News Hillary Clinton Running for President

[mheslep]

Getting back to Clinton's record in the thread on Clinton ...

...Clinton severely screwed up Benghazi and then was less than honest and forthright about it.

Screw up within reasonable bounds. (Yes, I seriously mean that. Not [sic] everyone is wise to know that more security guards had to been put there.)

"Everyone" is not expected to be wise enough to ascertain the security situation on the ground. The local embassy staff on the ground is expected to ascertain the security situation, and they did so with some accuracy. There had been numerous previous attacks and indications of more to come in Bhenghazi, and accordingly the US staff in Libya requested more security, repeatedly. It was denied by the US Department of State in Washington, DC, though the locals are responsible for their own security posture. When the locals request more security it should be given, or the embassy/mission should be directed to close.

...Overall, the number of Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) security staff in Benghazi on the day of the attack and in the months and weeks leading up to it was inadequate, despite repeated requests from Special Mission Benghazi and Embassy Tripoli for additional staffing.

 

[EM_Guy]

Too much speaking about "rights", too little speaking about "making everything work"

This is scary rhetoric. Obviously, the United States became a nation, because a whole bunch of Patriots would not shut up about rights. The main duty of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. A government that doesn't respect, care about, and defend the rights of the citizens is a tyrannical, unjust, and rebellious government. It is the right of the people to throw off (violently if needed) any such government. Such a revolution in my mind should not be characterized as a rebellion, but rather as the lawful actions taken by a people to put down the rebellion of the despotic government.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." etc., etc.

 

[EM_Guy]

Actually trial by jury I consider as weird, but mostly harmless Anglo-Saxon tradition. But understand your intended point.

What would you prefer instead of trial-by-jury? Trial-by-combat? Or should accused persons not be granted a trial at all?

 

[Bandersnatch]

What would you prefer instead of trial-by-jury? Trial-by-combat? Or should accused persons not be granted a trial at all?

Trial by jury is mainly a feature of common law judicial systems. Most of the world uses the civil law system, which typically has bench trials (i.e., trial by judge) - the judge makes the decision; there is no jury.
Both trial systems have some overlap, though. You'll find certain types of cases under the common law system done without a jury, and cases in the civil law countries done with a jury.

 

[Czcibor]

This is scary rhetoric. Obviously, the United States became a nation, because a whole bunch of Patriots would not shut up about rights. The main duty of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. A government that doesn't respect, care about, and defend the rights of the citizens is a tyrannical, unjust, and rebellious government. It is the right of the people to throw off (violently if needed) any such government. Such a revolution in my mind should not be characterized as a rebellion, but rather as the lawful actions taken by a people to put down the rebellion of the despotic government.

You don't have to explain to me your nation creation myth. I already know it. (in the same as I know that those high minded, above mentioned rules were not applicable to blacks or native Americans...) Just curious to what extend you treat seriously other countries national myths?

What would you prefer instead of trial-by-jury? Trial-by-combat? Or should accused persons not be granted a trial at all?

Just by professional judge(s)? The same one(s) who also passes the sentence.

 

[mheslep]

Aside: fascinating contrast between the anglo-sphere and European continental philosophies here. Apropos, Daniel Hanan, UK MP to the EU, wrote this essay dating the difference to the Magna Carta, which just celebrated an anniversary, and the lack of such a document informing the vicious French Revolution.

...Liberty and property: how naturally those words tripped, as a unitary concept, from the tongues of America’s Founders. These were men who had been shaped in the English tradition, and they saw parliamentary government not as an expression of majority rule but as a guarantor of individual freedom. How different was the Continental tradition, born 13 years later with the French Revolution, which saw elected assemblies as the embodiment of what Rousseau called the “general will” of the people.

In that difference, we may perhaps discern explanation of why the Anglosphere resisted the chronic bouts of authoritarianism to which most other Western countries were prone. We who speak this language have always seen the defense of freedom as the duty of our representatives and so, by implication, of those who elect them. Liberty and democracy, in our tradition, are not balanced against each other; they are yoked together.

