There's absolutely nothing new there. Nothing. That's what Clinton has been for her entire adult life and political career. For starters: in ideology she's a rightwing corporate authoritarian, like Stern - an Eisenhower Republican. Always has been. She thinks that many Republican Congressman are - or were, before this aberration Trump somehow hijacked the GOP and made instant swine out of formerly decent Americans - decent human beings one can negotiate and compromise with. And so, oblivious to the big world of non-millionaires, she overlooks the consequences of her inability to stand firm for or on anything. She is, in short, incompetent at negotiating or setting policy. She gives away the store, in advance. There's nothing new about that. Stern, meanwhile, regards praise from Henry Kissinger (for her work as a Secretary of State) as a good thing. And she agrees with him (she has referred to Kissinger as a valuable consultant more than once). Kissinger never stood trial for war crimes only because the US protected him. There was a while after Vietnam - dunno if it's still true - that Kissinger had to be careful when traveling abroad not to change planes or set foot in some countries, for fear of arrest and detainment or extradition for trial. These people - Stern and Clinton both - think that Lindsey Graham has "changed". They didn't see Trump's electoral victory coming. They were both shocked by Trump's speech at the inaugural - they didn't see it coming. They both regard Trump as some kind of bizarre aberration, full of nightmarish surprises. They are, in short, delusional. Did she learn anything from the fact that Trump's victory and subsequent behavior shocked and surprised her? Did it cross her mind that getting stunned like that should clue one in to the possibility of having missed something important? Did she start paying attention to the many, many pundits and bloggers and essayists and journalists and reliably accurate observers who had been warning anyone who would listen about that election months in advance, who had accurately described the likely possibilities as they had in several past elections? Nope. She thinks the polls say that Biden is a good nominee who can beat Trump, that we need a "middle of the road" candidate, that the fairly extreme (compared to the electorate, the voters) rightwing corporate-endorsed Biden is a "moderate" or "middle of the road" politician, and so forth - spouting Republican talking points and never-correct TV pundits's shibboleths in her normal state of hopeless cluelessness, discarding core Democratic Party principles by the handful in pursuit of a fantasy "moderate" voter who hasn't made a serious difference in a real national election for fifty years - and who somehow always ends up looking exactly like a regular Republican voter of the kind that elected W twice and hasn't voted Democratic since Reagan switched Parties. Listen to her explanation of why she didn't react to Trump looming over her at the debate podium - a good explicit example of Clintonesque negotiating one's position away in advance. That's the thinking behind her Iraq War Powers vote - the worst blunder in modern American foreign policy, and she endorsed it. She went out of her way, against her Party even, to endorse W's folly - because that's how she thinks. That's what killed Wellstone's single payer health care, and every other such plan, and the public option in the ACA, and stuck the American public with warmed over hyper-expensive Romney Republican health care blamed on the Democrats. Clinton, more than any other single person, did that - and that's how she was thinking when she did it. Or listen to her (around 15:10 on) profess bafflement at how "we" have "trivialized" political discussion to the point that has become "nothing but entertainment". Who's the "we" she is referring to? She obviously doesn't know - because if she did, she would not be mystified or baffled at the ongoing success of the Republican campaign to take over US media via corporate ownership and control. She would know exactly how that trivialization worked, who did it, and why. The lefties and liberals have known this basic stuff for decades now - all Clinton would have had to do is pay attention to the people who were right about Gore, Kerry, W, and Obama. But that would mean paying attention to poorly paid, unsuccessful people who thought Clinton was a bad candidate. How long has it been since Clinton has had a serious, extended, informative, deep, worthwhile conversation about a major issue with anyone who earned less than 100k @ year?
Mod Hat — Irony Someone once complained that if I was in charge, it would be quiet around here, or something like that. The implication, of course, is that everyone would be silenced. Funny, that. Sometimes people just don't have anything to say. We discourage drive-by posting. People need to stop being so lazy. If you have something to say, then say it.
