The Times They Are A-Changin’

Come gather ’round people wherever you roam and admit that the waters round you have grown and accept it that soon you’ll be drenched to the bone.  If your time to you is worth savin’, then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone.  For the times they are a-changin’.

Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen and keep your eyes wide the chance won’t come again and don’t speak too soon for the wheel’s still in spin and there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’.  For the loser now will be later to win.  For the times they are a-changin’.

Come senators, congressmen please heed the call.  Don’t stand in the doorway.  Don’t block up the hall.  For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled.  There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’.  It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls. For the times they are a-changin’.

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land and don’t criticize what you can’t understand.  Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command.  Your old road is rapidly agin’.  Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand.  For the times they are a-changin’.

The line it is drawn. The curse it is cast.  The slow one now will later be fast.  As the present now will later be past.  The order is rapidly fadin’ and the first one now will later be last.  For the times they are a-changin’.

Bob Dylan 1964

We baby-boomers LOVED this song.  It was our declaration of independence.  We are the children of the greatest generation.  But in our youth, all we could see was the hypocrisy of discrimination and the stifling effects of social conformity.  We celebrated individuality, freedom, and creativity.

Now we are the ones who are, at least in part, the rapidly fading order.  Millennials finally outnumber us.  We are also rapidly becoming a diverse racial country where whites are no longer the dominant race.  For some, that is welcome.  For others it is terrifying.

These tectonic demographic shifts drive our politics in ways that aren’t always obvious to those who feel the ground shifting underneath their feet.  These shifts are, none the less, a reliable prediction of where politics are moving in the future.

In order to provide a sense of context, here is an historical example.

Republicans under Abraham Lincoln forced the south to bend to the will of the federal government and free the slaves.  Whites in the south joined the Democratic Party and newly enfranchised blacks voted Republican.  The resurgent Democratic Party forced the government to remove federal troops who had been enforcing southern reconstruction. This allowed the rise of Jim Crow laws and the end of black political power.  Those white politics continued pretty much unchanged until the 60’s,  Democrats supported civil rights legislation and again imposed a new order on the south.  Blacks had been moving away from the Republican Party for decades because that party failed to support black interests (e.g. Teddy Roosevelt’s disbanding of a black army unit).  Democrats earned black votes in response to Democratic support of civil rights legislation.  Nixon’s southern strategy completed the transition of Dixiecrats to the Republican Party.

Let’s look at some of the other important growing demographic segments to see which parties they are aligned with and why.

Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans
All of these demographics are SIGNIFICANTLY younger than the white population.  The implications are obvious.  As the white population ages, the these groups will gain more political power.

It should also be obvious to even the casual observer that all of these groups have good reasons to affiliate with the Democratic Party.  Republicans have chosen to be the party of white people.  That choice was not lost on these groups.  Both Trump and Cruz promise to deport 12M undocumented workers.  Those opposed to that are going to vote Democratic.  The Republican Party largely blames the poor in this country for their condition.  Those who oppose that view are also going to vote for Democrats.

The Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman accurately described the Republican problem.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of all white voters and won election in a 44-state landslide. In 2012, GOP nominee Mitt Romney carried 59 percent of all white voters yet lost decisively. What happened? African Americans, Latinos, Asians and other non-whites — all overwhelmingly Democratic-leaning groups — rose from 12 percent of voters in 1980 to 28 percent in 2012.

Women
Regardless of how you feel about abortion, from a political perspective 54% of women are pro-choice.  Republicans are aggressively pro-life.  According to Gallup, 70% of women have an unfavorable view of Trump.  Even with Clinton’s negatives among women at 50%, she has a 20 point advantage.  If Trump continues to attack her in the run up to the presidency in the same ways that he attacked women during the primaries, it is likely that his negatives will go up and hers down.

Highly Educated Professionals
These people are naturally liberal because they value science.  Republican positions on climate change only exacerbate this Democratic advantage.

Young People
Young people are very supportive of LGBT rights and many carry massive college debt.  Republicans oppose LGBT rights and oppose any efforts to reform higher education financing.

Evangelicals
Carter woke up evangelicals.  Reagan and Schafly converted them to Republicanism.  Lately, however, evangelical leaders have moved away from the narrow social issues and embraced a larger set of concerns about helping the poor.  They remain an area of support for Republicans, but the religious zealotry of right wing conservatism has taken over from the pulpit-lead politics of previous decades.

Working Class Whites
Republicans have an advantage with low information white voters.  Trump has mobilized them because they have felt that their previous Republican votes did not deliver the change that was promised.  They are looking for someone to materially change their current tenuous condition.  Their wages have stagnated.  Their job prospects are grim.  What investments they had have not recovered from the 2008 financial collapse.  They have determined that the game is rigged against them and they want someone to blame.  This all fits well with the Republican emotional approach to politics.  The problem is that this group, while passionate, is a declining demographic and in 2016 may represent 10% of the voting population.

Conclusion
The next election will be a contentious one.  Assuming that there are no bombshells between now and November, Clinton should win with relative ease regardless of who Republicans run.  That is going to be incomprehensible for Republicans because Clinton IS in many ways the devil of their religion.  It was just as incomprehensible for them that a white country elected a black man twice, but they blamed that on Romney and McCain not being conservative enough and the government bribing 47% of the population.

The facts tell a different story.  Too many of the growing demographic groups currently have natural affiliations with Democratic policy positions for any Republican to win.  The real question is what choice the Republican faithful, in the face of yet another national failure, will make – start swimmin’ or sink like a stone.

45 Responses to “The Times They Are A-Changin’”

  1. Keith says:

    Hillary is a reflection of the times changing?

    https://www.facebook.com/icarry617/videos/1755023841386184/

    How will the Dems be able to credible say anything about Trump?

    Rooted in your post above I finds empathy for minorities because they are not equal. Ex voter ID hurts them. Why? So they must be treated differently because they are unable. Why do you have such a low view of them? I think they are equal and perfectly able.

  2. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Hillary is a reflection of the times changing?

    https://www.facebook.com/icarry617/videos/1755023841386184/

    How will the Dems be able to credible say anything about Trump?

    A lot of old news. People like you who could never imagine voting for Hillary will use this old footage to justify the decision that you have already made. A large majority of voters are going to compare what Hillary says with what Trump says. The result will be a big win for the Democrats.

    Rooted in your post above I finds empathy for minorities because they are not equal. Ex voter ID hurts them. Why? So they must be treated differently because they are unable. Why do you have such a low view of them? I think they are equal and perfectly able.

