What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Hillary Clinton thread. 'Done' but not going away. (3 Viewers)

timschochet said:
I get it though. People hate centrism. Conservatives have complained for decades that their candidates aren't conservative enough. Progressives have complained for decades that their candidates aren't progressive enough. They want ideologues, not politicians, who will shove it in the face of the other party and refuse to work with them.
Click to expand...
Tim there is no such thing as centrism. It's a contradiction in terms. Nothing is "center", nothing is truly in the middle. When Hillary supported the border fence and bombing Libya, that was conservative. When Hillary supported national health care and raising taxes it was liberal. The problem is that people often did not believe she was coming from a set of core beliefs. It wasn't centrism that killed her it was her lack of a center.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
It's too late Commish. That battle was lost a long time ago, though I was slow to realize it. Now I have much more in common with Democrats, whatever Groovus claims. You realize that if it's Bernie vs. any kind of current Republican, I'm voting for Bernie, right? We've got to do something about climate change and Bernie will. None of this other stuff is nearly as important.
Click to expand...
It's entirely possible part of the extremists emerged as being so powerful because you and your ilk abandoned the party and left a small voice to become a larger share.

It's also possible the extremists slowly grew in response to folk who aren't really conservative hijacking the party and letting it stagnate in the 'center' of a political abyss, and now that those 'cenrists' are trying to sneak into camp liberal they'll cause a similar backlash from life long liberals angry their party has been hijacked by indecisive fence sitters with zero vision and no guts to fight for it even if they did.

 
Hilts said:
It's entirely possible part of the extremists emerged as being so powerful because you and your ilk abandoned the party and left a small voice to become a larger share.

It's also possible the extremists slowly grew in response to folk who aren't really conservative hijacking the party and letting it stagnate in the 'center' of a political abyss, and now that those 'cenrists' are trying to sneak into camp liberal they'll cause a similar backlash from life long liberals angry their party has been hijacked by indecisive fence sitters with zero vision and no guts to fight for it even if they did.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Well I suppose anything's possible.

But...surprise! I disagree with both of your possibilities. :D

 
Gr00vus said:
The Democratic party used to be (for much of the 20th century) the party of the lower and middle class. The party of the blue collar workers, unions,  all that kind of thing. Now they're in bed with Goldman Sachs as much as the Republicans. That's the Clinton legacy, the 3rd ####### way, and now there is no party that represents the blue collar workers, the unions, the little guy. There are just 2 parties that lie about it. Some of us on the left actually do want to defend the little guy, but the Democratic party has been coopted by swell folks like Tim telling us how to be liberals now, that we need to embrace plutocracy and rampant corporatism.
Click to expand...


timschochet said:
Your history is off. The party of Hillary Clinton is the party of FDR, Harry Truman, and LBJ. None of those guys were ever anti-Wall Street or anti-business or anti-trade. And all of them, particularly FDR, were opposed by the extremist progressives of the time (such as Norman Thomas, head of the socialist party.)
Click to expand...
Please stop with the zero sum game. It should not be pro vs anti. Markets create businesses. Businesses create jobs, Jobs pay wages. Wages create markets.

Both the little guy and the businesses can win, both should, no, both must win to ensure America's (or any other nation's) greatness.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
I don't consider myself pro-corporate at all, but I think the party has a big enough tent to welcome those who share views like fighting against discrimination, fighting to save the environment, and those who support universal healthcare as a right. People didn't like Hillary personally by and large and that's why she couldn't beat a moron. But if we chase off reasonable people who are done with the Republican party, I think that's a mistake. 
Click to expand...


The Commish said:
Fwiw I'm of the "the more the merrier" mindset as long as you are working through the same general lens as me. We can disagree inside that context but as soon as you try to shift from the overall point of view we have a problem. Order of priority for me puts "we the people" first and foremost
Click to expand...
The issue the large tent invites though is the one the Repubs are facing, that many factions end up squabbling and not being able to agree on much, assisted by the "we're not for stuff, we are against the liberals (and Obama)" attitude of the past few years.

On the other hand the big tent invites compromise and reaching across the aisle.

