Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[sistermagpie]

I remember, though, a thing where someone did the standard piece where they went to meet with red state Republicans and wrote about how they were omg, so nice! Not these monsters we imagine them as!

And I agreed with a response to that that said...why are we supposed to pretend to be shocked by this? I KNOW people can be nice as pie to individuals and consider themselves far nicer than those meanies on the left while voting to hurt people. I honestly don't know what I'm supposed to take away from it at this point? That yelling insults at people online isn't helpful? Got it. I don't do that already. But...now what? What do I do with the important knowledge that Trump supporters are people who are very nice to others in different contexts? The things I vote for were never intended to hurt them, so that's not really a change? What's the next step after that?

It's like that surprisingly insightful Black Jeopardy SNL skit where the Trump supporter had more in common with the black contestants than most of the white supporters the do on the show. But what wast he punch line? That when it came to the category "Lives That Matter" he was going to have "a lot to say about this." (And ironically earlier he jumped when the host came over to shake his hand.)

[Blergh]

    I voted for Senator Clinton due to her at least giving lip service to wanting to keep fairness an ideal to aspire to and couldn't care less about a candidate's pigmentation or shape(and could not vote for the other major party candidate due to his attacks on that as well as his own behavior). However; I have to admit that I literally had to hold my nose to vote for her and it would take too much space and be too boring to rehash all the reasons why.  Like many, I am upset, saddened and worried re the outcome. However; I can't say I was surprised as I was afraid this would happen ever since she got pushed for the nomination.

Can we now please try to end the concept that we 'owe' the Clintons anything after this?  Has what we reaped proven  truly worth this concept?

[DAngelus]

1 hour ago, windsprints said:

 So tell me again, who has been pointing the fingers and spewing hate?

Well, as a Stein voter, I'd say Rachel Maddow, who's come close to going insane, IMO.  But I'd rather talk about Mrs. Clinton.

As I've said, I don't like these IMO pointless and ridiculous and counter-productive "protests". What are they "protesting", exactly, again? "We don't like that our candidate didn't win!!" Yeah, it's called "democracy", look it up. And while doing my sixth or seventh massive eye-roll at this, I had a thought: why hasn't Clinton called upon her supporters to "respect the outcome of the election", after she (and Obama) spent all this time mocking Trump for leaving the door open to possibly filing a Florida-in-2000 style challenge, should the votes merit it? 

She took his leaving open the possibility of exercising his rights under current election laws and tried to paint him as if he had the Brownshirts suited up and ready to go, even if he clearly lost and lost big.  (By, let's say, 306-232 EV…)

Now it's her troops in the streets (allegedly bussed there, in some cases), and the silence is deafening.  Hypocrisy Reichstag Clinton, it appears.

Anyway, while Googling around for news of this, I came across George Packer's election profile of Clinton in the New Yorker, from October 31st.  Entitled "Hillary Clinton and the Populist Revolt", it's an in-depth look at Clinton with excerpts from the author's recent interview of her, seen in light of the mood of the electorate, and while Packer clearly likes and is sympathetic to (and IMO somewhat slanted in favor of) Clinton, even he sees the problem of being so very establishment in an anti-establishment election.  

But as I say, Packer IMO doesn't go far enough in calling out Clinton.  Here's one excerpt that I felt showed how deeply Her Royal Clintoness (endorsed by Bush 41, Bush 43, Mitt Romney, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Max Boot, Glenn Beck, and the Koch Brothers, I remind you…) Just.Doesn't.GET.It:

Quote

I asked Clinton if Obama had made a mistake in not prosecuting any Wall Street executives after the financial crisis. She replied, “I think the failure to be able to bring criminal cases, to hold people responsible, was one of the contributing factors to a lot of the real frustration and anger that a lot of voters feel. There is just nobody to blame. So if we can’t blame Company X or C.E.O. Y, let’s blame immigrants. Right? We’ve got to blame somebody—that’s human nature. We need a catharsis.” F.D.R. had done it by denouncing bankers and other “economic royalists,” Clinton said, her voice rising. “And by doing so he told a story.”

She went on, “If you don’t tell people what’s happening to them—not every story has villains, but this story did—at least you could act the way that you know the people in the country felt.”

So, to Clinton's mind (and I use the term loosely), the problem with Obama and Eric Holder and the Department of Wrist-Slapping (aka "Justice", hahaha) letting the banksters walk away with nothing more than a campaign donation or two (Obama in 2012 out-raised Romney severely from Wall Street, even from Romney's own vulture-capital firm, Bain Capital…I wonder why?) wasn't that "those bastards need to go to jail!" or anything like that, as obvious as it might seem given the thousands of laws the bankers broke.

It wasn't even that "it's important that people keep confidence that the system works" or anything beyond the specific cases.  It's that people need scapegoats and since Obama didn't "tell a story" (and fuck her for claiming that's all FDR was doing, rather than telling the truth and reforming a broken system), now people are going to "blame immigrants".

And given that Clinton/Obama neoliberalism's primary support is from "the minority base" that is "still dominated by the Democratic messaging" (2009 speech to GoldmanSachs, released by Wikileaks on October 10 [Podesta 1]), she's apparently more concerned that her sheep-ish supporters might come under attack than about getting justice for everyone.  Including that "bucket of losers" (same speech) on the left that's starting to organize and might pose a danger to HedgeFund "Democrats" everywhere.  

Why, we "losers" care more about economic justice and eliminating the corruption of the oligarchy than about SJW faux-outrage ("fauxtrage"? I like it) directed at straw men!  We're almost as bad as that "basket of deplorables" on the right!  Why can't we just let our betters grind everyone down, like we're supposed to?

Really, the nerve…wanting bankers in jail.  Next thing, we'll be wanting a Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate Clinton taking bribes for arms sales to Qatar and Saudi Arabia while she was Secretary of State.  Oh, right, that's Trump "not respecting the rule of law" and "wanting to lock up his political opponents". Nothing to do with massive corruption of a cabinet officer who paid her for a decade's worth of her daughter's living expenses, including Chelsea's wedding, out of tax-deductible "gifts" to the Clinton "Foundation".  (Doug Band, in his 1/4/2012 email to John Podesta, released by WikiLeaks on November 6 [Podesta 32].)  I feel so silly now.

