Debate Now The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath

[candycorn]

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

--Feel Great. America usually gets it right. They did with BHO twice. Got the pop vote right in 2000. Got it right in 92 and 96.

I'm confident they will get it right in 2016 with HRC being elected comfortably in the Electoral Vote count and by a few million votes in the Popular.




2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

--Sure. HRC is the most qualified person to seek the Presidency since Bush 41.

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Supreme Court nominees. It's pretty much all that matters. She will have the chance to appoint 3 or 4.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

--Feel Great. America usually gets it right. They did with BHO twice. Got the pop vote right in 2000. Got it right in 92 and 96.

I'm confident they will get it right in 2016 with HRC being elected comfortably in the Electoral Vote count and by a few million votes in the Popular.




2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

--Sure. HRC is the most qualified person to seek the Presidency since Bush 41.

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Supreme Court nominees. It's pretty much all that matters. She will have the chance to appoint 3 or 4.

What makes her the most qualified?

All the accomplishments she can point to as first lady? Senator? Secretary of State?

Her honesty and trustworthiness?

Her convictions and consistency?

The lack of scandals and criticism for questionable activities?

 

[Foxfyre]

Here is another aspect of what really goes on at a Trump rally. An off duty Phoenix cop decided to find out for himself and went incognito to Trump's rally in Phoenix. He gives a pretty clear picture of the way it was in the following video, and those who want to see more confirmation of what the media has been reporting about these rallies will be disappointed:

Incognito cop went to Trump rally to find truth; he felt safe until 'hateful, evil' protesters took over | BizPac Review

 

[candycorn]

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

--Feel Great. America usually gets it right. They did with BHO twice. Got the pop vote right in 2000. Got it right in 92 and 96.

I'm confident they will get it right in 2016 with HRC being elected comfortably in the Electoral Vote count and by a few million votes in the Popular.




2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

--Sure. HRC is the most qualified person to seek the Presidency since Bush 41.

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Supreme Court nominees. It's pretty much all that matters. She will have the chance to appoint 3 or 4.

What makes her the most qualified?


All the accomplishments she can point to as first lady? Senator? Secretary of State?

as accomplished as any other First Lady, Senator, or SoS

Her honesty and trustworthiness?

Her convictions and consistency?

The lack of scandals and criticism for questionable activities?

Fully trust her to do what I want her to do as Zpresident

 

[longknife]

As Rush has just pointed out, there is a huge industry in this country tied to elections. Those who raise funds. Those who run campaigns and act as paid consultants to the candidates. Those who produce the advertisements that appear everywhere day and night. Those who charter transportation for their candidates. And provide security. And so on and on and on.

Trump does not need or use any of that and he threatens their important little niche in our society. That is exactly why they oppose him.

Well, just how huge is that industry? Can we have some quantification of it that allows us to understand its size in comparison to other industries? Did Mr. Limbaugh quantify just how much money advertisers spend on political advertising in comparison to non-political advertising, for example?

FEC: $7B spent on 2012 campaign

Seems to me to be a good size industry.

 

[320 Years of History]

As Rush has just pointed out, there is a huge industry in this country tied to elections. Those who raise funds. Those who run campaigns and act as paid consultants to the candidates. Those who produce the advertisements that appear everywhere day and night. Those who charter transportation for their candidates. And provide security. And so on and on and on.

Trump does not need or use any of that and he threatens their important little niche in our society. That is exactly why they oppose him.

Well, just how huge is that industry? Can we have some quantification of it that allows us to understand its size in comparison to other industries? Did Mr. Limbaugh quantify just how much money advertisers spend on political advertising in comparison to non-political advertising, for example?

FEC: $7B spent on 2012 campaign

Seems to me to be a good size industry.

I suspect many things seem one way or another to you, and yet in fact are not at all as they seem. A $7B industry is not, as industries go, that big of an industry. I haven't checked, but I don't think it's anything more than what might be called a line of business or practice area/focus at one or several professional services firms.