    More confirmation bias on your part. Though I do tend to care more about “fairness” than you do, that’s not my fundamental reason for opposing voter ID’s.

    I am a believer in democracy. The best elections are not the ones that Democrats win. The best elections are the ones where every eligible voter casts a vote.

    As a result, I think that we should do everything in our power to make it easier to vote. I’ve already shared many of the ways that other democratic societies get 80% plus of eligible voters to the polls. We are doing NONE of those things. Instead we are making it MORE difficult for people to vote.

    It’s not just me either. Here’s a good article from the Arizona Republic.

    What for previous generations was a celebration of democracy has devolved into drudgery that erodes confidence in the outcome.

  3. Keith says:

    You’ve missed my point dear sir.

    WHY do you think minority communities incapable of doing certain things. Why do you think so little of them? That’s my question

    As to fairness I am very concerned about fairness. It’s you who aren’t.

  4. Keith says:

    My post about Hillary was merely to point out you are absolving yourself of who she is and are intent to sticking to only what she says here forward. Sorry but she has a record and if she runs based on the word experience at all, then her record matters. This includes she and her husbands charicture.

    Come on Jeff, he’s not my choice but let’s “Make America GREAT again!”

  5. Keith says:

    Let’s you and I follow this story.

    “Former Facebook workers: We routinely suppressed conservative news.

    Workers routinely ……. Of interest to conservatives….. From “trending” news section…… Even though they were organically trending among the sites users.

    Tell me when that gets to the NYTimes, Wash Post or CSN. Maybe it’s trash journalism but I’m reading this in many places. Interesting to see how this story, or non story, gets handled.

  6. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Didn’t miss your point at all.

    You are only interested in talking about one thing (voter ID) and I’m not concerned about that thing. I refuse to take your “bait” regarding a discussion about whether or not this is an imposition on populations who don’t have an ID. I offered another way to look at the whole discussion which you completely ignored.

    You and I both know that this had nothing to do with voter fraud or the protecting the “integrity” of the vote. But you won’t engage on that either because you’ll lose.

    These are moral foundation issues. Conservatives would rather prosecute the innocent to make sure that all guilty are punished. Liberals would rather let some guilty go free rather than punish an innocent person.

    Fortunately, at least in this election cycle, we are going to see a large liberal victory which will assure a more liberal SCOTUS and perhaps even a working majority in Congress that will be able to return government to some working order. In the process we’ll likely see some of these narrow decisions regarding voter ID reversed.

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Both candidates will have records of significant changes in position and significant personal failures. I choose whomever the Democrats nominate. It doesn’t matter who you choose because there are enough people who are going to vote the same way I will to elect whomever the Democrats nominate.

    In a democracy, big turnouts and big national loses are the direct and immediate result of upsetting too many significant demographics (minorities, immigrants, women, young people/LGBT, unions, highly educated professionals).

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-fried/why-the-gop-schism-matter_b_9865344.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2016

  8. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Well let’s see. Why would you ask this question? You assuming that some sort of vast liberal conspiracy is suppressing the conservative message?

    This anxiety is at the foundation of the right wing bubble. Fox News told everyone that they were the only reliable source of news (just one of their big lies). They made a lot of money doing that and ultimately led to the birth of the Tea Party. Fox also spawned a whole industry of right wing propaganda sites that routinely make up their own version of the news. Ultimately Fox’s success also caused MSNBC to pivot provide similar coverage for liberals.

    Trumpism is the logical next step for an under educated conspiracy theory addicted voting population who get their news from each other and now don’t even trust Fox.

    Your particular story has been widely covered in by many mainstream sites.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/technology/conservatives-accuse-facebook-of-political-bias.html?nytmobile=0
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/09/former-facebook-staff-say-conservative-news-was-buried-raising-questions-about-its-political-influence/

    The Washpost does a great job of explaining the issue. Facebook identifies stories that are being talked about in their network. They then filter those stories for individual users based on the data they have gathered on what the user likes. Finally, they use humans to give added value to the same story from a credible news source. Funniest thing, that’s what we do on this blog too. 🙂 The result is that some of the “incredible” news stories from “unreliable” conservative sites aren’t showing up on the trending lists of some people.

    Because Facebook has one-sixth of the world using it every day, pretty much everything is being talked about to some extent. The company uses an automatic system (an algorithm) to surface what’s currently popular, and a team of staffers then further curates the list to tailor it to meet particular standards.

    And there’s the problem. Gizmodo quotes several former curators suggesting that conservative news stories would be booted from the automatically generated list of trending stories for two reasons. One was if the story came from a conservative-leaning site, such as Breitbart.com or Newsmax.com, in which case curators were told to find the same story on a mainstream media site, if possible. The other was if the curator didn’t want to include the story or didn’t recognize the story as important. It’s hard to know the extent to which the latter judgments took place, but one of the former curators — a conservative — told Gizmodo, “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news.”

    This is the free market at work.

    Facebook is not a newspaper. They are a social media company that wants to get into the news publishing business. I have already said that I don’t trust ANY online sources of data including Facebook.

    But if conservatives feel that Facebook’s methods of assigning trends to stories is somehow offensive or biased, stop using Facebook. I make those same choices every day when I refuse to read anything published by Fox, Breitbart, Newsmax, etc.

    I would suggest, however, that Facebook is VERY smart about what their users want. The fact that they are providing some additional weight to stories from credible news sources is probably a direct result of the reactions from a majority of their readers to finding a bogus Newsmax story listed on their trending display. I certainly know how I would react if I paid any attention to it.

    Finally it does raise an interesting question. Sites like Newsmax are clearly targeting a particular audience. So you don’t have liberals complaining that Newsmax posts made up news critical of Democrats every day. So why is it somehow big news when it is revealed the Facebook tries to filter out made up news by using mainstream credible news sources like the NYT?

  9. Keith says:

    I’m not focused on voter ID. I only used that as an example to show your sympathy for the minority communitee which then translates into you treating them differently. Why is your default position they are unable to act as others and should be treated differently? This is the height of unfairness. You should demand equal treatment of them and it should start with having equal expectations of everyone. Without this then fairness and equality are merely a political footballs which liberals and progressives absolutely exploit.

  10. Keith says:

    As to you liberal post from huffington by the dear Amy Fried. She is described by her students “a political hack,” “hands down the worst experience I’ve had in a college course,” “a bad teacher” “her notes were terrible,” “not a vet good professor,” “one of the worst profs I have had in the university.”

