The silly game of "Six Degrees of Hillary Clinton".

[DanTex]

"Six degrees of separation" refers to the Stanley Milgram experiment, which found that two Americans from different walks of life and parts of the country can, on average, be connected by a chain of six acquaintances.

When it comes to Hillary Clinton, though, even six is an overestimate. Through the White House, Senator, SoS, Clinton Foundation, the number of leaders in many different fields that are direct acquaintances is enormous. And just two links would probably connect her to most people that you would read about in a national news story. In fact, while writing this I thought of two different ways that I am connected by three links to her: she's never heard of me, but she's still a friend of a friend of a friend.

All of this makes that game that Hillary bashers like to play -- find someone who did something bad, link that person to Hillary, and use that link to smear Hillary -- exceptionally silly. You can link anyone to Hillary. Putin or Nelson Mandela. Steve Jobs or Bernie Madoff.

So it's easy to find people who are linked to Hillary and something bad. It's just as easy to find people who did something good. There are people who met Hillary somewhere, and then they made a lot of money in a business venture. There are also people who met her and then lost a lot of money in a business venture. Her rolodex is ripe for cherry-picking.

But in the end, it's all meaningless. It's just another substanceless display of Hillary-hate.

[Armstead]

1. It's the One and Two Degrees of Separation that are worrisome

[DanTex]

2. The one and two degrees cover most prominent people in the world.

It's just a game of cherry-picking. For some reason, the Hillary bashers never choose links like these. Why do you think that might be?

[Armstead]

4. This aint the Dali Lama....

(Stolen from this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511540067)

Why is the top lobbyist for a huge union busting company hosting campaign fund raisers for Hillary?

Clinton Offshore Fundraising Effort Being Co-Hosted by Walmart Lobbyist
By Michael Arria / AlterNet
February 9, 2016

Hillary Clinton's campaign is holding fundraisers in Mexico this Wednesday, just one day after the New Hampshire primary. Clinton is not attending the events, and offshore fundraising efforts aren't rare for presidential candidates, but the players involved have direct connections to Walmart, where Clinton served as board member from 1986-1992.

The events are being hosted by Clinton campaign treasurer Jose Villarreal, who has maintained close connections to Walmart and the Walton family for years. As the Huffington Post's Samantha Lachman detailed in 2015, "Villarreal has spent decades on the boards of companies dominated by the Waltons, who remain a target of choice for the progressives whom Clinton's 2016 campaign is trying to win over. He was the lead director at Walmart; a board member at First Solar, an energy company where the Waltons are the largest investors; and a board member at Teach for America, the KIPP Foundation and Leadership for Educational Equality, to which the Waltons also have strong ties."

One of the listed co-hosts is Ivan Zapien, who has been a Walmart lobbyist since 2009. Zapien moved to Mexico with the company last year. Before leaving, Zapien wrote a letter to the staff, "In my new job, I will lead federal and state government relations, sustainability, communications and the Walmart foundation in Mexico."

http://www.alternet.org/labor/clinton-offshore-fundraising-effort-being-co-hosted-walmart-lobbyist

[DanTex]

7. You didn't answer my question. Of all the people Hillary knows why just cherry-pick a few examples

of people who have (or seem to have) done something wrong? I don't have a tenth of the Rolodex that Hillary has, and I also know some people who have done some wrongs. Do you really think this demonstrates anything?

[Armstead]

8. You're too smart to act that naive

Look at who is behind her campaign, who she and Bill have been affiliated with and her tacit and active participation in a system that needs fundamental housecleaning.

[DanTex]

10. Personal attacks against me don't answer the question either.

She's been affiliated with a huge number of people over her career, it's easy to cherry-pick examples of people you don't like.

There's been zero evidence of any of the supposed "corruption" that Hillary bashers are so positive that happened. Just a bunch of innuendo, and given the number of people she's been affiliated with, the small number of supposed examples that people have found shows utterly nothing.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

28. How much money did those folks pictured.....

..... donate to The Clinton Foundation or her campaign?

[NWCorona]

5. Are you gonna show the other pictures?

[Darb]

14. Those don't count...............BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!

Try to get up to speed.

