Clinton didn't win because she was a woman.

What part of Hillary's unwillingness to expose her husband's serial sexual assault and willingness to viciously attack and undermine his victims do you find the most honorable?

Keeping one's family together after one member has done something bad ("sexual assualt" is not accurate) is not easy, and I don't really judge someone's reaction to that. And a lifetime of public service (well before politics) is honorable.

Generally, I think there's a big gap between people like you, whose interest in politics appears to be primarily based on hatred, and people who are interested mainly in helping people and making the world a better place. Hard for people on one side of that to understand people on the other.
 
I don't watch vids, though Chomsky is pretty predictable (just phones it in these days). The fact is that WS opposed Dodd-Frank and Obama supported it, and the reforms have been extremely effective. And Clinton was pushing for further regs. And trying to frame policy disagreements as personal corruption is destructive. Whatever one thinks of her positions on policy, Clinton is a decent, honorable human being.

Also, I'd suggest that getting a sharper understanding of issues like this isn't a matter of picking a guru you trust. You have to get in there and really work to understand the issues.
With regard to the need to "work to understand the issues", I totally agree. I've already pointed out that I started on your side. Thus I could argue very effectively for your position, much like I can argue for the position of the Christian apologist even though I am an atheist. Your position appears to be standard DNC orthodoxy -- the view from inside the DNC echo chamber. But, love him or hate him, a man like Chomsky is in a different league. He has worked through the issues and so when people disagree, the two main counterarguments seem to be ad hominem and incredulity. Like when Chomsky says the US is a terrorist state. Responses are mostly statements of incredulity.

So you bring up Dodd-Frank. On matters of economics, I tend to align strongly with Mark Blyth. About Dodd-Frank, he said years ago that

We haven’t learned a damned thing from the banking crisis. Dodd-Frank will basically put a little bit of a speed bump into the road and some airbags into the car. Other than that the model remains unchanged. And because of that, we are now more exposed and more at risk than ever. There’s no reason that this model won’t go bang again, and the next time they do that, they won’t be landing on public balance sheets with a 40 percent debt to GDP ratio, they’ll be doing it with 80 percent.
I know we're not going to sort this out in the present thread. You encourage me to work to understand the issues. In return I encourage you to be more skeptical of the DNC orthodoxy. Can't hurt, right?
 
You are aware of the fact that most people In the war room like what Donald Trump is doing right
 
With regard to the need to "work to understand the issues", I totally agree. I've already pointed out that I started on your side. Thus I could argue very effectively for your position, much like I can argue for the position of the Christian apologist even though I am an atheist.

I honestly don't think you can.

Your position appears to be standard DNC orthodoxy -- the view from inside the DNC echo chamber. But, love him or hate him, a man like Chomsky is in a different league. He has worked through the issues and so when people disagree, the two main counterarguments seem to be ad hominem and incredulity. Like when Chomsky says the US is a terrorist state. Responses are mostly statements of incredulity.

I think the response is more to point out that morality is more complicated than he recognizes. His main position on foreign policy is that he's against it. In reality, a nation as powerful as America is necessarily in the position of choosing among bad options and tradeoffs that have unsavory elements. Chomsky will often accurately point to the downsides of tradeoffs, but that's only half of the necessarily analysis.

And meh on the "echo chamber" stuff. People love to say it, but it's certainly not true in my case. I've listed lots of disagreements, but on financial reform, it is correct.

So you bring up Dodd-Frank. On matters of economics, I tend to align strongly with Mark Blyth. About Dodd-Frank, he said years ago that

We haven’t learned a damned thing from the banking crisis. Dodd-Frank will basically put a little bit of a speed bump into the road and some airbags into the car. Other than that the model remains unchanged. And because of that, we are now more exposed and more at risk than ever. There’s no reason that this model won’t go bang again, and the next time they do that, they won’t be landing on public balance sheets with a 40 percent debt to GDP ratio, they’ll be doing it with 80 percent.
Again this is really not sufficient analysis. That it doesn't go 100% of the way toward its goals is a position shared by, for example, Clinton, who proposed additional reforms. That it has elements that A) stabilize the system, B) protect consumers, and C) were opposed by Wall Street (since we're discussing the "coupling" issue) is indisputable. I mean, what is Mark Blyth's view of the Consumer Financial Protection Board (something the industry spent over $1B lobbying against, BTW)? Cutting overdraft fees was good, right? Surely, he agrees that liquidation authority was an important step forward, right?

