Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

[Elvis]

When she rolled into town, did she give her "public" positions or her "private" positions?

She told the Goldman Sachs enclave exactly which was which. It's clear that Goldman Sachs (and their ilk) are her real constituents.

While Trump is worse by a magnitude, I never enjoyed seeing someone lose an election as much as I did last November.

[peartreed]

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are compromised by their dependence upon corporate support, particularly to mega corporation leadership funding political campaigns. Unfortunately that has been the American Way for decades.

The brighter and more enlightened electorate supported Bernie Sanders as the one candidate least likely to perform as a corporate puppet dependent upon corporate contributions, yet even Bernie was dipping for donations at the corporate trough.

While cheering Hillary’s defeat but acknowledging Trump is far worse, you reflect the deranged dichotomy that has driven the Western World to the brink of collapse.

[Rory]

That's not at all fair - you're framing his mindset as somehow reflective of some kind of binary thinking that imperils us all?

Bullshit. This is a predicament, not a problem that can be solved by choosing the least worst (binary) option. You think we'd be better off if the other choice had been made? You might be feeling better about yourself, maybe. We can all speculate. We still face catabolic collapse. Corporate takeover of all remaining public infrastructure continues unabated (as it would have done under the other binary choice we were offered). Yer fucked regardless.

To be honest, I'm not sure you get it. I don't, I'm happy to admit it to myself - fwiw. I just know that Team Red/Blue games are trite. You bandwagoneers are rich with condemnation and finger pointing but youre no better equipped for what's coming than the people you sneer at.

[peartreed]

What accelerates the turnover of membership and messaging is mean-spiritedness, personal insults, noxious negativity, sexism, misogyny and immature bullying. All that diverts from – and diminishes – the discussion of subjects we’re all here for.

The election itself comprised the binary choice. To cheer one candidate's defeat while acknowledging the other was worse creates the dichotomy I refer to. That view was shared by enough of the eligible voters to deliver a narrow and arguable victory to the worst candidate, despite - and, in some cases, because of - voter doubts and misgivings. Had the other candidate won the single victor of the entire exercise would still be the corporate conglomeration controlling the economy as well as the President of the USA. The main difference would be in the resources invested in social causes and institutions. Those support the commoner better.

[82_28]

Dump has exemplified the power of persuasive and attendant grooming to get a job done. I hate to seemingly always compare shit to 9/11, but once the act is done, it becomes undeniable. Remember all the talk of a president having a "mandate"? Getting dump elected is the mandate to seriously do whatever the fuck they want. The "path of least resistance" has proven to be a road that goes straight through the road to in your face theocratic, fascist, totalitarianism. I bought a new phone today so I will use it as a metaphor or simile (I always get that shit mixed up). Anyhow, it has an "indestructible screen" but is very susceptible to scratches (as the dude that sold it to me said and also from online reviews.)

Where we were being nicked at for a long fucking time they are now practicing dropping this joint from higher and higher levels, just to see what the threshold is at which it actually does break. All of the phone purchase talk got me to wondering when I was out on my deck later, that maybe I should test it from one floor above the pavement just to see if it would survive. Of course I didn't do it. But I guess I could and the thought did cross my mind.

So I thought about the screen maybe not shattering, but what would become of the innards from such a drop? Etc. Point not belabored, they are seeing if they can break the fuck out of America. The oligarchs are prepared to accept this outcome because that is what it is designed to do.

Also, I am prepared to consider that all of this "#metoo" stuff was/is meant to coincide with Clinton losing yet not losing the general. First female president who has the greatest sexual philanderer husband there ever was (as far as media saturation and "history") who just so happened to be president. I am also prepared to believe that the "#blacklivesmatter" had everything to do with "the first modern president" to parrot racist lines as if it was nothing to follow up the first black president who happened to be eloquent, studious, physically attractive. In other words, we are being toyed with. "They" know which emotive buttons to push and we react as expected. This "psyop" line of thought as for myself has taken to the back burner as I really want to see dump gone. Like Moore, the biggest problem I had with dump, "psyop" or no, is the great harm he as a figurehead would wreak in terms of "everyday" racism here in this country while also considering Hillary Clinton to be a war criminal. All "the right" did was bring the battle onto our own shores with strident effect that I believe will be impossible to ever erase and thus the neoliberal war criminals ever answering for their endless cruelty on any populous there happens to be one. They took care of us! Fought for us!

