It's also odd that you put Obama as an extension of Hillary. This seems like an arguememt of convenience. You'd need to demonstrate from a policy basis that this were true.
Policy basis for characterizing Obama's Presidential terms as extensions of Clinton's legacy.
*Hillary's would-be legacy was single-payer health care reform.
Obama triangulated that vision with the Republican desire for a market based system, and passed his the ACA.
*Hillary's foreign policy is neoconservative, in my opinion.
A neocon's foreign policy would be expected to protect Israel unconditionally, intervene in any/all foreign entanglements that could result in emergent powers, and project strength at all times.
This is consistent with the Obama administration.
Why is that Clinton's policy, instead of Obama's?
That is ultimately an opinion of mine, and not empirically provable.
I interpret this quote, from an excellent foreign-policy write-up, to support my claim: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ctrine/471525/
Quote:
There’s a playbook in Washington that presidents are supposed to follow. It’s a playbook that comes out of the foreign-policy establishment. And the playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses. Where America is directly threatened, the playbook works. But the playbook can also be a trap that can lead to bad decisions
* Hillary on the financial crisis
As Wall Street's personal Senator, you might expect her administration to bail out the banks, allow bonuses to be paid to executives, and past modest regulations in response that do not even rise to the level of Glass-Stegall
There are countless other endeavors that Obama's administration engaged in, and it is foolish to try to pick which ones can be "blamed" on the Clintons and which ones that can't. The Lilly Ledbetter act, for example, might have been Hillary's bill, and maybe not.
Ultimately, the answer is they were working as a team.
And that's all I'm arguing.
As New Era was gracious enough to explain;
Quote:
Just in case you were not aware, the President elect does not get to come into office and change policy over night. They seldom get to drive their own vision of policy forward and are told what the current state of policy is and how they are going to maintain that policy position
The policy team that was telling Obama what to do was Hillary's team - by virtue of hiring the most experienced and well-respected staff available to a President.
I agree with you here that the trump persona that was cultivated through those shows where you and him were omnipotent helps him. I think it covers for a lot of his ridiculous statements because people assume the meaning of his statements to match theirs because their opinion and his have been the same for years of TV viewing.
"He's not foolish - he saw this important detail that everyone else missed (except me or my wife) week-after-week for years."
"He's not selfish and greedy - he raised so much money for St. Jude's Hospital when Jon Rich won Celebrity Apprentice"
"They lied about everything else, why would I believe them now?"
-his supporters (i.e. not me)
edit: I should note that Celebrity Apprentice often featured Trump personally giving to charities as he fired certain contestants. These were presented as personal gifts, but they were not. They were given through Trump's Foundation but actually funded by NBC. A viewer wouldn't know that, they would just see Trump as a benefactor for their favourite person's charity.
Yes, I did watch the Meatloaf season of Celebrity Apprentice
Last edited by Gozer; 09-25-2016 at 04:05 PM.
Reason: noted
The IT guy that deleted emails labelled the project "Hillary Cover-up Operation"
skip to 5min
Quote:
Hillary Clinton’s closest personal aide often sent classified and top secret State Dept. emails to her personal email accounts, according to documents released by the FBI.
Huma Abedin told FBI agents in an April interview that she didn’t know how to consistently print documents or emails from her secure Dept. of State system. Instead, she would forward the sensitive emails to:
Her personal Clinton.com email address
Her personal yahoo.com address
Her email linked to husband Anthony Weiner
Reuters has found interview summaries showing that Bryan Pagliano, a technician who joined Clinton's team when she became Secretary of State, says he shared concerns about the legality of the server with chief of staff Cheryl Mills back in 2009. Two colleagues pressed Pagliano to bring up the server with Clinton's "inner circle," according to his statements, including one who was specifically worried about a possible "federal records retention issue." One said he "wouldn't have been surprised" if there was classified info passing through.
It amazes me that people in charge of running the country can have such incompetent staff. Why have someone operating as your "closest personal aide" when they can't even figure out how to print off documents? It is also somewhat worrisome that these types of people are being granted access to, what I assume are, some of the most secure systems in government.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Events make much more sense when you realize that many successful, powerful people are idiots with excellent social skills. Humans are focused and motivated on attaining status, and it is far easier to disassemble and pretend to competence to climb a hierarchy than to actually be that way.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Events make much more sense when you realize that many successful, powerful people are idiots with excellent social skills. Humans are focused and motivated on attaining status, and it is far easier to disassemble and pretend to competence to climb a hierarchy than to actually be that way.
Lol wut? Incompetence with technology = idiot? Incompetence with technology automatically means a pretender to any competence?
Hardly. I've known lots of people who struggle with a fax machine or programming a VCR (when those were a thing), or changing the oil on their car, or hooking up a home theater, but were smarter than you and I combined when it came to physics or economics or law. If my lawyer doesn't know how to configure a print driver it doesn't mean they're an idiot, it means they're interested in learning law stuff, not print drivers.
Unless you're talking specifically about the IT guys, then yeah.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The IT guy that deleted emails labelled the project "Hillary Cover-up Operation"
Good grief. Now we're getting into hearsay and the language chosen for a project, without proper context. The FBI has said there is nothing here. Move on!
Obviously the last bastion of truth! Come on, check your sources. This was sketchy to begin with and it took 20 seconds to find out this was not a viable news site.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Unless you're talking specifically about the IT guys, then yeah.
No, I'm talking everywhere. Of course there are plenty of intelligent people who do know what they are doing. There are also plenty of people who don't, yet manage to rise in hierarchies to positions of power and influence.
History is replete with incompetent generals, leaders and courtiers out of their intellectual depth and faking it. This hasn't changed and never will.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Looking at the past 2 momentum shifts, maybe is plays into the democrats hands that it gets close now. It seems like every time it gets close, the Democrats surge. I don't know if it's because because fence sitters shift left out of fearing a Trump presidency, or if it is because Trump gets too secure and then opens his pie hole too much, but if the pattern holds, Clinton could be in better shape than this snapshot in time would suggest.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
One of my favorite Trump defenses yet: How can he lie on something he doesn't actually know (but still comments on...)?
Quote:
On the morning of the first presidential debate, Donald Trump's campaign manager appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and was pushed again and again to explain why her candidate said that debate moderator Lester Holt is a Democrat when he is actually a registered Republican.
Kellyanne Conway declared that Holt was "a great selection for a moderator" and that this was a "terrible and irrelevant example" of something Trump had said, trying to pivot the conversation to attacking his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, Mark Halperin of Bloomberg Politics cut Conway off at least half a dozen times, pushing her to explain why Trump said something factually inaccurate about the debate moderator.
Mika Brzezinski, "Morning Joe" co-host, confronted Conway about avoiding the question.
"I don't understand what that has to do with Mark's question," Brzezinski said as Conway complained about unfair media coverage. "We're asking why he lied about Lester Holt."
"He didn't lie," Conway said.
"Um, I think he did," Brzezinski said.
"Mika, a lie would mean that he knew the man's party registration," Conway said
I'm probably going to watch a youtube version after the fact; I'm busy tonight anyway but it's better if you can just skip through parts that are infuriating. Which will probably make it a short watch.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I am not going to watch the debate. Too frustrating and nerve racking. Trump basically can't do anything wrong as per the polls. I'll read about it later.