    So you’ve posted the typical liberal college profs dribble. You’ve taught me better then this Jeff, though I admit I sometimes come to you with grave I failed to proof. My I say you need to dig deeper on this one.

    I am not about to call a Trump win. What miss Amy misses in her push to help Mrs Hillary is Trump has received more votes in the primaries than any republican nominee ever and it’s not over yet. She choose here own way to define an enter fixed base.

    By the way Rasmussen polls just out show dead heats in fla, Ohio and Penn.

    Let’s make America great again!!!

  11. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Regarding minorities – these are moral foundation issues. We look at these things differently.

    Conservatives are concerned that some people are getting things that they don’t deserve.

    Liberals are concerned that some people are being treated unfairly.

    Your sense of fairness is to have equal expectations of everyone.

    While I appreciate the value of expectations, my sense of the issue is best expressed in the statement that it is unreasonable to expect people to demonstrate middle class values in the absence of middle class jobs.

    We are not going to resolve these differences because they are rooted deeply in our sense of who we are.

    The beauty of at least the design of democracy is that it forces both liberals and conservatives to compromise in order to get anything done.

    When ideology is allowed to trump (no pun intended) compromise, democracy suffers.

    My sincere hope is that the unraveling of the Republican party will create some room for moderates of both parties to resume the process of compromise.

  12. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Amy Fried was just posting something that has been posted widely by a number of credible outlets regarding the demographic disadvantage that the Republicans face.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gops-electoral-map-problem-is-not-about-trump-its-about-demographics/2016/05/08/14cdf1fc-1523-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/whit-ayres-a-daunting-demographic-challenge-for-the-gop-in-2016-1425513162

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-begins-in-a-massive-hole-222816

    Confirmation bias is the only reason you would choose to discount all of these just because you don’t like the author of one of the articles delivering that same basic information.

    Rasmussen is generally a conservative outlier.

    Let’s agree to use Real Clear Politics aggregation of polls going forward rather than cherry pick the polls that you happen to like.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

  13. Keith says:

    But dear Amy gave her opinion. Trump has more votes in the primaries then any republican ever and the primaries aren’t over. This with 17 choice early on.

  14. Keith says:

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/05/11/an_object_lesson_in_drive_by_media

    So you posted Amy I’ll post this. Incredible. Based on a New York Times article.

    All White House reporters are Dems. Lol.

  15. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Fortunately Trump himself has a suggestion of how to resolve past indiscretions like preying on young women, masquerading as other people, employing a racist as his personal assistant, and using an audit as an excuse not to release his tax returns.

    “You’re going so low to talk about something that took place 25 years ago whether or not I made a phone call?” Trump said on NBC. “Let’s get on to more current subjects.”

    http://www.wtma.com/news/trumps-past-surfaces-as-gop-looks-forward/

    So you have a choice.

    If you choose to continue to post old stuff about Hillary, you are going to need to also put up with old stuff being posted about Trump. In my mind they are probably a wash.

    I suggest we focus on what the candidates are saying they will or won’t do during this campaign cycle.

  16. Keith says:

    I only put Hillarys stuff up here for you benefit. You ignor it. It’s there preemptively for your bars hair future attacks on Trump. Remember he isn’t my choice.

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0Y403J
    Your thoughts on this?

  17. Keith says:

    so, we’ll just stick to the issues.

    When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

    Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

    Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

    Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

    Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

    Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

    Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

    Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

    She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

    She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.

    After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

    Hillary’s game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for ‘lying under oath’ to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

    Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

    After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

    Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

    But to her loyal fans (supporters) – I guess in her own words “what difference does it make?” I guess being a female Democrat is all that matters. By the way, I’d post the same if she were a Republican. You see, she’s already been in the White House, she has a record we can review.

    How many more do you want me to mention?

  18. Keith says:

    Dare I mention her Iraq vote. She was “deceived by President Bush.”

    She has admitted her choice to use her own server was not wise.

    With 70 year old Hillary and her “vast experience” we shouldn’t look for her potential. She’s well known and her experience is her record. We’re not talking about a #1 pick in the NFL draft and drooling over all that potential.

    With Trump there is no record in politics. I’m fascinated to see a true outsider come in who’s beholden to know one. My personal opinion is that’s he is a conservative democrat, while being socially liberal, from the 60’s and 70’s . You will have more in common with him then Hillary.

  19. Keith says:

    We are now in agreement on another issue. The “establishment republicans” are officially nuts. I’ve joined you.

  20. Keith says:

    Today Hillary said when she becomes president she is going to have Bill revive the economy. So, as of today because of her statement Bills record character, everything, is now fair game. Question, and be honest, is Hillary the worst candidate ever? She’s terrible. Why would she say such a thing. Oh yeah, it’s because no one likes her, doesn’t mean they won’t vote for her, but she needs to keep searching for something that get people excited about her.

  21. Jeff Beamsley says:

    When Bill Clinton was president ….

    Not sure if you think I’m stupid, but when you copy something like this whole hog from another site, please say so. Here are just a few of the sites that posted this same thing pretty much verbatim.

    http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/mrs-clinton/
    http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?202160-What-is-true-and-not-true-here
    http://www.scout.com/college/miami/forums/2937-town-hall/14015199-hilary-s-accomplishment-refresher-course
    http://joeforamerica.com/2015/09/any-idea-what-hillary-was-up-to-when-bill-was-president-this-will-blow-your-mind/

    It is another example of these conservative meme’s that roll through the Internet and pick up people like a dung beetle rolling her ball.

    Fortunately there was a guy on Reddit who spent some time going through this because I wasn’t planning to spend any more time on it. I’m listing his response in bold so you don’t get confused about what I wrote and what someone else wrote.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalfactchecking/comments/4ab0d9/this_facebook_post_seems_to_claim_that_almost/

    While the condescending and mocking tone of this heavily indicates a bias by the writer, even a biased writer can make factual claims. However, it is a sign that such claims should be taken with a grain of salt. In regards to the claims the OP is making:

    When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform.

    “Allowed” is a bit of a condescending way to word this, but largely it’s true. Hillary Clinton was assigned by Bill to head the Task Force on National Health Care Reform.

    Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress.

