Nothing our Olympic team has is provided by the government or bought with tax dollars. Everything comes from corporate sponsors and donations. Putting your company logo on display is kinda the whole point of sponsorship, isn’t it?
You’ll get no argument from me on that. My whole point was that there can be no quarrels. I was just wondering why the OP focused on Hillary Clinton for not being a Sec of Defense or something higher, but was okay with a fashion designer and a former basketball player. All three of them are successful and charitable so it must be something else.
She’s one of the few Republicans in office who actually stood up for American democracy, knowing full well it would likely be the end of her career. Like her or not on a personal level, she did more to try to preserve freedom than most other people the last four years. I don’t see that as partisan at all. That so many stupid voters chose to ignore her and re-elect Trump isn’t her fault.
Well, like it or not, and I certainly don’t, the question of whether America should be a functioning democracy is now a partisan issue. Lots of other politicians have opposed Trump, as is their civic duty; I don’t see why she deserves extra credit for having been part of the Party which almost universally abrogated that duty. If someone had been a prominent member of the Nazi Party until 1932 and then denounced Hitler, would you consider him to be a better person than all the Germans who never joined the Nazis at all?
Nobel Peace Prize - way better than a MoF.
I concur.
That’s not Biden’s or Cheney’s fault.
Because she didn’t.
There’s a lot of reasons to not like Liz Cheney for her politics. There’s a lot of reasons to dismiss her as a staunch right-wing hatemonger.
But she stood up to her own party for what was right about Democracy, knowing she would pay a political price for it. If we want a country with more than one party with people who can disagree over political issues while maintaining integrity and respect for the Constitution, then we should reward someone who does exactly that, especially when it would be far easier not to have that integrity.
Liz Cheney would likely have not been a memorable person if she had been a typical go-along Republican. She just be a footnote to Dick’s Vice Presidency. But she did what we on the left were calling for more Republicans to have the balls to do - the right thing.
From the political standpoint, I think this serves better than a Pardon on some counts. A Pardon is seen to imply the actions were wrong. This is a measure of praise that doesn’t carry that implication. It costs nothing to accept, and shows support for doing the right thing when it was hard.
Who’s saying she’s better than Democrats?
Timelines aside, yes, praise NAZI party members who joined when the Party was seen as doing good things for restoring Germany to power but then voiced opposition to the extremes of violence and genocide. Like Lieutenant Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, who was part of a German attempt to assassinate Hitler and end Hitler’s policies. 1944 was a little later than 1932, but I’d still rate him a better soul than most NAZIs, especially SS members.
Biden wants to give her one. That is the sole criteria that matters.
Putting up with decades of personal smear from the right is also a reasonable criteria.
I dispute that I’m “OK with fashion designer or former basketball player”
I would have the same question about them as I would others. But in this case for my own thread, I picked Hillary.
Don’t try to make this sound like I have some ulterior political motive. Its distasteful and irritating.
Huh? Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, which is higher in the presidential line of succession than Secretary of Defense.
I didn’t say you have an ulterior political motive. You OP, which you posted in “Politics & Elections” stated that you believe “any number of high level politicians would be better” candidates for receipt of the MoF. You very clearly stated this is political. Otherwise, you would have accepted the fact that someone doesn’t need to be a “high level politician” to receive the medal and whether or not a person is a better or higher politician has no bearing on their level of merit to receive the MoF. Other people who are not “high level politicians” receive the award all the time. Two examples of this are Magic Johnson and Ralph Lauren. I simply asked you why you didn’t bring them up considering your gripe about Hillary was there are “any number of high level politicians [who] would be better”. The MoF isn’t a measurement of how high or how effective a politician is. Recipients don’t even have to be a politician. To me it’s like complaining about why one singer got the award but another famous singer didn’t. The MoF isn’t a measure of who’s a better or more successful singer. It’s about whatever singer the President wants. Compare singers who have received the MoF and you will find many who have sold more albums, produced more hit songs and donated more to charity but have not earned an MoF. That’s because none of those things are official metrics either.
Not sure why you can’t answer the question, or why you feel so annoyed and irritated. The final question in your OP is “Is there a real reason, other than politics that she is getting this award?”
You are the one who brought up politics. I didn’t think it was an ulterior motive. I thought it was an explicit one. Regardless, I think I’ve answered your question just as well as everyone else who have told you the “real reason” is that there really is “no reason” for anyone to get the award over any other person. It’s on the whim and at the discretion of the President.
Yea, you’re right. I wasn’t really even thinking about line of succession. It was just a ref to Ash Carter getting the MoF this week without objection or comment from the OP.
He probably thinks it’s a “Get out of jail free” card. After all, it has “freedom” right in the name. Just hand it to the warden and out you go.