Hillary Clinton and the blurring of lines

[SillyAmerican]

Back in April of 2015, Wall Street Journal Columnist Bret Stephens gives an excellent description of what folks find problematic with the way the Clintons do things while speaking to Megyn Kelly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that nicely sums up the major problem with Hillary Clinton. What do you think of Mr. Stephens comments?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Back in April of 2015, Wall Street Journal Columnist Bret Stephens gives an excellent description of what folks find problematic with the way the Clintons do things while speaking to Megyn Kelly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that nicely sums up the major problem with Hillary Clinton. What do you think of Mr. Stephens comments?

I think that's an accurate description of how Hillary Clinton operates. (Or how The Clintons operate, if you prefer.) But the only thing exceptional about any of it, compared to the rest of the American political arena, is how effective and successful they are at it.

While there may be rare exceptions, everything described is standard operating procedure for anyone and everyone in the heights of American politics. From Cheney to Gingrich to the Bushes, to the Cuomos and Daleys and down to mid-ranking executive-branch officials and the revolving door,  this is "situation normal".

Our entire system is rotten and corrupt, Hillary has just climbed to the top of the pyramid. (And anyone who thinks Trump will be a change to this standard of conduct is a fsking idiot of the first order.)

[SillyAmerican]

Back in April of 2015, Wall Street Journal Columnist Bret Stephens gives an excellent description of what folks find problematic with the way the Clintons do things while speaking to Megyn Kelly:

I think that's an accurate description of how Hillary Clinton operates. (Or how The Clintons operate, if you prefer.) But the only thing exceptional about any of it, compared to the rest of the American political arena, is how effective and successful they are at it.

While there may be rare exceptions, everything described is standard operating procedure for anyone and everyone in the heights of American politics. From Cheney to Gingrich to the Bushes, to the Cuomos and Daleys and down to mid-ranking executive-branch officials and the revolving door,  this is "situation normal".

Our entire system is rotten and corrupt, Hillary has just climbed to the top of the pyramid. (And anyone who thinks Trump will be a change to this standard of conduct is a fsking idiot of the first order.)

I'm inclined to agree with you here: there are serious problems today with our election system, and with the political folks that have been taking advantage of that system in recent years. Many in the electorate are now rejecting status quo candidates (just ask Jeb Bush). While I don't think Trump would help to improve the problems currently plaguing the election system, I also don't think Trump suffers from the same problems as those who would prefer seeing the status quo kept in place. Anyone who thinks Trump would be a status quo president is, to use your words, a fsking idiot of the first order.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Back in April of 2015, Wall Street Journal Columnist Bret Stephens gives an excellent description of what folks find problematic with the way the Clintons do things while speaking to Megyn Kelly:

I think that's an accurate description of how Hillary Clinton operates. (Or how The Clintons operate, if you prefer.) But the only thing exceptional about any of it, compared to the rest of the American political arena, is how effective and successful they are at it.

While there may be rare exceptions, everything described is standard operating procedure for anyone and everyone in the heights of American politics. From Cheney to Gingrich to the Bushes, to the Cuomos and Daleys and down to mid-ranking executive-branch officials and the revolving door,  this is "situation normal".

Our entire system is rotten and corrupt, Hillary has just climbed to the top of the pyramid. (And anyone who thinks Trump will be a change to this standard of conduct is a fsking idiot of the first order.)

I'm inclined to agree with you here: there are serious problems today with our election system, and with the political folks that have been taking advantage of that system in recent years. Many in the electorate are now rejecting status quo candidates (just ask Jeb Bush). While I don't think Trump would help to improve the problems currently plaguing the election system, I also don't think Trump suffers from the same problems as those who would prefer seeing the status quo kept in place. Anyone who thinks Trump would be a status quo president is, to use your words, a fsking idiot of the first order.

What has Trump done that makes you think he wouldn't be a supporter of the status quo?

All the money he's given to establishment politicians over the years?
His long history of employing illegal aliens?
His habit of doing his manufacturing overseas?
Putting a former Goldman Sachs Partner in charge of his campaign finances?
Building a foreign policy team of out contractors, neocons, and extremist supporters of Israel?

[SillyAmerican]

Back in April of 2015, Wall Street Journal Columnist Bret Stephens gives an excellent description of what folks find problematic with the way the Clintons do things while speaking to Megyn Kelly:

I think that's an accurate description of how Hillary Clinton operates. (Or how The Clintons operate, if you prefer.) But the only thing exceptional about any of it, compared to the rest of the American political arena, is how effective and successful they are at it.