    There is no evidence I can find that there were any “threats” or “intimidation” beyond the usual negotiation that comes with dealing with Congress. What’s more, this is highly misleading about the health reform initiative’s popularity (or lack thereof) with Democratic Congressmen.
    Just as with the Affordable Care Act, healthcare reform was highly opposed by Republicans and the health insurance industry. Still, despite this, many Democrats agreed with the general brunt of the bill, but disagreed on the details. Multiple Democratic Congressmen responded to Bill Clinton’s bill with versions of their own, but none gained enough traction to be the definitive version of the bill.
    In the end, this was less an issue about lacking support and more about an inability to gather Democrats around one version of the bill. Hardly Hillary’s fault.

    This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts

    I have difficulty finding the costs of the things noted here, although it bears mention that studies about health care in America have obvious applicability outside of the specific bill that the Clintons were pushing, and as such studies like this are anything but a waste of money, as the original author of this claim seems to assert.

    Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general.

    There is no evidence that I can find that Bill Clinton had Hillary select his attorney general. Hillary insisted that Bill appoint a female to the position, but it looks like these choices were Bill’s.

    Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

    Again, not Hillary’s choices. In fact, while a Newsweek article depicts Hillary as a part of the vetting process, this is only after Bill met with her. So you can argue that Hillary made a poor decision giving the thumbs-up, but that still doesn’t make it her choice.
    Also, it bears mention that these two women were withdrawn from consideration for the position due to the fact that they’d previously hired illegal immigrants, and Kimba Wood had actually done so at a time when it was still legal.

    Next she chose Janet Reno

    Again, no evidence I can find indicates that Reno was Hillary’s choice. Hillary only pushed for Bill to hire a woman.

    – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.”

    First of all, “husband bill” is laughably condescending, as if we’ve forgotten how they’re related already. But that aside, this quote comes from Republican strategist (and former Clinton adviser) Dick Morris. However, there is indication that Morris may have fabricated at least some of his claims, so he’s not a very reliable source.
    Since there’s not really anything tying Janet Reno to Hillary Clinton, I’m going to skip the rest about Reno, since it doesn’t apply to Clinton.

    Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection.

    Lani Guinier’s name is misspelled here.
    She was not a nominee for “the head of the Civil Rights Commission”, she was a nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
    Guanier was a long-time personal friend of both Clintons from their days at Yale. To indicate that this was Hillary’s choice is ignoring that shared history.
    As usual, no evidence I can find points to Guanier being Hillary’s choice.

    Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations.

    Again, condescending tone. And now it’s building this tone on a narrative which, as far as any evidence I can find indicates, is a complete fantasy.

    She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department,

    Again a misspelling. His name is Webb Hubbell. And like Guanier, Hubbell was a long-time acquaintance of both Clintons, so to place his selection on Hillary’s back is misleading. Also, he was involved in the Clinton administration well before any involvement with the Justice Department.

    Vince Foster for the White House staff,

    Vince Foster suffered from depression and anxiety, and the move to Washington added even more stress. To blame anyone for his suicide is rather despicable, and to imply that there might have been some scheme behind it is outrageous.
    Also, as if it even needs saying, I see no evidence that this was Hillary’s choice. In fact, Foster was a childhood friend of Bill Clinton.

    and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.

    Again, mutual friend of both Clintons. Again, no evidence that this was Hillary’s choice.

    Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply.

    Top searches for “Harry Thompson Hillary” bring up copies of the huge diatribe above and not much else. After a lot of searching, I found this is because of yet another misspelling. The person referred to here is Harry Thomason, who first brought the improprieties within the White House Travel Office to the attention of the Clintons.
    I can’t find any indication that this was done in retaliation for refusal of awarding of contracts.
    She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation.

    The funny thing is that “Travelgate” was largely about the firing of employees of the White House Travel Office for financial improprieties uncovered by the FBI. The sort of thing people generally agree should see government officials ejected from their jobs.
    Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

    Dale was in fact charged with embezzlement.

    Still not convinced of her ineptness,

    ~sigh~

    Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security.

    There have been claims that this was Hillary’s choice, but again, no solid evidence.

    When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate)

    It bears mention that Republican Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr (yes, the same one who became obsessed with a stain on a dress) found both Clintons innocent of any wrongdoing in this matter.

    and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff,

    This was a claim by Newt Gingrich. The Clintons had White House staff drug tested, with none testing positive for drug use.
    So just another claim cooked up by the political opposition.

    suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone,

    Hillary denied hiring him. As far as I can tell, she did not deny knowing him.

    and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

    Are we to take a denial of knowledge of an activity that there is no proof occurred as evidence that it happened and she knew about it? That’s just silly.

    Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

    FBI agents doing this work now work out of an FBI field office in Washington. It’s not like the need to do these background checks disappeared when the office was closed.

    Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the #$%$ eruption” and scandal defense.

    Again, I cannot find any indication that Hillary was “put in charge of scandal defense”, whatever that even means.

    She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

    Yet again, I see no indication that not settling was Hillary’s idea. Also, it bears mention that Clinton won the initial case, with the judge saying that Jones could not show that she had suffered any damages. The case went on appeal, and Clinton settled to keep it from dragging out any further. There is little reason to suspect he wouldn’t have won, nor that Starr’s investigations uncovered anything that prompted him to settle.

    She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.

    The Clintons claimed to have misplaced these documents. Again, there is no indication that this was a conscious decision by Hillary.

    After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

    I don’t see how Hillary is responsible for her husband having an affair.

    Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for ‘lying under oath’ to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

    Her devious game plan of… getting her husband to cheat on her? That sounds absurd even for right-wing conspiracy theories.

    Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

    A search for these terms and Hillary’s name brings up… this claim, again. So it’s difficult to verify how often she said these words under oath. However, there is nothing wrong with saying “I do not recall”, and the implication that she somehow escaped justice by forgetting things is jumping to conclusions the author cannot possibly know.

    After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

    As others here in this thread point out, this is not an uncommon misunderstanding for presidents leaving the White House, and Reagan did the same thing.

    What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?

    ~rolls eyes~

    Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State
    The case regarding this incident is still pending. The E-Mails that were deleted were ones she claimed were private in nature as opposed to those involving confidential or incriminating information, but of course the real issue is the fact that she used a private server to house these E-Mails in the first place.

    It was almost certainly a negligent oversight (although, as she points out, other Secretaries of State have made the same mistake, as have multiple other presidential candidates in the 2016 election). However, whether there’s anything criminal or truly sinister here remains to be seen, and speculation about it is just that – speculation.

    and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation –

    This is another situation where there are certainly some seemingly valid claims being made, but no wrongdoing has been proven as yet.

    we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

    Which is wild speculation about absolutely nothing.