Although if compromise in politics (for the greater good) was really an aim, a two party system is and was not the right way to go.

 
msommer said:
The issue the large tent invites though is the one the Repubs are facing, that many factions end up squabbling and not being able to agree on much, assisted by the "we're not for stuff, we are against the liberals (and Obama)" attitude of the past few years.

On the other hand the big tent invites compromise and reaching across the aisle.

Although if compromise in politics (for the greater good) was really an aim, a two party system is and was not the right way to go.
Click to expand...
I want to make clear that my only real requirement that is not negotiable is that all deals must have the American people first. For the time being anyway. That can also change once the balance is shifted back to wards the middle and we begin to be represented more than corporations by our reps. 

 
The Commish said:
I want to make clear that my only real requirement that is not negotiable is that all deals must have the American people first. For the time being anyway. That can also change once the balance is shifted back to wards the middle and we begin to be represented more than corporations by our reps. 
Click to expand...
This statement is as vague as all of the similar ones made by President Trump. What trade agreement that we ever agreed to did not have the American people first? I would argue that all of them did. Certainly TPP would have provided great benefit to American consumers. 

 
timschochet said:
This statement is as vague as all of the similar ones made by President Trump. What trade agreement that we ever agreed to did not have the American people first? I would argue that all of them did. Certainly TPP would have provided great benefit to American consumers. 
Click to expand...
I've already been down this rabbit hole with you Tim. Not doing it again. It's been shown to you several times by several of us how TPP isn't what you keep trying to make it out to be. 

 
timschochet said:
Of the issues I listed, which are accepted, or at least not opposed, by the Republican party?
Click to expand...


timschochet said:
In foreign affairs we should continue our role as the leader of the free world, and as a moral beacon for the world.
Click to expand...
Bill Kristol is not a liberal, and he would wholeheartedly endorse this particular point.

Also, as The Commish noted, "Republican" is not the the opposite of "liberal."  The opposite of "liberal" is "not liberal," which includes lots of people who do not identify as Republicans, such as me for example.

 
The Commish said:
I've already been down this rabbit hole with you Tim. Not doing it again. It's been shown to you several times by several of us how TPP isn't what you keep trying to make it out to be. 
Click to expand...
That wasn't really the point of my last post though. The point was that your statement was so vague as to be meaningless. Who decides what puts the American people first? That's not an objective standard. You might as well have written, "my only requirement is that I like the deal"; that would have been just as clear. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Bill Kristol is not a liberal, and he would wholeheartedly endorse this particular point.

Also, as The Commish noted, "Republican" is not the the opposite of "liberal."  The opposite of "liberal" is "not liberal," which includes lots of people who do not identify as Republicans, such as me for example.
Click to expand...
Yes you're right about that point. Somewhat. Though I would argue that Kristol's  neoconservatism is more coldly geopolitical than the original Woodrow Wilson/FDR model which I was referring to. 

 
timschochet said:
Yes you're right about that point. Somewhat. Though I would argue that Kristol's  neoconservatism is more coldly geopolitical than the original Woodrow Wilson/FDR model which I was referring to. 
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that Kristol would almost certainly disagree with your assessment, how about Reagan then?  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Aside from the fact that Kristol would almost certainly disagree with your assessment, how about Reagan then?  
Click to expand...
Well, Reagan supported El Salvador, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines, and the Apartheid regime in South Africa, all because they were on our side of the Cold War. 

 
timschochet said:
Well, Reagan supported El Salvador, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines, and the Apartheid regime in South Africa, all because they were on our side of the Cold War. 
Click to expand...
So?  Reagan and Kristol would still argue sincerely that they were acting "our role as the leader of the free world, and as a moral beacon for the world."  And it's not difficult to find similar stuff to criticize self-identified liberals for.  Foreign policy is messy and often requires us to work with folks we'd prefer not to work with.  (You're a big fan of Churchill and FDR -- if we scour the historical record, could we find any unsavory regimes that those guys ever partnered up with?)

