The Clinton Thread II - Part 3

None of it was bald faced.

I've been paying attention my forty years on this Earth, which just happened to have coincided with the rise of Right Wing media that has dedicated itself to conspiracy minded fear mongering, false equivalence and feeding lies. The supposed crimes of the Clintons are among the least of their handiwork. You know the biggest recent evidence that those are bald faced lies? The fact that the current president elect ran on prosecuting her and then backed off. He didn't do so for the healing of the country. He did it because the supposed high crimes he would like to prosecute her for are squarely in the imagination of his supporters, the same people who swallowed those 40 years of nonsense whole hog.

Of course those same people will of course be just as diligent in pointing out corruption and malfeasance when hard eveidence comes out about such goings on in Trump's administration and business dealings if such evidence comes to light... Right?
 
The vast right wing conspiracy.

Your username is fitting. Both sides are guilty of the partisan game of course, but the right has taken it to an insane level this last year or two. It's been bubbling for Obama's entire term but the pot hath runneth over with this election. Almost half of all the "news' shared by conservatives in the month's leading up to the election were false.

Education and critical thinking are the enemies of the alt-right and the BS they spread and sadly the former is currently losing.
 
There's a fair share of anti-science and anti-critical thinking on the left too. Look at the anti-vaccers and all these gluten free, chem trail folks. It's ludicrous.
 
The anti-vax/chemtrail loons are all across partisan lines.
 
To me you are basically admitting that there is a certain amount of shady behavior behind Clinton. So claiming it was imagined is false.

Well, as far as what can be proven... Clinton seems just about as shady as your average politician. I'm not arguing that she's a perfect saint. Only that the accusations are fueled by something outside of the cold, hard, provable facts.


I'm not talking about Trump's potential corruption or wrongdoing. You are trying to downplay Clinton's own by focusing on her opponent's. Donna Brazile admitted to sending the questions to the Clinton campaign in the e-mail. That's from CNN itself.

I'm not really interested in arguing this point with you. Yeah, the DNC did a wrong; one that's probably been done many times before on both sides, and one that you can't really prove how much impact it had. Is Clinton responsible for taking those questions? Yeah, i guess. But that's really not something that bothers me too much. It's just not in the same league as Clinton's e-mail scandal proper, regarding the SOS e-mails. When I bring up Trump, I do it to highlight how it's okay for him but not for her, which is something that's true for Clinton's career going way back. She's scrutinized worse than most... probably because she's a capable, effective, ambitious woman I argue.


I did read the report. I read a lot of promises were unfulfilled, and the foundation accepted donations that provide a conflict of interest.

It actually says the opposite:
"So far, though, there are no smoking guns. The Wall Street Journal has said that the foundation has benefitted Clinton friends. And Fox News raised questions about the State Department's consideration of a Nigerian land purchase in March 2013 from two Lebanese-Nigerian brothers who donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton left the State Department on February 1, 2013, and the real estate deal never took place"

In other words, the one area that was highlighted as a possible qui-pro-quo never went through. Nor is there evidence that it would have gone through. Nor is there evidence that, if it had, it wasn't 100 completely vetted and warranted by the US Government. This is once again a baseless suspicion at very best. THere's is no clear evidence that her office made good on a deal in exchange for a Foundation donation. Would you seriously have them avoid all donations from all actors who could also possibly be working with the Federal Government? That goes directly the spirit of the darn thing, which was built by Bill Clinton as a way to cooperate with separate actors in order to get charitable work done faster. Because they try to do good in the world, they are no longer able to work as a public servant?

Meanwhile, there was no equal response from the foundation on the other side. Why is it okay for her opponent but this damning scandal when she does it? We are sitting under a President Elect Trump right now, who says the president can't have a conflict of interest. But the same people who accused Hillary of murder based upon pure speculation are suddenly and miraculously healed of their concerns regarding corruption. .. Convenient.