• Accenture revenue: $31B
• McKinsey & Company revenue: $8.3B
• Deloitte revenue: $35B
• Omnicom Group revenue: $15.3B
• Interpublic Group revenue: $7.5B

I know that to an individual $7B is a lot of money. It's a huge sum for an individual public relations firm or political consultancy. Even the companies above would not leave $7B on the table, so to speak. But to refer to the sums spent across what is in fact several industries -- advertising/media, transportation, hotels and lodging, food and beverage, and consulting and public relations at the least -- that's really not that much.

• Size of US industries as of 2014 -- Remember that what Rush said (per you) is that there's a "huge" industry built around politicking. Well, whatever it is, even if it qualifies as an industry, it ain't huge.

What is a little bit interesting, if that be the best term for it, is that a somewhat small quantity of buyers -- namely the candidates -- spend $7B on "stuff" purchased from suppliers in the industries noted above (and perhaps a few others), but for that to be surprising, it'd need to be the sum spent solely by Presidential hopefuls. Why? Because upon considering not just Presidential elections, but also those for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governorships, state legislative office, sheriffs, etc., $7B is tantamount to "chump change" even though in total it's less so.

So how does Rush come to say what he did about the "huge" industry surrounding political campaigns? Well, first and foremost, his whole stock in trade is is ability to inflame his listeners and devotees by appealing to their ire over their not having received "something" that someone else did. I think too that what allows Rush to call the "industry" huge is that he knows the demographics of his audience, and accordingly he realizes

• most of his listeners have no idea what it means to be an industry,
• most of his listeners have no idea what is or is not a huge industry and aren't likely to check,
• to most of his listeners, $7B sounds huge
• to everyone who doesn't dwell in the world of big numbers, $7B is huge, and for anyone it is a huge sum to have as a personal net worth, the value of sales in the company they own, the endowment of their high school or college, and other measures that are applicable at an individual or very local level, i.e., a level at which an individual can actually relate.

For as much as I find little that Rush says of merit beyond entertainment, I nonetheless know the man isn't a complete fool. Far from it. The man knows that his job, his raison d'etre is to generate listenership for the radio networks that carry his show. The "Chicken Little" approach is an excellent way to do that. Accordingly, he's quite adept at choosing molehills out of which he can make mountains.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

--Feel Great. America usually gets it right. They did with BHO twice. Got the pop vote right in 2000. Got it right in 92 and 96.

I'm confident they will get it right in 2016 with HRC being elected comfortably in the Electoral Vote count and by a few million votes in the Popular.




2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

--Sure. HRC is the most qualified person to seek the Presidency since Bush 41.

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Supreme Court nominees. It's pretty much all that matters. She will have the chance to appoint 3 or 4.

What makes her the most qualified?


All the accomplishments she can point to as first lady? Senator? Secretary of State?

as accomplished as any other First Lady, Senator, or SoS

Her honesty and trustworthiness?

Her convictions and consistency?

The lack of scandals and criticism for questionable activities?

Fully trust her to do what I want her to do as Zpresident

Well, she does have a following. I was just wondering what the attraction was other than she has a "D" after her name. So far nobody has been able to tell me.

 

[Foxfyre]

As Rush has just pointed out, there is a huge industry in this country tied to elections. Those who raise funds. Those who run campaigns and act as paid consultants to the candidates. Those who produce the advertisements that appear everywhere day and night. Those who charter transportation for their candidates. And provide security. And so on and on and on.

Trump does not need or use any of that and he threatens their important little niche in our society. That is exactly why they oppose him.

Well, just how huge is that industry? Can we have some quantification of it that allows us to understand its size in comparison to other industries? Did Mr. Limbaugh quantify just how much money advertisers spend on political advertising in comparison to non-political advertising, for example?

FEC: $7B spent on 2012 campaign

Seems to me to be a good size industry.

