The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
Hillary Clinton was the most corrupt politician in American history. That's why she lost.
Ah, Comey...a Mettius Fufetius if I ever saw one.
"Tullus Hostilius said: “Mettius Fufetius, if you were capable of learning, yourself, to keep faith and abide by treaties, you should have lived that I might teach you this; as it is, since your disposition is incurable, you shall yet by your punishment teach the human race to hold sacred the obligations you have violated. Accordingly, just as a little while ago your heart was divided between the states of Fidenae and Rome, so now you shall give up your body to be torn two ways,” He then brought up two four-horse chariots, and..."
The end of the story is sung by Jeremy Boor:
Comey grievously hurt Clinton's election campaign with his unnecessary intervention into the pathetic server issue. Getting all pious and high and mighty with Trump in no way makes up for this misjudgement.
It just compounds the damage he has done to the FBI.
pathetic server issue? this woman said she thought documents with the header (c)lassified were just listed alphabetically.
talk about pathetic.
So, Comey considered himself 'independent' of legislature, judiciary, and executive branches of the US government... what a pompous jerk.
James Comey’s reckless actions cost Hillary Clinton the election. Her stupid husband contributed to his wife’s loss when he foolishly went on the plane to speak with Attorney General Lynch. Thereby causing her to recuse herself and hand authority to an overzealous man who saw himself as more righteous than everyone else. Comey ignored clear Justice Department guidelines in his obtuse and self-aggrandizing actions. Those rules were put in place for a reason. Furthermore, how could Comey excoriate Hillary Clinton in public, while at the same time maintain a zealous silence on the fact that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign? I hate Comey for foisting this retarded and unqualified buffoon on this nation. You were extremely careless. So Comey get lost!!!
Wonder how Comey is able to live with himself. He was king maker. He put Donald on the throne. He owns this mess. We may never truly know if this was incompetence or a deliberate act of a faithful Republican. Ironically, he may have destroyed the very party that he loves.
You are right on many levels. Listen to this: Trump stated tell him my nuclear button is bigger than his. Let me say that again. My nuclear button is bigger than his! Oh my GOD!! Who talks like that? There is no return to humanity if you incinerate 500,000 or a million North Koreans. You would go to sleep hearing their voices. Yet our president talked about nuclear buttons as if he was comparing his new phone with another’s. President Trump cannot elucidate policy without a form of like no one has seen before, or you see what they are doing, or everybody says so. The man is a congenital liar and totally empty. My prayer is that our institutions survive this fool. We need a way to invalidate elections like the Austrian Supreme Court did. We also need to have minimum cognitive and rational behavioral requirements for people to run for President. This fool is unqualified and refuses to learn.
He has likely done long term harm to the Republicans.
1) Bush appreciated the importance of the growing hispanic vote and made significant in-roads connecting with them. He realized that the GOP would eventually become unelectable without the minority vote. Trump has likely killed that with his immigrant policies, his Puerto Rico response, as well as his pandering to racists.
2) He is hollowing out the core of the party when stalwarts like Ryan feel it necessary to head for the hills.
3) McCain who has put his heart into this party, ends his watch seeing its near destruction. Must hurt.
4) With both houses, the Republicans should have been in the cat bird's seat. Now, they may lose them both.
5) His economic policies will likely raise unemployment, alienating a lot of voters in his key states.
she and obama caused her loss. she was the most corrupt politician in American history.
James Comey is the Mettius Fufetius of our times. And deserves and is on his way to reap the modern version of the same fate.
1-Trump was thought of as a joke, a con man and a fraud (so said Romney)yet he won. Thanks to Comey, first and foremost, to the Mercers, second, and to uncle Putin a distant third. But above all thanks to Hillary.And beyond that, thanks to a public that is tired of the system and wants to make a point of highlighting the surreal absurdity of it all.
2-Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 nomination, which she fought tooth and nail and dirty as a pig with no lipstick(remember her "assassination" comments?), against an unknown named Barack Hussein Obama, who fooled the people with grandiose words but delivered a barely average, middle of the road presidency that just kept the status quo unchanged and the drivers of the 2008 Wall Street debacle unchecked. And yet Hillary, a very corrupt politician and a lover of the personal eroticism of power, didn't let new blood take the torch and forced her way into the 2016 ticket, cheating to the eternal shame of the DNC, in spite of the fact that all polls showed that even the improbable, unconventional Sanders would win against all possible GOP candidates including Trump by 6 or more points, while she was tied or had leads within the margin of error. The fact that the Democratic party allowed Hillary, a natural loser politically (the very opposite of her husband), a second try and condoned her tricks and shortcomings, is a terrible indictment on the real respect for Democracy they currently have.
