Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Purple Haze [View all]
I had generally avoided DU:GDP until January, because I found so much of the arguing on OP/threads to be non-productive. Certainly, the previous discussions in Democratic primary seasons had high levels of toxicity including my own contributions to such foolishness. So I didnt want any part of it this time.
As a member of the Democratic Party who has voted for our nominee in virtually every election in my adult life, I was pleased with the three candidates in this primary. I thought that Martin OMalley was one of the better candidates that Ive seen. In a normal year -- whatever the heck normal means -- I think hed have been an outstanding choice. The fact that his campaign didnt catch on suggests this year present extraordinary issues for voters to consider.
In the past couple of weeks, Ive said that I have decided to support Bernie Sanders. In doing so, I havent attacked Hillary Clinton. While I do not like some of the people associated with her campaign, I like her as an individual; and, as a politician, I think she is very good on most domestic issues. There are some areas that Im not comfortable with her, that I thought might be interesting to discuss.
I think that I have pretty solid friendships with some of this forums members who are supporting Hillary Clinton for president. I respect them, and their opinions -- which is why Im comfortable posting this. There are also a lot of pro-Clinton people here that Im not acquainted with; I have been favorably impressed with some of their contributions here, and not so much with others. And, theres a third group -- those who identify me as an enemy, and/or have concluded that Im a jackass, not worth conversing with. In reading some of their contributions to DU, Ive thought some were very good, and that others were very disappointing.
What Im hoping is that some of the pro-Clinton people will read this, and consider it worth responding to. Also, I want to make clear that no politician is perfect; because one might disagree with a candidate on some issues, that need not translate in refusing to vote for them ..for, as Malcolm X said, any time two people think exactly alike, it is proof that only one of the two is actually thinking. So I hope that people will find this worth discussing, and more, that it is worth debating without resorting to insults aimed at others.
The 2016 Democratic primary has been one for the history books. At first, it seemed like no one was going to throw their hat into the ring, and compete against Hillary Clinton. She is definitely a formidable candidate, with important experience as First Lady, a US Senator, and Secretary of State. Also, she is backed by a powerful segment of the Democratic Party.
However, the mood of the country might have been taken as a warning that many people, looking for change, were unhappy with the potential of a Bush vs. Clinton contest in 2016. Weve seen that, in different ways, in both the Democratic and republican primaries. Rightly or wrongly, this has led to people having lots of questions about Hillary Clinton .some of which have certainly been encouraged by republican shit heads like Karl Rove, but others that are legitimate concerns of good human beings. The popularity of the Bernie Sanders movement cannot be dismissed as republican shenanigans. And when Clinton supporters attempt to attribute negative motivations to Sanders supporters, it comes across as shallow -- just as when Sanders supporters attack the sincerity and intelligence of Clinton supporters.
Some issues that are proving difficult for the Clinton campaign to deal with, while important, do not disqualify Hillary on their own. This is, in my opinion, the case with the transcripts from Clintons presentations to Goldman-Sachs. The fees she was paid are, of course, offensive to some, but not a big deal to others. And ones response to her refusing to release the transcripts likely depends on their opinion of those speakers fees. Still, there are people -- including Democrats -- who might have been okay with the fees, but who find her refusal to release the transcripts questionable. I think it could become a major issue in the primary contest, if the transcripts are not opened for public inspection.
The two issues that Id like to discuss may not play a significant role in this contest. But not everything important gets covered by the media, just as everything covered by the media isnt necessarily important. The first one relates to Hillary Clinton going to Flint, where the water has been poisoned as a result of greedy politicians who do not care about human beings outside of their socio-economic class.
I think it was good that she went there. I dont think it was an attempt to exploit those peoples suffering. But heres what I do have a problem with: Hillary Clinton is pro-fracking, and as I have seen firsthand, fracking poisons peoples water.
I do not think that Ms. Clinton favors the poisoning of peoples water. So, in my opinion, that leaves two alternative explanations. She could be ignorant about the dangers of fracking. Maybe people have lied to her, and presented it as safe, and discredited the many people who have publicly opposed fracking. And I find that idea troubling.
The second option that I can come up with is that shes somewhat aware of the dangers, but subscribes to the big business model with acceptable number of deaths per hundred thousand, in association with a process or product. I have met both heads of energy corporations and public officials -- the unelected and elected leaders of our government -- who are aware of those results from poisoning the water, but are able to detach from being human, and see only digits on papers, mainly representing dollars and cents. I find that disturbing.
The second issue involves Henry Kissinger. I think that Henry ranks very high among the most vile, evil people in this nations history. I understand that, in the world of politics at the national level, you are likely to encounter all types of people ..including good people, as well as republicans. And while Hillary might well have benefited politically, had she opted to choke Kissinger on live tv, I understand why she couldnt. And you know as well as I that Karl Rove would twist the truth, and use it against Clinton if she does become the partys nominee.
Im troubled by Hillary Clintons approach to Henry Kissinger. Again, I get that she cant choke him. But she acts as if he is an honorable man. He is not. Kissinger is a war criminal, worse than even Dick Cheney.
Do those here who support Hillary find Kissinger acceptable? Honorable? Can you see how this type of thing reinforces many good peoples opinions -- on things like Occupy, the 1%, Mitts infamous statistic, the 99% -- that the establishment is very separate from us common folk. That, at times, we view DC as having Democrats and republicans who relate to government, much like lawyers relate to the court. The prosecutor and defense attorney are opponents inside that court room, and represent different people. But they are still officers of the court. Im not saying thats wrong for lawyers, but thats a different question from if politicians do the same.
I hope that people find this non-offensive, and worth responding to.
Thanks,
H2O Man
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
39 replies, 2267 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (47)
ReplyReply to this post
39 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kissinger is old news and I don't care what he says or doesn't say about Hillary.
leftofcool
Feb 2016
#1
Both Hill and Bill have been -bragging- about Kissingers association with Hillary.
RiverLover
Feb 2016
#5
To be fair, she propagated fracking OUTSIDE the US. You know, where other people live.
thereismore
Feb 2016
#2
My friend, my everlasting thanks for providing us with a well-reasoned, logical, intelligent....
Hekate
Feb 2016
#15
"I’m troubled by Hillary Clinton’s approach to Henry Kissinger." - BINGO.
Warren DeMontague
Feb 2016
#21
I never had a problem with Hillary going to Flint but I have to agree with former NAACP
Uncle Joe
Feb 2016
#27
K&R. An absolutely fantastic post, as we've come to expect from you, good sir.
bullwinkle428
Feb 2016
#37