I’m a Clinton supporter but there is plenty of evidence to suggest she has commited influence peddling.
Now you can dismiss this, it’s not conclusive but it’s reasonable to believe that it occurred.
The Carter Center?
That Trump is okay with saying/doing racist things if he thinks it helps him achieve something he wants.
Trump wants personal power and fame, while Clinton wants to get stuff done, and wants the power of the presidency to do it. She would also like to turn out to be the best pres ever…at least in the history books.
Don is not dumb or stupid, but his talents, skills, and interests are not what we need in a president. If we only look at those skills, he does look pretty dumb, but it is a mistake to call him dumb. Hil is an intellectual 1%er who has been training for this job for decades.
His policy, as little as has been laid out, is whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. I think his core racism level is Archy Bunker light, like Archy would have sounded in 2000 or something. It is not his focus (like it is for some), but he is racist, and he will use it to get what he wants. She spends a lot of time listening to a lot of people, and then secretly has her real opinion* while presenting to the world a very moderate-liberalish opinion. On many of the fast moving social issues she has moved from “no” to “maybe” to “yes” at about the same time as the country as a whole went from 40% yes to 55% yes. So, maybe she is not the strongest idealist, but she is a pragmatist and being just a little left of center might be the most effective place to be to get change. Slow change, but change none the less.
The business mogul has a long history of being accused of making and breaking deals and having judgments against him. The former Senator and Sec of State has been investigated more than any one I can think of, and nothing has stuck.
The reality star seems unfocused and thin skinned, while the public servant has weathered consistent, tightly focused political persecution for upwards of 30 years, and has maintained a calm attitude in public to near perfection (I don’t know of any public explosions or melt downs or anything like that, but there might be some. Calling her husband names that the servants and guards can hear does not count). And when she speaks she spends a lot of time talking about boring over specific policy stuff.
- I think her real opinion is often more liberal than she lets on, like when Obama spent a few years being noncommittal and shifting his views about gay marriage (what was the word he used? Transitioning? Shifting? Oozing?) when it was pretty obvious that he had already schlepped all the way over to the free-love side.
Those seem to me to be reasonable opinions about the important character traits to me.
Clinton is a bad combination of arrogance and stubbornness, and the inability to be forthright in response to political controversies. I also question her competence when it comes to crisis management. For someone with so much experience, it amazes me how badly she and her brain trust have allowed an issue that should have been as easy as swatting a fly to dog her campaign. As much as I hate to say it, I think Bernie was on to something when he questioned Hillary’s judgment. I now have to concede that it can be fairly questioned at times.
On the other hand, with Trump, we have a delusional narcissist with an unrealistic appraisal of self, someone who would be utterly impossible to work with. Most people who understand politics and the presidency understand that the office is not managed by one person, but by a team of knowledgeable and capable policy wonks, decision makers, and administrators. However, Trump approaches this office actually seriously believing that it’s going to be a one man show, that he has all the answers and that he is so much smarter than everyone else in the room together.
We’re already seeing on full display what a Trump presidency would be like. It would be nothing short of chaotic, with a revolving door of unqualified advisor after unqualified advisor coming and going. This would inevitably result in major economic and political instability. Donald Trump would absolutely be the worst American president in history, and that would be apparent almost from day one.
What really scares the shit out of me is the fact that a really large segment of this society has considered someone so obviously flawed to be fit for the single most important public office we have. It is an awful commentary on the state of American education.
You guys aren’t quite there in terms of Clinton.
Now, I say this as a Clinton supporter WAY before the alternative became horrific.
Clinton’s main flaw is that she - like many lawyers - is ruled by her fear. Lawyers live through anticipating worse-case scenarios and working assiduously to avoid them. This has led her over the years to develop a public persona that instinctively denies and obfuscates when as a politician she’d be better off confronting and resolving issues. It’s a real flaw in her game.
Trump, on the other hand, has a defining character that combines narcissism with sociopathy. Other - outside of a core group - simply don’t exist for him. They’re pieces to be manipulated to achieve his goals regardless of the impact on those people. This is the character of a dictator and not a president.
It isn’t paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Please be clear that you’re characterizing her persona, not her character. The latter is revealed by her history, not by her detractors, and is what should really matter.
Thanks. I was coming back in to repeat this myself, but you did it better.
As voters, we have to navigate the gamut of charges, between random mud that’s thrown around to see what sticks, and something proven in a court of law. There’s very little of the latter, lots of the former, and then the stuff we have to figure out for ourselves that is somewhere in between. Some laws have tests about what a reasonable person would believe; I’m trying to apply that idea, with much less rigor, here.
Interesting perspective on Clinton. My father was a lawyer, but he got out of private practice pretty early and I never noticed this as part of his character.
septimus, I did not omit mention of Trump University for any reason except that I didn’t think of it while I was writing. Which I guess is a bad sign for how high this issue is in the public consciousness, and it probably deserves more play in the news. Probably won’t get it because it’s not dramatic or obviously horrible (until you lift the covers a bit).