 

[mheslep]

Most of the world uses the civil law system, which typically has bench trials (i.e., trial by judge) - the judge makes the decision; there is no jury.

I don't think that assertion withstands scrutiny. Much of the world claims to use trial by judge, and I'm sure this is the often indeed the case, but that does not mean the decision is actually made by the judge and not the judge's puppet masters.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I don't think that assertion withstands scrutiny. Much of the world claims to use trial by judge, and I'm sure this is the often indeed the case, but that does not mean the decision is actually made by the judge and not the judge's puppet masters.

Whether that's the case or not has no bearing on the kind of system professed to be in place.

 

[EM_Guy]

You don't have to explain to me your nation creation myth. I already know it. (in the same as I know that those high minded, above mentioned rules were not applicable to blacks or native Americans...) Just curious to what extend you treat seriously other countries national myths?

At the risk of allowing myself to be baited into a foolish argument, I'll respond to this. My (advance) apologies to the rest of PF if by responding to this I am allowing the discussion to be derailed.

"...nation creation myth..."

I'm not sure what you are talking about. My wife has a Ph.D. in history and has studied a number of primary sources. What aspects of the US nation creation story do you believe to be mythical? Do you think that George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin were all fictional characters? Do you believe that the Declaration of Independence never happened? Do you think that there wasn't a war that was waged between the colonists and Great Britain?

And, oh by the way, I don't worship the so-called Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, I have a relatively low opinion of most of them. From the start, the United States has never been a utopia. But I do believe that the Patriots were on to something when they stood up to tyranny.

In any case, to bring this back to topic, I think that Clinton's view is like yours. Clinton cares more about "making everything work" (according to her vision and definition of "work"), than she does about defending and protecting the individual rights of the citizens. I think that she thinks the government can never be too big, and I think that in Clinton's America, the government can and should provide for the citizens - cradle to grave. Meanwhile she refuses to acknowledge the rights of the unborn, and she her actions in regards to Benghazi were dishonorable. Clinton cares about Clinton - not the rights of the people.

 

[mheslep]

Whether that's the case or not has no bearing on the kind of system professed to be in place.

Yes, and what's professed to be in place has little relevance; reality does. That is, what is likely to happen to a common citizen when accused falsely of a crime against a powerful connected official, say, one that appoints judges.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I have no opinion on that, or on the pros and cons of the two systems in general.

 

[Czcibor]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. My wife has a Ph.D. in history and has studied a number of primary sources. What aspects of the US nation creation story do you believe to be mythical? Do you think that George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin were all fictional characters? Do you believe that the Declaration of Independence never happened? Do you think that there wasn't a war that was waged between the colonists and Great Britain?

No just your cherry picked interpetation where there is plenty talking about freedom was out of charts. If you don't get it I (sorry for derailing subject) I may show you on some example of let's say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_of_Europe

Sounds funny? But technically speaking partition of Poland is a historical fact, just interpretation may not be taken seriously by any foreigner.

And, oh by the way, I don't worship the so-called Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, I have a relatively low opinion of most of them. From the start, the United States has never been a utopia. But I do believe that the Patriots were on to something when they stood up to tyranny.

I know that George III is depicted by Americans as tyrant... However, which exactly tyrannical deeds he made? Reign of terror? Oh yes... he introduced a few taxes like stamp duty and tea tax, and haven't allowed some rich guys (including slave owners) to send their representatives to parliament. Somewhat unimpressive. Especially when one compares taxes from his times to taxes that Americans passed themselves later.

In any case, to bring this back to topic, I think that Clinton's view is like yours. Clinton cares more about "making everything work" (according to her vision and definition of "work"), than she does about defending and protecting the individual rights of the citizens. I think that she thinks the government can never be too big, and I think that in Clinton's America, the government can and should provide for the citizens - cradle to grave. Meanwhile she refuses to acknowledge the rights of the unborn, and she her actions in regards to Benghazi were dishonorable. Clinton cares about Clinton - not the rights of the people.