Edited November 13, 2016 by DAngelus

[Chicken Wing]

Quote

As I've said, I don't like these IMO pointless and ridiculous and counter-productive "protests". What are they "protesting", exactly, again? "We don't like that our candidate didn't win!!"

They are not protesting that their person didn't win. They are protesting that a misogynistic, racist, sexist bigot whose positions and character stand in violation of every moral principle that our nation and society are supposed to stand for did. Are their protests going to change the results of the election? Do they think it will? Of course not. They are protesting to make their voices heard, to let everyone know that this is not okay and this is why. And they have every right to say that.

We'll never know now, of course, but can all of the Trump supporters and surrogates who are criticizing these protests really say that they or their counterparts wouldn't have taken to the streets to decry the election of "criminal" Hillary Clinton? Because plenty were already on record claiming to be prepared to respond with actual violence and calls for a revolution.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Chicken Wing

[NinjaPenguins]

From my adventures here in the confederacy, New England branch, I can tell you that unity for many Orange voters means not oppressing them by disagreeing with them. Don't look like you just smelled roadkill when they talk about deporting ragheads because it hurts their feelings, damn it. Free speech means saying whatever they want without reply or consequence. A co-worker recently told me that my criticism of his commentary as racist was the real racism. He had just used the word "jigaboo" to describe his African-American brother in law. Other times, we can happily discuss sports and pets and foods with genuine warmth. That little core of racism he carries inside will always come between us though; he's not going to change and I'm not going to overlook it. It's not as easy to bridge the gap as some think.

[windsprints]

On 11/13/2016 at 1:22 PM, stewedsquash said:

Both sides! Don't give up your voice! This country needs the rationality on both sides! 

I don't plan to.

As I explained I was speaking about my direct experience regarding where I personally saw the hate being thrown around from. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. 

As to the protests - well the President Elect clearly has no issue with people protesting. He suggested it in 2012.:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266034630820507648

Quote

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

Edited November 19, 2016 by Lisin
Removed twitter embed

[DAngelus]

2 minutes ago, Chicken Wing said:

They are protesting that a misogynistic, racist, sexist bigot whose positions and character stand in violation of every moral principle that our nation and society are supposed to stand for did.

Too bad; it was still a legal and fair election.  To run around "protesting" it makes us look like a banana republic.

The fans of the thoroughly-corrupt war criminal and possible sociopath who was running under the "D" banner had their chance to "protest" our next President and his bluster and bad hair choices at the ballot box on Election Day.  If they didn't make their voices heard loudly enough, that's on them, not the rest of us.  Now they can take their fauxtrage (yep, I like it) and stop blocking traffic and go home, already.  Or at least wait for him to actually do something that merits such a protest.

And no, fat-shaming a pageant contestant 19 years ago isn't it.  (HRC lost an election after she used that as her closing argument in Debate #1?  Shocking!)  Sorry, Ms. Machado.  Hope you enjoyed voting.

[sistermagpie]

24 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

As I've said, I don't like these IMO pointless and ridiculous and counter-productive "protests". What are they "protesting", exactly, again? "We don't like that our candidate didn't win!!" Yeah, it's called "democracy", look it up.

They're protesting the policies their new president supports.

 

24 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

She took his leaving open the possibility of exercising his rights under current election laws and tried to paint him as if he had the Brownshirts suited up and ready to go, even if he clearly lost and lost big.  (By, let's say, 306-232 EV…)

He did have that. He already had people, even people in government, talking about "armed insurrection" if Clinton won. Clinton herself accepted his win 100%. I honestly see no reason she should tell people to stop protesting his bigoted policies, especially when he's not speaking out against the hate crimes going on and is characterizing the protests as a rich people conspiracy.

Nobody's protesting on behalf of Hillary Clinton personally losing the presidency. She was never their beloved leader and that's over with. Now they're dealing with the reality of President Trump by saying loudly and clearly they don't agree with his policies. They're protesting the rights he wants to take away from them and others. It's not about loyalty to Hillary Clinton. Trump has done things that merit protesting already.

Edited November 13, 2016 by sistermagpie

[Chicken Wing]

Quote

Too bad; it was still a legal and fair election.  To run around "protesting" it makes us look like a banana republic.

Your first point might be a response if in fact their goal was to overturn the election results, which it isn't. They are protesting, as is their First Amendment right, because they disagree with and disparage the choice, for strong moral reasons, and they are simply making their voices and opinion heard. Nobody's trying to storm the Capitol or anything. They're marching in their local streets and chanting their (occasionally rhyming, for some reason) message. 

[DAngelus]

25 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

They're protesting the policies their new president supports.

Maybe they should wait until he's sworn in and tries to actually implement them before they go around making a spectacle, then?  Because that way they could be protesting specific policies; here it looks as though they're protesting the orderly exercise of our voting rights and the peaceful transfer of power.  Which, last I checked, they're supposed to be in favor of.

25 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Nobody's protesting on behalf of Hillary Clinton personally losing the presidency.

Oh, really?

25 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

She was never their beloved leader and that's over with.

You must have missed all the misandrist "Bernie Bro! Go away, white men! We don't need you, you'll be outnumbered soon, anyway! Demographics are turning on you!" screechings of the spring.

Blessed from above by Clinton/Podesta, I might add (as documented by WikiLeaks, bless them.)  Just as they'd tried to scare the voters in the '08 primaries with talk of "Obama Boys".  Ask any African-American male how he feels about being called "boy"…I don't think you'll get many positive responses.

But there was definitely a Cult of Clinton.  I have thousands of pages of archived threads and tens of thousands of posts (from other boards) available to show you, had I the energy or you the interest.  To say "never" is revisionist history in the extreme, IMO.

