What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Grey Fox]

Yeah, I'm more interested in hearing that Berk wants.

Let's ask.

Berkut, what do you want out of DNC candidate?

[Grey Fox]

Valmy, what do you want out of a DNC candidate?

Sound policies to increase trade, balance the budget, make the current programs work more efficiently, and hold the line against the authoritarian bastards internationally while avoiding deployment of our military power whenever possible. Plus experience. Oh and reliance on science and evidence over bullshit.

Basically an internationalist liberal type. You know, like Clinton.

So our PM when he's done learning the chops here? 

[Valmy]

So our PM when he's done learning the chops here? 

I thought he was a lightweight and a clown but now he looks pretty good

I said earlier that I was looking forward to making fun of him but the American voter robbed me of the opportunity.

[garbon]

So our PM when he's done learning the chops here? 

I thought he was a lightweight and a clown but now he looks pretty good

I said earlier that I was looking forward to making fun of him but the American voter robbed me of the opportunity.

I think point is still valid. He only looks 'good' in comparison.

[Razgovory]

So our PM when he's done learning the chops here? 

I thought he was a lightweight and a clown but now he looks pretty good

I said earlier that I was looking forward to making fun of him but the American voter robbed me of the opportunity.

Best leader in NAFTA!

[Valmy]

Best leader in NAFTA!

It's true. At least that moron Nieto will be gone next year.

[Berkut]

Yeah, I'm more interested in hearing that Berk wants.

Let's ask.

Berkut, what do you want out of DNC candidate?

Obama for another term would be pretty great.

The issue though is not what I want out of the DNC, as I think that is obvious.

The issue that garbeedyem have is that I don't like Clinton. And the reason I don't like Clinton is the reason a lot of people don't once you get rid of the EMAILHAZI types. She is the very stereotype of the little-c corrupt establishment politician. She is bought and paid for, through and through, by big business and does not in any real way represent the people voting for her, and I think people realize that, which is why not many turned out to vote for her. She is no more capable of changing than Trump.

It's like the DNC went out and built a poltician from scratch that was designed to perfectly aline with the stereotype of the establishment politician. She is Gil Fulbright https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz_V4lRdtjo running for President.

[Valmy]

To the extent she is corrupt is because that is the system. But anyway I cannot prove she was not corrupt, all I know is she advocated for things I agreed on. I don't think the platonic pure heavenly politician, or human being, is showing up anytime soon. Especially not as the current system is designed to force you to be play the game unless you want to lose. That being the case it seems ridiculous to make her bear the sins for everybody. Also I am not aware of anything specific you can point to show she is the even distinguished for being corrupt which makes it all the more difficult to address the issue.

Anyway the DNC did not fabricate Clinton anymore than they did anybody else who ran for President. I am sure they would have preferred somebody with Obama's charisma and marketability if they could. Personally I don't give a damn about those things, I want people who will support sound policies.

[Berkut]

To the extent she is corrupt is because that is the system. But anyway I cannot prove she was not corrupt, all I know is she advocated for things I agreed on. I don't think the platonic pure heavenly politician, or human being, is showing up anytime soon. Especially not as the current system is designed to force you to be play the game unless you want to lose. That being the case it seems ridiculous to make her bear the sins for everybody. Also I am not aware of anything specific you can point to show she is the even distinguished for being corrupt which makes it all the more difficult to address the issue.

Anyway the DNC did not fabricate Clinton anymore than they did anybody else who ran for President. I am sure they would have preferred somebody with Obama's charisma and marketability if they could. Personally I don't give a damn about those things, I want people who will support sound policies.

This is a cop out. The system is a mess, granted, but that doesn't mean that every single politician is equally corrupted by it.

The Clintons did not have to take every single nickel they could grasp at in speaking fees. That was not required of them - they did it because they liked having more and more and more money, and didn't care where they got it as long as they got it.

Every successful politician has to work within the system of course, which is part of the problem, but that doesn't mean they are all equally credible when they talk about changing the system, or trying to. It was always completely clear to me that Clinton only ever spoke about change when she felt she was expected to do so, and her approach in office would be to do as little as she could get away with around actual reform.

She was not just a politician who managed to succeed despite the system, her family is one that embraced the system whole heartedly, and grew incredibly wealthy taking every possible dime they could from corporate America.

