Political Randomness

[El Guapo]

Howard Stern, of all people, scored an interview with Hillary Clinton. I have a sneaking suspicion she's gearing up for something in light of this. However, the interview was actually quite good and went a long way to humanizing her. I'm not a fan of the Clintons, to be honest. But some of the things she said/admitted made me like her a little bit.

I would suggest that your prior feelings on Hillary Clinton are largely the result of the general and mostly detail-free atmosphere of scandal caused by a couple decades of spurious Republican investigations, along with media buy-in.

[LawBeefaroni]

Howard Stern, of all people, scored an interview with Hillary Clinton. I have a sneaking suspicion she's gearing up for something in light of this. However, the interview was actually quite good and went a long way to humanizing her. I'm not a fan of the Clintons, to be honest. But some of the things she said/admitted made me like her a little bit.

She's a grifter like the rest of them. About the best thing I can say about her is that she would have been a better President than Trump.

This is a ridiculous statement, unless this is generic "all politicians are the same" political nihilism. Well, I suppose it's still ridiculous then, but standard as far as it goes.

How is it ridiculous? Or how is she so different?

[El Guapo]

Howard Stern, of all people, scored an interview with Hillary Clinton. I have a sneaking suspicion she's gearing up for something in light of this. However, the interview was actually quite good and went a long way to humanizing her. I'm not a fan of the Clintons, to be honest. But some of the things she said/admitted made me like her a little bit.

She's a grifter like the rest of them. About the best thing I can say about her is that she would have been a better President than Trump.

This is a ridiculous statement, unless this is generic "all politicians are the same" political nihilism. Well, I suppose it's still ridiculous then, but standard as far as it goes.

How is it ridiculous? Or how is she so different?

How is Hillary Clinton a grifter?

It's not that she's so different and unique. She's a fairly standard center-left politician. It's like calling Biden or Obama grifters.

[LawBeefaroni]

Howard Stern, of all people, scored an interview with Hillary Clinton. I have a sneaking suspicion she's gearing up for something in light of this. However, the interview was actually quite good and went a long way to humanizing her. I'm not a fan of the Clintons, to be honest. But some of the things she said/admitted made me like her a little bit.

She's a grifter like the rest of them. About the best thing I can say about her is that she would have been a better President than Trump.

This is a ridiculous statement, unless this is generic "all politicians are the same" political nihilism. Well, I suppose it's still ridiculous then, but standard as far as it goes.

How is it ridiculous? Or how is she so different?

How is Hillary Clinton a grifter?

It's not that she's so different and unique. She's a fairly standard center-left politician. It's like calling Biden or Obama grifters.

He politics aren't what I'm talking about. She is venal and opportunitistic. I'd take her over Trump, like I said, but she is far from my favorite. Which makes her like most "choices" we are served.

[El Guapo]

Howard Stern, of all people, scored an interview with Hillary Clinton. I have a sneaking suspicion she's gearing up for something in light of this. However, the interview was actually quite good and went a long way to humanizing her. I'm not a fan of the Clintons, to be honest. But some of the things she said/admitted made me like her a little bit.

She's a grifter like the rest of them. About the best thing I can say about her is that she would have been a better President than Trump.

This is a ridiculous statement, unless this is generic "all politicians are the same" political nihilism. Well, I suppose it's still ridiculous then, but standard as far as it goes.

How is it ridiculous? Or how is she so different?

How is Hillary Clinton a grifter?

It's not that she's so different and unique. She's a fairly standard center-left politician. It's like calling Biden or Obama grifters.

He politics aren't what I'm talking about. She is venal and opportunitistic. I'd take her over Trump, like I said, but she is far from my favorite. Which makes her like most "choices" we are served.

A grifter is a low-level conman (or conwoman #feminism) out to swindle people for their own profit. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "venal and opportunistic", but she's not a grifter.

[LawBeefaroni]

Howard Stern, of all people, scored an interview with Hillary Clinton. I have a sneaking suspicion she's gearing up for something in light of this. However, the interview was actually quite good and went a long way to humanizing her. I'm not a fan of the Clintons, to be honest. But some of the things she said/admitted made me like her a little bit.

She's a grifter like the rest of them. About the best thing I can say about her is that she would have been a better President than Trump.

This is a ridiculous statement, unless this is generic "all politicians are the same" political nihilism. Well, I suppose it's still ridiculous then, but standard as far as it goes.

How is it ridiculous? Or how is she so different?

How is Hillary Clinton a grifter?

It's not that she's so different and unique. She's a fairly standard center-left politician. It's like calling Biden or Obama grifters.

He politics aren't what I'm talking about. She is venal and opportunitistic. I'd take her over Trump, like I said, but she is far from my favorite. Which makes her like most "choices" we are served.