25 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

He already had people, even people in government, talking about "armed insurrection" if Clinton won.

I'm sure a few nuts ran their mouths. That's a far cry from painting Trump himself, or even the RNC, as plotting to overthrow the government, as Clinton and Obama kept insinuating, even in her "concession" speech.

But even if he/they had, there's a simple math problem that's relevant to this discussion.  Wrong+Wrong=/=Right.  It's as simple as that.

I don't much care what Trump allegedly might have done.  It doesn't make those bozos in the streets look any less like bozos, IMO.  All they are doing is tarnishing the image of protesting and giving the right a ready-made excuse to attack any legitimate protests that might happen later on.

And by the way, I notice that the Democratic mayors of these cities are NOT having the police beat the crap out of the protestors, the way Obama had the Occupiers savaged in 2011.  Gee, I wonder why?  Look stupid whining about an election?  Keep doing it, kids.  Actually protest the oligarchy and turn the country against financial criminals?  Unleash the hounds! ("The proudest day in the history of the L.A.P.D.," to quote Mayor Villaraigosa.)

I'd pretend to be surprised, but why bother?   Government for the bankers, of the bankers, and by the bankers, just as it's been since the Clintons and their DLC cronies infected the "Democratic" party in the mid-'80s.  But JMO.

Edited November 13, 2016 by DAngelus

[Danny Franks]

11 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

Maybe they should wait until he's sworn in and tries to actually implement them before they go around making a spectacle, then?  Because that way they could be protesting specific policies; here it looks as though they're protesting the orderly exercise of our voting rights and the peaceful transfer of power.  Which, last I checked, they're supposed to be in favor of.

Why? He's already told people what his plans are. Unless he says that he's changing them, should you not assume that he will keep to his campaign pledges? Showing your adversity to his prospective policies in strength before he puts them into effect is much smarter, and potentially more effective, than waiting until he's already done it.

They're protesting because they're unhappy, and when you complain about that, you've got some issues with the idea of personal freedom. 

Edited November 13, 2016 by Danny Franks

[Chicken Wing]

Quote

Why? He's already told people what his plans are. Unless he says that he's changing them, should you not assume that he will keep to his campaign pledges?

Honestly, for me it's not so much about whether he will or will not actually follow through with any of his campaign pledges or what positions he's going to push on -- he has hedged so much on every single thing he says it's next to impossible to discern what side he's really on over the course of a single sentence, and as far as his positions, well, he has no positions. If he has convinced me of anything it's that he doesn't actually believe in or care about anything other than whatever will be most politically beneficial to him at any given moment. No, what alarms me about him is that he even suggested them. It's a frightening sneak peek into his mindset and the kinds of things he might actually be capable of doing should he actually want to follow through on anything. This is why "character" and "temperament" were relevant issues in weighing candidates -- because these are attributes that let you know a little of what they might do, in addition to the things they claimed they would do -- yet he won even though the sizable majority of all voters believes he possesses neither. Eh.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Chicken Wing

[DAngelus]

10 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

Why? He's already told people what his plans are.

And contradicted himself on numerous occasions, as HRC supporters are so fond of pointing out.  [edit:  as chicken wing did in fact point out above^, while I was typing this.] Perhaps wait until the coin is actually flipped before flipping out?

10 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

Unless he says that he's changing them, should you not assume that he will keep to his campaign pledges?

Obama didn't.  (Pretty much everything Obama said on the campaign trail turned out to be a lie, in fact.)  Clinton most likely wouldn't.  Why pre-judge Trump?

You'll have four (eight?) long years to protest actual nominees he actually nominates*, actual executive orders he actually issues, and actual bills he actually submits to Congress.  Hell, even an actual inaugural address he's actually going to give.  Why waste your moral capital trying to slay an imagined dragon, especially when your signs in the streets aren't talking about any such specifics, just childish slogans like "#NotMyPresident"?

Yeah, check back about that on January 20th.  It doesn't work that way.

*-Way back in 1989, when I was living in the same state of Pennsylvania that the young Taylor Alison Swift was soon to be born in, I was so horrified by the Supreme Court nominee that Pappy Bush had proposed (apparently because he had no objectionable "paper trail" on his views on abortion, the way Robert Bork had), that I wrote to my senators, urging them to block the confirmation.

That scary, scary Republican judicial nominee in question turned out to be…David Souter.  Oops.  So even when we wait, we're capable of seriously overreacting. To overreact to literally nothing, at this point, seems ludicrous.  But JMO.

Edited November 13, 2016 by DAngelus

[Danny Franks]

Just now, DAngelus said:

And contradicted himself on numerous occasions, as HRC supporters are so fond of pointing out.  Perhaps wait until the coin is actually flipped before flipping out?

Obama didn't.  (Pretty much everything Obama said on the campaign trail turned out to be a lie, in fact.)  Clinton most likely wouldn't.  Why pre-judge Drumpf?

You'll have four (eight?) long years to protest actual nominees he actually nominates, actual executive orders he actually issues, and actual bills he actually submits to Congress.  Hell, even an actual inaugural address he's actually going to give.  Why waste your moral capital trying to slay an imagined dragon, especially when your signs in the streets aren't talking about any such specifics, just childish slogans like "#NotMyPresident"?

Yeah, check back about that on January 20th.  It doesn't work that way.

Again... why? Why wait? He's never contradicted himself and said something good, apart from his infrastructure plan that the Republicans won't let him carry out.

I don't recall the anti-war protesters waiting until Iraq had been invaded, or Syria had been bombed, before they took to the streets. It didn't stop those things from happening, but at least those people knew they'd made their feelings plain. Protesting nominees after they've been nominated, or complaining about executive orders after they've been issued is utterly pointless. But then if you think that protesting at all is utterly pointless, I guess this is a pointless conversation.

[DAngelus]

8 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

I don't recall the anti-war protesters waiting until Iraq had been invaded

Yes but the "No Blood for Oil!" protests didn't happen until Young Shrub had sought the Authorization of Military Force that Senator Clinton was so proud to give him, parroting his talking points and voting for it "with conviction".  The vote was in October, the invasion was the following March.  The protests were in between.  That's how this is supposed to work, not protesting Bush's election because he might start a war, someday, somewhere.

