Hillary Clinton 2016 | INFJ Forum

Hillary Clinton 2016

Eventhorizon

Permanently relocated
Banned
May 19, 2013
16,534
10,379
2,187
MBTI
INTJ
[video=youtube_share;_HjwYxatWNc]http://youtu.be/_HjwYxatWNc[/video]

A thread to discuss this specific candidate. Even the Clinton News Network is having none of it.
 
Last edited:
What I find most troubling is her seeming penchant for deploying the military. One thing I have really appreciated about Pres Obama (whom I deeply admire) is his commitment to not keeping us on the path of endless warfare. Not that we are not but it is less so than with his predecessor.
 
Another Clinton thread? I'd rather stare at your avatar for 3 years.
 
What I find most troubling is her seeming penchant for deploying the military. One thing I have really appreciated about Pres Obama (whom I deeply admire) is his commitment to not keeping us on the path of endless warfare. Not that we are not but it is less so than with his predecessor.

One of the things that some have attacked Clinton for is her willingness to change her positions to what is the most politically viable. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing as she is adjusting to what the people really want which is what a representative should be willing to do. I think that after watching what President Obama did very well and why he beat her the first time around her penchant for being more interventionist has changed. Keep in minds there were a lot of Democrats that supported the war in Iraq at that point in time following 9/11 when tensions were high. I think many including Clinton has learned from that mistake.
 
What I find most troubling is her seeming penchant for deploying the military. One thing I have really appreciated about Pres Obama (whom I deeply admire) is his commitment to not keeping us on the path of endless warfare. Not that we are not but it is less so than with his predecessor.

How do you perceive the current battle with ISIS ending at this time?
 
One of the things that some have attacked Clinton for is her willingness to change her positions to what is the most politically viable. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing as she is adjusting to what the people really want which is what a representative should be willing to do. I think that after watching what President Obama did very well and why he beat her the first time around her penchant for being more interventionist has changed. Keep in minds there were a lot of Democrats that supported the war in Iraq at that point in time following 9/11 when tensions were high. I think many including Clinton has learned from that mistake.

Fair enough. How do you feel about her saying the people that point out the fact she has changed positions are incorrect and that she has always been "consistent. "
 
Fair enough. How do you feel about her saying the people that point out the fact she has changed positions are incorrect and that she has always been "consistent. "

I guess it depends on exactly which issue you are referring to. There are some where she has been fairly consistent, but her attackers are offering less nuanced attacks. For example on the TPP, she supported it while it was being negotiated, but once she saw the finished product she was against it. That's not an inconsistent position. The TPP itself that changed therefore there's no reason why her position on it couldn't.
 
y60i4.jpg
imageedit_2328_9420889858.jpg
imageedit_2093_6347291179.jpg



[video=youtube;hGC2vg27bFI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGC2vg27bFI[/video]




yeah... I really don't like hillary for her lies and manipulation.
 
Hillary s such a rascal.
 
[video=youtube;r7e6gLht6OQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7e6gLht6OQ[/video]

What if the goal of the Democratic party is to steal the most valuable thing the world has ever produced. What if their plan is to steal America! - Dinesh D'souza

What a statement!
 
[video=youtube;r7e6gLht6OQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7e6gLht6OQ[/video]

What if the goal of the Democratic party is to steal the most valuable thing the world has ever produced. What if their plan is to steal America! - Dinesh D'souza

What a statement!

Yes. He is an intelligent thoughtful person. I enjoyed his movie "America" a great deal. It should be a requirement that school children watch it.
 
What do you think about the rumor Hilary silenced the women who were allegedly sexually harassed by her husband?
 
What do you think about the rumor Hilary silenced the women who were allegedly sexually harassed by her husband?

I don't know any specifics. I do know that she has played the "woman card" while continuing to be married to a confirmed philanderer, and credibly alleged sex harasser and rapist and friend of a known/convicted pedophile on whose jet (aka "Lolita express") he traveled frequently with. For me this is enough to find any of her feminist declarations to be a worrying example of extreme hypocrisy.
 
Hillary Clinton, "I'd be your President..."
Oh you poor thing. Looks like time has taken its toll and addled your senses beyond repair.
No, America voted for the better choice. It was never you. Take another valium and wash it down with your daily gallon of gin.
 
Flavorwire
The Reaction to Hillary Clinton’s Prison Labor Usage Illustrates the Failings of Politics as Fandom
f4fd8e589004ae74931f4b541f6466c2
Tom Hawking
3 days ago
hrc-banner-2.jpg


Wikimedia Commons

Not a day goes by without some sort of Twitter controversy/shitfight any more, and while that very fact probably means that most of these 140-character slanging matches aren’t worth covering, they can occasionally illustrate a wider point that is worth discussing. So it goes with the argument that erupted earlier this week about Hillary (and Bill) Clinton’s use of prison labor during Bill’s period as Governor of Arkansas.

The controversy was sparked by a passage in Clinton’s 1996 book It Takes a Village, which was exhumed and posted on Twitter in the wake of Bill Maher’s “joke” about being a “house nigger.” In the passage, Clinton describes how local prison inmates were put to work at the governor’s mansion, “a longstanding tradition [that] kept costs down”:


The use of unpaid labor is, indeed, a longstanding tradition in the south. It is one that persists today because of the 13th Amendment, which provides, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.” (Italics mine.)