3-Comey did not act like an FBI Director, but more like a self-appointed small-town righteous pastor of the XVII century, deciding all by himself what's wrong and what's right, and expecting awed compliance. He cherry-picked what parts of tentative prosecutorial proceedings he would make public and when, first sinking Hillary, and hence subverting the Democratic process, and then attempting to sink Trump,thus negating the agency of the legally established executive branch -and excuses such lethally capricious behavior with unconvincing byzantinism.
4-And then we have all this gallery of deformed characters in and out of the stage: the aptly named Wiener and Scaramouche, the In-N-Out double burgers commenting for the networks and working for the government in a state of quantum superposition; the CIA director sneaking out top-secret material so as to show it to his girlfriend, the DOJ higher-ups investigating Trump while their wives take half-million donations or downright work for the Clintons, the President sending his in-law as personal envoy to key countries, a man who can't get a security clearance and allegedly uses a good share of the time during his meetings to seek business deals for the Trump Organization...any of the deformed dwarfs painted by Velazquez looked more noble than this crew of the 2018 DC Ship of Fools.
5- In 2016,in the District of Columbia, 91% of the votes went to Hillary, while only 4% voted for Trump. Nationwide it was 48% to 46%.
6- Per capita income of capitals of selected countries as compared to respective national averages: Canada: Ottawa only at 90% of Canadian average. Germany: Berlin at only 82% of German average. Italy: Rome(Lazio) is 15% above Italian average. Spain: Madrid is 20% above Spanish average. France: Paris(Ile de France) is 65% above French average. UK: London is 70% above British average.
USA: Washington is 220% above US average! i.e. the average Washingtonian is over three times wealthier than the average American. The per capita GDP differential between Washington and the rest of the country is comparable to that, price adjusted, between Mexico and the United States.
Such Laputian imbalances and farcical politics speak of a Washington that is gradually ceasing to function as the administrative center of a Democracy and increasingly resembling the capital of an Empire.
When so many things go wrong at the same time, it is prudent to ask oneself whether the fault is on the stars...or not
Greetings to FADFFLLFAF
Yawn. Bloviating junk filled balderdash. State with evidence the corruptions of Hillary Clinton. Then list the prison sentences she was given for those corrupt acts. Because in the United States, corruption is a crime. List them or shut your ignorant yap.
The Clintons exited the White House penniless and now control money in the hundreds of millions range. A president's salary-and pension is $207,000 per year. We don't need a "big" calculator to do the math.
Corruption can be made legal by calling it "donations" or "paid speeches". But it is still corruption. Some may choose to call kidnapping "rendition" or murdering children "collateral damage" but a crime is no less a crime just because we turn a blind eye on it, change its name, or, worse, justify devious ways to make it legal.
When we cease to see this, we cease to be civilized, and go back to the jungle. An easy move for some.
Oh really. Your hang up is with the fact that former presidents accumulate influence and develop interests that they cash in on after exiting office. Let me break it down to you since you are just filled with vituperative and unjustified anger. Before the ignorant douchebag/butt discharge we have in the Whitehouse now, presidents all routinely placed their financial assets in blind trusts and disclosed their tax returns. They made decisions without knowing how it would personally affect them. And since there is only one president of the United States at any one time, that person develops great influence. People then pay good money to have them appear at functions and gatherings. The market sets the price. If they are good presidents, they write memoirs that people pay good money for. So yes, Bill Clinton was a good president. His wife is accomplished as hell. Of course they would make money after leaving office. It’s called the Free Enterprise Capitalist system. You don’t like it, too bad. If you are American, you might just have to live with it, unless you get Congress to pass laws that says all former presidents and all accomplished people must live in penury just because YOU have a problem with people earning money others are willing to pay them. Your accusation of corruption is just plain silly. By the way, the Obamas are going a step further. They are making their tax returns available for the next 10 years after leaving office. They didn’t have to do that. The current doofus still hasn’t released his. I hazard to think you might be ok with that?
The moral flaw of being willfully blind to the wrongs of one's age out of convenient ignorance dooms those who will live on to a diminished future unworthy of its past.
You can quote me on that.
And no, the fact that most criminal enterprises are free market-organized doesn't make them legit. You are wrong with all that Hillary worshiping, pal. She achieved nothing memorable as SoS- and Obama's key foreign triumph, the Iran deal, was his child and John Kerry's. Bush Jr. shouldn't have made it to the WH, and wouldn't, had he been John Doe Jr. Bill was a good and humane president -still during his administration income for the top quintile grew three times faster than that for the other four fifths of society-. But whatever good he did, even if he had been a secular saint-which you can guess he was not-it doesn't excuse shoving Hillary down the throats of the American people for almost two decades with the result we can all see.