There are a lot of other things I didn’t mention, and the reason may be that I don’t find them reasonable to believe (e.g. Benghazi) or again because I didn’t think of them. That’s why I invited additions or corrections. I also appreciate that many of the “investigations” that both Clintons have undergone for over 20 years have mostly been witch hunts of the worst description. Doesn’t mean prima facie that they’ve never done anything wrong.
Finally, the focus here is not who would be the most corrupt president ever, or the most pure. To be clear, this year’s choice is the most dire, in my view, directly and only because of Trump. That doesn’t mean that Clinton’s flaws, if any, should be whitewashed or ignored. If she becomes president she needs to be held to as high a standard as possible. I’m hoping for the best, frankly.
I agree. I was pretty much going to say the same thing if I hadn’t seen you had already posted it.
I think Clinton’s defensiveness, while extreme, is mostly a rational response to her circumstances. She really does get attacked on a regular basis.
Understandable, probably; rational, probably not (I am not, here, arguing this as a flaw, by the way). A purely rational response would require a cooler and more detached personality, perhaps like Obama, and it would probably focus on defusing rather than defending. Defensiveness is almost never an effective trait, and therefore probably not a rational response to constant attacks.
This is kind of a nitpick, because I think I understand what you mean, but I think the difference matters and that it does reflect on her (likely) general effectiveness as a president.
The real issue is that over 25+ years at the highest levels she’s had time to develop a better response. As it is she just looks awkward and insincere.
That bit earlier about wiping her email server where she replied ‘like with a cloth or something?’ is a prime example of not being able to deflect questions properly. It’s a politicians skill that she’s never quite picked up. It’s to her detriment.
Still, she’s the candidate we’ve got and, flaws and all, she’ll likely do a good job. We should be focusing on her re-election in 2020.
Please don’t do that yet. Trump hasn’t lost yet and there is still time for an October surprise, the Dems absolutely should not get complacent until the polls close on Nov 8th and not even then, seeing as Trump is already trying to cast aspersions on the legitimacy of the election.
Well, how about offering a better response for consideration, then? One that wouldn’t be simply handing Them more ammunition, of course. There’s no need to look for things to carp about.
It’s true that, as a campaigner, she’s an introvert in an extrovert’s game, but we also have to remember that governing skills are quite different. We’ve elected too many campaigners; we need to elect a President this time.
- “It’s not conclusive” means “this doesn’t prove anything”.
- Correlation does not imply causation.
- The various arms deals were all to people we’ve been selling arms to for decades. Continuing to have meetings and sell arms to people we’ve been selling arms to all along is not a scandal.
- JFTR - The actual source for this information is not Mother Jones, but The Independent Business Times. MJ was reporting on their reporting. Here’s the primary source link -
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department | IBTimes - The actual point of the various arms deals to the Gulf States is that selling them arms makes them stronger to offset Iran. Here’s an Atlantic article spelling out that even Isreal was in favor of these arms deals.
In particular, the arms deal to Saudi Arabia was an Obama initiative, not a private Clinton initiative.
The Atlantic article points to this NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/world/18arms.html?scp=1&sq=saudi%20arms%20deal&st=cse
Which quotes:
That's what the arms sales to the Gulf states is all about. Characterizing it as a result of personal donations to the Clinton Foundation is factually incorrect.
6. Believing things without evidence continues to be unreasonable.
You’re missing the entire point of this thread, its what a reasonable person could believe, not what could be proved or even what there is hard evidence for. I’m left wing, a Bernie supporter and 100 percent support Clinton over Trump. Nevertheless I do suspect that the Clintons have traded donations for influence and I’m a reasonable person.
A reasonable person considers the evidence. Or notes the lack of it.
Believing things without evidence is not reasonable.
Also the little matter that my evidence shows that your faith-based belief is incorrect shows the weakness of trying to have an evidence-free discussion.
I mean, what the hell website are we on, here?
Trump:
Suffers from Narcissistic personality disorder
Serial rapist
Very vengeful of people who cross him
Unethical business practices
Wants to be president for glory and power, not to help people
Dangerously incompetent
Clinton:
Feels she is above the law
Wants to be president for the sense of power and prestige
Is willing to step on people in her climb to power
Thanks for that, but I have evidence for my suspicions, so your premise is invalid.
A reasonable person can read all the documentation and journalism and leaks about the Clinton Foundation and come to the conclusion that at best it’s poor judgement to keep running it while in office as Secretary of State and at worst that it’s influence peddling or corruption. Others can make their own mind up and they won’t be swayed by your words.
Please be sure that what you are using to support your position is factual. Not, for instance,the AP’s coverage.
*Everyone *thinks themselves to be reasonable, btw. The claim means nothing.