 
IvanKaramazov said:
So?  Reagan and Kristol would still argue sincerely that they were acting "our role as the leader of the free world, and as a moral beacon for the world."  And it's not difficult to find similar stuff to criticize self-identified liberals for.  Foreign policy is messy and often requires us to work with folks we'd prefer not to work with.  (You're a big fan of Churchill and FDR -- if we scour the historical record, could we find any unsavory regimes that those guys ever partnered up with?)
Click to expand...
Again I agree somewhat. I would argue that, as a general rule, the more we place morality first in foreign affairs, the more liberal we are being. The more we place self-interest first, the more conservative we are being. There's a lot of gray area in between of course. 

 
timschochet said:
Again I agree somewhat. I would argue that, as a general rule, the more we place morality first in foreign affairs, the more liberal we are being. The more we place self-interest first, the more conservative we are being. There's a lot of gray area in between of course. 
Click to expand...
I think this is a poor dichotomy.  It makes it sound like conservatives are just Machiavellians while liberals are just goopy idealists.  Good foreign policy presidents (Reagan and JFK would both qualify) have combined a clear moral vision for US leadership along with a willingness to push aggressively and efficiently to advance that vision.  Presidents who focus too much on moral ideals to the exclusion of pragmatism (Carter, George W. Bush) tend to fail.  That isn't a conservative-vs-liberal thing.  It's more about pragmatism and seeing the world as it is as opposed to how we wish it were.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I think this is a poor dichotomy.  It makes it sound like conservatives are just Machiavellians while liberals are just goopy idealists.  Good foreign policy presidents (Reagan and JFK would both qualify) have combined a clear moral vision for US leadership along with a willingness to push aggressively and efficiently to advance that vision.  Presidents who focus too much on moral ideals to the exclusion of pragmatism (Carter, George W. Bush) tend to fail.  That isn't a conservative-vs-liberal thing.  It's more about pragmatism and seeing the world as it is as opposed to how we wish it were.
Click to expand...
I wrote that there is a lot of gray area. And earlier I wrote that you were somewhat right.

But I also think there is a lot of truth to my point as well. Why, for instance, did Reagan and previous Presidents support South Africa? At least part of the reason was because it was the established regime, and an end to the white government, they feared, would bring about anarchy and discord. In other words, they were opposed to change because it brought about instability. That is the conservative position. The liberal position is to support change even in the event of instability. This dichotomy has helped to define the attitude of many of our Presidents. The naiveté  which was a characteristic of George W Bush, Wilson, and Carter is something else entirely, and here your point is largely correct IMO.

 
Hillary will be interviewed by Rachel Maddow tonight. I expect Rachel to be fair, open-minded, somewhat sympathetic, but also willing to ask tough questions. I'm looking forward to it.

 
timschochet said:
That wasn't really the point of my last post though. The point was that your statement was so vague as to be meaningless. Who decides what puts the American people first? That's not an objective standard. You might as well have written, "my only requirement is that I like the deal"; that would have been just as clear. 
Click to expand...
The politicians do in the way they write the legislation (or allow it to be written for them by their lobbyists)  

The written word is certainly objective. The problem is we (the people) don't really have a prominent voice at the table and on the rare occasion where we do those prominent voices are vilified being labeled"socialist" or "populist"  

Once the legislation is written it becomes really clear if it was written with us in mind first and foremost or not. 

 
timschochet said:
Well, Reagan supported El Salvador, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines, and the Apartheid regime in South Africa, all because they were on our side of the Cold War. 
Click to expand...
I think there was a bit of brouhaha about some contras too

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I wrote that there is a lot of gray area. And earlier I wrote that you were somewhat right.

But I also think there is a lot of truth to my point as well. Why, for instance, did Reagan and previous Presidents support South Africa? At least part of the reason was because it was the established regime, and an end to the white government, they feared, would bring about anarchy and discord. .
Click to expand...
The ANC was definitely supported by the Soviets like most other colonial freedom fighting movements as well - probably more this than anything else. The vaunted "containment" doctrine, I believe

 
This is a hint of what I find so disturbing about Hillary Clinton and why I believe that she is NOT a classic liberal:

https://twitter.com/JamesHeartfield/status/907752206627213312

Anyone that reads 1984 and comes away believing that the moral is that political leaders, "experts" and the media are to be trusted by default has an anti-democratic and anti-liberal bent.

No, we shouldn't be a people that rejects information and people because they are leaders/experts/media, but we should absolutely always be skeptical. For crying out loud, that's the entire basis of both science and our system of government. 