    So in the end, we have a lot of claims being made, but very, very little evidence to back them up. For the most part, anything this person claims to be Hillary’s doing is either Bill’s or, at most, a combination of the two Clintons. And many of these issues are making mountains out of molehills or simply out of thin air.
    I can’t recommend that this post be given a flair, because it makes multiple claims, but on the whole, this is a lot of bias and spin, and very, very little fact.

    Back to me writing.

    Please don’t post any more of this stuff.

    If you have a complaint about Hillary, please verify it with a credible source. Then we can talk. The reason why you don’t see stuff like this in the credible media is because it is all speculation by those who have a political ax to grind. This is no different than the speculation that Obama was educated in a Madrasa, was born in Kenya, is a closet communist/socialist,etc.

    Stuff like this is a waste of both our time.

  22. Jeff Beamsley says:

    With Trump there is no record in politics. I’m fascinated to see a true outsider come in who’s beholden to know one. My personal opinion is that’s he is a conservative democrat, while being socially liberal, from the 60’s and 70’s . You will have more in common with him then Hillary.

    Apparently you’re serious and this isn’t sarcasm.

    With Trump there is no record in politics.

    While he hasn’t run for office, he has been a public person for a long time. He has a public record which is fairly easy to track. Here’s a quick summary from Meet the Press. They include endorsement of Hillary and Bill, support for Obama’s saving the economy, support for Obamacare, support for raising taxes on the wealthy 14.5% but now releases a plan which cuts wealthy taxes, and pro-choice becomes pro-life.

    If you are going to hold Hillary to an historical standard of consistency, you have to apply that same standard to Trump.

    But even if you didn’t, in his short official political life, Trump has already accumulated more changes in position than you would tolerate for any other politician.

    Here’s 10 of them from CNN.

    beholden to know one

    Also soon to be not true. Now that he may actually have to run a campaign against a real opponent, he has decided that he (unlike Bloomberg) might not be able to finance all of this himself. So he WILL be beholden to people like Sheldon Adelson (wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem) who will put up the big bucks needed to fund his campaign.

    On Thursday, Trump tapped hedge-fund manager and film investor Steven Mnuchin to assemble a national fundraising operation, tasked with raising at least $1 billion for the general election… Selecting Mnuchin to lead the effort is a particularly jarring choice for a candidate who has lambasted hedge-fund managers on the trail. The chief executive of Dune Capital spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs, including a stint as head of the bank’s mortgage department, according to Bloomberg News.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-turns-to-general-election–and-away-from-past-positions/2016/05/05/22fc6fa6-12d5-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html?tid=a_inl

    Those who raise this money say that they “tone” of campaign is going to have to change if Trump expects to get big donations.

    he is a conservative democrat, while being socially liberal, from the 60’s and 70’s

    You are delusional. He wants to build a wall to keep out immigrants. He wants to deport 11M illegal immigrants. He wants to “temporarily” suspend visa’s for anyone who is a Muslim. He wants “surveillance” for the country’s mosques. He wants to renegotiate all of our trade agreements. He wants to renegotiate terms with all of our bond holders including threatening to drive up inflation if they don’t agree to better terms. He wants to politicize the fed. He wants to escalate the war against ISIS including torture and the targeted assassination of the families of ISIS members. He wants to dissolve NATO. He wants to cut the Department of Education. He wants to be “unpredictable” when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons.

    I could go on, but these are not nor have ever been positions that ANY conservative Democrat has advocated.

    I could take any one of these issues and find credible sources who document the danger of even the possibility that we would elect someone like this, but let’s just take the financial issues.

    Here’s an article in Reuters from Simon Johnson – a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. His prediction is that Trump’s nomination will cause a recession. His reasons are fairly straight forward.

    Trump has already demonstrated a great ability to make the kinds of inconsistent comments that, — if coming from the mouth of a president — would scare investors, create a great deal of uncertainty, push up interest rates, lower employment, drive down stock market prices and cause the bottom to fall out of the value of other assets.

    This kind of destabilization wouldn’t just have negative effects on investor and consumer confidence in the United States. It would spread rapidly around the world and drive up interest rates, bankrupt private-sector companies and plunge countries into a downward default-recession spiral. U.S. exports would naturally crater in this scenario because U.S. allies and trading partners would be in deep crisis and could not afford to buy American products.

    The Trump ripple effect would really be a devastating global tidal wave of rising interest rates.

    Speaking on CNBC recently, Trump connected his past debt restructuring with prospective broad macroeconomic strategy for the United States. “I would borrow,” he declared, “knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

    This must rank as one of the most irresponsible economic policy statements ever made by a major party candidate for the presidency.

    Second, Trump also seems very weak on inflation. When pressed on his purported plan for buying back federal government debt at a discount, he responded by suggesting that we could always print enough money to pay off the debt: “First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?”

    As a statement of macroeconomic policy intentions from a potential president, this is another extremely scary idea. Combined with Trump’s earlier assertion that he would replace Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen, this amounts to politicizing the Federal Reserve – and pushing it toward a high inflation policy. What he is saying could lead to higher interest rates, disruptions in the flow of credit and a contraction of business that could translate into mass layoffs.

    Third, on financial regulation, Trump has made clear that he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank financial regulations — a view that he shares with many other business people who live high on debt. This proposal would essentially bring the U.S. rules back to the status quo before the financial crisis of 2008.

    But this is a recipe for — the financial collapse of 2008. That crisis crashed the economy, threw millions of people out of work, pushed up the U.S. national debt dramatically and undermined America’s national security.

    Like it or not, this election is about choice. You may not like your choices, but it doesn’t change the fact that voting against Hillary is a vote for Trump.

    You’ve already begun to deploy your motivated reasoning to elevate the “sins” of Hillary and ignore virtually everything that Trump has said he was going to do.

    You are the guy who said Obama wasn’t ready for the office and it was a mistake to elect him.

    While I disagree with you on the both counts, how can you now turn around and say that Trump IS ready for the office when he clearly doesn’t have a clue?

    You may see some value in blowing up the Republican Party. I do too. But you don’t have to blow up the country to do it.

    Fortunately more of the country is way more terrified of Trump than Hillary. That will only increase at people get an opportunity to compare what both of them SAY.

  23. Jeff Beamsley says:

    We are now in agreement on another issue. The “establishment republicans” are officially nuts. I’ve joined you.

    Not sure we are agreeing for the same reasons.

