What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[grumbler]

Berkut, I just don't know why you insist on barking up that particular tree.  Hillary Clinton got virtually the name number of votes as Obama got in 2012.  She didn't lose, contrary to your assertions, because six million democrats stayed home because she was so widely seen as corrupt.  She lost because Donald Trump got 2 million more people to vote for him than Romney did, and they were two million people in key states.

Frankly, your blind drum-beating is getting tiresome, especially when tied to a series f strawman arguments about how you can see obvious corruption and anyone who doesn't agree with you is just making excuses.

I am no great fan of HRC.  She is a product of the machine more than any Democratic presidential candidate since Dick Gephardt.  That said, she was better qualified for the job than anybody since 2000 McCain.  I have seen nothing to indicate that she would have been a particularly corrupt president, or, indeed, that she would heed the business interests of Big Business except where the machine indicated she should.

The facts don't support your arguments.  You should probably consider getting new arguments, rather than ignoring the facts.

[Berkut]

Have fun with those strawmen.

Of course.

Cognitive dissonance - its not just for the Tea Party!

But you are just making it up. I don't think anyone has asked for special pleading for Hillary Clinton - both Jake and I noted that we didn't think there was anything unique there. (Aside actually you're the one pushing that the Clintons are so uniquely corrupt.)

I would say the fact that she lost to Trump means someone other than myself might have noted that she seems to be a textbook example of how the status quo is broken. Bernie Sanders success, which also directly resulted in her loss, as a outsider running basically on the premise that the system is broken makes that same argument.

But your right, there is nothing wrong with her taking $156 million from corporations and funding her campaigns with lobbying money. Everything is fine, and Trump and Sanders have nothing to teach the DNC - just keep doing the same thing, I am sure there will be different results. Nobody actually wants change.

Nor has anyone advanced the notion that they'd definitely believe the money maker was corrupt though if instead of Clinton it was a generic Republican we're talking about.

Right, of course not. I remember you arguing that Cantor was fine, and that was not at all evidence of corruption. There is no corruption in politics to speak of, and concerns about corruption had nothing to do with Clinton losing - it was all just lies and slander from Rush Limbaugh.

As I already said, I don't think the mere fact of making money by its lonesome is evidence enough to be corruption (or even all that worrisome). My opinion doesn't really change there if they've got a D, R or otherwise next to their name.

Of course - there is no corruption if that means we have to consider whether the Clintons turning themselves into mega-millionaires from money given to them by corporations might be corrupting.

You've chosen that instead of saying that the Clintons are a special case, there is no real corruption at all in general. The system works fine, and all these politicians represent their constituents interests when they vote to allow companies to sell your browsing history, as an example. Because that is what they think is best for all of us - the money they get is incidental at best.

I find this cognitive dissonance impressive. You would rather ignore the obvious than accept that Hillary is corrupted by taking over a hundred million dollars from the people who want her to govern in a particular manner.

I like how you won't actually respond with the actual amount of money she and Bill have raked in, and just note that "making money by its lonesome" as if this was them making a couple bucks working part time somewhere, to supplement her salary as SecState.

[Berkut]

Berkut, I just don't know why you insist on barking up that particular tree.  Hillary Clinton got virtually the name number of votes as Obama got in 2012.  She didn't lose, contrary to your assertions, because six million democrats stayed home because she was so widely seen as corrupt.  She lost because Donald Trump got 2 million more people to vote for him than Romney did, and they were two million people in key states.

Frankly, your blind drum-beating is getting tiresome, especially when tied to a series f strawman arguments about how you can see obvious corruption and anyone who doesn't agree with you is just making excuses.

I am no great fan of HRC.  She is a product of the machine more than any Democratic presidential candidate since Dick Gephardt.  That said, she was better qualified for the job than anybody since 2000 McCain.  I have seen nothing to indicate that she would have been a particularly corrupt president, or, indeed, that she would heed the business interests of Big Business except where the machine indicated she should.

The facts don't support your arguments.  You should probably consider getting new arguments, rather than ignoring the facts.

The issue of 6 million votes is hardly central to my argument.

Everything else in your post is my argument. Clinton is "a product of the machine more than..." is my argument. She is not just some Dem, she is indicative of the basic problem in American politics today. She answers to those who pay her, not those who vote for her.

The machine IS the problem. She is, and was, a terrible candidate, and other than Trump, nearly ANY candidate who was NOT a product of that machine would be preferable to her.

This is not about her qualification to be President as far as experience and ability - I have no problem with her at all on those characteristics, and in fact absolutely agree that she was more qualified than anyone in recent memory.

