Hillary Clinton Eyes 20/20 run to be POTUS

Absolutely NOT my president!



Absolutely NOT my president, ever!!!​

 

I can remember the '90s. I can remember the context in which she made that statement. She was sitting next to Bill, they were on some TV show, maybe Barbara Walters, but I'm not sure and too lazy to look it up, so don't lean on me too much if I'm wrong on where it was, but she was making that statement specifically in reference to all the allegations against Bill for catting around like an '80s hair band rock guitarist with groupies while in high office in Arkansas and D.C., and she started talking of this right wing conspiracy. But the darned thing was, whether there were tons of people, John Birchers, Reagan Republicans, Fallwell followers, Neo-Nazis, whatever, out to destroy the Clintons or not, is wholly irrelevant to the simple fact that Bill Clinton WAS in fact guilty as charged of treating women like a sexual playground and inserting objects into an intern roughly the age of his daughter while in a room near the Oval Office. And that is sick. And it was sickening that Hillary, this supposed champion of women's rights, was supporting her husband and throwing off all manner of crap about conspiracies while he was truthfully doing the things of which he was accused (at least in this case). He was also lying under oath to try to zero out a litigant, Paula Jones, with a completely meritorious case against him for all manner of harassment. And for that, he was very rightly impeached and disbarred. I don't take these things lightly, having been an attorney for nearly a quarter century and somehow managing to get through that period of time never once committing perjury or counseling a client to do it, either. And I don't think I'm all that special or squeaky clean; most lawyers do not, like Bill and Hillary, do whatever they will so long as it is for their selfish benefit. I love you, I hope you know that, Stan, but you'll never get me to think well of this woman who treated women who stood in the way of her ambitions as flotsam. And that is not something I think I know, it's something I know and all of America saw.

 

Name one reason you think she considered this pack of filth any other way than other products of the "conspiracy" - as a pack of lies. Especially since Bill is apparently extremely charming and deft at manipulating people, including and especially those closest to him. People generally believe Gore when he said he felt blindsided and betrayed by Bill's lies.
And just to get things out of the way, Monica was not "roughly Chelsea's age" at that time. Chelsea was a minor, while Monica was not (no, it's not a technicality). Which doesn't override the fact that Bill was completely at fault and did grievous harm to Monica, as well as to his wife, his administration, party, and the country. And he could mitigate most of this by simply coming clean right away.

It must be the only case in history when the conservative side of the spectrum holds a woman (especially of that generation) responsible for supporting her husband. Especially when said husband enjoyed and still enjoys personality cult-like status in his political corner, and considerable respect in society at large. Besides, it is well documented that the Center-Left and the Left bought into this narrative of Bill being special and indispensable - why wouldn't Hillary, too?

Bill lost me when it became clear recently that he still doesn't feel responsible for the Monica thing and thinks of the whole situation in terms of how hurtful and unfair it was to him. Ego on this man is enormous. Then again, probably not uncommon in Presidents.

Yeah, yeah. I know that I'm in a distinct minority here, even among the Democrats. At least you are not among the good and decent people I know who bought into Trump completely.

 

Believe Monica was 23 or 24 when this came down and Chelsea was 16 or 17. Having daughters 21 and 19, I can't imagine trying out my fantasies on a coed in the office, the juxtaposition's just too sick too comprehend--and yes, I do consider them roughly the same age at that time. Absolutely. The problem with Hillary spewing venom at people who were telling the truth about her husband is she's either utterly incompetent (as a Yale-trained attorney and supposedly sophisticated woman, a prospect I find completely ridiculous) or she's a cynical political creature who lied about those who were telling the truth about Bill (overwhelmingly likely).

I don't think any woman under any circumstances should stand up for and support her husband in his lies and obstruction of justice. I don't consider the majority of his opposition to be filth. I consider him to have behaved in a filthy manner and Hillary to have enabled him in it. As for answering for the conservative side of the spectrum, I'm not a Republican and not a conservative, am a mixed bag of beliefs: pro-affirmative action, anti-death penalty, anti-abortion, I favor open trade policies, hate guns, tend to think the recent immigration dust up is hysterical nonsense (as I think any nation has the right to protect its borders, control immigration, and provide deterrence to illegal immigration, as this is a fundamental principle of being a nation-state), personally conservative (not in a political sense, but in the sense of not behaving in bohemian manner) on moral issues, staunchly Christian of the vaguely Messianic stripe, but anti-Moral Majority and do not attend the institutional church. Am all over the board, one of the reasons why I've been disengaged from politics for over a dozen years.

As for not buying into Trump completely, that's an understatement, just know the first call I received the morning after the '16 election was from my son-in-law, a Libertarian, frantically asking if I was going to make good on my vow to become an expatriate if Trump were elected.