A grifter is a low-level conman (or conwoman #feminism) out to swindle people for their own profit. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "venal and opportunistic", but she's not a grifter.

Trump isn't literally a pile of shit. But he's still a pile of shit. Clinton may not literally be a low-level conartist (gender neutral FTW!) but she is still a political grifter.

[Holman]

What are some powerful examples of HRC grifting or being venal and opportunistic in ways that would seem unusual in politics? (Obviously every politician is opportunistic to some degree or another. They have to be.)

I don't agree with all of her choices, but I've really never seem a compelling list of her "crimes." It's always just insinuation and contempt for something about her personality. Nearly every attack on her eventually boils down to caricature.

Clinton's biggest crime is being an unapologetically smart, hyper-capable, and effective politician. It really seems like our culture just can't handle a woman in that role.

[LawBeefaroni]

What are some powerful examples of HRC grifting or being venal and opportunistic in ways that would seem unusual in politics? (Obviously every politician is opportunistic to some degree or another. They have to be.)

If it's usual it's ok?

Clinton's biggest crime is being an unapologetically smart, hyper-capable, and effective politician. It really seems like our culture just can't handle a woman in that role.

I didn't claim that she stood out among politicians. I said she was like the rest of them (most of the rest of them anyway).

[Holman]

What are some powerful examples of HRC grifting or being venal and opportunistic in ways that would seem unusual in politics? (Obviously every politician is opportunistic to some degree or another. They have to be.)

If it's usual it's ok?

In practice, I can accept the "usual" level of opportunism as grudgingly acceptable, though not ideal.

Again, I'll need examples of what's so bad about HRC.

Clinton's biggest crime is being an unapologetically smart, hyper-capable, and effective politician. It really seems like our culture just can't handle a woman in that role.

I didn't claim that she stood out among politicians. I said she was like the rest of them (most of the rest of them anyway).

So what explains that absurd excess of bile and derision heaped on Clinton compared to most of the rest of them?

[noxiousdog]

So what explains that absurd excess of bile and derision heaped on Clinton compared to most of the rest of them?

Nobody except New York elected her (and why New York?) and yet she's been a fixture of American politics for 30 years.

[El Guapo]

So what explains that absurd excess of bile and derision heaped on Clinton compared to most of the rest of them?

Nobody except New York elected her (and why New York?) and yet she's been a fixture of American politics for 30 years.

That's not a particularly compelling explanation. That's true of a large number of politicians, including most senators and a lot representatives.

[noxiousdog]

So what explains that absurd excess of bile and derision heaped on Clinton compared to most of the rest of them?

Nobody except New York elected her (and why New York?) and yet she's been a fixture of American politics for 30 years.

That's not a particularly compelling explanation. That's true of a large number of politicians, including most senators and a lot representatives.

Like whom?

[stessier]

So what explains that absurd excess of bile and derision heaped on Clinton compared to most of the rest of them?

Nobody except New York elected her (and why New York?) and yet she's been a fixture of American politics for 30 years.

That's not a particularly compelling explanation. That's true of a large number of politicians, including most senators and a lot representatives.

Like whom?

Mitch McConnel?

[noxiousdog]

So what explains that absurd excess of bile and derision heaped on Clinton compared to most of the rest of them?

Nobody except New York elected her (and why New York?) and yet she's been a fixture of American politics for 30 years.

That's not a particularly compelling explanation. That's true of a large number of politicians, including most senators and a lot representatives.

Like whom?

Mitch McConnel?

He's the Senate majority leader. He was elected by other Republicans. Furthermore, he's more disliked than Hillary.

[stessier]

So what explains that absurd excess of bile and derision heaped on Clinton compared to most of the rest of them?

Nobody except New York elected her (and why New York?) and yet she's been a fixture of American politics for 30 years.

That's not a particularly compelling explanation. That's true of a large number of politicians, including most senators and a lot representatives.

Like whom?

Mitch McConnel?

He's the Senate majority leader. He was elected by other Republicans. Furthermore, he's more disliked than Hillary.

I don't think I understand the comparison you are asking for. Is it someone who has been in politics for 30 years who isn't hated?

Still, Clinton was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. So she's still had more people saying "yes" than McConnell.

[Remus West]

Still, Clinton was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. So she's still had more people saying "yes" than McConnell.

Particularly Bill. Mostly when she is out of town.

[stessier]

Still, Clinton was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. So she's still had more people saying "yes" than McConnell.

Particularly Bill. Mostly when she is out of town.

Rimshot?

[Remus West]

Still, Clinton was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. So she's still had more people saying "yes" than McConnell.

Particularly Bill. Mostly when she is out of town.

Rimshot?

I don't know if he goes that way. Ask Monica I suppose.