While there may be rare exceptions, everything described is standard operating procedure for anyone and everyone in the heights of American politics. From Cheney to Gingrich to the Bushes, to the Cuomos and Daleys and down to mid-ranking executive-branch officials and the revolving door,  this is "situation normal".

Our entire system is rotten and corrupt, Hillary has just climbed to the top of the pyramid. (And anyone who thinks Trump will be a change to this standard of conduct is a fsking idiot of the first order.)

I'm inclined to agree with you here: there are serious problems today with our election system, and with the political folks that have been taking advantage of that system in recent years. Many in the electorate are now rejecting status quo candidates (just ask Jeb Bush). While I don't think Trump would help to improve the problems currently plaguing the election system, I also don't think Trump suffers from the same problems as those who would prefer seeing the status quo kept in place. Anyone who thinks Trump would be a status quo president is, to use your words, a fsking idiot of the first order.

What has Trump done that makes you think he wouldn't be a supporter of the status quo?

All the money he's given to establishment politicians over the years?
His long history of employing illegal aliens?
His habit of doing his manufacturing overseas?
Putting a former Goldman Sachs Partner in charge of his campaign finances?
Building a foreign policy team of out contractors, neocons, and extremist supporters of Israel?

Well, here are a few:

His position on addressing trade and immigration problems;
His indication that we should "rethink" our NATO involvement;
His general stance on a foreign policy focused on American interests;
His taking a different tone towards Israel and Iran;
His plan to get rid of Common Core and push education to the states;

Need more?

[Virginiá]

Well, here are a few:

His position on addressing trade and immigration problems;
His indication that we should "rethink" our NATO involvement;
His general stance on a foreign policy focused on American interests;
His taking a different tone towards Israel and Iran;
His plan to get rid of Common Core and push education to the states;

Need more?

Your evidence is essentially taking Trump at his word, when we all know he has completely thrown the value of his word out the window. He is far less trustworthy and reliable than any politician that ran/is running this election season. He has already begun the process of flip-flopping on everything he has said and even said it's all just suggestions, to try and give himself "official" cover to lie.

In short: Nothing Trump says or proposes should be trusted or considered a reliable position or comment.

[Hermit For Peace]

The charitable foundation was Bill's baby from the start. I think Hillary needs to be judged on her own merits, in her own realm. I agree with others that the political arena is no place to hold church services, but seems to me so much of the stuff Hillary is accused of is a distortion of reality. Lots of accusations and finger pointing and he said she said stuff going on, but she's weathered it all and is still standing strong.

I think Hillary will bring a different perspective to the White House, one that has never been offered before. The fact that she is female I think turns many voters off, but speaking as a female, for the first time I am excited about a Presidential election.

Looking at a larger picture, I think a Hillary Presidency will do wonders for our country, for the self-esteem of half the members of society. She's paving new trails and changing perspectives. You can't look at her through traditional eyes because she is not a traditional candidate.

Blurring of the lines? Some things you just have to let go of and focus on what you like about a candidate. That's what Trump supporters HAVE to do because there is so much wrong with him as a Presidential candidate. Just focus on what you like and vote for that candidate's strengths and abilities.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Back in April of 2015, Wall Street Journal Columnist Bret Stephens gives an excellent description of what folks find problematic with the way the Clintons do things while speaking to Megyn Kelly:

I think that's an accurate description of how Hillary Clinton operates. (Or how The Clintons operate, if you prefer.) But the only thing exceptional about any of it, compared to the rest of the American political arena, is how effective and successful they are at it.

While there may be rare exceptions, everything described is standard operating procedure for anyone and everyone in the heights of American politics. From Cheney to Gingrich to the Bushes, to the Cuomos and Daleys and down to mid-ranking executive-branch officials and the revolving door,  this is "situation normal".

Our entire system is rotten and corrupt, Hillary has just climbed to the top of the pyramid. (And anyone who thinks Trump will be a change to this standard of conduct is a fsking idiot of the first order.)

I'm inclined to agree with you here: there are serious problems today with our election system, and with the political folks that have been taking advantage of that system in recent years. Many in the electorate are now rejecting status quo candidates (just ask Jeb Bush). While I don't think Trump would help to improve the problems currently plaguing the election system, I also don't think Trump suffers from the same problems as those who would prefer seeing the status quo kept in place. Anyone who thinks Trump would be a status quo president is, to use your words, a fsking idiot of the first order.

What has Trump done that makes you think he wouldn't be a supporter of the status quo?

All the money he's given to establishment politicians over the years?
His long history of employing illegal aliens?
His habit of doing his manufacturing overseas?
Putting a former Goldman Sachs Partner in charge of his campaign finances?
Building a foreign policy team of out contractors, neocons, and extremist supporters of Israel?