I know we're not going to sort this out in the present thread. You encourage me to work to understand the issues. In return I encourage you to be more skeptical of the DNC orthodoxy. Can't hurt, right?

I'm very skeptical of it. My refusal to buy into GOP propaganda and far-left nuttiness should be read as a sign that I have looked deeply into all of this stuff. Recall that in our last argument, I was making the point that Democratic housing policy was a disastrous failure in CA. And I work in finance, BTW.
 
Last edited:
I don't think being a woman had much to do with it. I think a bigger factor was actually just her name. People seem to have grown distrustful of political families.

Before the primaries, so many people thought it would be Bush vs Clinton in the 2016 General election. Meanwhile Jeb didn't even make it out of the primaries. Clinton obviously made it to the general election, but when it came time to vote, people who came out for Obama didn't come out for her.
 
I'm consistently amazed at just how bad Trump is. There is no rock bottom with him. So I'm also consistently bewildered by the fact that he won - and I'm convinced it was simply because he was running against a women.


It has shit to do with sexism, I know most of you came in here with raging anti SJW boners. Sad, this isn't your thread.

Rather, because Clinton is a woman, her character transgressions weren't capable of being overshadowed by a "hero" mythos, a decidedly masculine narrative.


I'm talking about optics here. Witness how despite Trump being a complete dumb Fuck, he was still presented as a strong businessman. That was the hero mythos working in his favor.


Whereas Clinton's image was shackled with a different, negative mythos, the Western Witch.

Literally any male could have ran against Clinton and won.

Probably some truth to this. I personally would never vote for a woman, regardless of her politics.
 
I honestly don't think you can.
Yeah, I'm confident that I could, since I did it successfully for years.

And about Blyth, of course the quote does not supply a deep analysis. But a deeper analysis does exist and is compelling. If you haven't followed Blyth I suggest you give him a try.

My refusal to buy into GOP propaganda and far-left nuttiness
Come on. I also do not buy into GOP propaganda, except when it is correct by accident. And far-left nuttiness? Do you mean progressive nuttiness? Or Zizek nuttiness? Frankly, your line here reminds me of George Carlin: "Anybody driving slower than me is an idiot, and anybody driving faster than me is a MANIAC".
 
And I work in finance, BTW.
Very good. I hope you're not a fan of Peter Schiff. I was recruited by Barclays in New York in 1996, interviewed for a day (which means answered probability questions for 6 hours), and was hired as a quant. But I quit a week or something later in disillusionment. That experience was not a plus for my opinion of Wall Street.
 
And about Blyth, of course the quote does not supply a deep analysis. But a deeper analysis does exist and is compelling. If you haven't followed Blyth I suggest you give him a try.

You skipped past all my points. However deep his analysis goes, the claim you've put forth here is false. Obama signed legislation that was heavily opposed by WS and that had clearly positive effects for consumers and the stability of the system.

Come on. I also do not buy into GOP propaganda, except when it is correct by accident. And far-left nuttiness? Do you mean progressive nuttiness? Or Zizek nuttiness? Frankly, your line here reminds me of George Carlin: "Anybody driving slower than me is an idiot, and anybody driving faster than me is a MANIAC".

I mean far-left nuttiness, like about Clinton being some kind of monster because she's not quite far enough left for some people. Anyone who actually has to act to make things better does so within constraints (political and otherwise), and thus will disappoint extremists. And, yeah, I don't go in for the kind of tribalism that is common here. I've also been critical of mainstream left positions on MW and campaign finance (and, as I mentioned, housing policy).
 
Very good. I hope you're not a fan of Peter Schiff. I was recruited by Barclays in New York in 1996, interviewed for a day (which means answered probability questions for 6 hours), and was hired as a quant. But I quit a week or something later in disillusionment. That experience was not a plus for my opinion of Wall Street.

Schiff is somewhere between an idiot and conman (lots of conmen buy their own stuff to some extent). And my point in mentioning that was just that financial reform is an issue that I've thought about a lot and know something about.
 
. Whatever one thinks of her positions on policy, Clinton is a decent, honorable human being.

Nonsense.Decent honorable people have the decorum to not paraphrase a butcher like Caesar and cackle on live TV over someones death, regardless of how unsavory said person might have been.

Just as they don't switch positions on social matters when it's convenient for them nor do they attempt to guilt a gender or race when they don't vote for them. And that's just the slightest tip of the iceberg when it comes to this woman's behavior

As i've said previously both Clinton's are to Liberals as Reagan is to Conservatives. Both colossal corrupt turds who have gotten the rose coloured glasses treatment by their hordes of followers who would rather stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes as their fantasy is much more pleasant to them than the stark reality of the person.
 