[angrychair]

37. You're creating a logical fallacy

If I cannot prove that all her business dealings and personal connections are "bad" than I have no right to say that some of her business dealings and personal connections are not "bad".

Having "good" business associates and friends does not preclude one from bad ones.
There have been many mobsters and drug kingpins who were very well known philothropic givers in their communities and countries of origin. In fact it is a very well known and common tactic.
I am not saying she is a mobster or drug kingpin, only that they are one of many examples I can give to prove the assertion being made ridiculous.

The assertion being made in this article and your follow-up is a ridiculous and absurd conjecture to make and completely illogical and false.

Why?
For many reasons, not the least of which is the reasons I stated above and the admissions from the Clintons themselves.
We know, from images, third-party validation and stories and personal accounts and statements from the Clintons themselves, they are personal friends and associates with the Bushs, Trumps and Kissingers. All are decidedly not good people and not people any Democrat I know would ever call a "friend".

[sufrommich]

3. Yep. Between this and conspiracy theories,

it seems to be the fuel of some Sanders supporters.

By the way,there's an article today about Sanders friendship with James Inhofe.Notice nobody is making shrill accusations of his friendship as "proof" of nefarious "connections".


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/21/why-bernie-sanders-loves-the-most-conservative-man-in-the-senate.html

[Armstead]

6. Friendships are not the same as "connections"

Clinton has plenty of both....It's the "connections" that worry me.

And not just because of Clinton personally,. it represents a web of systemic corruption that she is unfortunately all too comnfortable with. (As an example see my post above.)

[Betty Karlson]

9. Kissinger only needs one degree. I'd be fine with six degrees, but one?

That is scary. Just like her palling around with W at Nancy Reagan's funeral, before praising Nancy for silent AIDS activism.

And what is even more scary is that meanwhile, too many ordinary men and women need more than six degrees to be connected to Clinton. She is the incarnation of present-day elite and status quo: disconnected from reality, heavily connected in the right-wing echo-chamber.

[DanTex]

11. Most world leaders over the last three decades are only one or two degrees.

Hillary haters focus on Kissinger and ignore the big picture.

[Betty Karlson]

12. That big picture includes a vote for the Iraq War, support for overthrowing Khaddafi (which

cleared the way for ISIS in Libya) support for a coup against a democratically elected government in Honduras, selling fracking across the globe, calling the TPP a "golden standard", and so on.

We mention Kissinger, because he is the ugliest part of the big picture. The rest of the picture isn't pretty either, though.

[Darb]

13. Wow, Betty,

I didn't know you worked for Hillary at State. Tell us more.

[DanTex]

15. It also includes "women's rights are human rights", laying the groundwork for Iran and Cuba,

fighting for LGBT rights in Africa, etc.

The overall picture is of an advocate for justice worldwide, despite the mistake that was the IWR vote.

[Betty Karlson]

17. The IWR was hardly the only mistake. And deeds matter more than words:

Clinton's deeds have brought war and coups and terrorism into the world. Her words: praise Nancy.

[DanTex]

18. I'm sure it wasn't, but like I said, the full picture is one of dedication to human

rights and to improving living conditions throughout the world.

[Betty Karlson]

19. Explain how living conditions have improved in Honduras.

Or Libya?
Or Iraq?

How would living conditions be improved by fracking?
Or By TPP / TIPP?

Or in what world "just let the queers die off" constitutes dedication to human rights to the point where Hillary calls it "silent activism - oh no, actually, the distinction of starting a national conversation on HIV/AIDS belongs to someone else but if I use enough words it may sound like an apology even if I still refuse to condemn the Reagans purposeful inaction."

[DanTex]

20. You're just cherry-picking a few mistakes she made.

Although Libya was a complicated situation -- it was an EU-led operation, with broad international cooperation, done in order to prevent an impending mass murder or genocide. I'm quite certain that if she had decided to use her sway to block the international coalition that was warning that Gadafi was about to massacre a huge number of people, the Hillary bashers would have criticized her for it just as vociferously.

Iraq was a mistake, no doubt, but W owns that, not Hillary.

Honduras, most of what I've seen posted are fringe-lefty conspiratorial things.

Fracking was part of Obama's climate strategy, due to the fact that natural gas burns much cleaner than coal. Are you pro-coal?

