Hillary Clinton

[tar]

DrmDoc,

 

So you are the cabinet member, and Bill comes in and says Hillary is sick and can't come down, but she has sent him to take the briefing, do you give him the briefing?

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

Bill is not "just an advisor" though. He is President Bill Clinton. Like if Bill Parcells became water boy for the Giants. His presence on the sideline, would be unlike any water boy before.

would having Bill on the sidelines be an advantage or disadvantage for McAdoo?

That might make the coach uncomfortable, but you're not the coach, you're someone in the stands, saying, "Oh, no, the coach might get advice from Parcells! What a disaster!" while everyone around you thinks you're secretly a Jets fan.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

You are assuming I would not want Bill to have influence over Hilary. I absolutely would. In fact I am counting on it. I think he is much more presidential than she is. His gravitas beats her's with a stick.

 

Regards, TAR

The both of them in a Cabinet meeting saying different things, I listen to him.

[Tampitump]

I'm still in shock from the slippery slopes and seemingly reactionary words of Phi for All's post. You said "(with your outlook)", as if you fully understood and had accurately summarized my views. Your post is part and parcel why I'm fed up with the left. Suggest something may be wrong with any left position, and risk get your head bitten off and slapped with labels and accused of positions you don't hold. I'm against America adopting a socialized economy. Yes, I recognize that some forms of socialism help this country work and without them many people would suffer, but that's not what I'm getting at or opposing. What I oppose is larger government stepping in to have such control over your money, to decide how much your ambitions and hard work will pay off for you, and to take a good chunk of the money that your ambitions and hard work have earned you so that others can be on more equal financial grounds with you. Nuh uh, buddy. I ain't supportin' nuthin' like 'at.

[DrmDoc]

DrmDoc,

 

So you are the cabinet member, and Bill comes in and says Hillary is sick and can't come down, but she has sent him to take the briefing, do you give him the briefing?

 

Regards, TAR

 

As a member of the President's cabinet, I would know that sort of thing was inappropriate as there's no legal substitute for the President other than the Vice President. However, in a similar frame, didn't Nancy sub and sit-in with her husband Ronny as he suffered through the early stages of Alzheimer? By the way, How did that support turn-out for Pres. Reagan?

Edited September 12, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Phi for All]

Of course I support all of those things, and guess what, I'm still opposed to a fully socialized economic system. When we are being forced to pay a good chink of our yearly income to make sure everyone is on an equal level, then I'll have a problem with it. I think the government is there to take as much money as is needed to provide the nice services to the general public and make the country a safe and pleasant place to live, but not a penny more. I'm happy to pay taxes that help truly needy people and provide for all of those great things you mentioned, but I'm not okay living within a socialized system that requires people who have won so much for themselves to give up a huge chunk of it to allow others who didn't excel to live on a more equal plane. I strongly strongly STRONGLY.....strongly strongly strongly oppose that.

 

This is a complete strawman. Nobody, Bernie Sanders included, EVER pitched for "a fully socialized economic system". I think our problems stem from not recognizing the importance of socialism in the mix of economic influences, but I would NEVER espouse relying 100% on any single system. It wouldn't be workable.

 

Our brand of socialism isn't effective because it gets passed through capitalist filters before becoming policy. It's the stupidest way to run an economy, imo, because there are very important reasons why some things need to belong to the People, some things need to belong to the State, and some things need to belong to private enterprise. It's my hope that Hillary's mix between capitalism/socialism/communism is more heavily weighted to fixing our damaged social concerns with taxes from the capitalist concerns that have enjoyed such record profits and privilege for the last 60 years or so.

[tar]

Bill is her better half.

 

Without Bill she has very little weight.

If she had divorced Bill back during the impeachment, would she be the democrat candidate for president now?

[Delta1212]

Of course I support all of those things, and guess what, I'm still opposed to a fully socialized economic system. When we are being forced to pay a good chink of our yearly income to make sure everyone is on an equal level, then I'll have a problem with it. I think the government is there to take as much money as is needed to provide the nice services to the general public and make the country a safe and pleasant place to live, but not a penny more. I'm happy to pay taxes that help truly needy people and provide for all of those great things you mentioned, but I'm not okay living within a socialized system that requires people who have won so much for themselves to give up a huge chunk of it to allow others who didn't excel to live on a more equal plane. I strongly strongly STRONGLY.....strongly strongly strongly oppose that.

