[Discussion] What's Clinton Done?

Pages

This thread is intended to provide a central point for extended discussions of the Clintons, especially Hillary, and their past and present actions and the effects of those actions. Please use this instead of clogging up election and future political threads with derails. Accusations with evidence, and defenses with evidence, are welcome here, as well as reference articles and personal anecdotes.

What's Hillary done? What's she doing? More important, how do we know, and what does it mean? Bring us your thoughts and worries from other threads, or your own recent dreams and nightmares, backed up with solid data and references please. Given the unique history of the Clintons in American politics, that's both entirely doable and necessary for a reasonable discussion.

If there are is any remaining doubt that Clinton is an archtypical politician, the recent release of her transcripts from private paid speeches to Wall Street banks and other groups should put that doubt to rest.

Clinton also told a housing trade group in 2013 that on certain issues, she has “a public and a private position.” “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” said Clinton. “So, you need both a public and a private position.”

Which, of course, raises the question: what are her private positions?

Aetius wrote:

If there are is any remaining doubt that Clinton is an archtypical politician, the recent release of her transcripts from private paid speeches to Wall Street banks and other groups should put that doubt to rest.

Clinton also told a housing trade group in 2013 that on certain issues, she has “a public and a private position.” “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” said Clinton. “So, you need both a public and a private position.”

Which, of course, raises the question: what are her private positions?

Good to know that the Libertarian position is inherently anti-privacy now

Aetius wrote:

If there are is any remaining doubt that Clinton is an archtypical politician, the recent release of her transcripts from private paid speeches to Wall Street banks and other groups should put that doubt to rest.

Clinton also told a housing trade group in 2013 that on certain issues, she has “a public and a private position.” “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” said Clinton. “So, you need both a public and a private position.”

Which, of course, raises the question: what are her private positions?

I just cannot figure out why this is a big deal other than she could have explained it better.
EVERYONE has different public vs private opinions. From how you may talk to your boss or another person of authority to how you talk to your kids.

I also don't see the big deal.

Who cares what her private position is.

All that matters is whether what she does publicly is, to use a trope "for the good".

Sorta how I don't care if a politician, privately, thinks that abortion is a sin and all those who encourage it should burn in hell as long as publicly they are pushing for more, easier access to abortions for those who need one.

Honestly, especially given the lack of context that "two positions" quote keeps getting thrown about with, I just can't read into it any more than saying "people don't want to see how the sausage gets made."

And they don't. I mean, honestly-- aside from people who would like to be involved in politics beyond only presidential elections, no one else cares how our democracy works on a daily basis.

And besides that, I haven't met a person yet who's brought up that quote without an agenda or negative opinion already. Like, seriously-- what do you expect-- that a politician is going to give a speech to their base, then immediately carry that speech into the meeting room and give the exact same speech to opposing politicians? No, you tell your base what you're all working towards, then you go tell your opponents that you're not likely to change their minds, but you can at least come to a mutually beneficial compromise. Problem being, the Public doesn't want to hear about compromise any more than they want to know that their hot dogs are made of lips and assholes.

Honestly, especially given the lack of context that "two positions" quote keeps getting thrown about with, I just can't read into it any more than saying "people don't want to see how the sausage gets made."

More important they want to believe someone like Trump when he says he can solve crime in a week.

Aetius wrote:

Which, of course, raises the question: what are her private positions?

I just don't see why it raises that question.

We have (as people love to point out) years and years of Hillary's actions to look at. We can see precisely how she will govern, because she has done it.

I don't give a crap what she privately thinks. I care about what she will do and I have seen that. I have seen it for years and years.

Aetius wrote:

If there are is any remaining doubt that Clinton is an archtypical politician, the recent release of her transcripts from private paid speeches to Wall Street banks and other groups should put that doubt to rest.

Clinton also told a housing trade group in 2013 that on certain issues, she has “a public and a private position.” “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” said Clinton. “So, you need both a public and a private position.”

Which, of course, raises the question: what are her private positions?

Can't help but think of this.

garion333 wrote:

Can't help but think of this.

Can't help but recommend that as a worthwhile read for...well, *anyone* interested in anything to do with politics or society.

Aetius wrote:

Which, of course, raises the question: what are her private positions?

Who cares? Every politician has private and public positions. That's, like, the entire point of the job.

A politician who doesn't is incompetent enough that they don't deserve to hold office.

Related - a leftist has written a case for Clinton, and the conclusion should be very concerning for people who prioritize American exceptionalism over world government. Given this fairly thorough breakdown of her positions, Clinton has been both consistently liberal as well as significantly more interventionist than any libertarian would feel comfortable with.