Well, here are a few:

His position on addressing trade and immigration problems;
His indication that we should "rethink" our NATO involvement;
His general stance on a foreign policy focused on American interests;
His taking a different tone towards Israel and Iran;
His plan to get rid of Common Core and push education to the states;

Need more?

You didn't give any yet. I'm looking for things he's actually done.

As Virginia pointed out, you're listing things he's said. Trump Miller's word isn't worth Jack Garner's proverbial "bucket of warm piss".

[Maxwell]

Not to mention "Moving Education to the States" not only doesn't make sense, but is boiler plate Republican jargon, along with "getting rid of common core".

[Hermit For Peace]

I thought this thread was about Hillary?

[BundouYMB]

Using "Blurred Lines" in relation to the first major party female Presidential candidate is manifestly disgusting. I have no comment on the rest of this idiocy.

[Hermit For Peace]

Using "Blurred Lines" in relation to the first major party female Presidential candidate is manifestly disgusting. I have no comment on the rest of this idiocy.

It's par for the course when a powerful female stands to gain a huge win in this society. Hillary is used to all the countless attacks from everywhere down through the years. She has developed thick skin and lets it all roll off her back. Can't say that about Trump. Someone looks at him cross-eyed and he blasts them 10-fold. He's weak and has no backbone.

[Kingpoleon]

The charitable foundation was Bill's baby from the start. I think Hillary needs to be judged on her own merits, in her own realm. I agree with others that the political arena is no place to hold church services, but seems to me so much of the stuff Hillary is accused of is a distortion of reality. Lots of accusations and finger pointing and he said she said stuff going on, but she's weathered it all and is still standing strong.

I think Hillary will bring a different perspective to the White House, one that has never been offered before. The fact that she is female I think turns many voters off, but speaking as a female, for the first time I am excited about a Presidential election.

Looking at a larger picture, I think a Hillary Presidency will do wonders for our country, for the self-esteem of half the members of society. She's paving new trails and changing perspectives. You can't look at her through traditional eyes because she is not a traditional candidate.

Blurring of the lines? Some things you just have to let go of and focus on what you like about a candidate. That's what Trump supporters HAVE to do because there is so much wrong with him as a Presidential candidate. Just focus on what you like and vote for that candidate's strengths and abilities.

Hillary Clinton 2016: Fighting the Establishment Since

[SillyAmerican]

Using "Blurred Lines" in relation to the first major party female Presidential candidate is manifestly disgusting. I have no comment on the rest of this idiocy.

It's par for the course when a powerful female stands to gain a huge win in this society. Hillary is used to all the countless attacks from everywhere down through the years. She has developed thick skin and lets it all roll off her back. Can't say that about Trump. Someone looks at him cross-eyed and he blasts them 10-fold. He's weak and has no backbone.

I have no problem supporting a woman for the highest office of the land, but I have a problem with that woman being Hillary Clinton. And the trouble I have with Mrs. Clinton is spelled out quite nicely by the interview given by Bret Stephens: "The Clintons inhabit this area between outright corruption and actual ethical conduct, and that's the world of sleaze, that's the world of connections, that's the world in which people have access to the Clintons or are somehow buying access to the Clintons."

I find it quite interesting that people who think Clinton has an absolutely stellar record of achievement, the folks who have no problem accepting her word as gospel, these are the very same people who insist that the statements of every other candidate be looked on with incredulity. Yes, it's hypocrisy and double standard, but we should all just look the other way, in the name of political expediency.

Using "Blurred Lines" in relation to the first major party female Presidential candidate is manifestly disgusting. I have no comment on the rest of this idiocy.

Why "manifestly disgusting"? And is it only manifestly disgusting because it's being used in reference to the first major party female Presidential candidate? Because if you're supporting this lady's candidacy, you'd better get used to people asking tough questions of her and being critical of her way of operating, because when somebody wants to be elected to the highest office of these United States, saying "but I'm a woman!" simply doesn't cut it.

Well, here are a few:

His position on addressing trade and immigration problems;
His indication that we should "rethink" our NATO involvement;
His general stance on a foreign policy focused on American interests;
His taking a different tone towards Israel and Iran;
His plan to get rid of Common Core and push education to the states;

Need more?

Your evidence is essentially taking Trump at his word, when we all know he has completely thrown the value of his word out the window. He is far less trustworthy and reliable than any politician that ran/is running this election season. He has already begun the process of flip-flopping on everything he has said and even said it's all just suggestions, to try and give himself "official" cover to lie.