She opposes TPP, although I'm not particularly concerned either way because both sides of the trade debate exaggerate the effects of free trade agreements. It's kind of strange watching people blame NAFTA for the decline of manufacturing and the increases in inequality that started two decades before it went into effect.

And Hillary most definitely never advocated letting LGBT people just die off. It's offensive to suggest that.

[Betty Karlson]

24. A pattern is now cherry-picking/ Iraq was a "mistake" but Clinton supposedly had no part in it/

fracking is now Obama's responsability/ TPP was called a "golden standard" by Clinton, meaning she was firmly on one of those sides that you say were exagerating the effects; she only changed positions when polls showed this golden standard was torpedoeing her electability, but tat's OK because NAFTA never changed anything / everything else is just fringy-lefty-conspiracy/

she praised Nancy who wanted to let gay people die in a silent genocide, but it is offensive to remind people she lauded the lady of hate, expecially after reminding people that until 2013, Clinton opposed gay rights. Opposing gay rights is not offensive, praising Nancy is not offensive, no: it is offensive to "suggest" Clinton didn't know about Nancy Reagan's nefarious role in the HIV epidemic.

So in short she is not responsable for the worst parts of her "foreign policy experience" because she made a few nice-sounding speeches.

REALLY? That is what your arguments amount to.

[DanTex]

25. It's not a pattern. She's been in public life for decades, visited and worked with hundreds of

nations, made thousands of decisions. The IWR, I've said, was a bad vote, but her vote is not the reason that the war happened. W was going in, one way or another.

As for the rest, not only are you cherry-picking, but you're also giving the worst possible spin to all of them. Sometimes I wonder if Hillary-bashers even know that the Libya campaign was mostly led by France and the UK, not the US. That it was done to prevent an impending massacre, that the Arab League requested action from the UN, and that even Bernie Sanders co-sponsored a bill in the Senate which called for UN action to protect the ongoing slaughter of civilians, "including possible imposition of a no-fly zone."

As for TPP, again you're simply assuming the worst possible explanation, with no evidence for it. In fact, Hillary has supported some FTAs and not others, which I think is wise. I although think it's wise to wait until a treaty is finalized before taking a final opinion on it, and if the TPP didn't live up to what she thought it would, then I think it's fine for her to point that out. Like I said, I would have been fine if she was still in favor, I think the FTA effects are overblown, and I'm not convinced that NAFTA caused massive job losses 20 years before it was implemented.

As for Nancy, again, rather than look at, to name one example, all the work she did as SoS to put pressure on nations to stop gross violations of LGBT rights all over the world and particularly in Africa, you focus on one mistaken statement which she made while trying to say something nice at a funeral.

The level of cherry picking is absurd.

[Betty Karlson]

27. "absurd" and "as I said" are your only responses?

Gross violations of gay rights across the globe she protested, while sending memos asking "why are we changing this form to Parent 1 and Parent 2 instead of father and mother, I want that changed back".

So she said "cut it out" while refusing to cut it out herself. Homophobia is not just in the worst excesses, it's also in less violent things like opposing forms that acknowledge the existence of same sex parents, or not.

Having evidence instead of assumptions is quite difficult, when it takes Clinton over 45 days to "look into" something as simple as releasing a Goldman Sachs transcript. Again: part of the pattern.

Instituting a no-fly zone and preventing the ascend of ISIS are two separate issues. France, UK, and Sanders wanted the first. Clinton's corporate sponsors didn't care about the second.

[DanTex]

34. I guess you didn't read the three paragraphs I wrote.

Another part of the pattern is that once confronted with facts, instead of trying to defend their absurd charges, the Hillary bashers simply move on to more cherry-picked trivialities.

For example, she fought vigorously against human rights abuses against LGBT citizens across the globe, and you would like to diminish all that work because she wanted to keep "mother" and "father" on passports.

And then the Goldman speeches, which are utterly irrelevant to anything, and are simply a political tool that Bernie is using (with no success) to try to smear her with.

Instituting a no-fly zone and preventing the ascend of ISIS are two separate issues. France, UK, and Sanders wanted the first. Clinton's corporate sponsors didn't care about the second.

LOL. So now you're saying that the French-led air campaign wasn't enough, that after Gadafi fell we should have sent in more troops to fight ISIS? So now Hillary's not enough of a hawk for you?