[alfred russel]

Berkut, I just don't know why you insist on barking up that particular tree.  Hillary Clinton got virtually the name number of votes as Obama got in 2012.  She didn't lose, contrary to your assertions, because six million democrats stayed home because she was so widely seen as corrupt.  She lost because Donald Trump got 2 million more people to vote for him than Romney did, and they were two million people in key states.

There were apparently ~9 million more americans in 2016 versus 2012.

http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

Failing to add to the Obama vote total is a sign she lost votes that Obama got/would have gotten.

[crazy canuck]

You might not want to "buy" it, but organizations in Vancouver have paid top dollar for both Clintons to speak at various occasions.  Why?  Because there is some connection with political favours that breaks the time/space continuum or because they pack the house and the organizers easily make a profit after paying the large speaking fee?

How much are they charging for admission?

I don't remember but I do remember that when she spoke at the Vancouver Board of Trade event they drew a record number of people for the event.

[Valmy]

But NONE of you guys would for a moment argue that a Republican who took $150 million dollars from corporate America, was not corrupted by doing so, or argue that in general the idea that politicians make tens of millions of dollars from corporate America before, during, and after their careers, are corrupted by that - that that money is given to them strictly for services rendered outside of their roles as politicians.

I don't think my opinion on the matter would be any different.

[garbon]

But NONE of you guys would for a moment argue that a Republican who took $150 million dollars from corporate America, was not corrupted by doing so, or argue that in general the idea that politicians make tens of millions of dollars from corporate America before, during, and after their careers, are corrupted by that - that that money is given to them strictly for services rendered outside of their roles as politicians.

I don't think my opinion on the matter would be any different.

You are wrong it would. After all, where did you note that what Eric Cantor did was fine?!

[garbon]

I would say the fact that she lost to Trump means someone other than myself might have noted that she seems to be a textbook example of how the status quo is broken. Bernie Sanders success, which also directly resulted in her loss, as a outsider running basically on the premise that the system is broken makes that same argument.

I don't know how this relates to my post.

But your right, there is nothing wrong with her taking $156 million from corporations and funding her campaigns with lobbying money. Everything is fine, and Trump and Sanders have nothing to teach the DNC - just keep doing the same thing, I am sure there will be different results. Nobody actually wants change.

Sadly, I think that the key lesson the Dems will take is that they should veer hard left. Because when people vote in support of the far right, you should take a hard left.

Also, apparently the real lesson is that you just need to lie to people and be enough of an outsider (or fringey enough - Vermont) to convince people that you'll be able to do things that we all should know you can't. That to me is the real lesson of Trump/Sanders which not coincidentally was highlighted in the election of Obama Hope & Change.

Right, of course not. I remember you arguing that Cantor was fine, and that was not at all evidence of corruption. There is no corruption in politics to speak of, and concerns about corruption had nothing to do with Clinton losing - it was all just lies and slander from Rush Limbaugh.

I don't recall that I said anything about Cantor.

I don't recall saying there is no corruption in politics or that Clinton is not at all corrupt. In the absence of a definition being provided, I recall saying she was middle of the road. That was just a few pages back, in case you forgot.

Of course - there is no corruption if that means we have to consider whether the Clintons turning themselves into mega-millionaires from money given to them by corporations might be corrupting.

Again, please show evidence of the decisions that were influenced by this money. Corruption isn't simply making millions as much as you might want to throw millionaires to the wolves.

You've chosen that instead of saying that the Clintons are a special case, there is no real corruption at all in general. The system works fine, and all these politicians represent their constituents interests when they vote to allow companies to sell your browsing history, as an example. Because that is what they think is best for all of us - the money they get is incidental at best.

No, I haven't said that. Again, I don't know why you insist in just making stuff up.  There are certainly issues about money in the system and once again, the Clintons aren't spotless. However, compared to what we actually know about corrupt politicians and those government officials who vote in favour of things because they are paid to (your example standing), Clinton looks a lot more saintly. Well unless one is just using amount of $ garnered as a sign.

I find this cognitive dissonance impressive. You would rather ignore the obvious than accept that Hillary is corrupted by taking over a hundred million dollars from the people who want her to govern in a particular manner.

Seems like an irrelevant point given that it follows from a bizarre assumption.

I like how you won't actually respond with the actual amount of money she and Bill have raked in, and just note that "making money by its lonesome" as if this was them making a couple bucks working part time somewhere, to supplement her salary as SecState.

Unlike you, I don't have a ledger for keep tracking of the exact amount. I think this rhetorical point of yours is rather weak.

[garbon]

Frankly, your blind drum-beating is getting tiresome, especially when tied to a series f strawman arguments about how you can see obvious corruption and anyone who doesn't agree with you is just making excuses.

And just to re-iterate what g said.

[garbon]

Oh and I'm glad that I was able to take your long winded wall of text and add in my own additional wall of text. Isn't this all so edifying?