 (The actual "election" of GWB was in fact worthy of a protest, but there were circumstances then! There's no circumstances.)

8 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

Protesting nominees after they've been nominated…is utterly pointless.

Hardly.  There's still that whole separation-of-powers confirmation process, as Justice [apparently-NOT-to-be] Garland could tell you.  Check the edit in my previous post for my personal story of protesting a SCOTUS nominee, way back in the mists of Bush 41.

Edited November 13, 2016 by DAngelus

[DollEyes]

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 2:05 PM, DAngelus said:

Too bad; it was still a legal and fair election.  To run around "protesting" it makes us look like a banana republic.

The fans of the thoroughly-corrupt war criminal and possible sociopath who was running under the "D" banner had their chance to "protest" our next President and his bluster and bad hair choices at the ballot box on Election Day.  If they didn't make their voices heard loudly enough, that's on them, not the rest of us.  Now they can take their fauxtrage (yep, I like it) and stop blocking traffic and go home, already.  Or at least wait for him to actually do something that merits such a protest.

And no, fat-shaming a pageant contestant 19 years ago isn't it.  (HRC lost an election after she used that as her closing argument in Debate #1?  Shocking!)  Sorry, Ms. Machado.  Hope you enjoyed voting.

I respectfully disagree. Legally and peacefully exercising one's Consitutional rights doesn't make a country a banana republic; one candidate threatening to imprison their opponent if said opponent lost is. 

My verdict: God bless the protesters. Not the idiots who are destroying property-I'm talking about those who are legitimately afraid for their freedom, their safety and their lives because of a Trump presidency-and if the recent rise in hate crimes, such as Muslims being verbally and/or physically attacked, Black students on predominantly White college campuses being threatened and worst of all, White children taunting their Latino classmates with chants of "Build that wall!" are any indication, their fears are more than justified. As for your claim that "they should have spoken up sooner," many of them did because Hillary won the popular vote.  Instead of bitching about the protesters for exercising their First Amendment rights, Trump's first post-election tweets should have been to condemn the bigoted assholes responsible for attacking innocent people-and since Trump's responsible for provoking and exploiting such hatred in the first place, that's the least he could do.  Hillary's no saint by a long shot, but as far as I'm concerned, Trump has said/done/will say and do much worse than she ever has.

Edited November 17, 2016 by DollEyes

[DAngelus]

4 minutes ago, DollEyes said:

one candidate threatening to imprison their opponent if said opponent lost is.

Except that he didn't do that. No matter how much Mrs. Clinton's surrogates tried to spin it as such.

47 minutes ago, Chicken Wing said:

Nobody's trying to storm the Capitol or anything.

The New York protestors sure as hell would be storming the President-elect's residence, if Trump Tower hadn't been "fortified".  I don't know about you, but I find that scary and undemocratic (and un-Democratic) as anything I've ever seen.

And does nobody want to reply to the main point in my OP, the tone-deafness Mrs. Clinton showed in that New Yorker piece by reducing Obama's "get out of jail [almost-]free" treatment of the bankers to failure to tell a "story"?  That's what I came her to talk about, I reiterate.  This being the Clinton topic, not the Trump one or a general politics thread.  Just to make myself clear.

Edited November 13, 2016 by DAngelus

[DollEyes]

2 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

Except that he didn't do that. No matter how much Mrs. Clinton's surrogates tried to spin it as such.

He did threaten to have Hillary imprisoned several times. 

[Chicken Wing]

1 minute ago, DAngelus said:

The New York protestors sure as hell would be storming the President-elect's residence, if Trump Tower hadn't been "fortified".  I don't know about you, but I find that scary and undemocratic (and un-Democratic) as anything I've ever seen.

Certainly it would. Luckily that isn't actually happening and there is no real reason to believe your assumption would be reality even if it were feasible, so I'm not sure what to do with this argument condemning something that isn't happening, wouldn't happen and was never threatened to happen in the first place.

Those "pitchforks" and "musket" tweets, though...

[sistermagpie]

41 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

Maybe they should wait until he's sworn in and tries to actually implement them before they go around making a spectacle, then?  Because that way they could be protesting specific policies; here it looks as though they're protesting the orderly exercise of our voting rights and the peaceful transfer of power.  Which, last I checked, they're supposed to be in favor of.

He's run on specific policies and they're protesting that. Those policies are very serious as was his rhetoric. It's something very much worth "making a spectacle" over. The signs or chants are about that, not calls for a do-over. Why should people act like the guy just winked into existence yesterday? He's said what he stands for, his supporters know what he stands for. They're protesting what he stands for. If that makes him want to moderate those things, all the better. No reason to give silent approval to stuff he's going to do anyway.

41 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

You must have missed all the misandrist "Bernie Bro! Go away, white men we don't need you!" screechings of the spring.

Took me a while to figure out what you were referring to besides your sharing Trump's desire to get back at the "screeching misandrists," but if you're referring to people telling Bernie supporters to line up behind Clinton for the greater good, no, that did not make Clinton anybody's "beloved leader." It was exactly that, encouraging people to stand against Trump's values even if it meant voting for the candidate that wasn't your first choice. I voted for Bernie in the primaries. Liberals like to make perfect the enemy of good. That impulse has had disastrous consequences this year.

41 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

But there was definitely a Cult of Clinton.  I have thousand of pages of archived threads and tens of thousands of posts (from other boards) available to show you, had I the energy or you the interest.  To say "never" is revisionist history in the extreme, IMO.

There's a Cult of Obama and Cult of Bernie too. All these candidates have their hardcore supporters. The protestors are not the Cult of Clinton. There's plenty of people who preferred Bernie in there as well. They agree with Bernie himself that it's more important to oppose Trump than anything else. As a congressman it's better for him to handle President Trump differently than a person on the street.