No, no they didn't. Residually they do and have. But this shit be too big to break. When dump leaves, it will only prove we are being played once more. The racist, the misogynist, the illiterate (Dunning-Kruger) will still be in power on the streets, the supermarket, the schools etc. I sure see no antidote as things sit right now and like with anything, if shit is going real good, that means there is something lethally wrong. I think this goes for "both sides", but then again, those on the left are not members of a death cult.

Anyway, if we have read our history, now is as good a time as any to once again go through mass psychosis.

[seemslikeadream]

That's not at all fair - you're framing his mindset as somehow reflective of some kind of binary thinking that imperils us all?

Bullshit. This is a predicament, not a problem that can be solved by choosing the least worst (binary) option. You think we'd be better off if the other choice had been made? You might be feeling better about yourself, maybe. We can all speculate. We still face catabolic collapse. Corporate takeover of all remaining public infrastructure continues unabated (as it would have done under the other binary choice we were offered). Yer fucked regardless.

To be honest, I'm not sure you get it. I don't, I'm happy to admit it to myself - fwiw. I just know that Team Red/Blue games are trite. You bandwagoneers are rich with condemnation and finger pointing but youre no better equipped for what's coming than the people you sneer at.

With that attitude I bet you were not around in 1968.....you think it’s bad now try seeing 50,000 of your contemporaries dead.....there’s something to over come and living through that and much more has left me well equipped

You say that but you do it all the time here playing the team red part and you are quite good at using that finger of yours Mr. Trite.

To be honest you say then answer my question

still waiting

[Karmamatterz]

What accelerates the turnover of membership and messaging is mean-spiritedness, personal insults, noxious negativity, sexism, misogyny and immature bullying. All that diverts from – and diminishes – the discussion of subjects we’re all here for.

What are all these references to misogyny on RI? Curious because it's lumped in with the usual behaviors on boards. The bullying and mean spirited attitudes are all over the place and not limited to just a few people. The lack of tolerance for opposing viewpoints is obvious here. One cannot debate both sides of an issue without being painted as a Trump lover, hater, alt-rightie or fascist. I'm just not seeing misogyny on RI.

[Elvis]

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are compromised by their dependence upon corporate support, particularly to mega corporation leadership funding political campaigns. Unfortunately that has been the American Way for decades.

The brighter and more enlightened electorate supported Bernie Sanders as the one candidate least likely to perform as a corporate puppet dependent upon corporate contributions, yet even Bernie was dipping for donations at the corporate trough.

While cheering Hillary’s defeat but acknowledging Trump is far worse, you reflect the deranged dichotomy that has driven the Western World to the brink of collapse.

Wait—I supported Sanders, so I'm "brighter and enlightened." (And by the way, Sanders didn't court corporate contributions, they just started throwing money at his campaign when it started to look like he might actually win the nomination.)

Now let me ask: if Trump had lost and I declared that I was never so happy to see a candidate lose an election (which would have been true), while nevertheless disdaining Clinton, would I still "reflect the deranged dichotomy"?

I don't see a dichotomy in my view; the claim doesn't make sense. I'm acknowledging that both candidates are crap, and in that sense maybe I'm reflecting some existing dichotomy but I'm hardly "driving the Western world to the brink of collapse."

I would have voted for Clinton if my state was not already solidly behind her. Thankfully I didn't have to vote for a lesser of evils.

[peartreed]

Like all the posts, my comments reflect my view just as your posts reflect yours.

I saw the larger dichotomy in the last election as the difference between Clinton and Trump beyond their shared dependence/obligation/compromise with corporate conglomerates. That difference, at least in my view, was primarily a well-known distinction: Democratic socialism versus Republican capitalism as the government’s priority mandate. Workers versus Employers.

Secondarily, the main difference, or dichotomy, between two flawed candidates for each of the parties was Hillary’s experience in government versus Trump’s inexperience. Establishment versus Unknown.

Thirdly, the differing dichotomy was mostly evident in personality, with Clinton being more controlled and cautious and constrained by propriety while Trump remained an ego-driven entertainer with loose morals and even less concern for any other social or regulatory restraint. Conformist versus Rebel.

I suspect that Trump voters made a calculated choice that was driven by anti-establishment sympathies and a desire for change – even if it was a clear gamble with the realization that Trump would have to mature into the presidency, act more professional and take the nation’s responsibilities more seriously.

Yet, despite the known differences outlined above, enough disaffected voters chose to cast their ballot for an inexperienced, unknown, anti-establishment rebel who had already demonstrated a high disregard for rules, regulation, social conformity and moral compliance in his life as a corporate privateer.

That choice, based on the difference between two “evils”, the greater versus the lesser, to me, was “deranged”. Why would an electorate gamble and elect even greater instability?