I suspect many things seem one way or another to you, and yet in fact are not at all as they seem. A $7B industry is not, as industries go, that big of an industry. I haven't checked, but I don't think it's anything more than what might be called a line of business or practice area/focus at one or several professional services firms.

• Accenture revenue: $31B
• McKinsey & Company revenue: $8.3B
• Deloitte revenue: $35B
• Omnicom Group revenue: $15.3B
• Interpublic Group revenue: $7.5B

I know that to an individual $7B is a lot of money. It's a huge sum for an individual public relations firm or political consultancy. Even the companies above would not leave $7B on the table, so to speak. But to refer to the sums spent across what is in fact several industries -- advertising/media, transportation, hotels and lodging, food and beverage, and consulting and public relations at the least -- that's really not that much.

• Size of US industries as of 2014 -- Remember that what Rush said (per you) is that there's a "huge" industry built around politicking. Well, whatever it is, even if it qualifies as an industry, it ain't huge.

What is a little bit interesting, if that be the best term for it, is that a somewhat small quantity of buyers -- namely the candidates -- spend $7B on "stuff" purchased from suppliers in the industries noted above (and perhaps a few others), but for that to be surprising, it'd need to be the sum spent solely by Presidential hopefuls. Why? Because upon considering not just Presidential elections, but also those for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governorships, state legislative office, sheriffs, etc., $7B is tantamount to "chump change" even though in total it's less so.

So how does Rush come to say what he did about the "huge" industry surrounding political campaigns? Well, first and foremost, his whole stock in trade is is ability to inflame his listeners and devotees by appealing to their ire over their not having received "something" that someone else did. I think too that what allows Rush to call the "industry" huge is that he knows the demographics of his audience, and accordingly he realizes

• most of his listeners have no idea what it means to be an industry,
• most of his listeners have no idea what is or is not a huge industry and aren't likely to check,
• to most of his listeners, $7B sounds huge
• to everyone who doesn't dwell in the world of big numbers, $7B is huge, and for anyone it is a huge sum to have as a personal net worth, the value of sales in the company they own, the endowment of their high school or college, and other measures that are applicable at an individual or very local level, i.e., a level at which an individual can actually relate.

For as much as I find little that Rush says of merit beyond entertainment, I nonetheless know the man isn't a complete fool. Far from it. The man knows that his job, his raison d'etre is to generate listenership for the radio networks that carry his show. The "Chicken Little" approach is an excellent way to do that. Accordingly, he's quite adept at choosing molehills out of which he can make mountains.

In all due respect, I don't think you know what anything means to Rush's audience or what 'sounds huge'. On the other hand, if you listen to the man on the street interviews, it is pretty clear that most Obama, Hillary, or Bernie supporters don't know what anything in government costs and would say that an $18 trillion dollar national debt was no problem. In fact some of them here on USMB have said that. But they are nevertheless insulted if it is pointed out they don't know much about much.

My point is not to be argumentative so much as to emphasize that many fans of many people would find such negative opinion of those fans to be personally insulting. For instance, I don't tune into Rush on a daily basis, but will catch parts or all of his show if out and about in the car or traveling. If asked if I am a fan, I probably am as much as anybody is even though I don't always agree with him or appreciate his approach to some things. And I definitely know how much money $7 billion is and it is not irrelevant to anybody.

 

[candycorn]

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

--Feel Great. America usually gets it right. They did with BHO twice. Got the pop vote right in 2000. Got it right in 92 and 96.

I'm confident they will get it right in 2016 with HRC being elected comfortably in the Electoral Vote count and by a few million votes in the Popular.




2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

--Sure. HRC is the most qualified person to seek the Presidency since Bush 41.

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Supreme Court nominees. It's pretty much all that matters. She will have the chance to appoint 3 or 4.

What makes her the most qualified?


All the accomplishments she can point to as first lady? Senator? Secretary of State?

as accomplished as any other First Lady, Senator, or SoS

Her honesty and trustworthiness?

