Mock

Here's an alternate take: see if you can follow along.
1. We don't want or need the "most transparent person ever" as president of the biggest office in the western world. If we did, wouldn't base our election process on who tells the biggest and best lies on television. We deliberately hire the candidate who obfuscates and hides their actions, and the actions of this country, better than anyone.
2. The power of the person is measured by the strength and determination of his or her enemies. Given the length and depth of the anti Clinton political attack machine that stretches back several decades now, I'd say that makes Hillary Wonder Woman. What better person to have in charge than one who can't be wounded by political hijinx.
3. Unlike her opponents, there is nothing left to expose on Hillary. We've seen her ugliest already. Over and over. If there was more to find we would know it, or will soon. Therefore, by virtue of the exceedingly thorough vetting at the hands of her foes, Hillary IS the most transparent person we can possibly find for the job.
4. I've said this before and it bears repeating. Anyone who is bent because "she lies" is infantile. Of course she lies. She is a politician and diplomat to foreign powers. It's pretty much the job description. Hell, the Pope lies. George Washington lied like crazy. We don't want a person who can not lie for THAT job, we want the one who lies better than anyone else.
5. We also want the person in the office who WANTS it more than anything else in the world and will do well at it. And there is nobody on this planet who wants it more than her.

The Executive branch should not have as much power as it does. I don't want a king or queen sitting on a throne. America broke away from that type of government years ago.

(10-13-2015, 07:37 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]The Executive branch should not have as much power as it does. I don't want a king or queen sitting on a throne. America broke away from that type of government years ago.

Fully in agreement but appreciative of the irony that most of the ridiculous levels of power currently enjoyed by the President were signed into law by fellas named Bush. We have currently a president who wields, all at once, more power and less power than any other comparable world leader. And considering what we allow him legally to do under such fun things as the Patriot act, and considering that we have a congress who explicitly stated their goal was to stop anything from getting done (in what bizarre world job is THAT ok?), we have a sitting president who has shown remarkable reflection and restraint. Extraordinary restraint in fact.

Later down the line, regardless of who wins, we may not be so lucky. All three branches of government have become bloated with the power we gave them in our insatiable desire to find someone to blame when shit goes wrong. Every time the toilet doesn't flush or the internet goes down or some foreign office gets bombed, we scream "Why didn't the guys at the very top DO something about this travesty?!" Our government is led by people, not Santa and his elves. They can't grant magic wishes. But we ask them to.

Maybe the government wouldn't be all up in our goddamn business so much if we each took a little personal accountability for our own communities and stopped asking them to do so much of everything.

Then we might actually be able to elect someone besides whoever makes the best bullshit promises.

I knew it Bushes fault!

(10-13-2015, 07:27 AM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ]Here's an alternate take: see if you can follow along.

I don't know to whom you addressed that remark, but give this girl a gold star -- I was able to following along!!!!

Seriously, your take is interesting and makes sense to me Donovan.

I don't think Clinton should embrace it in her campaign message or anything, but I think a lot of voters already consider deception to be something that every politician practices, Clinton being no exception.

And, I think a lot of voters see Clinton as being a politician who gets raked over the coals for it much more vigorously than any other politician; a politician who has survived the political grinder for decades to build the strongest resume of all the candidates in her ambitious quest to earn the President's seat. In that regard, I get your point about how being seen to have superior deception skills could be considered a strength, not a weakness, for Clinton.

But, it's presently a very bad climate for that perception/philosophy to work in her favor when it comes to securing Independent/Undecided/Sander's votes, in reality. Her current foes have done a very good job positioning her as hyper deceptive and untrustworthy in the eyes of the American public (deservedly so or not). And, the American public is pushing back against career big-money donor/special interest backed"establishment" politicians in general, which would certainly include Hillary Clinton specifically.

I think that's why you've got an 'authentic' jackass and a sincere socialist giving the more mainstream establishment contenders a run for their money.

So, to me, adding "the best liar in a pack of liars" to Hillary's unofficial resume really works against her when it comes to making it to the White House in 2016, even if one accepts that it should be considered an asset rather than a liability once the job is secured.

Hillary's gonna have to really fight to chip away at the perception (or reality, in your alternate scenario) that she's an untrustworthy, deceptive, establishment politician in tonight' debate. I think over the last couple of weeks, she's finally been doing that effectively.