In short: Nothing Trump says or proposes should be trusted or considered a reliable position or comment.

If you don't like Trump, fine. If you don't like the positions being held by Trump, fine. If you don't believe what Trump is saying, fine. But don't try to peddle that Trump is simply more of the same, that Trump is just a status quo candidate, 'cuz that doesn't even deserve a response.

[Virginiá]

Well, here are a few:

His position on addressing trade and immigration problems;
His indication that we should "rethink" our NATO involvement;
His general stance on a foreign policy focused on American interests;
His taking a different tone towards Israel and Iran;
His plan to get rid of Common Core and push education to the states;

Need more?

Your evidence is essentially taking Trump at his word, when we all know he has completely thrown the value of his word out the window. He is far less trustworthy and reliable than any politician that ran/is running this election season. He has already begun the process of flip-flopping on everything he has said and even said it's all just suggestions, to try and give himself "official" cover to lie.

In short: Nothing Trump says or proposes should be trusted or considered a reliable position or comment.

If you don't like Trump, fine. If you don't like the positions being held by Trump, fine. If you don't believe what Trump is saying, fine. But don't try to peddle that Trump is simply more of the same, that Trump is just a status quo candidate, 'cuz that doesn't even deserve a response.

Wait. How did you derive that from what I said? Because I said he can't be trusted / he's flip-flopping on everything? My post was to illustrate that he's far more untrustworthy than any serious candidate that's run in many years.

If a politician being untrustworthy is status quo to you, then Trump is the embodiment of the term status quo. For some issues, he can't even keep the same position longer than a few days.

[Blair]

It's just Pat Buchanan .2

And please, getting rid of common core is a standard republican talking point

[136or142]

Well, here are a few:

His position on addressing trade and immigration problems;
His indication that we should "rethink" our NATO involvement;
His general stance on a foreign policy focused on American interests;
His taking a different tone towards Israel and Iran;
His plan to get rid of Common Core and push education to the states;

Need more?

Your evidence is essentially taking Trump at his word, when we all know he has completely thrown the value of his word out the window. He is far less trustworthy and reliable than any politician that ran/is running this election season. He has already begun the process of flip-flopping on everything he has said and even said it's all just suggestions, to try and give himself "official" cover to lie.

In short: Nothing Trump says or proposes should be trusted or considered a reliable position or comment.

If you don't like Trump, fine. If you don't like the positions being held by Trump, fine. If you don't believe what Trump is saying, fine. But don't try to peddle that Trump is simply more of the same, that Trump is just a status quo candidate, 'cuz that doesn't even deserve a response.

Wait. How did you derive that from what I said? Because I said he can't be trusted / he's flip-flopping on everything? My post was to illustrate that he's far more untrustworthy than any serious candidate that's run in many years.

If a politician being untrustworthy is status quo to you, then Trump is the embodiment of the term status quo. For some issues, he can't even keep the same position longer than a few days.

Sometimes, he can't even keep the same position during the same interview.

[ProudModerate2]

Just another anti-Hillary thread from SillyAmerican.
I have said it before ..... there must be something very personal that the Clintons have done to SillyAmerican.

[SillyAmerican]

Well, here are a few:

His position on addressing trade and immigration problems;
His indication that we should "rethink" our NATO involvement;
His general stance on a foreign policy focused on American interests;
His taking a different tone towards Israel and Iran;
His plan to get rid of Common Core and push education to the states;

Need more?

Your evidence is essentially taking Trump at his word, when we all know he has completely thrown the value of his word out the window. He is far less trustworthy and reliable than any politician that ran/is running this election season. He has already begun the process of flip-flopping on everything he has said and even said it's all just suggestions, to try and give himself "official" cover to lie.

In short: Nothing Trump says or proposes should be trusted or considered a reliable position or comment.

If you don't like Trump, fine. If you don't like the positions being held by Trump, fine. If you don't believe what Trump is saying, fine. But don't try to peddle that Trump is simply more of the same, that Trump is just a status quo candidate, 'cuz that doesn't even deserve a response.

Wait. How did you derive that from what I said? Because I said he can't be trusted / he's flip-flopping on everything? My post was to illustrate that he's far more untrustworthy than any serious candidate that's run in many years.

If a politician being untrustworthy is status quo to you, then Trump is the embodiment of the term status quo. For some issues, he can't even keep the same position longer than a few days.

Sorry, my response was meant for Runeghost, who seems to want to suggest that Trump is actually a status quo candidate. He's not. Feel free to level other charges against him all you want, there's no way the man can be mistaken for the status quo. No way.