Her convictions and consistency?

The lack of scandals and criticism for questionable activities?

Fully trust her to do what I want her to do as Zpresident

Well, she does have a following. I was just wondering what the attraction was other than she has a "D" after her name. So far nobody has been able to tell me.

They’ve told you. You’re simply choosing not to listen.

But please entertain us. Tell me a more accomplished first lady of the last half of the 20th century. Or a more accomplished Senator from her class. Do Secretaries of State accomplish anything on their own? Ever?

 

[Foxfyre]

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

--Feel Great. America usually gets it right. They did with BHO twice. Got the pop vote right in 2000. Got it right in 92 and 96.

I'm confident they will get it right in 2016 with HRC being elected comfortably in the Electoral Vote count and by a few million votes in the Popular.




2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

--Sure. HRC is the most qualified person to seek the Presidency since Bush 41.

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Supreme Court nominees. It's pretty much all that matters. She will have the chance to appoint 3 or 4.

What makes her the most qualified?


All the accomplishments she can point to as first lady? Senator? Secretary of State?

as accomplished as any other First Lady, Senator, or SoS

Her honesty and trustworthiness?

Her convictions and consistency?

The lack of scandals and criticism for questionable activities?

Fully trust her to do what I want her to do as Zpresident

Well, she does have a following. I was just wondering what the attraction was other than she has a "D" after her name. So far nobody has been able to tell me.

They’ve told you. You’re simply choosing not to listen.

But please entertain us. Tell me a more accomplished first lady of the last half of the 20th century. Or a more accomplished Senator from her class. Do Secretaries of State accomplish anything on their own? Ever?

No, they don't tell me. I have asked. And if they had, I would choose to listen. And be careful. Zone 1 rules apply for this thread.

And yes, though the Secretary of State of course serves at the pleasure of the President with the consent of the Senate, the SofS has an extremely important job and tremendous responsibility.

IMO, the three stand out SofS in the 20th Century were:

George C. Marshall served under President Truman from 1947-49) He helped negotiate the postwar policy of containment and promoted the Truman Doctrine that provided military aid for Greece and Turkey, developed the Marshall Plan for rebuilding postwar Europe, was instrumental in organizing the Organization of American States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

His successor, Dean Acheson,1949-53, helped create NATO, brought West Germany into the European defense system, and master minded the policy of armed intervention in Korea.

Henry Kissinger, 1973-77, under Presidents Nixon and Ford, was highly influential with the President and Congress in national security affairs, he was best known for negotiating relaxed tensions and promote trade with China and the Soviet Union and pioneered the art of “shuttle diplomacy,” or persuading people who normally would not talk to us to enter into negotiations.

In this century, Colin Powell was instrumental in negotiating new sanctions against Iraq and negotiating and signing of the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions in May 2002. His successor, Condoleeza Rice was able to persuade a very reluctant President Bush to allow her to at least enter into negotiations with North Korea and Iran to find a solution to their nuclear programs--had her efforts continued in that effort, we might not be in as big a mess as we are in now after eight years of Obama administration bungling. She also wrote and obtained approval for the terms of a U.N. resolution to investigate war crimes in Sudan, something else GWB had resisted during his first term.

So what was it again that Hillary accomplished as SofS that will make it into the history books?

 

[candycorn]

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

--Feel Great. America usually gets it right. They did with BHO twice. Got the pop vote right in 2000. Got it right in 92 and 96.

I'm confident they will get it right in 2016 with HRC being elected comfortably in the Electoral Vote count and by a few million votes in the Popular.




2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

--Sure. HRC is the most qualified person to seek the Presidency since Bush 41.

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Supreme Court nominees. It's pretty much all that matters. She will have the chance to appoint 3 or 4.

What makes her the most qualified?


All the accomplishments she can point to as first lady? Senator? Secretary of State?

as accomplished as any other First Lady, Senator, or SoS

Her honesty and trustworthiness?