You're not a libertarian any more than you're a Republican then. Libertarianism as an ideology is opposed to all of the social programs that you just said you are fine with. In a libertarian society, you do not have government spending on roads, fire departments, police, healthcare, schools or "the truly needy."

 

All schools would be private, all roads would be toll roads, or potentially subscription based, you would either pay them whatever they ask when your house is burning or pay a regular fee to do it in the event a fire happens (akin to fire insurance, except it ensures that they put out the fire rather than that you get reimbursed for the cost of things that are destroyed in a fire). Same thing for police, which you would either need to employ yourself in the event a crime is committed against you or else subscribe to police force or security firm (which may not really be distinct entities, actually). And all of the truly needy would need to be taken care of exclusively through charities, which would no longer have tax incentives to help spur donations.

 

If those or similar solutions are not part of your ideal society, you should not be describing yourself as a libertarian. What you actually are is someone who favors a mixed economy with a strong preference for non-government solutions wherever feasible.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Delta1212

[tar]

"Its the way I look when my husband drags me to an action movie."

[Phi for All]

Bill is her better half.

 

Without Bill she has very little weight.

If she had divorced Bill back during the impeachment, would she be the democrat candidate for president now?

"Its the way I look when my husband drags me to an action movie."

You should take a step back and go blog somewhere if you're just going to post pure opinion with nothing in support. This kind of stuff is pretty worthless in a discussion, don't you think?

[swansont]

Can Hilary name Bill as her Chief of Staff for instance? I don't know.

Probably not. (Just as Trump would likely not be able to name Ivanka to his cabinet. But where's the concern over that?)

5 U.S. Code § 3110 - Employment of relatives; restrictions

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110

 

(b) A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.

© An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is not entitled to pay, and money may not be paid from the Treasury as pay to an individual so appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced.

 

So if it's a civilian position in the agency, no. Bill can't be a paid member of the government under Hillary's jurisdiction

SwansonT,

 

You are assuming I would not want Bill to have influence over Hilary. I absolutely would. In fact I am counting on it. I think he is much more presidential than she is. His gravitas beats her's with a stick.

 

Regards, TAR

The both of them in a Cabinet meeting saying different things, I listen to him.

 

I refer you to my previous remark, made some moments ago.

[Tampitump]

 

So...you're a republican with slightly liberal views? That type of hyperbole is usually espoused by republicans when calls of fair and reasonable gun control laws are raised. Could you be more specific about which attacks on free speech, what specific culture of victimhood, and what particular PC excrement you're referencing? Tyranny and less freedom are usually not qualities that one, other than republicans, immediately associate with left leaning issues.

College "safe spaces", radical feminism (or feminaziism), social justice warrior culture, referring to anyone criticizes Islam as "bigots" or "racist", Black Lives Matter, etc etc etc. All of these are irrational ideologies of the far left. Most of them are staunch opponents of free speech, and are, themselves, bigoted.

[swansont]

 

This is a complete strawman. Nobody, Bernie Sanders included, EVER pitched for "a fully socialized economic system".

 

"Fully socialized" wasn't even pitched earlier in the thread. The opposition was originally "I don't support bigger government or a socialized economic framework"

[Tampitump]

You're not a libertarian any more than you're a Republican then.

I'm perfectly fine with that. Withdraw the label when and where it is no longer applicable. In some senses I'm a libertarian, in others I'm a liberal. May labels burn in the hottest pit of hell as far as I'm concerned. Labels are bullshit. They confine you to only one section of the buffet.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Tampitump

[swansont]

"Its the way I look when my husband drags me to an action movie."

 

 

Which is not the same as being petrified

[DrmDoc]

Bill is her better half.

 

Without Bill she has very little weight.

If she had divorced Bill back during the impeachment, would she be the democrat candidate for president now?

 

I didn't rate your comment here and I'm not passing judgement; however, weren't Hillary's speaking fees, which Republicans rail so much about, on par with Former President Clinton? That suggests to me that they are at least publicly of equal halves.

 

College "safe spaces", radical feminism (or feminaziism), social justice warrior culture, referring to anyone criticizes Islam as "bigots" or "racist", Black Lives Matter, etc etc etc. All of these are irrational ideologies of the far left. Most of them are staunch opponents of free speech, and are, themselves, bigoted.

 

Wow! Just wow!