    I will probably post something in more detail on this, but I think it is fascinating to see those conservatives who were willing to shut down the government and obstruct Obama at every turn because of principle now faced with a choice. They can continue to choose principle and opt out of supporting Trump OR they can admit that it was really all about power and will fall in line behind Trump.

    Very few will choose the former because they don’t want to take the chance of getting blamed when Trump loses spectacularly in the fall. Instead they will wait, as they always do, until Trump loses before they pile on him for being a terrible candidate. Gotta love those principles ( a little bit of sarcasm).

  24. Keith says:

    I meant to list that j was reposting. I do everything on an iphone and it’s hard tonreread/review what I’ve posted.

    Nice you found a defender of Hillary. His defense is laughable as his bias doesn’t allow a conclusion that meat even what he said. He agrees with an aweful lot of the post just arrives at a perspective ie OPINION.

  25. Keith says:

    YS)I will probably post something in more detail on this, but I think it is fascinating to see those conservatives who were willing to shut down the government and obstruct Obama at every turn because of principle now faced with a choice. They can continue to choose principle and opt out of supporting Trump OR they can admit that it was really all about power and will fall in line behind Trump.

    Simalerly to the progressive liberals, like yourself, who want Bernie? You will fall in line behind her numorus flaws and support her.

    I simply can not believe Mitt Romnt not supporting Trump. How many fell in line behind him that wasn’t thrilled about it? Now he’s not willing to do the same.

    The dems are no different then the establishment Republicans. Look at the percentage of super delegates who are supporting Hillary verses the number that support Bernie. This after the DNC did EVERYTHING in its power to see Hillary was not challenged.

    You have failed to join me in support of “Americas Party.” We’d support real issues. They are not Climate change, gay marriage, transgender issues, tax cuts for the rich, throwing out all the illegals. They are first and foremost the economy and jobs. Others are entitlement reform, handling the debt and deficit, “legal” immigration and border security, terrorism…. Things like that. Real problems not should grade school kids decide whether they are boys or girls while choosing which bathroom to use.

    Please join me.

  26. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Today Hillary said when she becomes president she is going to have Bill revive the economy. So, as of today because of her statement Bills record character, everything, is now fair game. Question, and be honest, is Hillary the worst candidate ever? She’s terrible. Why would she say such a thing. Oh yeah, it’s because no one likes her, doesn’t mean they won’t vote for her, but she needs to keep searching for something that get people excited about her.

    Your bias is showing again.

    I appreciate that you deeply dislike both Clinton’s, but now as during Clinton’s presidency, you are in the minority.

    Bill Clinton currently is currently one of the most popular politicians in the country.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton1.htm

    Conservatives badly misplayed their hand during the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton approval ratings went up during that time to the highest level during his entire two terms and remained there through the whole impeachment boondoggle.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/4609/presidential-job-approval-bill-clintons-high-ratings-midst.aspx

    Conservatives will experience the same result again if they attempt to drag that old Lewinsky bone out of the closet. There is no new news here and the majority of American voters forgave Clinton and blamed Newt Gingrich for what they felt was a political hatchet job. The unprecedented Democratic gains during the 1998 mid-terms was proof of how unhappy voters were with the Republican impeachment plans. The results of that election prevented the Republicans from carrying out their plan.

    Bill Clinton presided over the longest economic boom in US history. How much credit he deserves for that is a matter of debate, but factcheck.org does a pretty good analysis.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/clinton-and-economic-growth-in-the-90s/

    Bottom line though is that giving Bill and opportunity to repeat his previous success is at least a plan that has some logic.

    Please share Trump’s plan to grow the economy.

  27. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Nice you found a defender of Hillary. His defense is laughable as his bias doesn’t allow a conclusion that meat even what he said. He agrees with an aweful lot of the post just arrives at a perspective ie OPINION.

    You can’t really be serious. You’re criticizing the Reddit author for HIS bias?

    This is exactly the point.

    You post a completely bogus unattributed opinion piece about Hillary and then object to someone who posts under his own name and takes the piece apart? OF COURSE it is filled with a lot of opinion. That’s all that the original piece contained.

    His response was entirely appropriate.

    So let’s waste each other’s time.

    DO NOT POST attack stuff from partisan sources and when you do, please don’t complain when people like me call you out on it.

  28. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Similarly to the progressive liberals, like yourself, who want Bernie? You will fall in line behind her numorus flaws and support her.

    False equivalence. Hillary and Bernie are aligned on more that 90% of the substantive issues.

    http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-alike-426301

    I am comfortable with either candidate.

    I simply can not believe Mitt Romnt not supporting Trump. How many fell in line behind him that wasn’t thrilled about it? Now he’s not willing to do the same.

    He clearly believes that the Republican Party stands for something more than winning. He’s not running for anything anyway, so it is a little easier for him to take this position. Also Trump has been fairly dismissive of Romney’s campaign, so Trump has done nothing to earn Romney’s support either.

    The dems are no different then the establishment Republicans. Look at the percentage of super delegates who are supporting Hillary verses the number that support Bernie. This after the DNC did EVERYTHING in its power to see Hillary was not challenged.

    I will vote for whomever the democrats nominate because either candidate is vastly superior to Trump.

    The DNC process is well documented and does make it more difficult for a candidate like Bernie to succeed. But those were the rules when Bernie started his campaign and those remain the rules as they head into the convention. Those same rules ended up favoring Obama in 2008. Right or wrong, the Dems don’t want a contested convention. That’s why they have Super Delegates. Whether or not the Democratic Party has put their thumb on the scale at some point also doesn’t matter. I’ve been on both sides of this issue. My protests against the Humphrey candidacy in 1968 helped elect Nixon. That was a lesson I will not forget.

    If Hillary is the nominee, 75% of Bernie’s supporters today say they will support her. By November, I think that number will be much higher.

    You have failed to join me in support of “Americas Party.”

    I have no idea what you are talking about regarding Americas Party.

    There are only two parties that have an opportunity to win a national election in this country. I will vote for the Democratic candidate because I view any vote for any other candidate as a vote for Trump.

    We’d support real issues. They are not Climate change, gay marriage, transgender issues, tax cuts for the rich, throwing out all the illegals. They are first and foremost the economy and jobs. Others are entitlement reform, handling the debt and deficit, “legal” immigration and border security, terrorism…. Things like that. Real problems not should grade school kids decide whether they are boys or girls while choosing which bathroom to use.