 
HellToupee said:
Amazon deleting 1 star reviews . Somehow I'm really not surprised
Click to expand...
And this is not surprising either:

http://fortune.com/2017/09/12/hillary-clinton-book-amazon-review/

The Anti-Hillary Clinton Camp Has Already Hijacked Amazon Reviews of Her New Book

[...]

Some of the one-star reviews were posted prior to Sept. 12, the book's release date.

Of the 42 reviews of What Happened on Amazon.com as of early Tuesday morning, none were marked as a "verified purchase"—the site's designation for feedback from customers who actually bought a product.

[...]

 
You have to know when HT and squis  get together things go of the rails quickly. 

Who gives a crap about amazon book reviews other than you two?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
So?  Reagan and Kristol would still argue sincerely that they were acting "our role as the leader of the free world, and as a moral beacon for the world."  And it's not difficult to find similar stuff to criticize self-identified liberals for.  Foreign policy is messy and often requires us to work with folks we'd prefer not to work with.  (You're a big fan of Churchill and FDR -- if we scour the historical record, could we find any unsavory regimes that those guys ever partnered up with?)
Click to expand...
This is a magnificent take-down, however intended or unintended.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Hillary will be interviewed by Rachel Maddow tonight. I expect Rachel to be fair, open-minded, somewhat sympathetic, but also willing to ask tough questions. I'm looking forward to it.
Click to expand...
Oh, :bs:

There is a reason HRC is going on her show.  HRC won't find a place that will toss more softballs than maddow.  I expect a lot of ###-kissing and drooling.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm just tired of HRC. It's enough already. She could at least take enough time off to make people wonder what she's up to, and no it hasn't been long enough. Seems like it took a lot longer for Gore and Kerry to surface again politically (Gore was great in Futurama though).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Hillary will be interviewed by Rachel Maddow tonight. I expect Rachel to be fair, open-minded, somewhat sympathetic, but also willing to ask tough questions. I'm looking forward to it.
Click to expand...
She was on CNN too. The only weird part is when she talked about how much Trump didn't get inside her head at the first debate and all I heard was her revealing how much he got inside her head. She's still swirling about it. I mean Trump was a freak (the chair thing was outright weird) but she totally let him get to her. It bugs me that she was so defenseless in what was such an amateur maneuver.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
She was on CNN too. The only weird part is when she talked about how much Trump didn't get inside her head at the first debate and all I heard was her revealing how much he got inside her head. She's still swirling about it. I mean Trump was a freak (the chair thing was outright weird) but she totally let him get to her. It bugs me that she was so defenseless in what was such an amateur maneuver.
Click to expand...
My favorite part was where she railed on Bernie for not unifying the party but yet she says she will continue to be very active in the party. Does she really not know how divisive she is?

 
The Commish said:
My favorite part was where she railed on Bernie for not unifying the party but yet she says she will continue to be very active in the party. Does she really not know how divisive she is?
Click to expand...
Thank you! Twitter is a #### storm of Clinton Dems vs. Bernie Bros. It's literally destroying the party. The nonstop infighting is going to give us Trump 2020. 

 
The Commish said:
My favorite part was where she railed on Bernie for not unifying the party but yet she says she will continue to be very active in the party. Does she really not know how divisive she is?
Click to expand...
Unifying the party means everyone falling in line behind Hillary and her vision. Bernie wasn't, and still isn't, doing that.

 
I find it weird that Hillary is still obsessed with Bernie and that Trump is still obsessed with Hillary.  I literally can't recall a time when the victor of a race couldn't let it go, and it's happened twice just in this cycle..  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I find it weird that Hillary is still obsessed with Bernie and that Trump is still obsessed with Hillary.  I literally can't recall a time when the victor of a race couldn't let it go, and it's happened twice just in this cycle..  
Click to expand...
My wife and I were talking about exactly this last night. It's quite amazing

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
817
jm192
jm192
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
466
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
OP/ED: GEKKO WAS WRONG, 2016 POTUS Results Were Clearly Not The Product Of A "Free And Fair" Election (10/6/22 02:43 PST)
Replies
9
Views
468
The Dude
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top