These days, this convenient little exemption is used to “keep costs down” in all sorts of ways. Prison labor is used by government departments throughout the country, and also more and more in the private sector. As Mother Jones‘s Kanyakrit Vongkiatkajorn explains in an excellent piece from last year:

In 1979, Congress created a program that gives incentives to private companies to use prison labor. Currently, the federal prison industries program produces items ranging from mattresses to prescription eyewear. Some inmates are employed as call center operators (“It’s the best kept secret in outsourcing!” says the program’s website.) Last year, federal inmates helped bring in nearly $472 million in net sales—but only 5 percent of that revenue went to pay inmates.

This is, to put it bluntly, a fucking disgrace. The manner in which private companies and government bodies alike have been able to budget and build on the assumption that they will have free or almost-free labor available is morally reprehensible. The history of the 13th Amendment is a topic for another essay, but America’s economy prior to 1865 was based on slavery, and this amendment means that the use of captive labor is alive and well 150 years later. The whole rotten system fuels the prison industrial complex, providing a huge and ongoing motivation for this country to maintain a large prison population from which labor can be drawn.

Perhaps most egregiously, prison labor these days is often reframed as an “opportunity” for prisoners. By working for nothing, they might gain experience in a field wherein they might work for a pittance when they get out of jail! What an opportunity! Who could possibly say no? Well, no-one, as it turns out: these programs are often “voluntary,” but if your choice is between working for free in the governor’s mansion or staying in a prison where conditions are some of the worst in the developed world, that is no choice at all.

All of which brings us back to Hillary Clinton. As someone whose political views have slowly moved leftwards since her time in Arkansas and the White House, perhaps she saw nothing wrong with prison labor back in the 1980s. Perhaps she did and nevertheless submitted to “tradition.” Maybe she and Bill had a screaming row about it. We’ll never know. Regardless, for someone so apparently committed to criminal justice reform and ending mass incarceration, the use of workers who are essentially modern-day slaves is a bad look, to say the least.

If nothing else, the controversy around her happy recollection of the prison labor program in Arkansas has, for a brief moment, put prison labor back in the headlines. Sadly, though, it’ll no doubt just as quickly be displaced by whatever godawful thing that Donald Trump does next, and America will go back to happily consuming products made by modern-day slaves. If nothing else, though, you might think that the reaction of both Clinton and her supporters to this piece of her history might be along the lines of, “Damn, this is fucked up, I’m really shocked at this and I hope it’s something she looks back on with regret and disgust.” I expect if you asked Clinton herself this, you might well get that exact answer.

Her most avid supporters, though? Nope. On Twitter over the last couple of days, there’s been an awful lot of this:

dbqz-qkumaaf8p8-copy.jpg


Or this:


And so on.

This isn’t the reaction of all Clinton supporters, of course, but it does characterize what I really want to talk about in this essay: the idea of politics as fandom. Responses like those above are the sort of thing you’d associate more with the support of a sports team or a favorite artist than a politician. They indicate a world view wherein everything your favorite does is somehow explicable or excusable, and everything their opponents do is worthy of virulent condemnation.

This goes both ways, obviously: the people on Twitter who jump all over every perceived Clinton wrongdoing as evidence that she is some sort of evil witch who should be locked up forthwith are gleefully milking this for all it’s worth. For the record, in this writer’s opinion, those people are just as obnoxious as those who insist on presenting Hillary as some sort of flawless avatar of virtue.

In any case, it’s a natural reaction to root for whoever it is you root for, whether it’s in sport, or music, or politics, or whatever else. It’s also natural that we often support the politician with whom we identify most — especially in the context of a US Presidential primary or election, given the personality-focused nature of those contests. And god knows there’s been enough shit thrown at Hillary Clinton over the last couple of years. It’s understandable, then, that her supporters feel somewhat protective of her.

When it comes to politics, though, this kind of devotion is a reaction that we absolutely need to be conscious of and try to transcend. Politicians are not celebrities. They’re not people of who you become fans. To some extent, the politics of fandom is an extension of celebrity culture: politicians are presented, first and foremost, on the basis of their personalities. We saw the nadir of this with last year’s Republican primaries, wherein Donald Trump basically spent all his time shitting on his opponents’ perceived personal failings. If he discussed policy at all, it was only in the sense of vague promises that he’d get around to it at some point.

But politicians are the sum of their policies — nothing more, and nothing less. The politics of fandom is both asinine and dangerous. It invites people to judge politicians as “good” or “bad” depending on who they are, not what they do. It allows us to cast the people we don’t like as cartoonish figures who are entirely good or entirely evil, when in virtually every case — there are, of course, exceptions — politicians are an amalgam of good and bad. This is at least part of the reason for the polarized landscape of American politics, I think — if you think your opponent is flat-out evil, how can you engage with him or her?

