dagblog - Comments for "Summary - The Role of Money in Elections, 2016 in Particular"

It's always time for a little

Flavius — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 04:51:59 +0000

In reply to I don't think they were worth

It's always time for a little Auden

....................................................................

Evil is unspectacular and always human,

And shares our bed and eats at our own table

And we are introduced to Goodness every day,

Even in drawing- rooms among a crowd of faults;

He has a name like Billy and is almost perfect

But wears a stammer like a decoration:

And every time they meet the same thing has to happen;

It is Evil that is helpless like a lover

And has to pick a quarrel and succeeds,

And both are openly destroyed before our eyes.

from Herman Melville

W.H.Auden

.................................................................................

We'll see.

I don't think they were worth

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 16:39:37 +0000

In reply to I don't agree that any of

I don't think they were worth discussing, either.

My assertion is they had an impact on the election.

It fed into the claim that she "lied" and was "untrustworthy."

Rather, those scandals formed the foundation of these charges and the newer ones simply fit into a long-running narrative that always came out whenever she ran.

I don't agree that any of

Flavius — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 01:29:27 +0000

In reply to I don't know what you're

I don't agree that any of the "Clinton scandals" were worth discussion

We weren't selecting a candidate for sainthood ;we were trying to increase the odds on Obamacare being preserved.

I don't know what you're

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 18:27:30 +0000

In reply to I fundamentally disagree.

I don't know what you're disagreeing with here, Flavius.

Yah, Michelle Obama hated her

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 18:22:20 +0000

In reply to To your point about the

Yah, Michelle Obama hated her, Edelman had broken with her, she felt challenged by Elizabeth Warren... all this People Magazine/National Enquirer manufactured scandal, like keeping up with Taylor Swift v Kim Kardashian.

2 hours?

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 18:07:41 +0000

In reply to I fundamentally disagree.

2 hours?

To your point about the

rmrd0000 — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:22:27 +0000

In reply to I fundamentally disagree.

To your point about the Children's Defense Fund, Marian Wright Edelman introduced Hillary at the first speech after losing the election.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/never-ever-give-hillary-clinton-make...

I fundamentally disagree.

Flavius — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:01:13 +0000

In reply to This post was in response to

I fundamentally disagree.

As everyone else in capitalist countries we are the beneficiaries of a system of pervasive misconduct.

Beneficiaries ? In any time up to Jan 1 1990 you could just take a two hour train ride from Vienna to Prague and see the consequences of a non capitalistic society. We benefited by just not living there.

Pervasive misconduct. Gotta go so let me just state Goldman Sachs , for example, was no more unethical than any other capitalist organization. The incentives:rewards or punishments for success are so powerful that it is romantic to believe in the honesty of any corporation.

Much the same is true of politics. "Political dishonesty" is tautological.

What was unique about Hillary was that she also did good.Her 40 year connection with the Children's Defense Fund was not matched by any other politician. Although often disputed here during 2016 by the

claim that Marian Wright Edelman had broken with her. To acknowledge her life time of doing good would

have been to fly in the face of the "rich bitch" assessment that was in vogue.

See ya.

This post was in response to

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:14:00 +0000

In reply to Summary - The Role of Money in Elections, 2016 in Particular

This post was in response to Peracles's Money In Politics essay.