I have absolutely zero faith that she had any intrinsic desire to do anything other than what those who paid her would want her to do once elected. That doesn't make her unique, but it does make her pretty damned uninspiring.

But yeah, she said the right things, and I largely align with her on most policy, other than the most important policy of all - the need for reform of the role of money in American politics. I voted for her because the alternative was radically, spectacularly worse. But I recognize that politicians like her are in fact the very reason why a narcissistic, vain, incompetent douchebag can possibly be considered by people. Trump is, as they say, just the murder weapon.

[Jacob]

She is bought and paid for, through and through, by big business and does not in any real way represent the people voting for her, and I think people realize that, which is why not many turned out to vote for her.

I know this is something many people "realize", but I was never able to pin down the factual basis for this. I mean, I've heard it repeated a fair bit, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. I was under the impression she was a fairly credible senator for New York, for example, including in terms of representing her constituents (though I could be wrong). Similarly, I'm not sure I'm aware of any particular examples of having done stuff on behalf of "big business" in any way that sticks out.

Mind you I'm not saying it's not true, I just never really wrapped my head around it. I guess I have two levels of question there as well:

1) What is the evidence that she was "bought and paid for"?

2) If there is such evidence, how does that "bought and paid for" stack up against the general level of "bought and paid for" in American politics?

Because my current sense is that the "she's a corrupt political creature" is mostly a thing manufactured and promoted by the sections of the media catering to the GOP base, rather than anything factual. But like I said, I could well be wrong.

[Admiral Yi]

She is bought and paid for, through and through, by big business and does not in any real way represent the people voting for her, and I think people realize that, which is why not many turned out to vote for her.

I know this is something many people "realize", but I was never able to pin down the factual basis for this. I mean, I've heard it repeated a fair bit, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. I was under the impression she was a fairly credible senator for New York, for example, including in terms of representing her constituents (though I could be wrong). Similarly, I'm not sure I'm aware of any particular examples of having done stuff on behalf of "big business" in any way that sticks out.

Mind you I'm not saying it's not true, I just never really wrapped my head around it. I guess I have two levels of question there as well:

1) What is the evidence that she was "bought and paid for"?

2) If there is such evidence, how does that "bought and paid for" stack up against the general level of "bought and paid for" in American politics?

Because my current sense is that the "she's a corrupt political creature" is mostly a thing manufactured and promoted by the sections of the media catering to the GOP base, rather than anything factual. But like I said, I could well be wrong.

And by the Sanderite/Naderite corporations must die wing of the Democratic party.

[Berkut]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

I don't think CNN counts as a "GOP base" media.

$153 MILLION in paid speaking fees, almost all of which came from corporate America, and a huge percentage straight from Wall Street.

[Valmy]

This is a cop out. The system is a mess, granted, but that doesn't mean that every single politician is equally corrupted by it.

I don't think it is.

The Clintons did not have to take every single nickel they could grasp at in speaking fees. That was not required of them - they did it because they liked having more and more and more money, and didn't care where they got it as long as they got it.

From what I see they spoke to groups of people who generally share their vision of the country. Big capital and agents of investment, trade, and stability.

Every successful politician has to work within the system of course, which is part of the problem, but that doesn't mean they are all equally credible when they talk about changing the system, or trying to. It was always completely clear to me that Clinton only ever spoke about change when she felt she was expected to do so, and her approach in office would be to do as little as she could get away with around actual reform.

Reform of what? She did vote for reforming the system when given the opportunity, but we have had this conversation before and you have stated this did not make any difference to you. And anyway we might just disagree. I am not particularly interested in radical reforms. I mean sure reforms would be great but they have to be based on a clear understanding of the problems which none of the candidates in this election had any grasp of.

She was not just a politician who managed to succeed despite the system, her family is one that embraced the system whole heartedly, and grew incredibly wealthy taking every possible dime they could from corporate America.

I cannot disprove that she may or may not have had opportunities to gain more or less dimes nor am I aware of her personal balance sheet nor am I aware of how these may have or may not have impacted policy during Bill's presidency or Hillary's Senate tenure. If Bill Clinton's presidency is an example of maximum corruption I say bring back the maximum corruption, it was at least good for the budget deficit. The pure ideologues, untainted by the evils of money, seem determined to make us all suffer as much as possible.