[Betty Karlson]

61. twist, turn, spin and mock. Oh, and an effort to hide as well.

The speeches are not irrelevant. By taking 45 days to look into it, Clinton has MADE them relevant even if their contents wouldn't have done so.

Your efforts to excuse her homophobia are the equivalent of "she should be able to kick people in the groin, because she tells others not to bash their heads with a baseball bat". - Oh, and you called this :

"more cherry-picked trivialities."

Gay rights now are trivialities when Clinton opposes them? I think your bias is showing...

We should have prevented ISIS from taking root in Libya. Hawkish foreign policies, invariably, lay the ground for groups like ISIS. That was true in 1979, in 1992, in 2003 (Clinton voted YES) and again in 2011 (Clinton at the helm). This is the pattern, and there is no suggestion that more hawkish foreign policy will suddenly render different results. Thank God that Sanders has a better plan for US foreign policy.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

36. Somebody haz a sad

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Hillary Clinton never-ever- said "let the queers die off" or implied that she was in favor of such. Posters are free to support whomever they choose during the primary but this is over the top vitriol and hyperbole, and a deliberate mis-representation of Secretary Clinton. Really deserves a hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 21, 2016, 06:56 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seems right on point to me.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerted post is not posted in a protected group. Bringing up negative aspects of any candidate is allowed in GD-P.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Betty Karlson]

60. How indicative of Clintoniam discussions:

"if we can't win, try to shoot the messenger by lying about what they said".

Well, at least someone's alerting privileges will be revoked for a day. But this alert-stalking of late would deserve a few bans, in my opinion.

----

Anyway, thanks for the results.

[Dem2]

16. It's about winning, nothing more

If one had the time to dissect the arguments posted here in GDP, most would be determined to be logical fallacies of one sort or another, the majority of the rest are fabricated outrage. 1-2 posts out of 100 offer anything insightful about either candidate.

[Chichiri]

21. That's not the Milgram experiment.

The Milgram experiment had to do with authority causing ordinary people to inflict pain.

[DanTex]

22. They were both Milgram experiments. The "obedience to authority" experiment is

the most famous one, but he also did a six degrees of separation experiment (although, as I'm now learning from Wikipedia, the term didn't come from him).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_experiment

[Chichiri]

30. I didn't know that! Thank you.

[DanTex]

31. BTW, if you're interested, there's a recent movie about him and the obedience experiment on Netflix.

https://www.netflix.com/title/80047396

[JackRiddler]

62. Well now I learned something.

It was worth it despite the deflection in the OP.

It's one degree to her choice of a mentor to advertise, Henry Kissinger. One.

[mcar]

23. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. And, then there are people who paid Hillary to perform for them.

And, they still do.

[longship]

29. Let's start with one degree.

That's all one needs.

[DanTex]

32. Cherry picking. That's really what all the Hillary-bashing comes down to.

She's been photographed and at events with basically all prominent figures in the world. And yet the haters pretend she spends all her time around Kissinger.

[longship]

33. Ah! But it's who she is photographed with that makes the difference!

One doesn't see Bernie Sanders yucking it up with criminals like Kissinger and the fucking Smirking Chimp.

It is not bashing. It is what she is. And what Bernie is not.

One question: Which of the two Democratic presidential candidates voted for the war that both Dubya and Kissinger supported?

Here's a hint:

[DanTex]

35. Like I said, there are pictures of her with everyone. But cherry-pick away.

Are there any pictures of Bernie with Aung San Suu Kyi or Nelson Mandela?

[longship]

39. But why Kissinger? That is a question people want answered!

He is, by any rational argument, a war criminal. She might as well be photographed with Dick fucking Cheney! Or Torquemada!

[DanTex]

41. Because he's a prominent world figure and they were at an event together.

And nobody wants that question answered except for Hillary-bashers. They don't even want it "answered" they just want to post that picture everywhere to smear her by association. That's why they never post the Nelson Mandela pictures.

[longship]

45. Let's get this straight, this was not just a photo OP.

Hillary did not just have her picture taken with him. Or maybe you missed her history with that war criminal.

Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton's Tutor in War and Peace (mostly war, apparently).