Also, the Clintons already were gearing up to address this issue. The Foundation announced plans early to only take money from domestic contributors during a Hillary administration, with all of her legal ownership being transferred outside of her control. Bill was going to end the Clinton Global Initiative.. his baby. They were talking about how to avoid conflicts of interest.


I'm not talking about Trump though. I'm talking about Clinton and what she has done. Her shady business dealings and what she's been accused of, not all of it was imagined.

...

Except they aren't. I never said Trump was free of suspicion because I don't believe that. There is clear heavy basis in all the accusations of corruption and shady dealings on Clinton's part.

Insinuation and innuendo - that's all anyone has against Hillary. Not being able to mention Trump really wraps my hands, by forcing me to somehow prove that Hillary is a glowing person in totality. That was never my intent. In reality, I'm sure there were some back door deals, but nothing of major consequence or particularly outside the norm. It's also worth noting that we're only talking about the supposed e-mail scandal. Because you're not arguing with the rest, I'm assuming that you agree that the Benghazi committee was imagined which hunt.... costing taxpayers millions based on nothing but partisan hackery. One of the arguments for all this hubbub being imaginary, is that it's an example of moving goal posts. The standards for one person are one way, but the standards for her are another. He's a business man. She's a criminal. He's just abiding by the law when he uses loopholes. She should be "locked up" by a special prosecutor. Those are Hillary's real crimes. She was caught doing something white men have been doing for decades, but she got caught being a powerful woman while doing it.
 
Last edited:
It was a perfect storm that beat Hillary. Comey, the Russians and a campaign run as if the Presidency was a done deal far in advance.
 
It was a perfect storm that beat Hillary. Comey, the Russians and a campaign run as if the Presidency was a done deal far in advance.

Yep, that last month she should have been up in the Rust Belt every day campaigning, instead she was working on putting her cabinet together. AAAAND, it beat her in the end.
 
Exactly right. I think a significant component of the anger against the "establishment" that is so pervasive at the moment is the sense that ordinary people just get what they're given; by some concerted machination powerful people and institutions deliver up an approved leader and no democratic expression can knock them off their perch. It didn't help that, in H Clinton, the "establishment" put up such a weak and unlikeable nominee against an outright dangerous and absurd challenger. "Here you go, you haven't any other choice" seemed to be the sentiment, and it is no surprise that millions of ordinary Americans' response was "piss off".
 
Here's the Team Bernie article (part of the url was censored due to a certain 4 letter word):

The Daily Beast said:
Hindsight is 20/20, but members of Bernie Sanders’s team in critical swing states say they knew Hillary Clinton was going to lose well before Election Day—and their warnings were ignored.

ASAWIN SUEBSAENG

12.20.16 1:15 AM ET

Ever since election night—when Hillary Clinton tanked and Donald Trump became the next leader of the free world—the most prominent allies and alumni of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign have maintained a succinct message for Team Hillary: We. Told. You. So.

In the final months of the brutal and chaotic 2016 campaign, there were plenty of Democratic activists freaking out about Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (the three states that ultimately cost the Democrats the White House) and Clinton’s fatal shortcomings there. Many of them were envoys of the Sanders camp who wanted to help fix those problems, including Clinton’s difficulties with the block of the mythical “white-working-class,” economically anxious voters who Sanders had championed during the primaries.

“They ****ing ignored us on all these [three] battleground states [while] we were sounding the alarm for months,” Nomiki Konst, a progressive activist and former Sanders surrogate who served on the 2016 Democratic National Committee platform committee, told The Daily Beast. “We kept saying to each other like, ‘What the ****, why are they just blowing us off? They need these voters more than anybody.’”

According to Konst and multiple other people involved with these discussions, the Clinton campaign agreed to a meeting with a cadre of Sanders surrogates during the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July. The purpose of the meeting, which included Clinton’s national political director Amanda Rentería and Team Hillary’s progressive outreach coordinator (and former Sanders senior aide) Nick Carter, was to address the concerns many Sanders camp alums were voicing about Clinton’s strategy going into the general election against Trump. Carter declined to comment on this story.