I'm not sure about her views, but I think that comparing to two last presidents, her husband was quite successful.

 

[EM_Guy]

Czcibor,

You seem to be missing the point. We can debate forever about whether or not the American Revolution was justified. (And honestly, compared to what we have now, King George's injustices seem pretty minor to me). But the whole point is that governments should acknowledge, honor, respect, and defend the individual rights of the citizens. You have said that we have too much talk about rights and not enough talk about making things work. And you haven't acknowledged that the rights that we have should be honored, respected, and defended by our elected officials. By your own words, rights is pretty much a non-issue. What matters is "making things work" (whatever that means).

Throughout history, all too often, governments have cruelly oppressed the people. Surely, you are not ignorant of this. And yet, you say that there is "too much talk of rights." The power and authority entrusted to elected officials is vast - especially for the POTUS. Any individual to be entrusted with that power should prove himself worthy of the trust. The rights of the people ought to be zealously guarded at all times.

I am not saying that we should all have an entitlement mentality. Since there are obligations associated with every right, we need to distinguish between our actual rights and our desires.

 

[EM_Guy]

I'm not sure about her views, but I think that comparing to two last presidents, her husband was quite successful.

I've brought up three issues:

1. The rights of the unborn.
2. The need to define individual rights in a way that maximizes liberty and minimizes tyranny.
3. Benghazi.

Bill Clinton had nothing to do with Benghazi.

Regarding the first two issues, how did Bill Clinton do better than Bush?

Of course, you have been arguing that point #2 should not even be an issue. It is of no surprise to me then that you think that Clinton did better than Bush. (I'm no fan of Bush).

 

[Czcibor]

Regarding the first two issues, how did Bill Clinton do better than Bush?

Of course, you have been arguing that point #2 should not even be an issue. It is of no surprise to me then that you think that Clinton did better than Bush. (I'm no fan of Bush).

Which Bush? Senior? I'd say he was just unlucky - he won Gulf War, which hit economy by high oil prices. He promised no more taxes and reasonably raised taxes which cost him job. Seems good enough. The junior - he got a budget surplus from Bill Clinton times (and Bill Clinton was responsible enough just to keep it to pay back debt to be able to finance already incurred social security promises). Instead he lowered taxes, raised spending (like those Medicare medications), and started one unnecessary and expensive war. (surprisingly a big budget deficit appeared ;) ). Plus he failed supervision job prior to housing bubble (this one was harder, so maybe I should limit blame).

If you mention anything about freedom and free market I'd answer about steel tariffs (not specially legal under WTO) and ethanol fuel production subsidies. ;)

 

[Astronuc]

AP-GfK Poll: Americans view Clinton, Republicans unfavorably
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-americans-view-clinton-republicans-unfavorably-071925104--election.html Certainly the 2016 presidential election will be interesting.

 

[mheslep]

Which Bush? Senior? I'd say he was just unlucky - he won Gulf War, which hit economy by high oil prices. He promised no more taxes and reasonably raised taxes which cost him job. Seems good enough. The junior - he got a budget surplus from Bill Clinton times (and Bill Clinton was responsible enough just to keep it to pay back debt to be able to finance already incurred social security promises). Instead he lowered taxes, raised spending (like those Medicare medications), and started one unnecessary and expensive war. (surprisingly a big budget deficit appeared ;) ). Plus he failed supervision job prior to housing bubble (this one was harder, so maybe I should limit blame).)

You might take a look at actual revenue and spending figures during those years and compare to now before giving narratives on US history. There was no inherited budget surplus just prior to Bush IIs tax reforms, though revenue increased afterwards. That surplus from the 90s was a phenomenon of the dot com boom, and vanished with the dot com crash. And the average deficit during both Bush II terms before the financial panic was a fraction of current deficits.