41 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

I'm sure a few nuts ran their mouth. That's a far cry from painting Trump himself, or even the RNC, as plotting to overthrow the government, as Clinton kept insinuating.

Clinton didn't insinuate a plot. She responded to Trump refusing to say he'd accept the results of the election (and claiming it was rigged over and over and talking about how she'd be in jail if he was president) in a very reasonable way. Trump himself made "insinuations" when he referenced 2nd amendment people not accepting things. Clinton didn't push conspiracy theories about specific plots. You're normalizing things that should not be normalized. Trump's rhetoric about not accepting results and saying things were rigged if he lost should not be normalized. That stuff didn't come from Clinton making up fears to scare people. He and others, including people of prominence like former congressmen, said it, she responded to it--and not by calling for Democrats to take up arms themselves because this was going to happen.

But that's a distraction anyway. You may be more interested in fighting about Hillary Clinton's sins than the protestors. She's not in play anymore. They're dealing with their new president elect, the policies he claims he's going to put in motion, the people he's putting in government positions and the incidents of bigotry going on all over the country in celebration of his victory. It's not like there's much a conflict between what Trump supporters and anti-Trump people see happening here.

41 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

I don't much care what Trump allegedly might have done.  It doesn't make those bozos in the streets look any less like bozos.  All they are doing is tarnishing the image of protesting and giving the right a ready-made excuse to attack any legitimate protests that might happen later on.

Pretty sure every single protest ever has "tarnished" the image of protesting the same way. Honestly, just as you say those bozos are just being sore losers their attitude doesn't sound all that different from what you're saying here about your own resentments at your personal issues not seeming to win out.  People already have a ready-made excuse to attack any protest--they're doing it right now.

Also, I disagree that politicians don't do what they say at all. They actually usually do. Often they find it more difficult to do it than say it, but that doesn't mean they don't try. I don't think Obama lied about what he wanted to do even about things that he wasn't able to put through or then got new information on when he was president.

11 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

 (The actual "election" of GWB was in fact worthy of a protest, but there were circumstances then! There's no circumstances.)

Some people consider there to be circumstances.

4 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

The New York protestors sure as hell would be storming the President-elect's residence, if Trump Tower hadn't been "fortified".  I don't know about you, but I find that scary and undemocratic (and un-Democratic) as anything I've ever seen.

So Trump shouldn't be held accountable for anything he hasn't already done, even if he said or implied he'd like to do it or would approve of it, but it's fine to be scared by things you imagine peaceful protestors would have done.

Edited November 13, 2016 by sistermagpie

[Danny Franks]

3 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

Yes but the "No Blood for Oil!" protests didn't happen until Young Shrub had sought the Authorization of Military Force that Senator Clinton was so proud to give him, parroting his talking points and voting for it "with conviction".  The vote was in October, the invasion was the following March.  The protests were in between.  That's how this is supposed to work, not protesting Bush's election because he might start a war, someday, somewhere.

Clinton "proudly" gave Bush support? No. Here's what she said in the Senate:

"My vote is not a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world."

That vote was based on the fact that the resolution was not designed to let Bush just go to war. It said that he could take action “necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that “diplomatic or other peaceful means” would not be sufficient. And this was based on the evidence presented regarding Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (the same evidence that the UK has spent about ten years investigating, to see if Tony Blair should be charged with criminal offences).

You're drawing an absurdly false equivalence here, with Bush's election. You're right, Bush's election wasn't protested like this (although it should have been, given that the circumstances around his victory were very dubious), because he wasn't elected on a mandate of attacking Iraq. He was elected on a mandate of compassionate conservatism. He in fact promised a less interventionist foreign policy, so war was far from the minds of the people. This is what he said: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

Of course, that changed a year later. If he had also said the things Donald Trump has said, then I would guarantee that there would have been protests.

[formerlyfreedom]

Folks, let's move on. Enough going in circles here. Thanks.

[NinjaPenguins]

I can only deal with what real people are really doing in the real world, not what imaginary anarchists are doing in scary protestor fantasy land. People have always sought to discredit protestors for a variety of reasons. Maybe they're uncomfortable with the message, prefer the status quo, or are simply authoritarians who believe in following the powerful no matter what. People sure do love living in a democracy and free speech until people decide to start to exercising their rights. 

It's always the same tired criticisms: wrong place, too soon, too late, too loud, the protestors aren't flawless, etc. 

[film noire]

 When an attacker grabs your pussy,  you are morally allowed to fight from that moment on; you don't have to wait for worse to be done to you. Trump appointing a climate denier to head up his EPA transition team is the equivalent of the first step in a brutal assault, and nobody is required to wait until it goes full scale, imo.

Quote

People have always sought to discredit protestors for a variety of reasons. Maybe they're uncomfortable with the message, prefer the status quo, or are simply authoritarians who believe in following the powerful no matter what

Yes  -- except if they were right wing protesters with guns occupying government land -- then they'd be handled with kid gloves.

ETA: Farewell to Leonard Cohen (who once said he admired HRC's strength) and thank you Kate McKinnon for marking this election  in such a powerful and moving way. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by film noire

[film noire]

From The Atlantic:

"...as a feminist icon, she lives on. She’s the women who withstand the painful misogyny of American society. She’s telling your daughter to raise her hand in class, even if the boys make fun of her. She’s pantsuits and the more than 3 million members of the Facebook group Pantsuit Nation. She’s every qualified woman who had an unqualified man beat her out for a job. She’s the “I Voted” stickers on Susan B. Anthony’s grave. She’s the cracks in the glass ceiling that didn’t break. She’s what could’ve been. She’s the promise of what someday will be."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/hillary-clinton-icon/507503/

Edited November 14, 2016 by film noire

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 hours ago, DollEyes said:

He did threaten to have Hillary imprisoned several times. 

He actually said one of the first things he would do is have her arrested at the first debate.

[Keepitmoving]

Quote

You're drawing an absurdly false equivalence here, with Bush's election. You're right, Bush's election wasn't protested like this (although it should have been, given that the circumstances around his victory were very dubious), because he wasn't elected on a mandate of attacking Iraq. He was elected on a mandate of compassionate conservatism.