The very fact that they almost got away with it is the canary in the mine of the state of Democracy in America in the early XXI century.
Permit me, jvic1789. I am not as negative on Clinton, nor Obama as you are, in terms of an overall assessment of their respective legacy as presidents. Both, I thought, were well-qualified for the job (that' an important start), even as both came with some severe personal failings (one an over-fondness of multitasking cigars, the other given to great speeches nearly too lofty to live up to (Martin Luther King Jr. did that too) . I confess I am an Obama “worshipper”, but then I look at people with my own personal biases, which are plenty, and therefore I do not expect others to share my views. As to Hillary, she made one fatal error as a candidate for president - she called the supporters of her opponent "the deplorables". A person on the street can say that; a person running to be president of a country presumably operating under the banner of "Democracy" cannot. It’s that simple. This fatal error she did all on her own, no one did it for her or to her. In truth, I agree with you on the point she is ill-cut to be president (if we use the standard of FDR and Eisenhower), let alone a statesman. In sum, we agree all least in part about Hilary. I personally think Hilary belongs better in academia and in front of a lectern. I heard one of her commencement speeches given in one of the universities a couple of years ago. It was a 35 minute speech. She spoke with no notes, no prompter, nothing. The content, whether you like it or not, was clear and organized in paragraphs. No rambling, no meandering, no lack of situation-specific vocabulary.. I think that is a trained ability few in public life have nowadays on the USA political scene. On this point , I agree completely with Big Henry. She is pretty special. Also, don’t forget Hilary is considered a carpetbagger in the “in-circle” of DC politics, an "upstart" viewed with suspicion by America's own brand of “aristocrats” - the much-moneyed and much-powered for more than one generation (the reason Trump succeeded in playing the "Worry not, I shall deliver you all from your ‘sufferings', I shall divide the Red Sea. I shall give you jobs. I shall drive out the foreign devils, for devils they are, let’s not mince words. Believe, and you will be saved" card to the hilt.)
I have not read any sentence in your post that would indicate you are a supporter of Trump. At one time, you and I agreed his pick for a Secretary State in the person of Tillerson was not bad at all, perhaps the only thing he did right. But then look at what happened afterward, not even more than 4 rounds at Trump’s poker game table. Once a Casino man, always a Casino man. The man is a reckless gambler playing with human lives for chips. He may, in fact, very well blow up the whole world.
That Trump has not the foggiest idea what he is doing, and what his job calls for is in plain view for all to see. More worrisomely, he has proven he is 100% incapable of contemplating the consequences of his actions, decided on impulse, the spur of the moment, rather than planning with any kind of foresight. He fudges everything like a school kid who doesn’t know a single answer to any of the 12 questions on a Not take-home exam; he plays darts for wins (another Gambling game where people place bets), but he is so nearsighted he can't even see where the dart-board is, let alone the markings on the board. As the leader of the most powerful country in the world, he has ZERO credibility by now (how do you trust a man whose word changes every hour??) .
On Comey, I am simply CONFUSED. I read him to be basically a trustworthy man (I am seldom wrong on my reading of people - it is what I do for a living - catching the malingerers (some people malinger good, some malinger bad, depending on the stake and the nature of the stake). I can’t make head or tail on his “dual or parallel channels” of investigations. I just can't. If he is guilty of being a Mettius Fufetius as you allege, certainly he will reap his just dessert. Consequences always catch up when there is wrong doings. But if he is not, then he will be cleared. I suppose time will tell much, if not all.
I think you might raise your personal credibility if you would some time, when you feel comfortable, reveal what "FADFFLLFAF" is or what it means. It is not some kind of "secret society", is it? Or a luncheon club?
Hello friend. I have no problem with any of what you wrote. I was in Belgium the first time I voted for Barack. I was so disappointed with the constant caving to republican intransigence in his first term that I moved my family to Australia for 6 years once democrats allowed Joe Lieberman to kill any debate on the Public Option. I voted for Hillary from Sydney. I took my daughters to election returns watch at TownHall station. We were stunned. Elections are binary. A lot of people chose to stay home. They in effect voted for Trump. Trump was supposed to lose Utah to some guy, McMullen or something. But republicans realize that elections are binary. They all voted for Trump and he crushed in Utah. Democrats love to lose and can’t get out of their own way. Hillary has been unfairly demonized for 20 years. Yet, she still won the popular vote. I am upset that fellow black people stayed home in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. I refused to move back to my home state of Florida, and instead chose Minnesota because Florida voted for him. I used to be big on doing the right thing. But since my fellow citizens voted for a man who is a known tax cheat and a thief, I came back home to rip off as much money as I can too by not reporting certain incomes or by paying as little as possible. Maybe you can tell how pissed off I am!!! I have always done everything by the book. I am black. My wife is Caucasian and is the daughter of a Reverend. She’s not happy with how cold hearted I have become. But I am done taking guff from republicans. Like how they stole a Supreme Court seat. I pray for the day Texas turns blue. But for now, if they go low, I will go lower. I will bring a machine gun to a pillow fight with these people. Did you see how they moaned and groaned for years over “deficit” spending?! What did they do once they had power? They robbed the nation with their tax cut. So friend, I have no qualms about taking as much money as I can and not feel dirty or queasy about not paying my fair share!! I am goddamn mad!!!
