#1: I have not heard of a single piece of damaging information that was actually exposed due to this. It's all been theoretical in nature. We'd have heard all about it, such as the Value Plame leak, if anything important was exposed. So no impact to me. #2: What she did wasn't unusual as the Repubs own SOSs also used personal email. #3 The topic is nothing more than Republican tool to paint Clinton in a poor light. Repubs even developed a strategy on how to drag on the "investigation" to keep it in the news a long time so people feel it's super important. You fell for it. #1. How is that different than Trump as a business person? #2: Why is that bad? Isn't personal ambition normally a positive attribute? Confused. You are playing the "what if" game. Back to reality, Hillary didn't say those things and Trump did. Regardless of your opinion about his positions, it's indisputable that the dude used vulgar and divisive language that really pissed people off at a high rate. He may be a fine business leader (he isn't even that) but he's a terrible politician.
Can't disagree with this on Clinton. Except I don't consider her the worst of our political culture. Trump doesn't get bonus points because he pisses people off. He actually spews his toxic words, not out of some integrity, but because it panders to an angry group of people who feel they are losing or have lost political power. Hell, Trump's campaign isn't far removed from Trump University itself. At least Clinton has actually channeled her inner Bond villain to do some good for society. Yeah, Clinton wants to go down in the history books as an important leader and difference maker. Trump just wants to feed his ego.
I wish I thought as highly of Trump as you do. I think he spews this crap not because of some great plan but because he has diarrhea of the mouth and has always been able to say whatever he wants. I don't know if he will ever realize that this is no longer acceptable. There is a large segment of the population that is so tired of the PC culture that somebody actually speaking their mind has a lot of appeal even if they don't agree with what is being said. Political correctness is just thought control that doesn't change what people think it just changes what they are willing to say and people are sick of it. I really can't think of anything positive that Hillary has done but if she did do something positive, it was only because whatever voting segment she was pandering to at the moment was polling well for something positive.
...and that's the problem with PC. It's really not hard to be PC as long as you know what your talking about. I challenge you to pay attention to "PC violations" going forward. It's almost always somebody talking about a subject of which they no nothing about. If you don't know what your talking about, you have 3 choices: 1. Shut up altogether and don't make statements about other cultures/people of which you know little about. ...cause if you do, you'll probably say something stupid. 2. Go the PC route and stay safe 3. Go ahead and make declarative statements and risk offending people with your own ignorance. It's not hard to be "PC" if you make an effort to learn something about the subject or at least be able to form some respectful questions. Let me give you a fun example. If you are speaking to a Jamaican, asking them if they smoke weed or making any weed reference at all puts your personal ignorance on full display that you know very little about their full culture. Again, I think it's funny how you give Hillary such a hard time when Trump does EXACTLY the same thing, only he's much meaner about it. Trump supported gun restrictions and abortion years ago. He contributed to Democrats. Now he's pandering to the disenfranchised conservatives. The dude is from NYC, bastion of liberalism. Incidentally, I also believe elected officials SHOULD be listening to their constituents and adjusting their positions accordingly. The opposite situation is much worse and is called a dictatorship. Trying to get votes is exactly how democracy is supposed to work, by definition.
PC related bs first. People should not be offended by somebody else's ignorance. The fact that people are afraid to say anything for fear of offense doesn't give the offended person a chance to respectfully correct the person and explain the error in their thinking. That person will just go on ignorant of Jamaican culture. Here is an example for you of how far this has gone. Standing in line at a college graduation talking to a college age girl. She was obviously an intelligent, educated, nice looking, well adjusted kid. She was telling a story about an interaction with a man she assumed to be able to speak Spanish by his appearance. She said that she could speak spanish but she was afraid to ask him if he could speak spanish or speak spanish to him because if he could not speak spanish he would be offended and that would be racist. I told her there would be nothing racist about that, it is called communication and it isn't always perfect. I guess most people aren't like yourself and always know what they are talking about. Most of us go through life hoping to interact with others and build relationships with them so we can learn more about them without fear of offense where non was intended and apologizing for our ignorance when offense is taken. I give Hillary a hard time because while Trump to this point has been making his way in the business world Hillary was Secretary of State and chose to put her own personal self interest ahead of national security. IMO she is has proven that she is not fit to be in any position of leadership or to have access to anything to do with national security, much less POTUS.
No, that's where political influence goes to die. Real political power lies in committee chairs. edit: just read on another site that a Republican Governor would appoint her replacement and Harry Reid says no VP should cost the Dems a seat.
Donald Trump is the epitome of a self interest. He's so grotesque in that regard that he's plastered his name on everything he owns. It's interesting you hold Hilary and Trump to different standards. I think you simply don't like Hilary, which is fine, but I implore you to do more soul searching because nearly every reason you've provided about why you don't like Hilary also applies (I'd ague, x10) to Trump. Regarding PC, the example you provided isn't a "PC" issue, it's a confidence issue. It's perfectly okay to discuss things of which you no little about however there is a right/wrong way to proceed. It sounds like you and I agree to that point. The girl you describe may also have a hard time offering a compliment to somebody. It didn't sound like a PC thing, to me. If you want to speak to someone in Spanish, simply ask the person if they speak Spanish. If she didn't feel comfortable doing so, she was right to not say anything at all. What isn't right is for her to ask if he speaks Spanish, he so no and then she rolls her eyes in disgust. That's NOT being anti-PC, that's simply rude. What I don't agree with regarding the "anti-PC" people is the sentiment that its okay to offend people and say stupid things. Either you ask intelligent/empathetic questions to learn more or shut up. People enjoy talking about themselves if you do it intelligently. Nobody likes it when you speak down to them.