In this case, if it was Donald Trump who’d been enjoying the prison labor of Arkansas, it’s not hard to imagine those defending Clinton to be just as enthusiastically condemning Trump. If it was Bernie Sanders, some of those condemning Clinton would be defending him. And so on. In every case, a situation that pretty much any liberal (or compassionate human being) would agree is objectively fucked up is presented as somehow OK because of the people involved.

But look, we have to be able to discuss issues — issues that might relate, however tangentially, to Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, or Donald Trump, or whoever — without those issues devolving into partisan shitfights. In this case, there are some people who are still salty at Clinton because of either the Democratic primary or the Presidential election and will use something, anything, like this to jump all over her. There are other people who think Hillary must be defended to the hilt over anything, even something as self-evidently indefensible as this.

The rest of us, hopefully, can get away from the idea of politics as fandom and say, “Damn, look at this passage from HRC’s book. Isn’t it terrible that penal labor is used in the goddamn governor’s mansion in Arkansas? Doesn’t that show how pervasive this awful system is? Maybe people should be talking about it!”

Clearly, a world in which people are able to calmly and objectively evaluate a politician’s policies, without recourse to personal sympathies or the lack thereof, is an impossible ideal. Humans don’t work that way. But it’s nevertheless an ideal toward which we should strive. Until we do, we’re doomed to an eternity of Twitter fights, and god knows that no-one deserves that.





Huh...so Hillary had slaves. Huh, just huh.
 
The Russian lawyer who landed a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. during last year’s presidential campaign with the promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton had one big thing in common with the Democratic candidate: Both had opposed Russia sanctions targeting human-rights abusers.

Further, former Secretary of State Clinton’s initial opposition coincided with a $500,000 speech her husband gave in Moscow – a link her 2016 campaign fought to downplay in the press, according to WikiLeaks-released documents.

Trump White House officials now are trying to draw attention to that speech and the Clintons’ ties to Russia in a bid to counter criticism over Trump Jr.’s now-infamous meeting.

“If you want to talk about having relationships with Russia, I'd look no further than the Clintons,” Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a briefing last week. “Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars to give a speech to a Russian bank, personally thanked by President Putin.”

“With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC’s opposition to the Magnitsky bill a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow.”

- May, 2015 email from Clinton campaign staffer
The former president indeed had received a personal call from then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin expressing his appreciation for the speech. According to Mrs. Clinton’s ethics disclosure form filed while she was secretary of State, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 by the Russia-based finance company Renaissance Capital for his June 29, 2010, speech in Moscow to its employees and guests attending the company's annual conference.

The speech is now coming back to haunt the Clintons, considering the company that cut the check was allegedly tied to the scandal that spurred the Global Magnitsky Act, a bill that imposed sanctions on Russians designated as human-rights abusers and eventually would become law in 2012.

Related Image
1500375719461.jpg
Expand / Collapse
Former President Bill Clinton with his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (AP)

This was the same law Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya was lobbying against during her sit-down with Trump Jr. last year. And back in 2010, it would have put the Clintons on her side.

Shortly before Bill Clinton’s speech in 2010, when members of Congress pushing the sanctions bill had asked Hillary Clinton to refuse visas to Russian officials implicated under the policy, the State Department denied the request. The Obama administration initially was opposed to the Magnitsky Act because then-President Barack Obama was seeking a “reset” with Russia and did not want to deepen the divide between the two countries.

Former President Bill Clinton’s speech to Renaissance just weeks later was all the more curious, considering Renaissance’s Russian investment bank executives would have been banned from the U.S. under the law.

Fast-forward to 2015, and the timeline apparently had caught the attention of Bloomberg News.

Related Image
1500377522173.jpg
Expand / Collapse
Portrait of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky held by his mother Nataliya Magnitskaya during 2009 press conference in Moscow. (The Associated Press)

According to a memo from Clinton’s presidential campaign team later published by WikiLeaks, however, the Clinton campaign was able to stop the presses.

“With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC’s opposition to the Magnitsky bill a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow,” Jesse Lehrich, on the Rapid Response Communications team for Hillary For America, boasted on May 21, 2015.


The Global Magnitsky Act was named for 36-year-old tax attorney Sergei Magnitsky, who died in the custody of the Russian government after accusing the government and organized crime of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from a foreign company, Hermitage Capital Management. Magnitsky, hired by foreign investor and Hermitage owner William Browder, had tracked what turned out to be hundreds of millions of dollars in tax fraud. He reported the fraud to the Russian authorities, but instead of pursuing charges against the alleged offender, Russian authorities jailed Magnitsky.

After Magnitsky died in November 2009, Browder said Magnitsky proved Renaissance officials were among those orchestrating the scheme.

The State Department finally reversed its position in 2011 and refused visas to some Russians purportedly involved in the financial fraud seeking to enter the country.

The Magnitsky Act passed with bipartisan support in 2012.

Russia retaliated against the U.S., ending any possibility for Americans to adopt Russian orphans and also banning 18 U.S. officials from entering their country.


Malia Zimmerman is an award-winning investigative reporter focusing on crime, homeland security, illegal immigration crime, terrorism and political corruption. Follow her on twitter at @MaliaMZimmerman




Since we're so concerned about ties to Russia, let's start with those politicians who have recieved payoffs to change US policy.