“Once we were at the convention, Bernie people were on the ground—we could feel it, people were pissed off, there with their pitchforks ready to fight,” Konst recalled. “But before the convention, after the platform committee meeting that I was on, Bernie surrogates were talking constantly, saying, ‘Oh my god, Hillary is going to lose if she doesn’t address TPP and [free] trade and [all these] other issues. We were looking at the polling and thought that if these people stay home, she’ll lose.”

When their meeting finally happened during the Democratic convention, the progressive activists’ fears were only inflamed.

“We were saying we are offering our help—nobody wanted [President] Donald Trump,” Konst continued, noting that the “Bernie world” side was offering Clinton’s team their plans—strategy memos, lists of hardened state organizers, timelines, data, the works—to win over certain voters in areas she ultimately lost but where Sanders had won during the primary.

“We were painting them a dire picture, and I couldn’t help but think they literally looked like they had no idea what was going on here,” she continued. “I remember their faces, it was like they had never ****ing heard this stuff before. It’s what we had been screaming for the past 9 months… It’s like [they] forgot the basics of Politics 101.”

As the days and weeks flew by, the Bernie delegation kept underscoring TPP, jobs, union allies, the youth vote, and the environment, and pitched multiple rallies with Sanders in states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan (a state where Sanders unexpectedly beat Clinton in the Democratic primary, and a state that Clinton actively neglected during the general).

“The math that they lost on, is the math we won on,” Konst said. “So we wrote out a plan, and sent it to them, telling them to stop thinking you’re going to get this ‘Obama coalition,’ it’s not going to happen.”

Assurances were then made with various Clinton senior staffers that they would follow through with subsequent meetings and phone calls to address these gaps and warnings. Instead, meetings were canceled and “rescheduled” into oblivion.

“We not only screamed about this, we wrote memos, we begged,” Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Democratic Party chair and another Sanders booster who was at the DNC meeting, said. “I spent a good chunk of time writing memos about how [Bernie’s surrogates] could be utilized on the campaign trail, about ‘issue voters,’ about the environment, Black Lives Matter, Dakota Access Pipeline, rogue cops, you name it… I was [also] talking specifically about rural communities, and how [Hillary] completely ignored and abandoned anything that we cared about.”

Kleeb noted that instead of subsequent discussion about battleground strategy and resources, what she got was a handful of conference calls, where Sanders alumni would get to hear about the “three top talking points for Hillary Clinton’s email server, or something.” She said that the only member of Team Hillary who would take them seriously was, unsurprisingly, Carter, who didn’t have much luck convincing the crew leading the Clinton ship to listen more attentively.

“The Clinton campaign believed they had the strongest and brightest people in the room… and they had no concept of why people would choose Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton,” Kleeb continued. “They mocked us, they made fun of us. They always had a… model that was supposed to save the day. We were street activists and they don’t get that. And that’s a fundamental divide. They ran a check-the-box, sanitized campaign. And voters don’t think like that. You don’t win elections that way.”

Rentería, however, saw their meeting, and conference calls, in a different, far less bleak light.

“I think what we took from them on a national message—her tone of ‘our cause is your cause’ at the national convention was the right tone—that really did derive from listening to them in that meeting we had,” Rentería told The Daily Beast. “And in the calls I had with them every other week, we inserted college affordability and climate change at their pushing.”

She went on to say that she had a “deep respect for” what Sanders mounted in the primaries, reserving specific praise for his team’s “really robust online support base.”

“Because we ran such a different campaign in the primary, I think fully integrating [aspects of the Sanders campaign] was a bit more difficult, especially when we were talking about organizing,” she said.

But the fact that much of the Clinton campaign top brass would rebuff the advances of Sanders alumni and allies isn’t in itself shocking. There was a deep hostility fostered in the Clinton team toward the Vermont democratic-socialist senator ever since the primary, during which Hillary’s side repeatedly blamed Sanders’s rival candidacy for weakening her in the run-up to the general.