Right, and I as a POC wasn't horrified that he would tap into his klan roots, because I didn't see him as having any. All I saw was another wealthy privileged white man, cozy with Wall Street and "trickle down economics" taking office again. What else was new? My lord, we aren't making this fear up just to be dramatic, Trump is different. I'm not making it up when I say by the time Bush Jr. was sworn in I watched it and was actually not sick to my stomach because he wasn't offensive to me personally as a person of color. This for some reason is just not penetrating even those reasonable folks who think people are whining. 

Edited November 13, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[shang yiet]

So this is the end for Hillary? Or is she contemplating trying again for the presidency in 4 years' time? Will Trump hand her a consolation post? She did hint she was willing to work together with Trump. And why didn't she appear before her crying supporters at the glass ceiling centre? Was she having a mini breakdown and couldn't face them?

Edited November 13, 2016 by shang yiet

[windsprints]

Quote

The New York protestors sure as hell would be storming the President-elect's residence, if Trump Tower hadn't been "fortified"

As a life long NY'er thanks for my laugh of the day. There have been many, many protests in NY throughout the decades and no one ever stormed into buildings. 

There was some looting during some blackout in the 60s or 70s but I don't think that's the same kind of thing.

I hope Hillary takes a nice long vacation.  She's earned it.

Quote

He actually said one of the first things he would do is have her arrested at the first debate.

Yes, here is the exact quote:

Quote

"If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your (missing email) situation," Trump said, "because there has never been so many lies, so much deception."

Edited November 14, 2016 by windsprints

[ulkis]

5 hours ago, DAngelus said:

Too bad; it was still a legal and fair election.  To run around "protesting" it makes us look like a banana republic.

The fans of the thoroughly-corrupt war criminal and possible sociopath who was running under the "D" banner had their chance to "protest" our next President and his bluster and bad hair choices at the ballot box on Election Day.  If they didn't make their voices heard loudly enough, that's on them, not the rest of us.

I'm sure many of the protestors did vote.

Edited November 14, 2016 by ulkis

[film noire]

5 hours ago, DAngelus said:

To run around "protesting" it makes us look like a banana republic.

What makes the USA look like a banana republic is the Banana Republican himself.

Edited November 14, 2016 by film noire

[stormy]

Exactly!  That's what made America.  Our founding fathers protested.  Fought the Revolutionary War and won.  Otherwise, we'd still be an British colony.

Edited November 14, 2016 by stormy

[slf]

6 hours ago, DAngelus said:

Well, as a Stein voter, I'd say Rachel Maddow, who's come close to going insane, IMO.  But I'd rather talk about Mrs. Clinton.

As I've said, I don't like these IMO pointless and ridiculous and counter-productive "protests". What are they "protesting", exactly, again? "We don't like that our candidate didn't win!!" Yeah, it's called "democracy", look it up. And while doing my sixth or seventh massive eye-roll at this, I had a thought: why hasn't Clinton called upon her supporters to "respect the outcome of the election", after she (and Obama) spent all this time mocking Trump for leaving the door open to possibly filing a Florida-in-2000 style challenge, should the votes merit it? 

Ah, Stein. She of the "Brexit was an awesome movement by patriots sick and tired of corruption!" who then deleted and replaced her statement when people pointed out that...yeah, Brexit? Was a big anti-immigration, white nationalist movement in England. Not patriotic. Not about corruption. I mean she's marginally better than the previous Green Party nominee McKinney who talks a lot about how the Zionists run everything, and ruin everything, and her support of the NBPP which called for, among other things, the murder of babies.

I think you'll have to pardon the protesters, who are primarily poc, Muslim, Latin@, or gay. The threat of mass deportations, camps, and conversion therapy (which includes shock therapy) has people terrified. Historically, when white people gather around a man like Trump and elect him as leader things tend to end badly for those specific demographics.

[Spartan Girl]

Anyone else worried about Trump continuing to allude that he'll get a special prosecutor to go after Hillary? Hasn't she suffered enough?

[slf]

6 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Anyone else worried about Trump continuing to allude that he'll get a special prosecutor to go after Hillary? Hasn't she suffered enough?

I don't know. "Lock her up!" was practically his campaign slogan, and if he's as anti-corruption as he claims and she's as corrupt as he claims what does it say about him if he doesn't investigate her? He's walked back a few of his biggest promises, on one hand. On the other, he has to know he can't break every promise. He's pissed off the left and he needs the right. There is no silver lining here, obviously, but it does give me the tiniest sliver of satisfaction knowing he's probably not going to get much enjoyment out of the next four years.

[Menrva]

I really have to ask, and hopefully I won't sound stupid or completely naive but: how do we know, deep in our bones, that Hillary really is corrupt? What proof is there that she's a sleazy slime ball? I am serious here and I hope to get a serious answer. Is there documented evidence of corruption? 

The speeches she gave; what politician hasn't given them and why is it so terrible to give them? Why is it terrible to get paid to make speeches? Barney Frank, for pete's sake, gets paid to make speeches and he was very up front about it.

I just keep coming back to the fact that she was a woman with ambition and she did not fit into the boxes society has made for women. And I just don't believe that she was vilified because her last name is Clinton; I am certain any woman who ran would have received the same treatment. But there has been a very real campaign to cut Hillary Clinton down and insult and demean her, for the past 30 years. That isn't imagined. I just keep hearing about how people "feel" about her, but I've seen very few things that are documented fact. Many things presented as proof are really nothing damning and can be twisted into whatever you want it to be, whether you're a fan or not. Sort of like Nostradamus' predictions.

Sorry if I'm opening a can of worms here but I get tired of hearing how people just don't "like" her but none of us really know her, so is it fair to assume the worst? Guess I sound very naive.