hahahaha, friend! Thank you for reaching out. I shall remember your penname "Big Henry" and follow your post from now on whenever I can, time-wise.
It's funny how you choose a state to live in according to the overall politics of folks who live in the state. In my situation, I am bound by my profession to where I have established myself and my social circle which, incidentally, consists of both democrats and republicans. From my personal experience, certainly not all republicans are "evil" people, and not all democrats are "saints" - I never understood why any person with more than 2 brain cells in his/her head would think in those terms!!!! Of THAT I am pissed off!!! These folks (they call themselves "CONSERVATIVE") call anybody they disagree with "Mentally Ill Progressive Liberal", knowing, from ALL indications, NOTHING about what the words "Liberal" or "Progressive" means. The sum total of their argument against ANYTHING at all they disagree with is this: the person they disagree with is a "mentally-ill Progressive Liberal" The worst ones in them string along more words to the bizarre accusation: they string along, presumably to demonstrate they know more words than 4 - "Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Atheist, Pope-France-ist, Wrong-Color-Skinnest, Wrong-Genderist, Wrong-Sexual-Orientationist", etc., etc. Every day, they come up with more novel terms of which only they know the meanings, if they do!!! And then, finally, when every possible accusation is exhausted and they fail to indict the people they hate (they say their loving "God" told them to hate these mythical people) , they come up with the uber super duper one: PC (presumably their PC is more PC or un-PC - I never could figure out which, but they say they can.)
Strange folks they are. Frankly, very very very stupid people!! Sorry, I no longer mince words - you cannot be subtle on most of TE's comment forums, some folks can't read a basic English sentence (and they accuse you of writing bad English!) let alone between the lines that form the sentences. Really really really strange creatures of God.
Jvic1789 is a friend on TE forums. A person whose opinion I respect. In my assessment, aided by my experience and expertise working in a particular field that does exactly that - assessing people's sanity v. insanity, wholesomeness v. unwholesomeness, personality traits and constellation of the traits - , he is one of the most widely read, most informed, most erudite, most thoughtful commenter on TE. He's been commenting much longer than I have. I take his thoughts and opinions seriously.
Politics has a way of getting people mad, awful mad. And sometimes even cause them to blow a fuse or two. He has a point, a very strong point, in the sentence he says he would be happy to be quoted for. I share the meaning of that sentence completely.
*More thoughts* - You moved to Australia and back and re-chose the state you settled in. I know a handful of friends - Americans (color irrelevant) who have exited US for good. Life under Dennis Menace Trump is too stressful, and the prospect of dealign with AR-15 filled classrooms is too scary for their offspring.
My pleasure, ash. By the way, you are getting warmer and warmer on the secret dinner club. Naturally, the way the internet has been purposefully constructed, some people feel that writing or falling for the "like"/"recommend" participatory option is not something they want to do-and they are right, up to a point.
I was negative because I feel that they could have done far more. At the undersecretary level and above, you know you are only dealing with extremely qualified individuals. The question is: will they use their natural gifts and hard-won knowledge to push the boundaries of the possible, or will they just keep the engine serviced and running? Bill Clinton did a lot, in fact (surprise, surprise) the Ken Starr travesty distracted him from being even more consequential. I do not want the same to happen to Trump, who may redeem his life of business cons by breaking paradigms in public service(let's see what happens with North Korea), or embarrass everyone, depending on how he's pushed. Entropy plays its hand here, and letting self-fulfilling negative prophecies run their downhill course is the very opposite of what building civilization is all about: to harvest the improbable fruit. Granted it looks more improbable than what we are used to accept in this particular case...
Bill Clinton did well in including Poland and most of Eastern Europe in a Western Alliance that nevertheless should have been re-defined in less adversarial terms vis-a-vis the Russians. And he performed a masterpiece theater play in Kosovo (except for the Chinese embassy bombing, which must have been quite an eye-opener for the pro-Western faction in Beijing). But he should have achieved real peace with Russia. Like Sessions and many others, I think that Russia, Europe and America are all part of the same civilization, the Eastern Schism is 1000-year old news, there are no outstanding strategic disputes, and we should all be friends. Unless the strategy is world domination, which would be, as strategies go and Talleyrand used to say, worse than a crime: a mistake. A fatal mistake that would put 95% of the world's population against Washington, and regardless of nuclear and internet abuse, that's a whole lot of people.