Her convictions and consistency?

The lack of scandals and criticism for questionable activities?

Fully trust her to do what I want her to do as Zpresident

Well, she does have a following. I was just wondering what the attraction was other than she has a "D" after her name. So far nobody has been able to tell me.

They’ve told you. You’re simply choosing not to listen.

But please entertain us. Tell me a more accomplished first lady of the last half of the 20th century. Or a more accomplished Senator from her class. Do Secretaries of State accomplish anything on their own? Ever?

No, they don't tell me. I have asked. And if they had, I would choose to listen. And be careful. Zone 1 rules apply for this thread.

And yes, though the Secretary of State of course serves at the pleasure of the President with the consent of the Senate, the SofS has an extremely important job and tremendous responsibility. The three stand out SofS in the 20th Century were:

George C. Marshall served under President Truman from 1947-49) He helped negotiate the postwar policy of containment and promoted the Truman Doctrine that provided military aid for Greece and Turkey, developed the Marshall Plan for rebuilding postwar Europe, was instrumental in organizing the Organization of American States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

And if you guys were alive then with the Internet, you’d be criticizing him for not taking out Russia while we were there.

His successor, Dean Acheson,1949-53, helped create NATO, brought West Germany into the European defense system, and master minded the policy of armed intervention in Korea.

Which gave us the stalemate in a useless war that has kept us there for now 60+ years.

Henry Kissinger, 1973-77, under Presidents Nixon and Ford, was highly influential with the President and Congress in national security affairs, he was best known for negotiating relaxed tensions and promote trade with China and the Soviet Union and pioneered the art of “shuttle diplomacy,” or persuading people who normally would not talk to us to enter into negotiations.

Highly influential…ahh...

In this century, Colin Powell was instrumental in negotiating new sanctions against Iraq and negotiating and signing of the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions in May 2002. His successor, Condoleeza Rice was able to persuade a very reluctant President Bush to allow her to at least enter into negotiations with North Korea and Iran to find a solution to their nuclear programs--had her efforts continued in that effort, we might not be in as big a mess as we are in now after eight years of Obama administration bungling. She also wrote and obtained approval for the terms of a U.N. resolution to investigate war crimes in Sudan, something else GWB had resisted during his first term.

As a good soldier, Colin Powell followed orders and lied his ass off to sell the war to the UN and the American people.
Conde Rice sexed up the Intel; "We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” or something like that.

So what was it again that Hillary accomplished as SofS that will make it into the history books?

Didn’t commit us to Korea for 6 decades, didn’t lie to get us into a war that costs 5,000 US Soldiers lives and tens of thousands of Iraqis or miss the strategic advantage to wipe out the Commies in the USSR while we had the men and material to do it—that lead to the cold war that lead to Reagan plunging us in to a debt cycle that we have yet to emerge from.

Still, Marshall, Kissinger, Powell and Rice have something that some real estate developer from Manhattan don’t have and that is experience of a world stage, a diplomatic reservoir of experiences and customs that you just don’t innately have, relationships with heads of state, etc… IF you don’t think that is valuable, you’re simply not qualified to have this conversation. Sorry.

 

[320 Years of History]

As Rush has just pointed out, there is a huge industry in this country tied to elections. Those who raise funds. Those who run campaigns and act as paid consultants to the candidates. Those who produce the advertisements that appear everywhere day and night. Those who charter transportation for their candidates. And provide security. And so on and on and on.

Trump does not need or use any of that and he threatens their important little niche in our society. That is exactly why they oppose him.

Well, just how huge is that industry? Can we have some quantification of it that allows us to understand its size in comparison to other industries? Did Mr. Limbaugh quantify just how much money advertisers spend on political advertising in comparison to non-political advertising, for example?

FEC: $7B spent on 2012 campaign

Seems to me to be a good size industry.