[sistermagpie]

21 minutes ago, Menrva said:

I really have to ask, and hopefully I won't sound stupid or completely naive but: how do we know, deep in our bones, that Hillary really is corrupt? What proof is there that she's a sleazy slime ball? I am serious here and I hope to get a serious answer. Is there documented evidence of corruption? 

Somebody will correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I can tell there is no evidence of this. There’s some things she’s done that probably are a bit sleazy, but she doesn’t seem to stand out at all amongst politicians. She’s probably squeakier clean than most. She’s been accused and investigated so many times with nobody finding anything.

 

Meanwhile Trump’s working with Christie, who pulled the Bridge stunt (probably), Pam Bondi who certainly seems to have taken a donation from him and then paid him back by voting in his favor, and Trump himself who’s stiffed workers, misused his charitable foundation and defrauded working people with his University.

[Spartan Girl]

I don't think Hillary is corrupt, for all the reasons stated above. The email shit was completely blown out of proportion, the FBI found nothing, so why should Trump and his stooges keep dredging it up? Like I said before, he won, and as everyone pointed out, the president elect can't jail his opponent.

[bilgistic]

I'm standing the same landmine with you,  @Menrva; I feel the same way. My dad voted for Trump, and I'm having a very hard time dealing with it, not that I'd ever think he'd vote Democrat. He's a Vietnam vet and was a machinist for 30 years. He's a gun enthusiast. He "hates" Hillary, and therefore wouldn't vote for her. That's fine. Like or hate who you want. But my dad has three daughters who he has seen been abused and terrorized by men. (Note: I'm not saying all men. My "dad" is my stepdad. Our "birth father" was a piece of shit, and we've all repeated some terrible childhood patterns in our adult lives.) My dad just cast a vote for another racist, sexist, bigoted abuser just because he didn't want Hillary. I can't wrap my head around that. I love my dad so much, but that breaks my heart.

Edited November 15, 2016 by bilgistic

[Padma]

2 hours ago, Menrva said:

I really have to ask, and hopefully I won't sound stupid or completely naive but: how do we know, deep in our bones, that Hillary really is corrupt? What proof is there that she's a sleazy slime ball? I am serious here and I hope to get a serious answer. Is there documented evidence of corruption? 

I don't think she's corrupt. The fact he had to lie about what she "did" (which he and Giuliani falsely called "play to pay") made me feel she was pretty clean. Speeches to Goldman Sachs are no big deal. Plenty of politicians follow our former California Speaker's advice to "Drink their whiskey, take their money, screw their women and vote however the hell you want to."  Taking money for a speech doesn't mean you are their slave later. Maybe they just wasted their money--and what can they do about it? Nothing, which they know.

The email? Trump lied about that too--talking about how "an indictment was imminent". Nope! Got a clean bill of health for that, too.

He IS a skillful liar though. And Trump has a whole laundry list of HIS own corrupt baggage--all of which makes his slurs against Hillary so ironic that they are almost funny.

[film noire]

5 hours ago, Menrva said:

 how do we know, deep in our bones, that Hillary really is corrupt?

Good question,  Menrva.  I can answer it: Hillary has a vagina. 

And vagina holders are suspect under patriarchal law. Any act taken by the vagina holder that does not reinforce male power and misogyny as a social norm is automatically corrupt. It's the kind of thing a fine man like James Comey HAS to investigate, to keep future VH's (FBI lingo for Vagina Holders) in line.

As a rule, Vagina Holders vagina-ing all over the place is a form of persecution of privileged men. It makes them cry White Man Tears, which are the saddest (and yet most manly) tears of all.  These sacred tears need to be honored, not wasted on a Vagina Holder.  They are shed only for sports events, rage fits in front of Fox News and their time spent in SouthWorld (a new theme park) where they can grow dewy eyed over a very good gin martini served by a black man wearing white gloves in a restricted southern country club, as their bouffant haired wife sits smiling nearby, not a word to say about anything. Not a word, because her tongue has been cut out.

We just have to face the fact that in the end, HRC was too lazy, too selfish -- too damn prepared -- to rid herself of her vagina. She didn't reach out to the White Male Voter.  She wasn't charismatic enough to get the message across to him that she had rejected her vagina,  and was planning to put it in a blind trust until after the election.

I'd blame Podesta, but he's a White Man so...it's all on her.

Edited November 14, 2016 by film noire

[Rae Spellman]

6 hours ago, slf said:

I think you'll have to pardon the protesters, who are primarily poc, Muslim, Latin@, or gay. The threat of mass deportations, camps, and conversion therapy (which includes shock therapy) has people terrified. Historically, when white people gather around a man like Trump and elect him as leader things tend to end badly for those specific demographics.

I wonder how the demographics of the protesters vary from city to city. I live in a city in a city that is about 65% people of color and have been near a few of the protests while not actually participating in them. At least half of the protesters I saw looked white. 

For what it's worth, if I was protesting, I wouldn't stop just because HC or BO told me to. I didn't appreciate the President telling me that I owed it to him to vote for HC. And, I certainly didn't appreciate HC telling me that I owed it to Trump to give him a chance. 

[shok]

On 11/11/2016 at 0:59 PM, Keepitmoving said:

Right, he scurried out of there right after that dinner was over. Meanwhile, Hillary was still there in that room for like 20-30 minutes talking and laughing with people, that was her crowd. 

And yet Hillary was the one pilloried over and over and over again for being cold and aloof and stand-offish, no matter how many old friends, college mates, work mates, even Republican senators said that she's a lovely warm, thoughtful, caring, funny person.

 

On 11/11/2016 at 4:40 PM, fireice13 said:

Splitting electoral votes by congressional district would guarantee the Republicans wins every election. it's why they have the House even if Democratic candidates receive more votes. Democrats tend to cluster in urban areas under 1 maybe 2 congressional districts; whereas, Republicans are more scattered in suburban and rural areas and make up more congressional districts. 

Exactly what gerrymandering is and why it is so critical that the Dems get busy and win back some of the statehouses in 2018 and 2020 so they can remedy some of the damage done after the 2010 census. What kind of political system allows the House of Representatives and the Presidency to be occupied by the party that got fewer votes for both?