Another key shortcoming of Bill Clinton was that he didn't slow, much less reverse, the K Street capture of Washington, nor stopped the economic restructuring of America against middle-class empowerment and towards oligarchic plutocracy. These are serious developments whose consequences we are starting to see today and far worse is on the horizon, unless corrections are made.
If, for example, the Internet had been developed in the FDR era, you can bet Facebook and Google would be public services rendered by the USPS; YouTube part of the Library of Congress and Internet Anonymity enshrined through a new amendment to the Constitution. The very fact that such publicly beneficial ideas are not even considered today when yesterday they would have been a given, shows how dangerous it is to let the power of the media be held by a handful of private individuals. Bill Clinton didn't change the underlying drivers of the social discourse, unlike FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln, Jackson/Van Buren and a long list among his predecessors.
As for Obama, he did far less. He was part of the concerted international action to prevent a re-run of 1929, and that's it. Health care still wastes 7% of GDP and life expectancy is still at Costa Rican levels, and the race issue is as toxic as it was before him, or probably more. I am not saying that the Birther mob has any credibility: they are just unhappy and incapable of figuring out the real reasons behind their uneasiness, and relieve themselves by enjoying that quintessential, secular American tradition of witch-hunting the nonconformist different, to the amusement of those pulling the strings.
As for Hillary, she "belongs better in academia and in front of a lectern", or some cabinet level or ambassador post. But to be President should be to guide pioneering paths of public structural building: she is very much just a system administrator and hence in my view she doesn't meet the job requirement. She could have excelled in other things, if she and Bill hadn't had that monomaniacal drive to return to the White House. America is a Republic, not a monarchy: too many Bushes, too many Clintons, crowding out better people who deserve their chance.
There is a caveat here. It could be argued that the Clintons know the power of the establishment better than anybody, for they have suffered it and tamed it in a small personal way to the point that from being, indeed, carpetbaggers, they came to squeeze out a few hundred million and almost returned to the White House jumping obstacles without grace but without falling. It seemed at one point possible that they had told themselves: let's play the game, build up our position, and once I am the first Madame President we will be unassailable and have the strength to actually change things. I hoped for that, and as you know I was very critical of Trump's all too obvious faults during the campaign.
But many of us have come to terms with the likely fact that such reasoning is the triumph of hope over experience, and just what the Clintons wanted us to think, no more. On top of that, Hillary is not Bill (remember her grey tenure under Obama, the Honduras coup she seems to have organized, the Ukrainian mess...), and Bill (remember Dick Morris?) was far more of a weather vane that we idealists would want to believe. By Election Day the only thing I knew for certain to get better if the Clintons returned to the Oval Office was the quality of Hollywood political movies.
As for Trump, some talents are inherited skipping one generation. He is not a careful builder within the system, like his father was, but a gambler with an outsider complex opening up new worlds like his Klondike saloon-owner grandfather. But above all he seems to be the kind of person who makes up his mind by himself, regardless of what is fashionable or expected of him. That's a good trait when the consensus by the late Obama years was that all was fine and good with the following trends: 1-Capture of Federal Government policy by the top 1% of income earners (so says Princeton) 2-Explosion of GINI and Incarceration rates, which were comparable to Western Europe's up until the Reagan Era 3-Absolute acceptance of the idea, anathema until the XX century in the American Experience, that Washington's place in the World was to rule over it.
The first two trends speak of a weakening of Democracy internally, and in this I feared, like many other people, that Trump could be not a joke, but the bearer of a modern version of fascism. The wildfire speed with which he swept out his well-funded opponents during the primaries had the looks of an infection of the public body running amok. We know better now. This man is not a builder of movements, but a surfer on what's already there. He has some personal magnetism, like all politicians do to whatever degree, but just enough to have a relatively committed yet mostly ineffectual inner circle. He is not dangerous in that respect. In all likelihood, given the fact that he is smart(otherwise he would have never succeeded in reinventing himself again and again, however farcically), his advisers odd balls but insiders risen within the system, and the general strength of the architecture of the Federal Bureaucracy, I'd say that he is not dangerous at all. What would be dangerous would be to, in the eyes of the people on whose crest he rode to the Presidency, make him a martyr, not give him the chance to try out, win or lose, what he was elected to do; to confirm their idea that "everything is rigged, Trump was an obstacle, and they just put him away". Then someone worse and more dangerous than Trump, able not to surf the wave but to re-direct it, will appear apparently out of nowhere and do real damage.