[The Minsky Moment]

But your right, there is nothing wrong with her taking $156 million from corporations and funding her campaigns with lobbying money. Everything is fine, and Trump and Sanders have nothing to teach the DNC - just keep doing the same thing, I am sure there will be different results. Nobody actually wants change.

Your mixing up two different things here.

One is the obscene amounts of money thrown at celebrities -- particularly celebrity politicians - in speaking fees.  For politicians that are still active or intend to be, that practice is troubling because it poses the prospect and the appearance that their policy positions could be up for sale.  I don't think that is the reality - as an editorial in yesterday's FT points out, when private interests seek to influence politicians, they usually prefer to do it behind closed doors, not in some glitzy public venue.  Corporate speaking engagements are really about showing off to clients and competitors and being able to hang out in Aspen or the Hamptons and drop lines about "I was just talking to President Clinton the other day . . ."  That may revolting in its own way and turn off voters but it's far from quid pro quo corruption.

IMO the more serious problem - and the one Sanders if also focused on - is the combination of politicians' reliance on vast and ever increasing sums of money to finance campaigns, and the Supreme Court's demolition of any obstacle or restriction on the satisfaction that demand by private interests.  We've reached the point where strict quid pro quos are no longer necessary.  Politicians simply know that the policy positions they take will impact their ability to access donors, and the in terrorrem effect of that knowledge shapes and controls their behavior without the need for overt threats or conditions.  That is the fundamental corruption at the heart of American government, and it can only be cured by change in the financing regime.  The problem is that it is a systemic problem that transcends personal narrative and thus can't break through the limited attention span of the American public.  Talking about the corruption of Politician X is diverting and entertaining.  It provides the glow of righteous outrage when Politician X rides high, and the pleasures of schadenfreude when the politician is finally brought low.  But it is just fiddling while Rome burns.  We can toss the Blagojevichs into jail.  We can humble the arrogant Clintons like modern-day Cardinal Wolseys.  The problem remains.

[Valmy]

I also would have voted for Wolsey.

[The Minsky Moment]

I also would have voted for Wolsey.

That was kind of the choice wasn't it?
Wolsey was corrupt, but also diligent, loyal and competent.
That makes Trump, what?  The Duke of Norfolk?  Even more corrupt, constantly scheming for his relations, prone to violent temper, and without any conception of public good.

[Berkut]

I am not sure what you mean Minsky. We can humble the Clintons, but the problem remains? Of course that is true - the Clintons are a symptom, not the cause.

But the important point here is that they are not the solution. And by putting up a candidate who has exploited the corrupt system in a truly breathtaking manner, the DNC let a fucking terrible candidate whose only apparently redeeming quality in this context is that he claims he will fix that system, win.

I don't think we should tar and feather the Clintons, that won't do any good. I think the DNC should stop nominating the Clintons, and I think the Clintons worked very, very hard to help create that Trump shaped hole in our process in an effort to make sure that the DNC could not find another Obama type candidate who could convince people that they represented change in that status quo.

I don't think Clinton has any kind of primary responsibility for Trump, but she was most certainly one of MANY variables, any of which had gone differently, would have prevented Trump winning.

And I think the DNC would be fools to not recognize that and adjust accordingly.

However, to do so they will have to admit that there is a problem. And people don't seem to want to do that - they want to convince themselves that Clinton was fine, and continually go back to "She was better than Trump!". Well, she was light years better than Trump, but that doesn't make her a good candidate, just not the worst one ever. They need to set the bar higher.

They need someone who can preach the reform/change/anti-corruption message of Bernie without being a nutjob Socialist. And the Clintons are not that, and cannot be that, no matter how hard they try. You can't make a credible argument that you are a politician for the people, the middle class people, when you became a mega-millionaire during your political career taking money from the people who, if the system is in fact broken, are the ones who broke it and are benefitting from its broken state.

Again, my point isn't that we should all hate Hillary, or that she was not competent. My point is that we should be honest and recognize them for what they are - corrupt politicians who are an integral part of a broken system. Your Wolsey anaology only works if you agree that in fact Clinton is corrupt.

[Berkut]

I also would have voted for Wolsey.

That was kind of the choice wasn't it?
Wolsey was corrupt, but also diligent, loyal and competent.
That makes Trump, what?  The Duke of Norfolk?  Even more corrupt, constantly scheming for his relations, prone to violent temper, and without any conception of public good.

If the voters are demanding change, and you offer them up competence with no change, then you might not like the result.

I sure as hell don't like it.

And complaining about how competent the loser was is making it worse, not better.

I think a majority of people who voted for Trump thought he was incompetent, and Hillary more competent. This wasn't about competency.