Last edited:
You skipped past all my points. However deep his analysis goes, the claim you've put forth here is false. Obama signed legislation that was heavily opposed by WS and that had clearly positive effects for consumers and the stability of the system
We are too far apart in opinion to make progress. That is why I am not digging any deeper (why I am skipping past your points) on these issues. I am old and experienced enough to know exactly how a discussion between us will play out. One more thing to add, though, is that there is nobody buying your belief that HRC is a fine, ethical person. That's enough to make anybody choke on their coffee.
 
We are too far apart in opinion to make progress. That is why I am not digging any deeper (why I am skipping past your points) on these issues. I am old and experienced enough to know exactly how a discussion between us will play out. One more thing to add, though, is that there is nobody buying your belief that HRC is a fine, ethical person. That's enough to make anybody choke on their coffee.

I don't really see how any of my points on Wall Street coupling are even controversial, but OK.

And I regard the ability to recognize that someone you have political disagreements with can be a fine, ethical person to be a bit of a maturity test (one that is, unfortunately, failed by most here).

Here's something by someone who actually knows her:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-electing-hillary-in-16-is-more-important-than-electing-obama-in-08

It was one of the stupider, more disrespectful mistakes I’ve made, and one that could have cost me a job if Hillary hadn’t accepted my apology, which she did with grace and humor. As a result, I had the chance to serve in the Obama administration with someone who was far different than the caricature I had helped perpetuate.

The most famous woman in the world would walk through the White House with no entourage, casually chatting up junior staffers along the way. She was by far the most prepared, impressive person at every Cabinet meeting. She worked harder and logged more miles than anyone in the administration, including the president. And she’d spend large amounts of time and energy on things that offered no discernible benefit to her political future—saving elephants from ivory poachers, listening to the plight of female coffee farmers in Timor-Leste, defending LGBT rights in places like Uganda.

Most of all—and you hear this all the time from people who’ve worked for her—Hillary Clinton is uncommonly warm and thoughtful. She surprises with birthday cakes. She calls when a grandparent passes away. She once rearranged her entire campaign schedule so a staffer could attend her daughter’s preschool graduation. Her husband charms by talking to you; Hillary does it by listening to you—not in a head-nodding, politician way; in a real person way.

This same story has repeated itself throughout Clinton’s career: those who initially view her as distrustful and divisive from afar find her genuine and cooperative in person. It was the case with voters in New York, Republicans in the Senate, Obama people in the White House, and heads of state all over the world. There’s a reason being America’s chief diplomat was the specific job Obama asked Hillary to do—she has the perfect personality for it.
 
Last edited:
As i've said previously both Clinton's are to Liberals as Reagan is to Conservatives. Both colossal corrupt turds who have gotten the rose coloured glasses treatment by their hordes of followers who would rather stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes as their fantasy is much more pleasant to them than the stark reality of the person.

I think it's interesting how much more ugly hatefulness is directed toward Hillary for keeping her family together after Bill's affair with a underage subordinate than is directed toward him for his own actions. Very much reinforces the point about what a liability gender was for her.
 
I think it's interesting how much more ugly hatefulness is directed toward Hillary for keeping her family together after Bill's affair with a underage subordinate than is directed toward him for his own actions. Very much reinforces the point about what a liability gender was for her.

So play the gender card when her poor character is being pointed out even though i didn't even touch on the subject of her attacking the women who accused him of assault and made it clear in the post above i dislike BIll as well .

gotcha <YeahOKJen>
 
So play the gender card when her poor character is being pointed out even though i didn't even touch on the subject of her attacking the women who accused him of assault and made it clear in the post above i dislike BIll as well .

It's no "card." It's a simple observation that people direct more ugliness toward Hillary for Bill's disgusting actions than they direct toward Bill. And that absolutely reflects gender bias.
 
It's no "card." It's a simple observation that people direct more ugliness toward Hillary for Bill's disgusting actions than they direct toward Bill. And that absolutely reflects gender bias.

Hillary put herself back in the spotlight by running for president hence the current derision. Given that she can't even lose a race with a modicum of dignity or grace it's no small surprise stones are still sailing towards her bulbous head.

The fact still remains you played the gender card when her less than honorable behavior was pointed out and side stepped with a matter I didn't even address.

b-but but sexism! wont distract from the fact the woman is clearly not of any respectable character to any rational person.
 
Back
Top