[dbt1949]

I can understand old men wanting to be president. What I can't understand is people voting for them.
An old person's mind is not in it's prime of life. We're constantly forgetting things and can't comprehend a lot of new things.
I thought the general public knew this.
Remember Reagan's senility in his later years?
I realize that some some oldsters have better brains than their peers but I'd be willing to bet even those had better brains in their younger years.
I guess presidents are actually "run" by their advisors and make decisions based on their personal beliefs but wouldn't rather they were based on a sharp mind?

[Kraken]

I can understand old men wanting to be president. What I can't understand is people voting for them.
An old person's mind is not in it's prime of life. We're constantly forgetting things and can't comprehend a lot of new things.
I thought the general public knew this.
Remember Reagan's senility in his later years?
I realize that some some oldsters have better brains than their peers but I'd be willing to bet even those had better brains in their younger years.
I guess presidents are actually "run" by their advisors and make decisions based on their personal beliefs but wouldn't rather they were based on a sharp mind?

Old and young voters show surprising allegiances

In a nutshell: Young voters support the oldest candidates because they're the most progressive and energetic. Old voters support the youngest because he's conservative and they're skeptical that septuagenarians have the stamina to do the job. Biden bucks that trend; youngsters don't like him because of his conservatism, whereas oldsters think he's the most electable because he has the highest minority support, and because youngsters don't vote.

Myself, I think most of us over 60 can attest that we aren't as sharp as we used to be...but maybe we're a little wiser than we used to be, which isn't a bad tradeoff.

[Unagi]

On what planet is it a rule where the oldest candidate is the most progressive.
I’d think it would trend the opposite way.

[Kraken]

It's not a rule; it's the reality in this field of candidates. One would expect the opposite, hence "surprising allegiances."

[Smoove_B]

Exclusive: Phrase ‘White Nationalists’ Cut From Measure To Screen Military Enlistees:

A measure in the National Defense Authorization Act meant to keep white nationalists out of the U.S. military no longer mentions “white nationalists” after Congress quietly altered the text after it initially passed the House.

The change, which has not been previously reported, could water down a House-passed amendment meant to address the threat of white nationalists in the military. The House language was specifically drafted to encourage screening for white nationalist beliefs in military enlistees. But after the Republican-controlled Senate passed its own version of the massive military spending bill and the two chambers’ bills were reconciled, the final NDAA instead requires the Department of Defense to study ways to screen military enlistees for “extremist and gang-related activity.”

Seems reasonable. Also, WTF?

[LawBeefaroni]

Exclusive: Phrase ‘White Nationalists’ Cut From Measure To Screen Military Enlistees:

A measure in the National Defense Authorization Act meant to keep white nationalists out of the U.S. military no longer mentions “white nationalists” after Congress quietly altered the text after it initially passed the House.

The change, which has not been previously reported, could water down a House-passed amendment meant to address the threat of white nationalists in the military. The House language was specifically drafted to encourage screening for white nationalist beliefs in military enlistees. But after the Republican-controlled Senate passed its own version of the massive military spending bill and the two chambers’ bills were reconciled, the final NDAA instead requires the Department of Defense to study ways to screen military enlistees for “extremist and gang-related activity.”

Seems reasonable. Also, WTF?

See the DoD Nazi tweet and other instances of white nationalist recruitment. Gain the military and you win.

A 2009 Department of Homeland Security (HLS) report further warned that the combination of the election of the first African American president, a downturn in the economy, and an influx of unemployed vets returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan were potential flashpoints and that military personnel and veterans were being targeted by far-right extremist groups. But this report created a political firestorm among Republican politicians, conservative commentators and veteran groups. As a result, it was rescinded by Secretary Janet Napolitano, and the Obama administration subsequently did little to address the issue.

Ten years later, it is clear that the military still needs to actively combat far-right extremism and white nationalism that threatens to infiltrate its ranks. In 2010, for example, a Marine Corps sniper team in Afghanistan posed for pictures with a Nazi flag, and there have been additional reports that the KKK and other organizations were, and likely still are, seeking to recruit military veterans.

Furthermore, the military (particularly the active Army, National Guard and Reserve) is finding it increasingly difficult to achieve required goals for recruiting and retention. This discourages both recruiters and even commanders from digging too deep into the background of potential recruits.

The vast majority of our military does not support such fringe ideas. But it also is not unaware of the problem. A recent survey conducted by Military Times reported that 22 percent of service personnel had seen signs of white nationalism or racist ideology within the armed forces. This was the same as the results from a similar survey conducted in the aftermath of the 2017 clash between white supremacists and counter protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia.

[Kraken]

I have a hard time understanding why the military is politically pro-Trump (apart from loyalty to the Constitution and chain of command, obviously). I guess it's because he bashes the brass and praises the grunts?