    BTW, if you live on the Solomon Islands, climate change is real.

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/solomon-islands-disappear-pacific-ocean-result-climate-change/story?id=38985469

    Also if you are a transgender kid, the bathroom you use IS a real problem. Conservatives are the ones making this an issue. Most public school districts were solving this problem on their own without the help of either party until conservative states started passing laws over ruling local school boards.

    http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rulesforengagement/2016/05/many_schools_already_accommodate_transgender_students.html

    These are ALL real issues to someone, but I have no problem with a focus on the economy. Entitlement reform is already a loaded description. If you used stabilizing Social Security, then I’m fine. Same thing with Medicare – the solution is reducing the growth in healthcare costs which could ultimately lead to a single payor solution (like Bernie has proposed).

    My hope is that these are the issues that get discussed this fall rather than past history.

    IMHO the best way to do that is to stop talking about past history. Will you join me in that?

  29. Keith says:

    Protecting young children from confused others is a conservative problem? This again draws the stark contrast between us. This simplest thing in life is male/ female, which one you are. It’s not what you think you are but rather what you are. It’s a quite simple test. I think science would agree with me on this one. (I am aware that out of every so many hundreds of thousands of people one it born with both sets)

    http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/05/17/shopper-upset-man-allowed-to-use-womens-dressing-room-in-ross/

    Do I chalk this up to me not believing in equality?

  30. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Protecting young children from confused others is a conservative problem? This again draws the stark contrast between us. This simplest thing in life is male/ female, which one you are. It’s not what you think you are but rather what you are. It’s a quite simple test. I think science would agree with me on this one.

    You are wrong again on several counts.

    1. Science DOES disagree with you. Transgender kids are not “confused”. In 2012, The American Psychiatric Association announced that Gender Dysphoria (being transgender) is a diagnosis rather than a disorder. That means that it is part of who these kids ARE, not some condition that was caused by some other event in their lives. Roughly 1% of the population is transgendered. Rejecting the science because it doesn’t agree with your particular simplistic view of the world is another example of the confirmation bias which is typical of conservatives. You try to impose simple solutions on a complex world. It doesn’t work.

    2. The issue is not protecting other kids from those that are transgendered. It is protecting the transgendered from being bullied. In a national survey, 82% of transgender youth feel unsafe at school. 44% have been abused physically (ex. punched, shoved, etc.). 67% have been bullied online. 64% have had property stolen or destroyed. More transgender kids are seriously depressed (6x), attempt suicide (8x), abuse illegal drugs (3x), and engage in risky sexual behavior (3x) than the rest of the high school population. Half of transgendered kids skip school on a regular basis because of bullying.

    3. A women complaining about man using a woman’s dressing room isn’t the issue at all. The issue is that transgender kids aren’t safe in their own schools. The real issue is that local schools have been accommodating transgender kids for quite a while by adding a gender neutral bathroom. It has only become an issue recently when narrow minded folks like you have objected to that practice for misguided political or religious reasons.

    4. Conservatives see transgender people as a liberal INVENTION. It is no such thing any more than homosexuality is a liberal invention, or bi-racial kids, or same sex parents. They are all part of our world. God loves them all. They all deserve a chance to be part of our community regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation.

  31. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Hillary video.

    The recognition is that this video is getting some traction. Whether or not it will have any impact in the general election is yet to be seen.

    The same commentator posted something pretty much rejecting the Sanders claim that the race is fixed. He called Donald Trump out several times for his “John Miller” impersonation. In general he regards Trump with disdain too.

    Trump’s blanket insistence that data is “overrated” is a classic case of whistling past the graveyard. And, if that is concerning, his prescription for what he needs to do more of in the fall campaign should be downright scary for Republicans.

    So I’m not all that concerned that he has taken some notice of this video, but I agree that the fact that a legit newspaper printed it means that there is some news value to it. That news value is the wider discussion that it is possible that Trump could win the election. I agree that it IS possible.

  32. Keith says:

    Facebook CEO meets with conservative media. Admits apparent “unconscious liberal bias by his company.”

  33. Keith says:

    Jeff. My good friend whom I repeat. Life becomes complicated when simple facts are ignored. We will agree to disagree.

  34. Keith says:

    http://www.salon.com/2016/05/19/camille_paglia_pc_feminists_misfire_again_as_fossilized_fearful_media_cant_touch_donald_trump/

    Your objective journalists at the NYTimes. Camila is now in my top three. She’s a huge Bernie supporter by the way. What she is able to do, and I wish you could as well because your intelligence and gift for nuance would be useful, is call the same nonsense both ways. The republicans have now go against the establishment in the party. Dare I say raring it apart. I have long called for that. The dems through their super delegates REFUSE to do so. In the middle of both sides is a vast majority of Americans which I am calling Americas Party.

    How long have I been calling for “throw them all out.” The majority are with me. They just are waking up to that fact as they are tied to R’s & D’s

    You know that Google has been to the whitehouse more then anyone don’t you?

  35. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Of course you like Camille Paglia. She is a conservative columnist. Her columns are her opinion. She is under no obligation to present the whole story (unlike the NYT). She tells her own story.

    Wow, millionaire workaholic Donald Trump chased young, beautiful, willing women and liked to boast about it. Jail him now! Meanwhile, the New York Times remains mute about Bill Clinton’s long record of crude groping and grosser assaults—not one example of which could be found to taint Trump.

    This is the best example of what I’m talking about.

    The Trump piece about his past relationships with women was a fairly substantial piece. It was well researched with multiple interviews of women who interacted with Trump. Camille tosses it off with a “boys will be boys” excuse. She then immediately pivots to suggest that the NYT’s was bias because it didn’t mention Bill Clinton’s history with women.

    Of course Bill Clinton has a history with women. So does George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan, LBJ, JFK, Ike, FDR, Taft, Harding, and whole other long list of Presidents stretching all the way back to Jefferson and Sally Hemmings.

    If the article was about affairs of President’s then she would be right to say something if it left out Clinton. But it wasn’t.

    Also, while I don’t agree with the premise, the logic still holds that if Trump’s sex life can be excused as “boys will be boys”, why hold Clinton to a different standard.

    But the article wasn’t about that. It was a legitimate piece attempting to answer the question of how a Presidential candidate has treated women in the past. It was a nuanced picture of a complicated man who on one hand liked to surround himself with beautiful women because it enhanced his stature, and on the other hand was willing to promote, empower, and mentor women.

