my view.)
Sanders seems to have his heart in the right place and I give him a lot of credit for pushing a progressive agenda, with which I largely agree. My concern is that he has a stubborn streak and something of a loner, holier-than-thou attitude. He's too good to actually be a member of the Democratic Party, apparently. I've seen him give speeches calling it "the establishment" and part of the problem. For 30 years he's been giving the same speech about how the last 20 years have seen the greatest rise in income inequality, ever. But I can't think of any major legislation he has sponsored to do anything about it, and he hasn't really built any legislative coalitions to accomplish progress. He promises Medicare for all, well yes, of course I would like to see that, but the Democratic Party expended every inch of its political capital to pass the ACA with no votes to spare, costing itself a legislative majority (just as it did in 1994 after passing Clinton's deficit reduction plan on a party line vote). Many Blue Dogs lost their jobs over the ACA vote. I have no interest in seeing the Democratic Party go on a kamikaze mission to try to have the federal government take over the health insurance industry (as opposed to federalizing regulation of it, which is what the ACA did). Even if I think it would be a good idea, it won't pass, and I am skeptical of its promised benefits. A lot of Medicare's cost savings are based on imposing a payment schedule that does not pay for administrative and overhead costs, and forces them onto private insurers; if you eliminate the health insurance industry and pay Medicare rates for all customers, most of our hospitals will go bankrupt. (What I am saying is that Medicare for all may be a good idea on balance, but it is not going to save all the money that is being promised by Sen. Sanders.)
And Sanders' "break up the big banks" and "take on Wall Street" seems relatively pointless to me. The antitrust laws have been largely de-fanged for 35 years now. A lot of the consolidation of banks was with the direct encouragement of the federal government and/or the product of market forces. We are a big country with big companies. Of course we have big banks. So do other developed nations. Consolidation is a development largely caused by economic forces. Breaking them up is not going to reduce the influence of the banking industry on politics, it just means there will be more people in the room when Mitch McConnell shamelessly meets with them in closed session to promise his fealty in return for support, as he did in opposing Dodd-Frank. I don't see how it would promote the economic growth of the middle class.
I give Sanders credit for putting minimum wage front and center, and maybe for pushing for higher and faster change than many Democrats, but that's more a difference in degree than in principle.
Campaign finance reform? All for it, but the reality is that a rabid partisan faction on the Supreme Court has gutted it in shameless acts of judicial activism in the apparent hope that they were helping Republicans. (With ironic results, probably not to their party's benefit.) What I don't want to see is unilateral disarmament by the Democratic Party, being buried in campaign spending following a quixotic quest to prove its purity. The only way to get campaign finance reform is to change the Supreme Court majority, and that will only happen with a Democratic president. And that is not going to happen if the Democratic Party does not raise money.
As for Clinton, back when Bill was President she was viewed as among the most liberal of the "kitchen Cabinet" members. Of course I was not there in the White House, but reading the papers at the time and all of Woodward's books, it appears she was in the front of pushing Bill to put in DADT immediately (which at the time was a big step forward from court martials for gays, and was way ahead of the congressional Democrats, who shamefully ran for cover, and would have handed Bill a major initial setback had Colin Powell not come to the rescue). She apparently was the loudest voice in the administration against he Welfare bill, but not in a position to criticize it publicly.
As for NAFTA, I have mixed feelings. Loss of manufacturing jobs is being crated by worldwide market forces, lower costs in transportation and communication, and a natural rise in prosperity by third world nations going through an industrial revolution that we went through 100 years before. The big auto plant in Flint, MI, closed 4 years before NAFTA, not because of it. NAFTA opened export markets for us, too. I am all for using trade to leverage better labor and environmental standards elsewhere, but opposing trade agreements is not going to bring those jobs back.