 

[tom aaron]

All the talk of the American Revolution has some irony. The Americans got rid of a King just to turn the Presidency back into a cult of personality. Washington and Jefferson would cringe in disgust if they heard 'Hail to the Chief'. The antithesis of what they fought for.

Whoever becomes president will benefit from following two duds in a row, Bush Jr and Obama.

Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush would both make decent presidents. Hillary most likely taking on the Margaret Thatcher Iron Lady role...Jeb more managerial. Hillary will evoke more visceral response..love her or hate her. The reverse with Jeb. Like his father, hard to get worked up one way or the other.

Those two will probably run. Every political guru will be advising, commenting, analyzing ad nauseum. Journalists interviewing journalists about the coverage of fellow journalists... All electing the next King. George Washington would barf.

 

[gfd43tg]

I wish we could have some fresh meat instead of another disappointing bush vs Clinton. This seems almost like an oligarchy

 

[russ_watters]

You might take a look at actual revenue and spending figures during those years and compare to now before giving narratives on US history. There was no inherited budget surplus just prior to Bush IIs tax reforms, though revenue increased afterwards. That surplus from the 90s was a phenomenon of the dot com boom, and vanished with the dot com crash. And the average deficit during both Bush II terms before the financial panic was a fraction of current deficits.

I would also add that on Clinton being "responsible", he tried not to be, but the Republicans in Congress (specifically, Gingrich's Contract with America and government shutdowns) would not allow him to be. It is unlikely that there would have been surpluses without that restraint the Republicans imposed on Clinton.

We saw similar action with the sequester and debt ceiling fights of the past few years.

 

[tom aaron]

I wish we could have some fresh meat instead of another disappointing bush vs Clinton. This seems almost like an oligarchy

It's the nature of the beast. Not corrupt or 'wrong' but perhaps democracy just doesn't work that well in a country of over 300 million. There are so many factions, favors, compromises needed that super difficult to build from the bottom up. Bill Clinton And Obama did it so not impossible.

I 'think', perhaps wrongly that most of the power brokers know it will likely be be Clinton vs Bush and the rest is just positioning for a VP spot or setting themselves up for 'next time'.

 

[CalcNerd]

One thing that help Bill Clinton become a good president ie in comparison to nearly all the other recent presidents, is that he was lucky enough to have the line item veto for nearly 3 years of his presidency. Just having that power made the congress a bit less piggy as Bill Clinton could just say, "No!" and perhaps even call out whomever tried to pork barrel for their district. That power made sure that any congressman would be cautious about calling out Bill onto the carpet (that didn't help him a lot, it seems). That power was removed by the courts in 98, about the same time his other issues came out.
.
If other presidents had this power, it may help, but that kind of depends upon the political atmosphere of DC. Behind closed doors, Slick Willie made a lot of deals. I suspect he helped the upper crust of society (reached across the aisle perhaps with hand out, so to speak), but there is something about efficiency of government that certainly came into play during his terms in office.
.
I see a lot of rah, rah, rah, my candidate is great, but THEY all stand in the shadows of our forefathers. As a few here have stated, it is very likely Washington, Adams and Jefferson would barf at the thought of any of these candidates getting into office.

 

[tom aaron]

One thing that help Bill Clinton become a good president ie in comparison to nearly all the other recent presidents, is that he was lucky enough to have the line item veto for nearly 3 years of his presidency. Just having that power made the congress a bit less piggy as Bill Clinton could just say, "No!" and perhaps even call out whomever tried to pork barrel for their district. That power made sure that any congressman would be cautious about calling out Bill onto the carpet (that didn't help him a lot, it seems). That power was removed by the courts in 98, about the same time his other issues came out.
.
If other presidents had this power, it may help, but that kind of depends upon the political atmosphere of DC. Behind closed doors, Slick Willie made a lot of deals. I suspect he helped the upper crust of society (reached across the aisle perhaps with hand out, so to speak), but there is something about efficiency of government that certainly came into play during his terms in office.
.
I see a lot of rah, rah, rah, my candidate is great, but THEY all stand in the shadows of our forefathers. As a few here have stated, it is very likely Washington, Adams and Jefferson would barf at the thought of any of these candidates getting into office.