Edited September 12, 2016 by DrmDoc

[swansont]

College "safe spaces", radical feminism (or feminaziism), social justice warrior culture, referring to anyone criticizes Islam as "bigots" or "racist", Black Lives Matter, etc etc etc. All of these are irrational ideologies of the far left. Most of them are staunch opponents of free speech, and are, themselves, bigoted.

 

 

This forum is a safe space of sorts. It might even be possible to discuss the details of this post in some other thread, but I won't do so here as I'd say that it's off-topic.

[Tampitump]

Oh, my bad for not being perfect, while simultaneously assuming the people here were slightly more open-minded and willing to have a nice convo.

 

Bernie pitched the aspect of socialism that is really at the heart of socialism, and the part I mostly object to. Raise taxes, take money from others to make sure everyone is on the same plane, regardless of talent, skill, or ambition. At the end of the day, I support smaller gov't, not a completely irrelevant or defunct gov't. I'm not sure what is missing from Bernie's proposals that would qualify it from full-on socialism, but it wasn't far from it. All the objectionable elements were there.

[Phi for All]

If those or similar solutions are not part of your ideal society, you should not be describing yourself as a libertarian. What you actually are is someone who favors a mixed economy with a strong preference for non-government solutions wherever feasible.

And even people who THINK they favor non-government solutions haven't been exposed to many government solutions that haven't been put through the capitalist filters through the years. I love capitalism, but it's going to find every loophole, every influence, and every possible penny it can take from any other economic policy. That's what it does. Bills that aim to help socially get mixed with business/political concerns and the bills suffer for it. We shouldn't be so surprised capitalism is able to grow so well. Socialism needs to be carefully tended to work properly. Communism probably more so. Capitalism is like the kudzu of economic policies. You need to keep cutting it back or it takes over.

 

Too many people thinking like companies, and not enough people thinking like People. I truly wish the Sanders Movement could resonate more in Clinton's campaign, and that we could push through some smart reform aimed at solutions that don't involve profit.

[Tampitump]

Wow! Just wow!

You do realize that's not an argument?

[iNow]

I voted for and supported Bernie during the primary. Now I see how wrong I was. (snip) one thing is for sure, I don't support bigger government or a socialized economic framework.

Amazing to me how little you understand of his actual policy suggestions and how readily you then accept as completely disqualifying a misunderstood one-word label pushed out by those with vested interests.

[DrmDoc]

You do realize that's not an argument?

 

You're quite right, it was an expression of disbelief and surprise at your ultimate assessment of the examples you gave. Is this your own assessment through personal review or are you merely parroting right-wing ideology so prevalent in our society?

[tar]

You should take a step back and go blog somewhere if you're just going to post pure opinion with nothing in support. This kind of stuff is pretty worthless in a discussion, don't you think?ti

Somebody accused me of being secretly a Jets fan, not wanting Bill's expertise as former coach (on the sidelines as waterboy) to help the giants. I took that as an assumption that I would not like Bill Clinton to help the country, because I was on a different team (some deplorable team or another) and would not like to see Hilary get good advice. I suggested in return that I think Bill is better presidential material than Hilary and suggested the partnership of Bill and Hilary is strong, mostly because of Bill, and t his, suggesting that McAdoo would be overshadowed by Parcells on the sidelines, and therefore Hilary would be in competition for power in the White House, and this would be a disadvantage for Hilary, and for the presidency and for the country.

 

 

Regards, TAR

[Tampitump]

Amazing to me how little you understand of his actual policy suggestions and how readily you then accept as completely disqualifying a misunderstood one-word label pushed out by those with vested interests.

Then set me straight then iNow my man. Lets hear where I have misrepresented Bernie, and how misinformed I am.

[Phi for All]

Bernie pitched the aspect of socialism that is really at the heart of socialism, and the part I mostly object to. Raise taxes, take money from others to make sure everyone is on the same plane, regardless of talent, skill, or ambition. At the end of the day, I support smaller gov't, not a completely irrelevant or defunct gov't. I'm not sure what is missing from Bernie's proposals that would qualify it from full-on socialism, but it wasn't far from it. All the objectionable elements were there.

 

This saddens me so much, to hear that there are smart people out there who completely misunderstood a fairly simple, heartfelt message. And who don't really understand how the different economic systems can play valuable parts in society. Who think everything is about buying a nail to hit with the hammer you also bought. Who disparage things like public education, or paying for a goddamn swimming pool so people who can't afford to buy their own can teach their kids to swim.