Hillary Clinton is a liberal transnationalist. She believes in the primacy of human rights, particularly of individuals against oppressive governments. She dreams of a future system where nations are encouraged to adhere to international norms by something like the U.N. on steroids.

It only takes a dash or two of paranoia for that to very much read like code for a New World Order.

Seth wrote:

Related - a leftist has written a case for Clinton, and the conclusion should be very concerning for people who prioritize American exceptionalism over world government. Given this fairly thorough breakdown of her positions, Clinton has been both consistently liberal as well as significantly more interventionist than any libertarian would feel comfortable with.

Hillary Clinton is a liberal transnationalist. She believes in the primacy of human rights, particularly of individuals against oppressive governments. She dreams of a future system where nations are encouraged to adhere to international norms by something like the U.N. on steroids.[/url]

It only takes a dash or two of paranoia for that to very much read like code for a New World Order.

Wait, a New World Order where human rights are primary! That bitch! How dare she think humans are more important that governments?

Yeah my private position supports her, but my public position allows for disagreement with her foreign policy decisions.

Seth wrote:

Yeah my private position supports her, but my public position allows for disagreement with her foreign policy decisions. ;)

Oh, you're out! No private / public positions!

Seth wrote:

Related - a leftist has written a case for Clinton, and the conclusion should be very concerning for people who prioritize American exceptionalism over world government. Given this fairly thorough breakdown of her positions, Clinton has been both consistently liberal as well as significantly more interventionist than any libertarian would feel comfortable with.

Hillary Clinton is a liberal transnationalist. She believes in the primacy of human rights, particularly of individuals against oppressive governments. She dreams of a future system where nations are encouraged to adhere to international norms by something like the U.N. on steroids.

Pretty much what most of the real concern has always been with Hillary: she's not opposed enough to going to war. Yeah, there is some concern about her caring too much about corporate interests, and that's not an insignificant concern, but the bigger one has always been that she feels like using our military for non-defensive measures. She might have good intentions, but it is still a stance of killing "others" and risking the death of our soldiers.

Atras wrote:
Seth wrote:

Related - a leftist has written a case for Clinton, and the conclusion should be very concerning for people who prioritize American exceptionalism over world government. Given this fairly thorough breakdown of her positions, Clinton has been both consistently liberal as well as significantly more interventionist than any libertarian would feel comfortable with.

Hillary Clinton is a liberal transnationalist. She believes in the primacy of human rights, particularly of individuals against oppressive governments. She dreams of a future system where nations are encouraged to adhere to international norms by something like the U.N. on steroids.

Pretty much what most of the real concern has always been with Hillary: she's not opposed enough to going to war. Yeah, there is some concern about her caring too much about corporate interests, and that's not an insignificant concern, but the bigger one has always been that she feels like using our military for non-defensive measures. She might have good intentions, but it is still a stance of killing "others" and risking the death of our soldiers.

This whole hawk argument troubles me in a way. Personally I am willing to believe that while Clinton may be more inclined to see the military as a viable tool in certain situations, I doubt she is willing to utilize the preemption doctrine put forward by the neocons in GWB's administration.

I'm not saying that I think she buys into the truly insane idea that we should attack anyone with a 1% chance of harming us, but she wanted to put troops on the ground in Syria, at a minimum. With hindsight, maybe it would have been a better idea that what we ended up doing, but seeking to commit our troops to yet another ground war in the Middle East when we still are trying to help stabilize Iraq with troops equipped for a non-existent world war doesn't feel right to me.

Atras wrote:

I'm not saying that I think she buys into the truly insane idea that we should attack anyone with a 1% chance of harming us, but she wanted to put troops on the ground in Syria, at a minimum.

When did Hillary ever say she wanted to put troops on the ground in Syria?

She said multiple times during the debates that she would never do that and that's been a consistent position throughout her campaign.

OG_slinger wrote:
Atras wrote:

I'm not saying that I think she buys into the truly insane idea that we should attack anyone with a 1% chance of harming us, but she wanted to put troops on the ground in Syria, at a minimum.

When did Hillary ever say she wanted to put troops on the ground in Syria?

It's possible (maybe even likely) that I'm mis-remembering. I pretty quickly found this bit from the LA Times:

she has pushed for a no-fly zone to protect civilians fleeing the conflict, and she’s suggested putting U.S. forces on the ground to fight Islamic State

I know I remember her wanting to get more involved in Syria than Obama wanted to, and I felt that was a strong counter-point to her being Obama's third term.

Her points during the three debates were "institute a no fly zone but don't put boots on the ground." Maybe she is flip flopping.