I suspect many things seem one way or another to you, and yet in fact are not at all as they seem. A $7B industry is not, as industries go, that big of an industry. I haven't checked, but I don't think it's anything more than what might be called a line of business or practice area/focus at one or several professional services firms.

• Accenture revenue: $31B
• McKinsey & Company revenue: $8.3B
• Deloitte revenue: $35B
• Omnicom Group revenue: $15.3B
• Interpublic Group revenue: $7.5B

I know that to an individual $7B is a lot of money. It's a huge sum for an individual public relations firm or political consultancy. Even the companies above would not leave $7B on the table, so to speak. But to refer to the sums spent across what is in fact several industries -- advertising/media, transportation, hotels and lodging, food and beverage, and consulting and public relations at the least -- that's really not that much.

• Size of US industries as of 2014 -- Remember that what Rush said (per you) is that there's a "huge" industry built around politicking. Well, whatever it is, even if it qualifies as an industry, it ain't huge.

What is a little bit interesting, if that be the best term for it, is that a somewhat small quantity of buyers -- namely the candidates -- spend $7B on "stuff" purchased from suppliers in the industries noted above (and perhaps a few others), but for that to be surprising, it'd need to be the sum spent solely by Presidential hopefuls. Why? Because upon considering not just Presidential elections, but also those for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governorships, state legislative office, sheriffs, etc., $7B is tantamount to "chump change" even though in total it's less so.

So how does Rush come to say what he did about the "huge" industry surrounding political campaigns? Well, first and foremost, his whole stock in trade is is ability to inflame his listeners and devotees by appealing to their ire over their not having received "something" that someone else did. I think too that what allows Rush to call the "industry" huge is that he knows the demographics of his audience, and accordingly he realizes

• most of his listeners have no idea what it means to be an industry,
• most of his listeners have no idea what is or is not a huge industry and aren't likely to check,
• to most of his listeners, $7B sounds huge
• to everyone who doesn't dwell in the world of big numbers, $7B is huge, and for anyone it is a huge sum to have as a personal net worth, the value of sales in the company they own, the endowment of their high school or college, and other measures that are applicable at an individual or very local level, i.e., a level at which an individual can actually relate.

For as much as I find little that Rush says of merit beyond entertainment, I nonetheless know the man isn't a complete fool. Far from it. The man knows that his job, his raison d'etre is to generate listenership for the radio networks that carry his show. The "Chicken Little" approach is an excellent way to do that. Accordingly, he's quite adept at choosing molehills out of which he can make mountains.

In all due respect, I don't think you know what anything means to Rush's audience or what 'sounds huge'. On the other hand, if you listen to the man on the street interviews, it is pretty clear that most Obama, Hillary, or Bernie supporters don't know what anything in government costs and would say that an $18 trillion dollar national debt was no problem. In fact some of them here on USMB have said that. But they are nevertheless insulted if it is pointed out they don't know much about much.

My point is not to be argumentative so much as to emphasize that many fans of many people would find such negative opinion of those fans to be personally insulting. For instance, I don't tune into Rush on a daily basis, but will catch parts or all of his show if out and about in the car or traveling. If asked if I am a fan, I probably am as much as anybody is even though I don't always agree with him or appreciate his approach to some things. And I definitely know how much money $7 billion is and it is not irrelevant to anybody.

Red:
Ignorance (willful or pardonable) is not something limited to conservatives. There are, IMO, plenty of folks who support Mssrs. Obama and Sanders and Mrs. Clinton's economic policies and who don't also understand, independently of what they've heard but not studied themselves, exactly why. Put another way, folks can or do believe "the right thing" for the wrong reasons.

He're an example that is much discussed by the Presidential hopefuls.

One can favor or oppose free trade (trade without artificial restrictions), but regardless of which side one takes on the topic, the instant I hear people extolling their position on the basis of free trade providing for more domestic jobs, I know that whether I agree with them or not, they are "barking up the wrong tree" because free trade's primary benefit is that it keeps prices low, not that it boosts the quantity of jobs that come available.