Anyway, I disagree with those who think Hillary Clinton is down for the count; I think she's just getting her game on and the recent revelations/allegations about the special Benghazi Committee are working heavily in her favor. But, she needs to be consistent and to keep doing what she's doing now - defending herself openly instead of going into ignore/aloof mode again. The Benghazi and email/server politicking may be chickenshit in her eyes and the eyes of her existing supporters, but their eyes aren't the ones she has to worry about when it comes to securing enough up-for-grabs votes to win the race, in my opinion.

(10-13-2015, 11:13 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

It's about time you came around to my way of thinking.

The Iran treaty and Hillary having to defend her actions is also Bushes fault. Its raining today and I have to blame him for that too.

I think I've come around to this way of thinking. He did quite a bit when he was out of the limelight and behind the scenes. An amazing individual that never stopped working towards the destruction of Earth. There is a possibility that we have not seen all the carnage that was Bush.

(10-13-2015, 06:17 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]Has she ever talked about her reasoning behind wanting to repeal the law that prohibits victims from suing gun manufacturers? I think that's ridiculous and senseless. I don't agree with it at all.

She voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms bill as a Senator back in 2005 because she believes that gun manufacturers should be accountable for supplying weapons that create a public nuisance or lead to death, in some cases. I haven't seen anything more specific than that, but suspect it will come up in tonight's debate and we'll hear more details of her rationale. (Here's a short article on the law: http://fortune.com/2015/10/05/hillary-clinton-gun/ )

Sanders has effectively pushed the Democratic party to the left and surpassed Hillary in two key primary states. She needs to compete with him and differentiate herself from him; that could be another reason she made the repeal part of her gun control platform. Sanders voted for the bill protecting gun manufacturers. He said holding gun manufacturers liable was like holding a hammer manufacturer liable if someone kills another person by bashing them over the head with one.

But, since Clinton announced last week that she would fight to repeal the law, Sanders has announced that he's open to reconsidering his support of it.

Sanders voted against invading Iraq; he's expected to point out how Hillary voted for it at the debate tonight.

Since Clinton and Sanders don't seem inclined to attack each other and call each other names like the Republican competitors do, I think there will be deeper focus on issues tonight and where the 5 Democratic contenders differ in terms of public policy, foreign policy, and social issues.

One thing that's interesting to me is that Clinton has like 85% of the black Democratic vote. She and her husband have good records of supporting the black community. But, Sanders has only 7% of the black vote even though he's been an active part of the civil rights movement for 40 years. I expect issues of specific concern to blacks to be a topic of focus tonight.

Isn't the debate in Vegas tonight?

Yeah, it's being held tonight at the Wynn Hotel at 5:30 PST / 8:30 EST and will be televised live on CNN.

Anderson Cooper is moderating.



I'm interested in hearing from Webb, O'Malley and Chafee too.

As much as I'm for gun control, I'm not in favor of repealing that law. If a gun is defective, fine, sue the manufacturer but I can't see any other scenario (unless gun manufacturers are breaking laws selling/distributing their guns) where they ought to be held liable in a civil suit.

I think Bernie was right comparing it to hammers, cars, knives...

@HotD there is a very short list of people I have absolutely no worries about being able to follow along. My brain crush for you is long and deep...and kinda stiff.
My commentary was not so much that Hillary should say she's a big ol liar. Obviously she can't do that, nor is she nearly as deceitful as she is presented. My thoughts are directed at the voting public, especially those here at Mock, who labor under the false assumption that a seasoned politician capable of hiding her true motive is NOT what we want. We as a people need to stop believing in the myth of the honest elected official and the even bigger myth that we will somehow find a single person capable of the job we want them to do, yet still pure as the driven snow, and who actually wants the job. The only person I can think of that dumb and resilient and pure is Spongebob Squarepants. And I'm about 60% sure he's not a real dude. Plus, you know, the fucking Birthers would be all over that Bikini Bottom stuff.

I will be watching the debate tonight though. It will be interesting in a "we didn't bring a clown, is Trump busy?" Sort of way.

(10-13-2015, 01:58 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

Go Hillary! I want to see you looking & sounding Presidential.

She'll be prepared & articulate. I'm really looking forward to this!

Did you catch her skit on SNL? Actually pretty damn funny, and poked a few barbs at herself.