(If you attack this gentle barb, please note that I don't support Clinton because I hate Trump, I support her because I actually think she's the best one for the job.)

Seth wrote:

Her points during the three debates were "institute a no fly zone but don't put boots on the ground." Maybe she is flip flopping.

(If you attack this gentle barb, please note that I don't support Clinton because I hate Trump, I support her because I actually think she's the best one for the job.)

I support her pretty strongly, too. If she had said while Sec. State that she wanted to full on invade (and I haven't found anything to support that), she is welcome to change her mind later. I don't (really) blame her for voting to invade Iraq - the f*cked up intelligence cherry-picking made it sound like a solid idea. I applaud her saying it was a mistake. I still feel like she more hawkish than I'd like, and since we know that feelings are more important than facts now, she's a huge War Hawk.

Atras wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Atras wrote:

I'm not saying that I think she buys into the truly insane idea that we should attack anyone with a 1% chance of harming us, but she wanted to put troops on the ground in Syria, at a minimum.

When did Hillary ever say she wanted to put troops on the ground in Syria?

It's possible (maybe even likely) that I'm mis-remembering. I pretty quickly found this bit from the [url=http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...">LA Times[/url]:

she has pushed for a no-fly zone to protect civilians fleeing the conflict, and she’s suggested putting U.S. forces on the ground to fight Islamic State

I know I remember her wanting to get more involved in Syria than Obama wanted to, and I felt that was a strong counter-point to her being Obama's third term.

If you follow the link from the "she's suggested putting U.S. forces on the ground to fight Islamic State" line you get this article:

LA Times wrote:

In her speech, Clinton made clear that an expanded ground force does not mean a full-scale U.S. combat mission. “That is just not the smart move to make here,” she said, adding that “if we have learned anything from 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that local people and nations have to secure their own communities.”

But, she added, the U.S. needs to “be prepared to deploy more” special operations forces than Obama has authorized and give U.S. troops currently in Iraq more leeway to embed with Iraqi units engaged in combat.

And about the same time the second article was written (November of last year) Hillary made it clear that ground troops were a "non-starter."

Politico wrote:

Hillary Clinton said putting combat troops on the ground in Syria or Iraq is a “non-starter.”

The former secretary of state was speaking to "CBS This Morning" co-host Charlie Rose in an excerpt released Monday. The full interview will appear Tuesday morning.

“At this point," Clinton said, "I cannot conceive of any circumstances where I would agree to do that because I think the best way to defeat ISIS is, as I’ve said, from the air which we lead, on the ground, which we enable, empower, train, equip and in cyberspace where don’t forget they are a formidable adversary online."

So, at best, Hillary has possibly supported the idea of sending more special forces personnel to Syria. But she's been very consistent in being against deploying traditional ground forces.

The trick here is that special forces are often used covertly, and while they should not be counted as traditional boots on the ground (which usually means regular military deployed at brigade or above level in active operations), in political campaigns someone can use it to describe 100 guys training military police in an isolated barracks in the capitol city...

So is Clinton for "boots on the ground"? Sure, if you accept that Obama has put "boots on the ground" in Syria already, which many of her opponents are adamant that Obama has not done. But if you go with the usual meaning, neither of them has recommended it or done it, since we've not moved regular military units in for combat operations.

What hasn't Clinton done?

Here's an archived Google spreadsheet chronicling everything we've learned from Wikileaks. It's updated daily as new things are found and currently lists over 600. Gross corruption.

This witch needs to hang.

Whew...

I would really like this forum to have an outspoken critic of Clinton. I would really like to be exposed to the information fueling the anti-Clinton anti-establishment sentiment. Too often this forum feels like a liberal echo chamber.

But you undermine your position with statements like "This witch needs to hang." There's no place for that here or anywhere else.

MOD HAT

FSeven, I've warned you before: no calling for the death of candidates.

FSeven wrote:

What hasn't Clinton done?

Here's an archived Google spreadsheet chronicling everything we've learned from Wikileaks. It's updated daily as new things are found and currently lists over 600. Gross corruption.

This witch needs to hang.

Yeah, like this email that reveals...nothing.

It's literally a forward of a WaPo blog post that was critical of Clinton fundraiser held in Southern California because it was held by an Iranian American. Nevermind that Southern California/the LA-area is home to the largest population of Iranians in the entire country. Hell, when I lived in SoCal I worked for a start-up founded by a Iranian.

And let's also ignore the fact the same Iranian dude held a fundraiser for Obama back in 2007.

OG_slinger wrote:
FSeven wrote:

What hasn't Clinton done?

Here's an archived Google spreadsheet chronicling everything we've learned from Wikileaks. It's updated daily as new things are found and currently lists over 600. Gross corruption.