 

In 1995, Chelsea was 15. That's not the same as Monica's 22. I'll give you that Lewinsky was young enough to make Bill a creep in addition to a harassing boss and a scoundrel in this whole affair. The fact that he still sees himself essentially as a victim in this... Wow.
I seriously had never heard another wife of a cheating husband called "incompetent" before. There's no such thing as general "competence" in everything (you as a perpetual student and an educator know this), so you are telling "competence" in dealing with lying cheating husbands (and world-class playas like Bill, specifically). Where would HRC get that? Perhaps forensic accounting field has some transferrable insights; however Hillary's fields used to be family and corporate law.

We'd have quite a bit of common ground, except I do not see "current immigration dustup" as honestly being about protecting borders (rejected bipartisan deals would have given Trump that) as much as just fanning xenophobia as a populist ploy (which I hate even when the Cons deploy it on a smaller scale). Oh, and am still waiting for a position that would combine "anti-abortion" with "pro-woman"; maybe humanity has to invent an artificial womb (like in Bujold novels) for that to finally settle. Funny thing is, that sounds a lot like Clintonite "third way". Oh, and I do attend an "institutional church", in fact am on a parish council. Fellow faithful don't make it easy though.

 

This wasn't the classic situation with the sudden shock and such, the husband or wife blindsided, stinging from the allegations, throwing off misdirection, working through the stages of sudden grief. At the time, this had been one of the worst-kept secrets in politics for a decade and a half. There are persistent accounts of Hillary spearheading a team intended to squelch the allegations and discredit the sources--you remember, of course, the talk of "Bimbo Eruptions". In 1979 or so, OK, I'll buy Hillary as the aggrieved spouse, hoping against hope it's all just ugly rumor, but by 1995, after being a good bit of the brains and strategy behind pushing through the governor's office all the way to the presidency, knowing what we now know (and knew then), I stand by what I said. Don't believe she was being forthright at all and was flatly lying when she spoke of vast right wing conspiracies in that particular context and interview. It was a lie, and she knew it was a lie. And she and Bill wagged their fingers at America and chided us for believing these "vicious rumors".

By the way, I don't think Bill Clinton's policies (or Hillary's for that matter, as she was a bona fide part of the Clinton Administration) were all that bad in the 90s. His personal moral behavior was disgusting, and I agree that him seeing himself still, all these decades later, as a victim of sorts, is absurd and possibly a sign of a personality disorder (though I'm no psychiatrist). But most of the things the administration did, the ways in which they collaborated with congress, the reduction of the national debt, at least for a time, the trade policies, pretty much most things except for my major sticking point, abortion, were not bad. In many ways Clinton, Bush 41, Bush 43 and Obama had more in common, more than many people know, than they all have with Trump.

We do have more than a little in common. I don't know if Trump is genuinely concerned with borders or demagoguing. Probably the latter. He certainly has a penchant for it! But...a nation still has the right to protect its borders, protect its workers from unfair competition distorting the balance of supply and demand (and immigrating to another country through improper channels and then seeking to become part of the job market has the net effect of lowering wages in any field in which illegal immigrants tend to take part. Immigrants come from all over the world illegally, from Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, North America, this is not purely a matter of a handful of xenophobic, unreconstructed bigots hating people of different races). There are real issues here above and beyond populist politics and prejudices. Am sick of hearing leaders of countries who'd never put up with it themselves, or who have strong national uprisings against poorly-managed immigration, like Germany, wagging their fingers at us.

 

It seems we disagree on immigration. Net effect on wages is not this simple, for one. Also, the debate is not about "illegal" immigration. "Shithole countries" comment was in different context, for one. Note how a lot of venom is spewed on "anchor babies", DV lottery and "chain migration", which is all legal. Intent is to scapegoat immigrants - all immigrants. Which is, again, something that turned me firmly against Conservatives here up north, even though they are not technically anti-immigrant (raised the quota, in fact. Anti-immigrant sentiment so far does not fly here in federal politics).

P.S. I told you you're my fellow Clintonite Thirdwayist! I feel that I'm somewhat to the left of you, though.

 

Immigration is winning issue for both the Republican party and the Democratic party. Businesses want cheap labor, so republicans are not going to fix immigration- also the far right don’t mind hearing a few digs at immigrants. Democrats wants votes so they are not going to fix immigration- the far left dont mind shouting racism for the silliest thing. The whole thing is a game. Both the republican and the democrats are playing to their base at the expense of immigrants.

 

Under a Republican Congress, the United States accepts more legal immigrants each year than any other nation on the planet. How is that a disaster?

 

SteveFoerster:

• The U.S. accepts more legal immigrants than any other nation on the planet.
• The U.S. is comprised of 98% immigrants or descendants of immigrants - and it's that per capita figure that actually matters.

 

The time period in question matters.

 

Interesting immigration statistics
https://priceonomics.com/which-countries-have-the-most-immigrants/

 

I'm not an elaborate fellow but what I mean is that immigration rates vary over periods of time. They sure have in the U.S.

 

Not the president! Ever!

 

He he! SteveFoerster, Abner thinks that's funny!

P.S. Oh no, I am starting to sound like me again SteveFoerster. j/k