“To them, we were a leftist nuisance, nothing else,” a former senior Sanders campaign aide said.

On the pro-Bernie wing of the Democratic Party, Clinton, and neoliberal Clintonism itself, were widely viewed as a failure and a cynical sellout of progressive values.

“A ham sandwich could beat Donald Trump,” Melissa Arab, a Michigan delegate for Sanders, told The Daily Beast during a protest outside the Democratic convention in July. “And Hillary cannot beat Donald Trump.”

The ongoing hostilities between the Hillary and Bernie camps all but helped ensure a scenario of missed opportunity, spurned collaboration, and hobbled organizing efforts in the fight against Trump.

“I offered to help and never heard back from anybody—quite frankly, I wasn’t surprised,” Robert Becker, a veteran organizer who ran Iowa and Michigan operations for the Sanders presidential campaign, told The Daily Beast.

“There was no outreach to me… but I did get a call three weeks out [from Election Day] from someone who was in the DNC sounding the alarm [about Michigan],” he said. “They didn’t feel like they were getting strong support from [unions members]… I mean, these trade deals that were going on for decades that were enabled by the Democratic Party in large part, they hurt. [The Clinton campaign] didn’t address the anger about this. We picked up on that during the primary. People were furious at these bad trade deals. We were connecting with those voters in Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin… Everyone’s trying to point a finger as to what went wrong, and I just point to the operational malpractice.”

Of course, everybody will have his or her own explanation and rationalizations for why Trump was just handed the keys to the White House. The defeated Clinton campaign routinely blames the media coverage of its candidate. It repeatedly blames the Russians, and FBI director James Comey’s letters, for the hard loss. “We weren’t measuring the white vote correctly,” Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, further explained late last month at an event at Harvard University.

“In a race where people wanted fundamental change, Donald Trump sure was a fundamental change,” Mook said. “It was a strength being an outsider.”

And according to the remnants of Team Bernie, Mook and the rest of the Clinton team need to carve out a large space for self-reflection.

“For me this is not about Hillary Clinton, this is about HIllary Clinton’s staff becoming too insular, too professional where regular working-class folks did not matter to them,” Kleeb said. “She had too many people [on her campaign] wearing Prada going into pollster meetings, not enough of us.”
 
Even more evidence that Bernie and his team would've been able to compete at the populist rhetoric game as well as or better than Trump.
 
Here's the Team Bernie article (part of the url was censored due to a certain 4 letter word):

No way in Hell can the Clinton team say that the media was out to get her. CNN was kissing her butt from the very first debate and Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to Clinton.

I may despise pres-elect Trump, but Clinton can quit her whining about being bullied by the media.
 
No way in Hell can the Clinton team say that the media was out to get her. CNN was kissing her butt from the very first debate and Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to Clinton.

I may despise pres-elect Trump, but Clinton can quit her whining about being bullied by the media.

In comparison to how the media washed the feet of Obama in 2008...they aren't far off from their assessment.

Media did not do their job this go around at all....they let far too much go by unchecked out of Trump's mouth, I would venture to say had it been Obama o certainly again, or even Sanders....they would have been all over Trump. They are afraid of him....which is so sad.
 
Here's the Team Bernie article (part of the url was censored due to a certain 4 letter word):

Really proves Colin Powell right about Hillary screwing things up with hubris.

Even more evidence that Bernie and his team would've been able to compete at the populist rhetoric game as well as or better than Trump.

Bernie would have crushed Trump.
 
I assume Bernie would have out-Clintoned Clinton by piling up useless votes in safe states. I think the Democrats needed an intelligent, articulate, pragmatic centralist who the American public didn't already hate. Opting for Clinton was an unforgivably costly act of self indulgence.
 
Really proves Colin Powell right about Hillary screwing things up with hubris.



Bernie would have crushed Trump.