This witch needs to hang.

Yeah, like this email that reveals...nothing.

It's literally a forward of a WaPo blog post that was critical of Clinton fundraiser held in Southern California because it was held by an Iranian American. Nevermind that Southern California/the LA-area is home to the largest population of Iranians in the entire country. Hell, when I lived in SoCal I worked for a start-up founded by a Iranian.

And let's also ignore the fact the same Iranian dude held a fundraiser for Obama back in 2007.

There's a few things in there that are very much not evidence of dirt. Stuff is labeled as "coordinated attack between Clinton and NYT" but it's NYT asking for statements on an article they're writing. That's not collusion.

I'm not a Hillary Clinton fan, but so much that's come from Wikileaks is simply pulling the curtain back from standard politics. Do I like the people working for the Clinton campaign and the smug attitude they have about stuff? Oh hell no, but I expect that of most campaigns. They're waging war, effectively, and talking like it. It's all about gaining an edge and exploiting things to your benefit. The Clintons just take it to the max level, which is ugly, but it's not completely out of character for politics.

Gonna quote myself again:

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Can't help but think of this.

Can't help but recommend that as a worthwhile read for...well, *anyone* interested in anything to do with politics or society.

Jonathan Rauch has written some article for The Atlantic that help me keep my "politics sux" meter in check.

This one makes a case for corruption a la "honest graff" which piggybacks off of the link in my quote above.

This article from earlier this year is a lengthy, but worthwhile, discussion of how we got to where we are with politics. There's a bit in there about how we've killed off back room negotiations due to them being icky:

“The idea that Washington would work better if there were TV cameras monitoring every conversation gets it exactly wrong,” the Democratic former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle wrote in 2014, in his foreword to the book City of Rivals. “The lack of opportunities for honest dialogue and creative give-and-take lies at the root of today’s dysfunction.”

Then there's the bit about politiphobes:

Using polls and focus groups, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse found that between 25 and 40 percent of Americans (depending on how one measures) have a severely distorted view of how government and politics are supposed to work. I think of these people as “politiphobes,” because they see the contentious give-and-take of politics as unnecessary and distasteful. Specifically, they believe that obvious, commonsense solutions to the country’s problems are out there for the plucking. The reason these obvious solutions are not enacted is that politicians are corrupt, or self-interested, or addicted to unnecessary partisan feuding. Not surprisingly, politiphobes think the obvious, commonsense solutions are the sorts of solutions that they themselves prefer. But the more important point is that they do not acknowledge that meaningful policy disagreement even exists. From that premise, they conclude that all the arguing and partisanship and horse-trading that go on in American politics are entirely unnecessary. Politicians could easily solve all our problems if they would only set aside their craven personal agendas.

If politicians won’t do the job, then who will? Politiphobes, according to Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, believe policy should be made not by messy political conflict and negotiations but by ensids: empathetic, non-self-interested decision makers. These are leaders who will step forward, cast aside cowardly politicians and venal special interests, and implement long-overdue solutions. ensids can be politicians, technocrats, or autocrats—whatever works. Whether the process is democratic is not particularly important.

I feel like Rauch has some really good insight into what's going on right now with so many people, left, right, center or not interested. His writings have helped me maintain some semblance of balance throughout this election cycle.

If you think Hillary Clinton should never be Commander in Chief because of her politicking in regards to Libya, well, I can't fault a person for that position. To me it's a pretty easy sell to call it a case of leaving men behind because of political maneuvering. I can't fault anyone for disliking her for that, but to despise her for being a politician, well, politics is by its nature distasteful. The mud won't go away, no matter how much we wish it to.

garion333 wrote:

There's a few things in there that are very much not evidence of dirt. Stuff is labeled as "coordinated attack between Clinton and NYT" but it's NYT asking for statements on an article they're writing. That's not collusion.

I'm not a Hillary Clinton fan, but so much that's come from Wikileaks is simply pulling the curtain back from standard politics.

The people reviewing Clinton's emails and pulling together a spreadsheet of her supposed misdeeds have already assumed that she's guilty of something...anything. They are reading the emails with that view in mind so even innocuous stuff is presented as part of the list of 600 things that prove Hillary's evil incarnate.

That's how an email from a newspaper asking her campaign for a statement becomes media collusion or a forwarded blog post somehow becomes an example of her corruption.

The revealing of how the political sausage gets made is completely secondary to "I know Hillary's guilty so I'm going to read all sorts of crazy secret meanings into this email that feeds into some anti-Hillary conspiracy theory I heard about."

THE NEEDLE IS HERE! *points to haystack*

Pages