Job creation happens when productivity, not trade, is increased, and productivity is increased by innovation, by creating something that one is better suited to produce, and thus sell, than are the other folks who may also be able to produce it, but who cannot inherently do so as efficiently (inexpensively) as one can. To the extent that labor is necessarily a major and unavoidable component of the production of "whatever," producing that which one (as a nation) is best at producing is what will create jobs.

Sure, tariffs on imported goods can also make jobs appear in a nation. But when jobs are forced into existence via tariffs, those jobs are artificially created, thus temporary at best. Yes, the people who have those jobs will get paid. Yes, they'll spend their money, mostly domestically. But will the goods they produce be exported outside the country if they are pricier than comparable goods produced abroad? Some might, but mostly they won't be. The result is that the money paid to holders of those newly created jobs is just money rolling around within an economy, not new money being drawn into the economy from elsewhere.

Seeing as we already know the jobs that were "sent" overseas when manufacturers moved some or all of their production operations to Mexico or China were "sent" there because the cost of labor is so much lower there. We also know that if we were to impose sufficiently high tariffs on manufactured goods imported from China, Mexico or wherever at least some producers will return their production to the U.S. for the purpose of supplying U.S. consumers who will in turn have to pay for those goods, inclusive of their higher labor costs. And we know little export of those goods produced by "recaptured" labor will get exported because countries like China and Mexico can produce the exact same goods regardless of whether a U.S. company or other country's company owns the factory.

So what does the imposition of import tariffs (and other restrictions on free trade) mean for the manufacturer? Any or all of several things:

• The maker may split its production operations between the U.S. and a foreign country, selling the U.S. made goods only in the U.S. and the rest sold globally. If they can afford to own the fixed assets needed to produce in both countries, this is what they'd do. But U.S. consumers will pay more for whatever goods the maker produces and sells exclusively to U.S. consumers because the maker will still expect to earn a profit on its goods. The profit margin may be lower or the gross profit earned will be less, but either way, less money accrues to producer because quantity demanded is inversely proportional to price (the slope of a demand curve is negative). (Not including Veblen goods, and most goods aren't that.)
• The maker may exist the U.S. marketplace and decide that selling in China and other parts of the world is more profitable seeing as it cannot afford to produce in both the U.S. and those other places. We all can see that's even fewer jobs being performed in the U.S. than if nothing had changed, and that's even before considering the indirect losses that'd result from such a choice.
• The maker may bring all production back to the U.S. In this scenario, it will yield some profits to foreign competitors who operate in foreign markets because the U.S.-made goods are more expensive. The only way the producer can make the goods cost competitive abroad is to "dump" them onto those foreign markets, thereby accepting lower profits. Trust me, that would be allowed to last for long, certainly not if shareholders and governments can do anything about it.

The preceding is a very simple example, but it illustrates how by understanding how supply, demand and free trade function in the macroeconomic realm, whether one favors or opposes free trade, one can tell instantly from what another says as the reason why they favor or oppose free trade whether they do so for the "right" reason -- something intrinsic to the actual functioning of free trade -- or the "wrong" one, something external to what free trade is and can or cannot achieve. Almost without exception, free trade opponents, Bernie and Donald included, oppose free trade and yet not one of them will openly say that what they actually want to and must use to bring back those jobs is tariffs, which by definition are curtailments of free trade, but they are not trade of any sort. Too, not one of them has even remotely broached the downsides of tariffs. Similarly, not one person whose posts I've read on USMB has said a word about it being tariffs (maybe other forms of protectionism as well) that they favor.

Now when folks do own up to what it is about tariffs that will bring manufacturing back to the U.S., then I know they know what they are talking about and have simply made a conscious decision about whether the seeing protectionism or free trade as being better for the U.S. in the near term. With such folks, I'd then ask them for what they see as their long term solution. There are, however, no such folks commenting on USMB about free trade (bringing manufacturing back to the U.S.) of whom I've had reason to ask that because not one has shown they "get" the different impacts of free trade, restrictions on it, and productivity.