One of the biggest differences would have been those that were all out for Hillary would have probably stayed the course and voted for Bernie rather than staying home nursing a "********". :whatever:
 
One of the biggest differences would have been those that were all out for Hillary would have probably stayed the course and voted for Bernie rather than staying home nursing a "********". :whatever:

Yeah, that was completely cutting off the nose thinking.
 
There's one more factor I think contributed to her loss that I don't see people bringing up. On top of her arrogance, her Establishment ties, and just the overall campaign - Hillary Clinton is not much of a leader.

This might shock some. I can already hear the sexism accusations on how women with cold-calculative personalities get more flack for it than the cold-calculative males do. While that's definitely true, what they also fail to miss is that the cold-calculative males aren't that well liked either. They're not well liked because at their core, these kinds of people aren't leaders - they're managers.

To quote Warren Bennis from Becoming A Leader (1989), there's key differences between leaders and managers that put the former above the latter: The manager administers; the leader innovates. The manager is a copy; the leader is an original. The manager maintains; the leader develops. The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people. The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust. The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective. The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why. The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader’s eye is on the horizon. The manager imitates; the leader originates.The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it. The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person. The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

The problem with manager-esque personalities is they're only successful in top-down hierarchies. They're ideal for office or retail settings, but they fail in any setting where power concentration is from the bottom up. Voting, by its nature, is a bottom-up form of hierarchy. In such a hierarchy, a leader has to be likeable, relatable, and capable of inspiring hope. (S)he can't just command people; (s)he has to win them over.

The same is true of successful entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs who built their companies from the bottom up. Or civil rights leaders like MLK, who built their base from the bottom up. Hell, the same is true of most past presidents. Not one president in modern history had anything close to a manager-esque personality - not Obama, not the Bushes, not Bill Clinton, not Reagan. They all, on some level, were able to inspire people, set visions, tell jokes, and the list goes on. It's not style over substance to demand those on top of you to be that way - it's simply practicality mixed in with actual humanity.
 
Last edited:
I've been paying attention my forty years on this Earth, which just happened to have coincided with the rise of Right Wing media that has dedicated itself to conspiracy minded fear mongering, false equivalence and feeding lies. The supposed crimes of the Clintons are among the least of their handiwork. You know the biggest recent evidence that those are bald faced lies? The fact that the current president elect ran on prosecuting her and then backed off. He didn't do so for the healing of the country. He did it because the supposed high crimes he would like to prosecute her for are squarely in the imagination of his supporters, the same people who swallowed those 40 years of nonsense whole hog.

Of course those same people will of course be just as diligent in pointing out corruption and malfeasance when hard eveidence comes out about such goings on in Trump's administration and business dealings if such evidence comes to light... Right?

Or they're just so mainstream within the Establishment by this point that it would be stupendous to go after just one elite. It shows why people wanted an outsider.
 
Or they're just so mainstream within the Establishment by this point that it would be stupendous to go after just one elite. It shows why people wanted an outsider.

Why people wanted an outsider... Who will NOT do what he said he was because in the end... He couldn't. Because all the supposed crimes of Clinton were mostly imaginary.
 
There's a fair share of anti-science and anti-critical thinking on the left too. Look at the anti-vaccers and all these gluten free, chem trail folks. It's ludicrous.

I would put the Sierra Club and others like it in that group as well. As a staunch environmentalist these groups drive me nuts.
 
Why people wanted an outsider... Who will NOT do what he said he was because in the end... He couldn't. Because all the supposed crimes of Clinton were mostly imaginary.

I would not say (and this is coming from someone who voted for Clinton) that they are imaginary, I would however say that they were not criminal in nature. Stupid and reckless? DEFINITELY, Criminal, no.
 
Really proves Colin Powell right about Hillary screwing things up with hubris.



Bernie would have crushed Trump.

Sigh...no he wouldn't have. If anything, he would've lost by a greater margin.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"