And there is the third dilemma: foreign policy. One thing is to hope for and more or less maneuver to prevent any power from taking control of the Eurasian landmass and thus be in the position to dictate terms to the US, and quite another to try to rule the world in the nominal pursuit of the prior objective. One is prudent, the other reckless. Incredible for the public image we have of Trump that he is on the side of prudence, but, unlike Hillary, this seems to be the case. The wearing down and color revolution policy against Russia followed before Trump can have disastrous consequences. The China encirclement policy likewise. To retreat and be an admired honest broker and traffic cop of the commons is a posture that has future; to dictate to everything that moves also has a future, but not the one most people would like to see. On election night Trump gave a victory speech that is probably the best approximation to his true persona. Among other things, he came out as a non-interventionist, and in this I believe he is right.
A focus on Foreign policy can be revealing. Under Obama and Hillary to foster a "color revolution" in Russia was a top priority. Remember the eternal heir to the British Crown utter the famous words "Putin is Hitler"? What happened in Ukraine was not dissimilar to a hypothetical of the Chinese setting up a protectorate in Canada to antagonize the US, or the Russians in Ireland to break up the UK. Such a course of action is only justified if the intention is to do regime change in Moscow and turn Russia into a dependent client state. And this is not justified by any self-defense nor strategic much less economic (Russia's GDP is similar to Italy's) reason. It can only be understood if one is playing a long game of world domination. Meanwhile North Korea, a nation against which MAD calculations can easily fail because of the asymmetries involved, a regime that once it has a solid nuclear umbrella is bound to proliferate like there is no tomorrow because it is in its interest to bring down the post WWII order, was neglected and forgotten. This only makes sense in the context of a strategy of taking out all independent powers one by one: first Russia and once that is achieved, North Korea can be dealt with as part of a destroy-China combo. If there is going to be regime change in Beijing, Pyongyang is a secondary prize that would fall like a ripe apple the next day after China is subdued in whatever subtle or kinetic way.
By contrast under Trump Ukraine has become yet another frozen conflict, and care has been taken not to do a faux pas in Syria. Live and let live. The idea about leaving Syria also makes sense in this context: the Assads have been in power forever, were allies of the Soviets during the Cold War and there is no reason to break up that nation-antagonizing Turkey, Russia and Iran- when the status quo is better than the historical norm and the oil supply is not remotely threatened. This President apparently doesn't care for the Pinky and the Brain Objective, and that's a good thing. Look at the new priority: North Korea. This means that there is no secret anti-Chinese combo waiting in the wings for future implementation. In this way, North Korea is a problem on its own, and it is being dealt with accordingly.
I hope I have been able to clarify why is it that I have been defending Trump's team right to use their turn to do their thing. Others had theirs. They were harassed, just like Trump is being harassed, and I thought it was wrong then and still is now, to un-democratically tie up the hands, small or big, of any President, whose ability to exercise independent agency represents, through the delegation rendered by the act of voting, the only chance most people ever have to influence actions that will greatly impact their lives and those of many others.
"Jvic1789 is a friend on TE forums. A person whose opinion I respect. In my assessment, aided by my experience and expertise working in a particular field that does exactly that - assessing people's sanity v. insanity, wholesomeness v. unwholesomeness, personality traits and constellation of the traits - , he is one of the most widely read, most informed, most erudite, most thoughtful commenter on TE. He's been commenting much longer than I have. I take his thoughts and opinions seriously.
Politics has a way of getting people mad, awful mad. And sometimes even cause them to blow a fuse or two. He has a point, a very strong point, in the sentence he says he would be happy to be quoted for. I share the meaning of that sentence completely."
What can I say? Thanks for being so exceedingly and undeservedly nice to a short-tempered guy like me.
"I know a handful of friends - Americans (color irrelevant) who have exited US for good."
Count me among them.
I hope I didn't elicit an adverse reaction from you by saying the stuff I said which you copy-and-paste in toto.
If I had, I wouldn't say it anymore, except to here point out that was my honest opinion.
As to the many-lettered acronym, I was curious, and very puzzled about the significance of appending to every one of your posts a greeting to whatever the acronym represents. That's all. I also failed to divine the meaning of this sentence: "... you are getting warmer and warmer on the secret dinner club. Naturally, the way the internet has been purposefully constructed, some people feel that writing or falling for the "like"/"recommend" participatory option is not something they want to do-and they are right, up to a point."
Be that as it may, I respect your cryptology, and privacy, , and will not press you again for an answer.