Here: Hillary Clinton, Kissinger

Your argument is oh so busted. And so is Hillary Clinton. She cannot escape her history no matter how people spin it.

[DanTex]

50. Who cares? She knows a lot of people and has learned a lot from a lot of people.

It's cherry-picking. And LOL that Clinton is "busted". Nobody cares about this except for a few people on the far left. She's up by 300+ delegates and she's going to be the Democratic nominee. And she's the odds on favorite to win the presidency.

[longship]

56. Let's get this straight. She did not portray that as a mere photo op.

It is not the photo that is worrisome. It is that Hillary Clinton has bought into the narrative of a war criminal. She fucking listens to him! (Which might explain some of her policies and their rather bad outcomes in Libya and Iraq -- the entire Middle East, actually.)

[DanTex]

58. Like I said, she's learned from a lot of people. You want to pretend that she's adopted Kissinger's

whole worldview, which is silly. Just as silly as you wanting to blame her for the state of the Middle East. Right, because it was going so swimmingly before Hillary showed up. If only she had stopped France from leading airstrikes against Libya, then Gadafi could have massacred all those civilians, and everything would be great now!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

40. Here's an apartheidist asshole she hangs with.

[DanTex]

43. And here she is with Putin. Evidently Secretaries of State have meetings with world leaders.

Oh, and if you're interested, here's a picture of FDR with Stalin. I guess he goes under the bus too.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

44. Evidently Hillary likes meeting those kinds of despot, IMHO.

Perhaps it touches her deeply?

[DanTex]

47. Umm, it's part of the job description. If Bernie doesn't want to meet with world leaders

he shouldn't be running for president.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

49. I can understand the attraction. Raw power.

Disregard for rule of law. War lust.

[DanTex]

51. Maybe for Bernie. For Hillary, it's part of working for human rights all improving lives all over

the world.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

52. Rubbing shoulders with apartheidists and strong men.

Bernie? Sure, if you say so.

[DanTex]

54. Yes, negotiation. I remember when it was the GOP who was bashing the idea. Apparently now it's the

far left who's against it too. Yet another example of the "horseshoe theory" in action. Go far enough left or right and they become indistinguishable.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

38. Know them by their works.

Know them by the company they keep.

...and some have the nerve to call it cherry picking.

[longship]

42. Indeed. But, but, but it's her turn. The presidency is a family affair.

Passed from husband to wife, to son, or daughter. Just like the fucking queen of England! I think we already fought one revolutionary war about that issue.

The US Presidency. It's a family affair these days.

Fuck that!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

46. Yes, fuck that!

[DanTex]

48. Only Hillary-bashers use the "her turn" meme. She's going to be the nominee because she's

who the Democratic electorate voted for.

[longship]

53. Not yet! Apparently it IS her turn.

I don't know how else to interpret it when a vast proportion of Democrats have not voted for a nominee. To proclaim a victor at this point can only be interpreted as some sort of entitlement. Or as I would call it, "It's my turn!"

Until the Hillary shrills stop flapping their gums about victory before she has the necessary delegates in hand, I absolutely will not stop making this point. To claim victory at this point is nothing but unbridled hubris.

My best to you.

[DanTex]

55. Yes yet. 300+ so far is an insurmountable lead. But if you want, wait for a few more months.

It's gonna be Hillary, because she's who the people want. You'll see.

[longship]

57. Blah, blah, blah-de-blah.

Meanwhile, half the Democrats in the most Democratic states have yet to vote.

IT'S HILLARY'S TURN! LET'S CROWN HER NOW! HUBRIS! To call this primary over.

(Plus, she likely loses in November)

[DanTex]

59. Hilary isn't calling it over. I am. And not because it's anyone's turn. Because of delegate math.

[Persondem]

63. THIS!! THIS!! THIS!! I have seen this crap for over a year. I even remember a

rigged up poster that had all kinds of KXL players on it with a series of links to Clinton. It was really worthless.

Thank you for posting this OP.

K&R

[JoePhilly]

64. Its part of their Gish Gallop style of attack ... throw so much S**T ...

... that (a) there is too much to ever adsorb, process, and vet ... and (b) people just decide it all must be true.

You'd think they'd spend more time talking about their "movement".