Is it? So terrible that America gave Bill Clinton the highest approval rating of any departing President since they started polling the question. For 25 years, Hillary Clinton's character, hell, everything about her has been so demonized, assaulted, vilified, distorted, and lied about that even people that should know better have subconsciously "bought the narrative" put out by the RNC, Republicans in Congress, the Far-Right media, the wealthy practitioners of the 'business" of religion, who make millions off of "God," and the multi-millionaire/billionaire class that want to protect the easy ride the GOP has worked so hard to give them. Hillary Clinton is nothing like Donald Trump, thank god, and will be a President for all the people of America, not just the extremists of the Right and the 1%.
Fascinating look at the history of Hillary's image in America by Arnovitz. (It only exists on his FB feed, but check it out, great amount of detail). https://www.facebook.com/michael.arnovitz.3?fref=nf large graph Spoiler excerpts: (bolding is mine) "In the course of a single conversation, I have been assured that Hillary is cunning and manipulative but also crass, clueless, and stunningly impolitic; that she is a hopelessly woolly-headed do-gooder and, at heart, a hardball litigator; that she is a base opportunist and a zealot convinced that God is on her side. What emerges is a cultural inventory of villainy rather than a plausible depiction of an actual person." —Henry Louis Gates The quote above comes from a fascinating article called “Hating Hillary”, written by Gates for the New Yorker in 1996. Even now, 20 years after it was first published, it’s a fascinating and impressive piece, and if you have a few spare moments I strongly recommend it to you. (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/02/26/hating-hillary) And I’m reading pieces like this because now that Hillary has (essentially if not officially) won the Democratic Primary, I have become increasingly fascinated by the way so many people react to her. In truth, I sometimes think that I find that as interesting as Hillary herself. And I can’t help but notice that many of the reactions she receives seem to reflect what Gates referred to as “a cultural inventory of villainy” rather than any realistic assessment of who she really is and what she has really done. To conservatives she is a radical left-wing insurgent who has on multiple occasions been compared to Mikhail Suslov, the Soviet Kremlin’s long-time Chief of Ideology. To many progressives (you know who you are), she is a Republican fox in Democratic sheep’s clothing, a shill for Wall Street who doesn’t give a damn about the working class. The fact that these views could not possibly apply to the same person does not seem to give either side pause. Hillary haters on the right and the left seem perfectly happy to maintain their mutually incompatible delusions about why she is awful. The only thing both teams seem to share is the insistence that Hillary is a Machiavellian conspirator and implacable liar, unworthy of society’s trust. ... It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock. And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true. Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years. Also instructive is Jill Abramson’s recent piece in the Guardian. Abramson, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal as well as former Executive Editor of the New York Times, had this to say about Hillary’s honesty: “As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.” ... But why? In my opinion we need to go back to the time of Whitewater in order to answer that question. In January of 1996, while Whitewater investigations were underway but unfinished, conservative writer William Safire wrote a scathing and now-famous essay about Hillary Clinton entitled, “Blizzard of Lies”. In the piece he called her a “congenital liar”, and accused her of forcing her friends and subordinates into a “web of deceit”. ... I am no political historian, but as far as I can tell this short essay was the birth of the “Hillary is a Liar” meme. Now to be clear, most conservatives already strongly disliked her. They had been upset with her for some time because she had refused to play the traditional First Lady role. And they were horrified by her attempt to champion Universal Health coverage. But if you look for the actual reasons people didn’t like her back at that time, you won’t see ongoing accusations of her being “crooked” or a “liar”. ... (referencing his graph, which is the main point of his long, long piece) So what do we see in this data? What I see is that the public view of Hillary Clinton does not seem to be correlated to “scandals” or issues of character or whether she murdered Vince Foster. No, the one thing that seems to most negatively and consistently affect public perception of Hillary is any attempt by her to seek power. Once she actually has that power her polls go up again. But whenever she asks for it her numbers drop like a manhole cover. And in fact I started thinking more about this after reading an article that Sady Doyle wrote for Quartz back in February. The title of the piece was, “America loves women like Hillary Clinton - as long as they’re not asking for a promotion.” In the article Ms. Doyle asserted that, “The wild difference between the way we talk about Clinton when she campaigns and the way we talk about her when she’s in office can’t be explained as ordinary political mud-slinging. Rather, the predictable swings of public opinion reveal Americans’ continued prejudice against women caught in the act of asking for power…” And yes this is the kind of statement that many people will find reflexively annoying. But that doesn’t make it any less true, and the data certainly seems to support it. ---------------- I'm sure this will change nobody's opinion on this BBS, but the collection of data and sources in that very long post is fascinating.
Meanwhile Clinton wins the DC primary 79% to 21%. She met with Sanders after but he still isn't endorsing her. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/district-of-columbia-primary-results/ With recent events Sanders is starting to look irrelevant. She might not need his endorsement to unify the party. Its more than likely that Trump will do the job for her.
It's coming. He is just milking it for the most leverage he can get at the convention and the platform.
I'm sure Sanders will eventually but the longer things drags out the less relevant he's going to be. Since he's been mathematically eliminated and events like the Orlando shooting which have little to do with his core economic argument he's been getting less and less coverage. Clinton and the DNC might feel less inclined to give Sanders more concessions if they don't feel he is that relevant.