There As to her term in the Senate, yes she voted for the Iraq War resolution, along with Kerry, Edwards, and half the D caucus; I did not agree with it at the time (would have kept the no fly zone and embargo going, thought the threat from Iraq was exaggerated) but I don't assign to her all of the subsequent mishandling: going in with too few troops, disbanding the Iraqui Army, supporting a Shiite government, etc. Woodwards' books paint her as something of a hawk; when Sen. McKrystal asked for a 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan, Obama advisers with no military experience were trying to micromanage it and pare it down to show the Pentagon who was in charge (they were afraid they were being rolled by the Pentagon Westmoreland style), and of course Biden wanted to say no and just withdraw, or send a few troops with a public withdrawal deadline. Clinton said in the crucial meeting, we are the United States of America, we don't go to war to lose, we should give the General what he asks for, unless we are going to change his mission. Petraeus (who appears to be Woodward's source) thought she was the only one in the room who "got it." When she was in the Senate, she was on the quadrennial review commission, and was described by multiple sources as one of the few Senators who did the homework and took military issues seriously.
Libya? She and Powers and the military-force-to-protect-human-rights faction favored a no fly zone (backing the British and French, who already decided to do it but did not have the capacity we did to sustain it) to keep Quadafi from butchering the civilian population. I think it was the right move; yes Libya is a mess now, but the alternative was not a peaceful Libya, it was letting Quadafi commit mass murder. As far as I can tell it was an internal revolt, not as if we engineered a coup.
On Syria, she advocated a no fly zone (which as Obama pointed out is useless since ISIL does not have planes) and more military presence, and as far as I can tell, that is what Obama is reluctantly doing right now -- we have considerable special ops in there right now.
In fact, one of the things that surprises me is how virulent the neocon opposition to her is when she's probably the best D they could hope for.
One other thing I will say about Clinton is that she is speaking in an entirely different political language than the other candidates. The MSM spends little or no time talking about it, but if you listen to her stump speeches through, she is talking about the need for more availability of child care, family leave, medical leave (Sanders talks about it but more as part of a list of economic benefits, not details on how and why it is important in family life). I have not heard a speech this year in which she does not mention LGBT rights multiple times. There is a gender gap in the vote, but it is not all "just because she is a woman." She speaks to issues in a more personal way. (Though I will say Sanders' speech Tuesday night was the best he has given, in my view.)
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Okay, that's fair. I was thinking of the term "qualified" in a more technocratic sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee
Footballguy
Bill Clinton stirring things up a bit today. Going at black lives matters protestors and even another jab at Obama.
I suspect the average reporter doesn't make the distinction between "said through a spokesperson" and "said by a spokesperson", but rather just writes either/or.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
skol asylum
Footballguy
Waiting for him to call the whole Sanders thing a fairy tale.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
There's a great deal of overlap in qualifications between a lawyer and a judge, too. That doesn't mean that saying someone's qualified to be a lawyer contradicts saying he isn't qualified to be a judge.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I missed this. Got a link? All I can find are the quotes of Bill saying Obama is incompetent and an amateur who doesn't know how to be President. But that was three years ago.
bagger
Footballguy
G
Guest
Guest
Pettifogger, not going to quote it but appreciate your thoughtful analysis.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I'm admittedly not a very touchy-feely person, but I've had a very different experience on these issues than you have with the candidates. Roughly the opposite, in fact. I guess maybe we've seen different speeches than one another, or at least take them differently. Incredibly important issues, and I hope they stay at the forefront of her policy platform.
HellToupee
Footballguy
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/bill-unlike-when-i-was-president-a-lot-of-things-are-coming-apart-around-the-world-now/
Bill Clinton found another round-about away to make a dig at President Obama today.
During an appearance in Philadelphia, Clinton said, “Unlike when I became president, a lot of things are coming apart around the world now.”
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
G
Guest
Guest
Let's be honest... Blacks in the South are why Hillary is ahead in this race. What's Bill doing here? Not too smart.
rockaction
Footballguy
Tacking towards the center. The race is over, and has been for a while, IMO. He's just tacking back towards his main constituency, reminding them of his Sister Souljah moment, and going after it. You think this isn't scripted?
- Status
Similar threads