I suppose the alternative could be characterized as similarly deranged for preserving an unsatisfying status quo but, to me, Trump was a vote for chaos. I think the past year proves that point.

Under Trump the Western alliances, international trade agreements and treaties are being dismantled. He has increased the rhetoric against nuclear enemies. He is abandoning America’s role as intermediary in the Middle East conflicts and defers to Russia. His economic plans shift the tax burden from rich to poor and his undermining of environmental protections increase pollution and the prospect of greater natural disaster damage. He has empowered corporate economic exploitation. And those are only his first baby steps to the brink of collapse of Western powers.

So the decision to determine Trump the designated heir emerging from the deranged dichotomy was one of choosing our best leader on the road to Hell.

[Elvis]

I agree with just about everything you wrote there, Peartreed. But it's quite different than saying I'm tearing the country apart by expressing my disdain for both candidates. There wasn't necessarily any good outcome here (unless, imo, Sanders had won).

I would have been relieved if Clinton had won, but I wouldn't have to hold her up as a hero savior.

I especially agree that it was crazy to vote for Trump:

I suspect that Trump voters made a calculated choice...
...

That choice, based on the difference between two “evils”, the greater versus the lesser, to me, was “deranged”. Why would an electorate gamble and elect even greater instability?

Anyway, you didn't quite answer my question:

if Trump had lost and I declared that I was never so happy to see a candidate lose an election (which would have been true), while nevertheless disdaining Clinton, would I still "reflect the deranged dichotomy"?

Lastly, I don't know how anyone with a shred of progressive liberalism left in their brain can support Clinton. Further, I hold her and her DNC cohorts at least partly responsible for the Trump victory, by simultaneously promoting the Trump candidacy (as the one they could beat) and suppressing the Sanders candidacy (the one that scared the hell out of them). Clinton's notorious duplicity alone should repel all good people.

[DrEvil]

What accelerates the turnover of membership and messaging is mean-spiritedness, personal insults, noxious negativity, sexism, misogyny and immature bullying. All that diverts from – and diminishes – the discussion of subjects we’re all here for.

What are all these references to misogyny on RI? Curious because it's lumped in with the usual behaviors on boards. The bullying and mean spirited attitudes are all over the place and not limited to just a few people. The lack of tolerance for opposing viewpoints is obvious here. One cannot debate both sides of an issue without being painted as a Trump lover, hater, alt-rightie or fascist. I'm just not seeing misogyny on RI.

The closest thing I've seen lately is from you in the Garden of Dicks thread:

There seems to be plenty of anger from women, which is funny because so many of them are constantly whining about "angry men."

Men’s Rights Activists: Use Bitcoin to Hide Money From Your Future Ex-Wife

To that I say awesome! Protect yourself from frivorce.

Because obviously women are only in it for the money.

And really, whining about "angry men"? Have you been paying attention to the news lately at all? There's a fucking reason they're "whining" about angry men.

In regards to your personal experience: that sucks, but an anecdote does not make a trend. If you're so worried about your money just sign a damned prenup (bonus points: if she agrees that means she's not after your money ).

[Karmamatterz]

Because obviously women are only in it for the money.

And really, whining about "angry men"? Have you been paying attention to the news lately at all? There's a fucking reason they're "whining" about angry men.

In regards to your personal experience: that sucks, but an anecdote does not make a trend. If you're so worried about your money just sign a damned prenup (bonus points: if she agrees that means she's not after your money ).

From the Garden of Dick I wrote:

Marriage is all about money, security for some women.

Maybe where you live the culture is so different that nobody, male or female gets married out of convenience? It's not a myth or rumor, it happens. I was clear to write "some." To each their own, why would I have a problem with that? But, it doesn't mean its necessarily a good thing. People get married for a variety of reasons and its none of our business why. It was still a useful example for the discussion SLAD and I were having. I think SLAD knows what I meant. She is wise enough to know there is some truth to it, for both sexes.

By the way, I wasn't asking for sympathy about what when down in my divorce. I have to own my share of it. I was the one who filed for divorce. Really was just using it as a real life example to keep things grounded.

You're referring to a different group of angry men ( I think). My take is that the guys who are legit harassers have no good claim to be "angry." Sure, they can feel whatever the hell they want and its their emotion, but it loses legitimacy. But I'm not sure if we're on the same page with the context? Dunno. I was referring to the men who are referred to frequently as being angry about anything.