Tiassa is trying to stifle my freedom of speach!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I saw an interview of Hillary that I thought presented a more natural side to her so I shared it. That's not enough, suddenly, for moderator hat wearing Tiassa. Iceaura commented, you commented but controlling Tiassa felt the need to insist that I do more than present the video. He is an odd little man/person don't you think? What about that avatar of his? It's a rather queer or unusual image. What is it?
Mod Note You are not helping yourself by trolling and acting this way... You do know this, right? And in case you weren't aware, no, you cannot start a thread and just present a video with no actual talking points.. If you want to do that, I suggest youtube may be more your thing.
Mod Hat — Response Technically, since always. It's generally covered at E8, 13-14↗ of the currently posted site rules. It is also true we sometimes seem to have relaxed on that part, though certain criteria are themselves uncertain; it's complicated and irregular. Meanwhile, some things ought to be pretty apparent. If it's stuff like music videos, in A&C or Free Thoughts, it's not like that's necessarily problematic. To the other, history and experience teaches that if you ask people to tell us why they like a particular song, you're asking too much. But your topic post, for instance: I haven't bothered looking to see if it's an excerpt, but the source footage is two and a half hours long, and, no, people should not be expected to give that any more serious consideration than either you do or any circumstance you cause should require. I would have thought people could figure this out. And the interesting subltety is that, for the most part, the trend has been fairly clear: Arguing by internet video has generally reflected a range of fallacious argumentation tending toward antisociality. Consider it this way: Have yourselves a thread in which everybody argues solely by posting videos, with no further comment, like your topic post. Now, ask yourself: At the point everyone else needs to watch, say, an hour of video in order to figure out who is arguing what, the obvious question would seem to be who, around Sciforums, will actually do so. Discursively, the end result would simply be advertising and SEO, i.e., brand visibility and search engine scoring. No, really, I would have thought some things obvious. As I have said, here, for longer than you've attended, other people cannot do your thinking for you. Which, in turn, is another thing I would have thought obvious, so perhaps I should clarify: First, they aren't psychics unless they are, which in turn means they aren't. As such, they cannot know what you are thinking. This, in turn, should be obvious on its face, but if one needs the point reinforced, remember how much of what goes on around here involves people complaining that other people are saying the wrong stuff about what they are saying°. Most people, then, will either pass over or discuss something else; this is largely observable. If the joke is that it doesn't require much effort to fail to be useful, then it seems worth pointing out how much effort is required to be useless. One of the challenges about telling people what they need to know is that I cannot read their minds, and thus don't know what to tell them. To wit, I really don't know why anyone thinks that sort of topic post is any manner of good idea. ____________________ Notes: ° There are coincidences, there, too, but they can wait for their occasion because it gets complicated, though for some of those we can at least say they're putting some effort into it.
That's where the video came from. My comment was the title of my thread. What more do you want me to say? I thought others might find it interesting. Do you not find it interesting?
It wasn't posted as an argument. It's the only interview I know of where Hillary let's her guard down and comes off as a human being. There are 20 people on this site. Is it really necessary to have to be this rigid in the posting requirements?
Haven't watched this one yet: And I dig what she quoted G W Bush on in part 1. And imagine if Trump spoke like that lol. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I believe the quote was "well that was some weird sh$t" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I always saw her as a sympathetic human being. It's mostly just the GOP propaganda machine which tried to turn her into a witch. Now they're like wow she's a normal person. Yeah dude, we knew, that's why she won the popular vote.
I loved this interview! Super informal, and just real. No political stuffy bs, like the typical network news channels tend to show.
If you you tube you will find another 3 or 4 parts to this long interview. A fascinating biography/story whether you like her or not...
It is amazing how candid an interview subject (Hillary) can be if they feel safe to be so. Stern is a bit syrupy and obviously a big Hillary fan, which I guess is why Hillary could be so candid.