 

14 hours ago, DAngelus said:

Obama didn't.  (Pretty much everything Obama said on the campaign trail turned out to be a lie, in fact.)  Clinton most likely wouldn't.  Why pre-judge Trump?

 

That is so not true. Fact finders have documented that he accomplished hundreds of his campaign promises, far more than most presidents have, and it is presumed by objective observers that he will go down in history as one of the great presidents.

[inkworks]

41 minutes ago, shok said:

And yet Hillary was the one pilloried over and over and over again for being cold and aloof and stand-offish, no matter how many old friends, college mates, work mates, even Republican senators said that she's a lovely warm, thoughtful, caring, funny person.

 

Exactly what gerrymandering is and why it is so critical that the Dems get busy and win back some of the statehouses in 2018 and 2020 so they can remedy some of the damage done after the 2010 census. What kind of political system allows the House of Representatives and the Presidency to be occupied by the party that got fewer votes for both?

 

That is so not true. Fact finders have documented that he accomplished hundreds of his campaign promises, far more than most presidents have, and it is presumed by objective observers that he will go down in history as one of the great presidents.

It also didn't help that the Republicans tried to put a stop to almost everything Obama tried to do.

[Keepitmoving]

Fuck that, there is enough blame to go around to our democratic officials, but this voter blames all my fellow democratic voters who sat on their asses during the 2014 midterms and they did. The  lines should have been as long as they were in 2008 and 2012, but they weren't if there was much of line at all. I've have posted this countless times, that Obama was all over the place asking us to come out so that it would give him more power to get more things done, but no. Now people like that fucking stuffed buffoon Tavis Smiley wants to show his asswipe face on LOD complaining about what Obama did and did not do for our black community, boy bye, just bye.  The whiners can't connect the dots, that shit is your fucking fault that Obama was obstructed left and right after 2014.  We'll never know what he could have done because you didn't come out and vote down ballot to help him out.  And when I say whiners I mean every progressive who worked to NOT elect the democrat this time around after not showing up at the polls in 2014.. Go right ahead you have every right to be pissed about a klansman in the White House but you could have actually done something to prevent it. But I'm totally here for the whiners that did their duty and voted for the democrat even if they had to hold their nose. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[MulletorHater]

18 hours ago, slf said:

Ah, Stein. She of the "Brexit was an awesome movement by patriots sick and tired of corruption!" who then deleted and replaced her statement when people pointed out that...yeah, Brexit? Was a big anti-immigration, white nationalist movement in England. Not patriotic. Not about corruption. I mean she's marginally better than the previous Green Party nominee McKinney who talks a lot about how the Zionists run everything, and ruin everything, and her support of the NBPP which called for, among other things, the murder of babies.

I think you'll have to pardon the protesters, who are primarily poc, Muslim, Latin@, or gay. The threat of mass deportations, camps, and conversion therapy (which includes shock therapy) has people terrified. Historically, when white people gather around a man like Trump and elect him as leader things tend to end badly for those specific demographics.

Not to mention that young people in Maryland are protesting the vandalism of a church in their community with a pro-Trump message.  Imagine coming to church Sunday morning and being greeted by something like that.  That this happened in a very diverse area in Maryland is even more shocking.  It's as if Drumpf opened all the shut-off valves and all the sludge and funk is oozing out.  Now, I'm hearing that conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, is bragging that Drumpf called and thanked him after the election.

It fascinates me--and not in a good way--when people condemn other people for peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights but can't fix their mouths to condemn the things those people are protesting.  

[qtpye]

Obama is saying he will not pardon Hillary.  Does this mean there is a chance she will go to jail?  I now wish she never ran for president, for her sake.  It seems like her good name is being dragged through the mud for no reason.

I am surprised at the level of hate being spewed against her.  The so called liberal media made both candidates seem the same, with Hillary being the unlikable one.

Only John Oliver was the only voice of reason.  He said look, if chocolate chips represent something bad this is Hillary's cookie and he held up a cookie with about a dozen chocolate chips.  Then he showed Trump's cookie and had chocolate chips raining from the sky.  They are not comparable and now she might go to jail and he will be president.

[GHScorpiosRule]

24 minutes ago, qtpye said:

Obama is saying he will not pardon Hillary.  Does this mean there is a chance she will go to jail?  I now wish she never ran for president, for her sake.  It seems like her good name is being dragged through the mud for no reason.

I am surprised at the level of hate being spewed against her.  The so called liberal media made both candidates seem the same, with Hillary being the unlikable one.

Only John Oliver was the only voice of reason.  He said look, if chocolate chips represent something bad this is Hillary's cookie and he held up a cookie with about a dozen chocolate chips.  Then he showed Trump's cookie and had chocolate chips raining from the sky.  They are not comparable and now she might go to jail and he will be president.

What?  There's nothing to pardon because she hasn't been arrested, let alone indicted.  She is a free citizen. Why would he need to pardon someone who's not even in jail?

What was the context? Did someone ask if he would pardon her IF she was in prison?

[Ceindreadh]

27 minutes ago, qtpye said:

Obama is saying he will not pardon Hillary.  Does this mean there is a chance she will go to jail?  I now wish she never ran for president, for her sake.  It seems like her good name is being dragged through the mud for no reason.

I am surprised at the level of hate being spewed against her.  The so called liberal media made both candidates seem the same, with Hillary being the unlikable one.

Only John Oliver was the only voice of reason.  He said look, if chocolate chips represent something bad this is Hillary's cookie and he held up a cookie with about a dozen chocolate chips.  Then he showed Trump's cookie and had chocolate chips raining from the sky.  They are not comparable and now she might go to jail and he will be president.

I think he's saying he won't issue a blanket pardon in advance. She hasn't been charged, much less convicted of anything, so he can't exactly issue a pardon without specifying something she's to be pardoned for. 

[Constantinople]

Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed as President, even though Nixon hadn't been indicted.  I can't remember if Nixon was ever listed named as an unindicted co-conspirator.