    How women view Trump is a legitimate issue in this campaign. What the NYT provided is a set of facts that all voters can include in their decision making process.

    On the other hand Bill Clinton IS NOT running for President. But, as I’ve predicted before, if conservatives attempt to make Bill Clinton’s past history with women an issue in this campaign, they will lose.

  36. Jeff Beamsley says:

    You know that Google has been to the whitehouse more then anyone don’t you?

    Not sure what that is supposed to mean. Google is a company and a search engine. If you mean that the White House has standardized on Google as a search engine, then I’m not sure that’s news.

    If you mean that Google execs are frequent visitors to the White House, you are going to have to provide more context and tell me why that’s a bad thing.

    My first reaction is that this more conspiracy theory stuff. A quick Google search reveals that this is something that Fox News has been pushing.

    But I don’t have a problem with people wanting to find out why particular companies may be getting more access to power than others.

    Anne Weismann, executive director of the Campaign for Accountability, told Watchdog.org those logs don’t reveal the discussion of the meetings, just who attended them.

    “You don’t know what the meetings are about, but the fact that someone has that level of access at the White House is revealing,” she said. “It certainly suggests a level of influence.”

    One can only hope that Fox News will be as diligent in tracking evidence of White House influence if there is ever a Republican in the White House.

  37. Keith says:

    You didn’t follow Camilla very well. She is a progressive liberal… She’s backing Bernie. Her point was everything that’s in the NYTimes store are statements filtered though the journalistic work of today’s Ivey league progressive liberal trained journalist. Have you seen any of the interviews with some of the woman who’ve said their statements were misrepresented?

    Brawl at the Nevada dem state convention. Barbra Boxer claimed she feared for her safety. Hillary can’t beat Bernie.

    Again I encourage you to get out amount the people. Your “credible sources of news” are part of the problem. Just as the establishment republicans and democrats are. They have created among themselves a professional political class that quite frankly, if you haven’t noticed, very few are happy with.

  38. Jeff Beamsley says:

    You didn’t follow Camilla very well. She is a progressive liberal

    Seriously, we can’t be talking about the same person.

    Here’s what wikipedia says.

    Paglia characterizes herself as a libertarian. She opposes laws against prostitution, pornography, drugs, and abortion, and is also opposed to affirmative action laws. Some of her views have been characterized as conservative. Paglia criticized Bill Clinton for not resigning after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which she says “paralyzed the government for two years, leading directly to our blindsiding by 9/11.” In the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign she voted for the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, “[because] I detest the arrogant, corrupt superstructure of the Democratic Party, with which I remain stubbornly registered.” In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, Paglia supported John Kerry; and in 2008, she supported Barack Obama. In 2012, she supported Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Paglia is highly critical of 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, calling her a “fraud” and a “liar”. Paglia has refused to support either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, indicating in her Salon.com column that she would either cast a write-in vote for Bernie Sanders or else vote for Green Party candidate Stein, as she did in 2012.

    We’ve had this discussion on reliable journalism before. I’m not going to attempt to repeat it here, other than to point out the those who are trained to be journalists have a code of ethics that they follow. That ethical code is reflected in the way that responsible newspapers report on stories. Those papers earn the right to express an opinion because they report the news in an unbiased way and make sure it is obvious which articles are news and which are opinion.

    In our democracy, it is the responsibility of an independent press to INFORM and EDUCATE voters – not the other way around.

    One of the first steps toward a dictatorship is to control the press. That’s why the conservative claim of a liberal news bias is so dangerous as well as untrue. If anything these days there is a conservative bias because 9 out of every 10 hours of broadcast news and opinion is CONSERVATIVE and the bulk of conservatives get their news from one source (FOX).

    So the suggestion that the REAL news is what the people believe just isn’t true. People believe all kinds of trash because they suffer (just like you) from confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.

    BTW I did see that Ms. Lane got a few more minutes of fame on Fox. She never said that she was misquoted. She simply said that they put a different spin on the story than she (and her manager) intended. I’m curious what she and her manager thought the story was going to be about when she described being singled out of a crowd of women, given a private tour of the premises, and asked to change into a swimming suit and then later referred to in public as “That is a stunning Trump girl, isn’t it?”. (emphasis mine).

    She said she was flattered and went on to have a relationship with Mr. Trump. Good for her. But MANY women who may not appreciate being objectified will not have the same reaction. In other words, the story was not a biography of Ms. Lane, but rather a fairly thorough account of one mans complicated relationship with women.

    Trump wasn’t happy about it, but NO ONE has come forward to say that quotes that the NYT printed were inaccurate or taken out of context. That’s what good journalism is all about.

  39. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW you might be interested in another NYT digging into the Facebook news controversy.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/technology/facebook-trending-list-skewed-by-individual-judgment-not-institutional-bias.html

    “We asked, do we consider ourselves Facebook journalists?” said Benjamin Fearnow, a former news curator at Facebook who worked on Trending Topics for close to a year, until April, and who attended the meeting. “We straddled that very thin line between social media and news. None of us really knew how it was going to play out.”

    and

    Instead, these people said, Trending Topics was a fledgling, ill-managed group — made up largely of recent college graduates with little work experience — where individual judgment of news was encouraged. That led to inconsistencies in how the most popular stories were presented, along with departures from the team, eventually landing the group in the controversy that spotlights Facebook’s huge role in the type of information people see every day.

    This is a great example of what happens when you don’t rely on trained journalists (Ivy League or otherwise) to curate the news. Facebook thought they could automate this process. They found out they couldn’t. QED

  40. Keith says:

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/business/facebooks-troubling-one-way-mirror.html?referer=

    If the person who writes the algorithm is biased it will be in their work also…
    How many conservatives do these company’s employe? You know that answer. Google? Facebook? Etc.

  41. Jeff Beamsley says:

    How many conservatives do these company’s employe? You know that answer. Google? Facebook? Etc.

    How many liberals work at Fox news, or Brietbart, or Newsmax?

    Both are irrelevant questions.

    Without a code of ethics and the training to understand what to do with a code of ethics, they are all just coders trying to find their way.

    Facebook’s only sin is that they aspired to be neutral and assumed that all they needed was a good algorithm. Fox and the rest of the right wing propaganda machine don’t operate under the illusion of neutrality. They have a political ax to grind, and they grind it every day. They don’t need an algorithm. They just need employees who understand the mission. BTW, the same thing is true about the constellation of left wing sites, but their audience appears to less susceptible to these tactics.

Leave a Reply