[hepcat]

I have a hard time understanding why the military is politically pro-Trump

They're not.

[Holman]

In the years after 9/11, former U.S. counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke warned Congress that the country needed more expansive spying powers to prevent another catastrophe. Five years after leaving government, he shopped the same idea to an enthusiastic partner: an Arab monarchy with deep pockets.

In 2008, Clarke went to work as a consultant guiding the United Arab Emirates as it created a cyber surveillance capability that would utilize top American intelligence contractors to help monitor threats against the tiny nation.

The secret unit Clarke helped create had an ominous acronym: DREAD, short for Development Research Exploitation and Analysis Department. In the years that followed, the UAE unit expanded its hunt far beyond suspected extremists to include a Saudi women’s rights activist, diplomats at the United Nations and personnel at FIFA, the world soccer body. By 2012, the program would be known among its American operatives by a codename: Project Raven.

DREAD?

It's like they've skipped "villain" and gone straight to "comic-book villain," except the torture and rape grounds it right here in the real-world worst timeline.

[Isgrimnur]

NBC News

Rudy Giuliani says he's "more of a Jew" than liberal billionaire George Soros, who survived the Nazi occupation of Hungary as a teen.

In a remarkable interview with New York magazine, Giuliani, President Donald Trump's lawyer, painted Soros as a puppet master who has secretly been pulling the strings in Ukraine. Soros is a frequent target of conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the world.

"Don’t tell me I’m anti-Semitic if I oppose him," Giuliani said. "Soros is hardly a Jew. I’m more of a Jew than Soros is. I probably know more about — he doesn’t go to church, he doesn’t go to religion — synagogue. He doesn’t belong to a synagogue, he doesn’t support Israel, he’s an enemy of Israel. He’s elected eight anarchist DAs in the United States. He’s a horrible human being."

He said the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who testified in the impeachment inquiry that she'd been smeared and forced out of her job by Giuliani, was "controlled" by Soros.

"He put all four ambassadors there. And he’s employing the FBI agents," Giuliani told the magazine.

Asked by NBC News if his comments about being more Jewish than Soros were made in jest, Giuliani, who's of Italian descent and was raised Roman Catholic, responded by text, "I'm more Jewish than half my friends."

[dbt1949]

I really think he crazier than Trump. If possible.

[Defiant]

[Isgrimnur]

CNN

Members of SEAL Team 7 Alpha Platoon described their platoon leader, retired Special Operations Chief Eddie Gallagher, as "toxic" and "evil," according to video recordings of the interviews obtained by The New York Times.
...
"The guy is freaking evil," Special Operator First Class Craig Miller said of Gallagher during his interview with Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents, the Times reported.

"You could tell he was perfectly O.K. with killing anybody that was moving," Special Operator First Class Corey Scott said of his former platoon leader, the newspaper reported.

"The guy was toxic," Special Operator First Class Joshua Vriens told investigators, the report said.

In the videos obtained by the Times, the platoon members accuse Gallagher of shooting at a 12-year-old, refer to Gallagher as a "psychopath," and tell of rumors that Gallagher had targeted civilians.

The video interviews were included in a hoard of Navy investigative materials the Times received about the prosecution of Gallagher, who was accused of war crimes. They provide rare insight into the elite force with a code of silence -- and into the men of Alpha Platoon, SEAL Team 7 who have never spoken publicly about the case against their former platoon leader.

His response (at the link) is basically, they're liars and cowards.

[El Guapo]

But who are you going to believe? An American hero, or other more numerous and credible American heroes?

[Isgrimnur]

I am not now, nor, do I believe, have I ever been, representative of the rest of the population in terms of my beliefs.

[Defiant]

[LawBeefaroni]

But who are you going to believe? An American hero, or other more numerous and credible American heroes?

Which one(s) had dinner at Mar-a-lago?

[Holman]

I'd lay money on the expectation that Gallagher will be arrested for domestic abuse or some other violent crime within three years.

He tortured and murdered a tied-up prisoner and murdered an unarmed old man and a young girl. He's a homicidal maniac and a disgrace to the service.

That Trump and his followers could celebrate him as a hero tells you everything you need to know about them.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'd lay money on the expectation that Gallagher will be arrested for domestic abuse or some other violent crime within three years.

Arrested, maybe. Convicted, no. Hell, he'll probably be a diplomat soon.

[Isgrimnur]

To the Philippines.

[Holman]

I wonder how many people are noticing that this is actually the “shoot someone on fifth avenue” moment.

Trump doesn’t pull the trigger here, but he makes it consequence-free. The narrative is that a killer like Gallagher is pure Trump, and the crowd goes wild.

[Daehawk]

America seems rotten to the core.