I have absolutely zero faith that she had any intrinsic desire to do anything other than what those who paid her would want her to do once elected. That doesn't make her unique, but it does make her pretty damned uninspiring.

I don't know. She said she believed in global warming and science. She probably could have been paid more by energy companies if she had downplayed that. The only thing I had faith in is that her posted policies and she and Bill's trackrecord showed a general direction they wished the country to go in. I agreed with that so there it is. It was not based on 'faith' but evidence.

But yeah, she said the right things, and I largely align with her on most policy, other than the most important policy of all - the need for reform of the role of money in American politics. I voted for her because the alternative was radically, spectacularly worse. But I recognize that politicians like her are in fact the very reason why a narcissistic, vain, incompetent douchebag can possibly be considered by people. Trump is, as they say, just the murder weapon.

Ok then please explain all the narcissistic, vain, incompetent douche-bags who were elected all over the country and in the Congress and Senate during Obama's tenure when she was mostly on the sidelines. Greg Abbott was elected before the idiots here in Texas ever knew Clinton was going to win the nomination.

I personally think that this is being driven by reactions to change, radical changes that are happening all over the world, and ones that politicians have very little to do with or control over. So they are desperate to destroy the whole system and they are going to find it wasn't the problem to begin with.

[Valmy]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

I don't think CNN counts as a "GOP base" media.

$153 MILLION in paid speaking fees, almost all of which came from corporate America, and a huge percentage straight from Wall Street.

Well yeah. She supports free trade and sound economic policies. Something those entities would be in favor of. I mean it wasn't like she was going to go in and call for deep corporate tax cuts like the current guy who didn't get those fees.

[Berkut]

She is bought and paid for, through and through, by big business and does not in any real way represent the people voting for her, and I think people realize that, which is why not many turned out to vote for her.

I know this is something many people "realize", but I was never able to pin down the factual basis for this. I mean, I've heard it repeated a fair bit, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. I was under the impression she was a fairly credible senator for New York, for example, including in terms of representing her constituents (though I could be wrong). Similarly, I'm not sure I'm aware of any particular examples of having done stuff on behalf of "big business" in any way that sticks out.

Her and her husband have been, outside Obama himself, the largest forces in the DNC for a couple decades. In that time, what have seen from the Democrats? Have they tried to take strong action against the rise of money in American politics? No.

Have they taken literally tens of millions of dollars from corporate America? Yes. Not just "Hey we have to make a living" money, but "Hey, we want to be dirty, stinking, filthy rich" money.

Has she been an advocate for the radical, if necessary, changes to curtail the growing influence of money? No. She, at best, pays lip service to it when pressed. She was a Senator from one of the most powerful states in the country. Did she introduce of push legislation that would piss off corporate America? Nope. Did she take tens of millions from them? Yes.

What evidence is there that she truly wanted to change anything - change that would in fact harm her financially, and badly so? Nothing that I can see.

Mind you I'm not saying it's not true, I just never really wrapped my head around it. I guess I have two levels of question there as well:

1) What is the evidence that she was "bought and paid for"?

Well, she was certainly paid for, to the tune of $100 million +. I guess I cannot prove she didn't just take all that money and never give any return to those who paid her, but I am condident enough that the people giving her and her husband million are not stupid enough to throw that money away that I am willing to let if inform my overall opinion of her credibility as a representative of anyone other than those who paid and paid and paid her.

2) If there is such evidence, how does that "bought and paid for" stack up against the general level of "bought and paid for" in American politics?

That is a difficult comparison to make, I think. The Clintons are on a different level of visibility and influence than pretty much anyone else, so is the fact they they raked in over a hundred million in direct speaking fees alone just a reflection of their fame? Hard to say.

I do know that there are other politicians out there willing to stand up and advocate for things that absolutely and certainly will make them NOT be the next invited speaker at Goldman Sachs - people like Elizabeth Warren.

Does Clinton need to be Warren to convince me? No, but she is pretty much the anti-Warren on the Dem side.

Because my current sense is that the "she's a corrupt political creature" is mostly a thing manufactured and promoted by the sections of the media catering to the GOP base, rather than anything factual. But like I said, I could well be wrong.

I think you are wrong.

And that is the reason 6 million Dems who voted for Obama in '12 didn't show up to vote for her in '16.