The rest of your multi-part reply I need time to digest. Have pity on me. My synapses do not work as they need to in order to thoroughly know what you are saying, chiefly having to do with Trump's foreign policies, v. domestic policies. Please know that in terms of the former, I know not much about many things in the world that require knowing. One of these things is nation v. nation politics. By nature, I am un-inclined to pit peoples against peoples, and therefore nations against nations. In that regard, I am a hyper-domesticated sort of gal who believes balancing her household budget with some left-over for old age and contingencies is a big enough achievement, and making friendship with neighbors a life-long calling. I honestly am hyper-interested in people (hence my choice of profession) , while completely disinterested in parties/tribes/ congregations, etc. Which always contain more fights than I can handle. My head, in this sense, is truly in the clouds.
With that in mind, if I write a reply to your learned writings here, it won't be much - eminently ignorable.
Hahahah, MMF. I know. I read that in your posts already a bit ago. Hope you are finding things where you are more to your liking. There is no perfection. Only "better is better". I wish one day too when I kick the bucket, I could be buried in the same spot where my grandparents' graves are. Btw, snake meat is best when fresh (fresh means slaughtered shortly before the cooking; they say rattle snake meat tastes the best. I have myself never tried that one. Once I had snake meat soup, it was very fishy (the snake was not fresh), I had to put a lot of pepper (white pepper) on it.) All my best to you.
5 of my highschool classmates, with their families of X number children, have moved out months ago. 3 almost as soon as the Election was over. 2 by end of Dec 2017. More are thinking about it.
I really doubt Comey's investigation caused many people to change their minds. Hillary was going to lose anyways. The Republican party planned out the constituencies to target to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote years in advance, anticipating that they would likely not be winning the popular vote ever again. They pulled out all the stops for this one knowing how consequential it would be for judicial appointments.
I agree that gerrymandering is a massive problem and gives the Republicans a strong edge in the Congressional elections where urban democratic voters are packed into safe seats to concentrate and waste their votes, but each state is decided by popular vote only with the winner getting all the electoral college votes (with two exceptions that are immaterial as they are both small states). Therefore gerrymandering has no effect on the presidential elections or on senate elections as these are both state-wide votes.
The only way a party can boost their chances in the presidential elections (other than election rigging) is by enacting measures that suppress voter turnout of certain demographic groups. Voter ID laws that allow some types of IDs but not others are the most obvious ones, but there are others like removing voters from rolls due to returned mail (voter challenge) and also restricting absentee ballots so that people have to take time off work to vote (tends to suppress turnout of low wage workers).
The Republican party has definitely engaged in all of the above in many states over the years, some of these measures have been challenged in the courts, others are still being challenged.
I think it's pretty clear that we live in a country (and a world) not terribly concerned with right or wrong in terms of our own behavior. Thus, why Trump is president.
Right for me and who cares if wrong for anyone else is more along the lines of how most people operate. Trump is just the expression of a larger trend in the population.
But to clarify, this is not to say that self-centered people are evil.
They are just infantile. Emotionally immature. Probably doing the best they can. Not bad or evil.
We have failed to raise responsible individuals because the state has failed in its role to shape such individuals that way.
Donaldoom Trumpool thinks presidency as Mafia Don. So he asked Comey royalty. Obviously Trump is much worse than Hitler. He bombed Syria twice on false claims. He cann't accuse Bush for Iraq WMD claims. Both are same liers and war criminals. Congratulations.
Comey was a good FBI director and a stand-up guy his whole career. He tried to cover his ass by declaring the Clinton e-mail investigation would be re-opened weeks before the election, because he found a few more e-mails, and it backfired on him. Many people will always hold him responsible for the demise of H Clinton. No matter what he writes to "set the record straight" for his legacy, all the good he did during his career will be overshadowed by the Hilary error. Too bad -- but maybe he deserves it.
"saved the world a lot of trouble"
Those words in a nutshell expose the selfish view of world affairs by Europeans.
What about America?
Would it have been better for America because if Clinton had won the Europeans would have kept on leeching on the US security umbrella while the US taxpayer footed the bill for Europe's security.The current WTO rules whereby EU tariffs are higher on US products than vice versa would have gone unchallenged.
We all know Clinton win would have benefited the Europeans enormously as Clinton would have preserved the current status of European free loading on defense and shutting out American products from European markets with higher tariffs.
Indeed the arrogance of European journalists who think it is their birth right that American citizens should put European interests above American interests is a sight to behold.
PS: I find it rather odd that European media never point out the moral repugnancy of European leaders such as De Gaulle who used mass torture and rape squads during France's colonial conflict in Algeria.
"Would it have been better for America because if Clinton had won the Europeans would have kept on leeching on the US security umbrella while the US taxpayer footed the bill for Europe's security."
That is exactly what continues to happen. Trump complains about NATO but he keeps the USA in it and raised defense spending.