That's part of the problem. We equate good Presidents with wielding power. We claim to want democracy...but also want a 'strong' President. Somehow get that voice of the People, Congress, in line.

I was never a Reagan fan but had no issue with him taking a long nap every day. A President shouldn't be all that busy unless there is some foreign policy or security issue, crisis happening, etc. Best he be off talking to other leaders, getting briefed by the Pentagon than spending time on the minutia of social issues.

 

[mheslep]

We equate good Presidents with wielding power. We claim to want democracy...but also want a 'strong' President.

Not always. If its true I think it is mostly a modern phenomenon, since, say, FDR. Before that Presidents with some notable exceptions were notable for staying out of the way, most of the time, of the average American.

 

[tom aaron]

Not always. If its true I think it is mostly a modern phenomenon, since, say, FDR. Before that Presidents with some notable exceptions were notable for staying out of the way, most of the time, of the average American.

Agreed. That was my point. 'Today' many praise want a President that has his finger in everything. Previous to FDR, it was the reverse. Eisenhauer was a bit old school, then Kennedy turned it into an elected kingship.

An interesting poll. Over 90% of Canadians did not know the first name of their Prime Minister's wife...or how many children he had (and he's been PM for 9 years). In contrast, in the USA, the President has become some social celebrity like Prince William and Kate.

 

[mheslep]

n interesting poll. Over 90% of Canadians did not know the first name of their Prime Minister's wife...or how many children he had (and he's been PM for 9 years). In contrast, in the USA, the President has become some social celebrity like Prince William and Kate.

Yes, though there may be several reasons for the difference I expect the major one is size. Canada's population (~ 30 milllion?) and economy is about the size of a large US state, say CA or TX, and my guess a poll would often show a similar non-interest in the governor's family in those states (e.g. I have no idea the name of the wife of my state's governor). The US founders were aware that an extended-republic might be problematic (via Montesquieu), hence the state-federal system in the US. I suspect we've been too big on the federal side for decades, leading to not just a US version of William and Kate's celebrity, but a William and Kate with both celebrity and state power.

...It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected

 

[Dembadon]

We claim to want democracy...but also want a 'strong' President.

I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive, unless I'm misinterpreting your use of the word "strong."

I typically view strength (in the context of leadership) as having a backbone; following-through on promises and principles in the face of heavy opposition. Surely this is a desired quality in any leader no matter the system of governance.

 

[Astronuc]

Potentially troubling for Clinton - http://news.yahoo.com/sources-justice-asked-consider-probing-clinton-emails-125056472--election.html#

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new letter by intelligence investigators to the Justice Department says secret government information may have been compromised in Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server, underscoring an inescapable reality for her presidential campaign: Email is forever.

. . . . swirling questions surrounding her decision to run her State Department correspondence through an unsecured system set up at her New York home.

! What??!

A statement from the intelligence inspector general, I. Charles McCullough, and his counterpart at the State Department, Steve Linick, said that McCullough's office found four emails containing classified information in a limited sample of 40 emails.

"This classified information should have never been transmitted via an unclassified personal system," they said.

 

[tom aaron]

Potentially troubling for Clinton - http://news.yahoo.com/sources-justice-asked-consider-probing-clinton-emails-125056472--election.html#

! What??!

There isn't anything that Hillary or Jeb has said or written that will influence more than 1% of voters. They are known entities and their support is completely based on what people already think of them ... And the strength of that in comparison to some 'other guy'. Hillary could have murdered babies and Jeb could be an alien in disguise. Doesn't matter.

The 1% it influences are politicos who have already put on the blinkers and love or hate a politician based on the team uniform.

 

[mheslep]

! What??!

That punctuation indicates real or mock surprise? That a US Sec of State could run a great deal of her message traffic through a personal server and never have that flow contain classified information?