LOL...just because she (or he) signs a prenup doesn't mean they are not out for your money. It just means they won't get as much of it. Someone who marries into serious wealth knows they can live a life of luxury without tapping into all their spouses investments etc...Perhaps you're young and or don't know a lot of married or former married people? I know an individual who I chat with now and then at the gym. She is single and posts in social media when discussing her dating life that she is looking for men who dress in expensive clothes and has a deep 401k. I would say that is a real life example that is perfectly relevant. I know plenty of people who are married for convenience. Sometimes the love fades and they stay together for fear of being alone, security, money, insurance etc...

The closest thing I've seen lately is from you in the Garden of Dicks thread:

There seems to be plenty of anger from women, which is funny because so many of them are constantly whining about "angry men."

Men’s Rights Activists: Use Bitcoin to Hide Money From Your Future Ex-Wife

To that I say awesome! Protect yourself from frivorce.

If you think what I wrote is misogyny then you use a extremely liberal interpretation of the word. Sorry Dr. Evil, it doesn't stick. I referred to the non-stop clamor about toxic masculinity and angry men. Not men who are abusers. Problem is the memes about angry men are used loosely with a lot of ambiguity. If the meme was directed towards harassers and abusers then its appropriate, but its often not. So my point stands. Its legit to call out complaints about men who are angry if the complaining is so vague as to be critical of any man who is angry, for any reason. Both males and females express anger, its part of our firmware. I do think the validity of calling out violent abusers gets watered down with over use of phrases like toxic masculinity. Lets not forget testosterone is a natural part of our biology. There is nothing wrong with it.

Its not misogyny just because you call out a female in a debate or disagree with what they have to say. Its not misandry for women to do likewise. Not to mention, forums like this are ripe for opportunity for things to easily be misconstrued where actually siting next to each other having a conversation wouldn't result in the same confusion or misinterpretation. As a matter of fact, I bet many on here who throw barbs at each other would get a long much better in person. I would enjoy sitting over a beer or coffee and discussing the topics of RI. I could care less if we disagree or one is liberal and the other conservative. Its a pleasure to have rational conversation with people who aren't afraid of digging deep into topics. Its also useful to always understand someone else's point of view if you share widely differing opinions. Helps keep you on your toes in case your oblivious to something and they help educate you. Sometimes we're all to thin skinned for our own good...and emotions flare.

Protecting your assets from anybody doesn't mean you hate women. Some men (and women) see it as a business decision. Men who are getting married don't generally hate women. I suppose there are some sadists out there who do. I guess you could call sadistic men misogynists, but I think psycho would be better. I know a lot of married people and know of no males that are married and hate women. That doesn't mean there aren't abusive men who get married. If they truly hate women they shouldn't be in a relationship. Can't imagine any woman getting into a relationship with a man that hates women. Its foolish to think that with half of all marriage ending in divorce that some people won't get screwed. How is hiding assets prior to marriage different than someone who secretly runs up massive credit card debt right before they tell their spouse they want a divorce?

I might have gone too far off topic for this thread. Happy to take it back to the Garden.

[peartreed]

Elvis, I’m not getting into an argument over nit-picking semantics describing hypothetical situations. I’ve already elaborated and clarified my point about the Trump supporters reflecting a “deranged dichotomy” between candidates by describing the significant differences between the competitors in at least three levels, primary, secondary and tertiary. A choice between the lesser of two evils for the highest office in the land is, all by itself, deranged. Politics has gone to Hell.

Your personal choice reflects upon you, but we were both Sanders supporters.

[seemslikeadream]

popping in to say

Mueller found tens of thousands of EMAILS trump was trying to HIDE!

just incase anyone was still interested in emails


carry on

[DrEvil]

@Karmamatterz: I didn't call you a misogynist, I said it was the closest thing I'd seen here lately, referring specifically to your sentence

There seems to be plenty of anger from women, which is funny because so many of them are constantly whining about "angry men."

which equates the experience of women with the experience of men, which I think is ridiculous. Men aren't even close to experiencing the same kind of harassment and abuse as women do. Even Iceland, probably the most equal country on the planet, had to pass a law just to get equal pay for women. And I'm not even going to get started on rape and abuse statistics (how many shelters for battered men?). If all men have to worry about is the small, nagging fear that a woman doesn't actually like them but just want their money then boohoo. Don't be such a pussy. Man up and grow a pair.

Yes, sometimes women marry for money, but a) so what? and b) why is that? Could it possibly have to do with a culture that makes it harder for them to make their own money? A subconscious (or not in some cases. **cough**religious fucktards**cough**) cultural expectation that the breadwinner is the man? You hardly ever hear about men marrying for the money.