"The current WTO rules whereby EU tariffs are higher on US products than vice versa would have gone unchallenged."
That still remains unchallenged.
De Gaulle has been dead awhile.
Donaldoom Trumpoo treats women as meat ball. Obviously you are not beef. He must think you are snake meat.
What do you have against snakes? All god's creatures or not?
Do you eat snake meat?
I never eaten snake meat.
I've eaten snake meat. It is very lean and best when covered in hot sauce.
What’s morally repugnant is Comey’s comment. If he had such a low view of Trump, why stay on as Director? Why work for someone you deem a low life. Says a lot about Comey as Trump was and is not a surprise.
"why stay on as Director?"
To indict him! Make sense?
When you're a public servant you serve the public, and work for an institution, and typically it's a life-long commitment. You don't work for the president.
"Why work for someone you deem a low life. Says a lot about Comey as Trump was and is not a surprise."
Psst- Comey- as with every other FBI Director- does NOT work for the President. Not knowing this says a lot about YOU and your piss-poor understanding of our system of government.
Three rocket amigos;
- Fat rocket man donald trump
- Little rocket man ilmanuel mekhong
- Rockt woman terresa may
They are guilty of massacre
Donald Trump's morality was well known before the election, and didn't stop him from attracting a strong majority of the votes of his generation. In terms of his family values, business practices, and relationship with the truth, a casual reading of the news for the past 30 years puts The Donald right in the mainstream among his contemporaries.
As for Comey, his actions just before the election may helped to elect The Donald, though one cannot be sure how much or whether it was THE difference. But Clinton values aren't all THAT different from Trump values -- the Clinton Presidency was a big step in Trump's direction.
Given that our choice is the party of Roger Stone and the party of Anthony Weiner, how many people active in politics are actually morally fit by the standards of a long ago age anymore? Or among the general public? Comey is in effect calling out an all too large share of Americans, plus some wannabees.
How sad- but true.
Greetings as usual to FADFFLLFAF
Mr. Comey, too late, now has the gumption to stand up to Donald Trump ... something that is sorely lacking in the United States political class in the past 2 years. And for his troubles Trump has unleashed the longest tirade of name calling insults at Comey ever tweeted by a sitting president. The true irony here is that every character attack Trump makes is easily seen as applying to himself more than the guy he's attacking. Who's the actual slimeball? Lier? the worst _____ in history? It's so far beyond time that Americans and its politicians stand up and agree with the one thing Comey said that is absolutely true. Trump is morally unfit to be president.
Comey has a messiah complex. He foresaw that Loretta Lynch wasn't worthy of deciding the outcome of the Hillary Clinton investigation, so he decided himself and publicly announced his decision on television as if it were a Supreme Court ruling.
When Anthony Weiner was discovered to have Clinton emails on his server, Comey was so certain Clinton would be elected he bumblingly 'rescued' her from the embarrassment of having the news come out after her election victory (it only cost her the election).
And, Comey attempted to rescue the Republic from a Trump presidency by illegally leaking FBI documents to a law professor, expecting them to be made public and lead to a special prosecutor (a decision that belongs to the Attorney General).
Now, a nasty name-calling book who's only purpose is to get even to the man who 'wronged' him.
Pardon me while I puke.
How would you compare Comey's messiah complex to Trump's?
Comey's is just a tiny bit smaller. Just a tiny bit.
They are entirely different. Comey appears to be motivated by a sincere belief that he is making the world a better place. Trump has never cared about the rest of the world.
Comey is trying to make the world a better place for James Comey.
He burned himself with Democrats when he inadvertently torpedoed HIllary's election and he burned himself with Republicans when he crossed Trump. He's looking for a soft landing and a big payday from a prestigious law firm and the only way he'll get it is to ingratiate himself with one side, which by default has become the anti-Trumpers.
James Comey - what you see is what you got. A rather naïve self righteous man whose lack of political savy or common sense was probably more responsible for the downfall of Hillary Clinton than anybody else, in his confused and muddled declarations of the on/off going investigations by the FBI.(very bad timing!)
Now he is telling everyone what everyone (with average intelligence plus) already knew - Trump is a liar, a sexual predator and a bully - one day before the publication of his book (very good timing!).
It seems that the White House and its staff will continue to be the joke of the world.
Hillary Clinton was the downfall of Hillary Clinton PERIOD. You can look for cover and blame everybody and everything from Macedonian information farmers to the Russians subverting votes, but the truth is she lost her election because the people in the flyover states never saw her nor believed in her.
Except of course in the flyover states that she won, such as Colorado which is where I was living.
Geographically, yes, but from a demographic, economic, sociological and political point of view, Colorado is not a flyover state.