So, no, whom one supports is irrelevant to me; a person can support a liberal or a conservative and and very clearly to me not know what one is talking about.. What matters to me is what one supports and why, but the "why" needs to be something that makes sense with the way things actually work, in this case, the way economics works. That is unless someone has invented a whole new system of economics of which I'm unaware.


Blue:
They might. If they are insulted, well, they are. I'm not trying to insult folks. I'm trying to be honest with them and in what I have to say. Sometimes the truth hurts, and sometimes reality bites, but that doesn't me articulating that "such and such" is the reality isn't something to take personally. There are certainly topics about which I know little, but then I also don't have much to say about those topics because I know quite well that I am not well informed enough to even know if what I may hear about them, let alone what I might think of them, is BS or not.

When someone says of me that I suffer from myopia on a given matter, I know whether I do or not, no matter what they say. If they are right, they are. That's no insult, and I'll willingly agree with them. More likely, however, is that knowing I'm not well versed on something, I'm not going to have much to say, so they won't have cause to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. What I do when I don't understand something is ask questions so that I can gain an understanding.

Green:
Fan, not a fan....I wasn't going there. I'm just speaking of the bulk of the man's audience, which in all likelihood is comprised of folks who agree with Rush. Are they personal fans of his? I don't know. I often enjoy reading Fareed Zakaria's editorials. Would I call myself a fan of his? Probably. Do I agree with him? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but I nonetheless always find his remarks enjoyable to read; he gives me things to think about, or ways to think about them, that sometimes I hadn't identified prior to reading his column.

 

[320 Years of History]

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

--Feel Great. America usually gets it right. They did with BHO twice. Got the pop vote right in 2000. Got it right in 92 and 96.

I'm confident they will get it right in 2016 with HRC being elected comfortably in the Electoral Vote count and by a few million votes in the Popular.




2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

--Sure. HRC is the most qualified person to seek the Presidency since Bush 41.

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Supreme Court nominees. It's pretty much all that matters. She will have the chance to appoint 3 or 4.

What makes her the most qualified?


All the accomplishments she can point to as first lady? Senator? Secretary of State?

as accomplished as any other First Lady, Senator, or SoS

Her honesty and trustworthiness?

Her convictions and consistency?

The lack of scandals and criticism for questionable activities?

Fully trust her to do what I want her to do as Zpresident

Well, she does have a following. I was just wondering what the attraction was other than she has a "D" after her name. So far nobody has been able to tell me.

In our culture of binary comparisons and evaluations whereby one is either the best or most notable at "whatever" singular thing is under discussion, Mrs. Clinton doesn't stand out as the superlative embodiment of anything in particular, even though she's got a long list of actual accomplishments. While it's not true for anyone like you or me that being very good isn't enough, it seems we have a tacit expectation that our political leaders be "the best" at something, and in not being the best, they are by default no good at all. That false dilemma is the one Mrs. Clinton and her supporters face when asked "what's her claim to fame?"

The answer is that she's excelled a many things and her strength is found in her being very good at dealing with nearly everything that comes her way and that she's had enough losses and victories in her life which inform her now as she's on the cusp of being called to apply the learnings from all those experiences. That sort of thing is very hard to quantify, plus when coupled with a culture that looks either at "what's wrong," what are one's weaknesses and downfalls, or what are one's great successes that outstrip others, it's all the more difficult to get folks to understand that Mrs. Clinton is "a forest," not one or two "trees" that are "bigger and greener than all the others."

 

[Foxfyre]

What makes her the most qualified?


All the accomplishments she can point to as first lady? Senator? Secretary of State?

as accomplished as any other First Lady, Senator, or SoS

Her honesty and trustworthiness?

Her convictions and consistency?

The lack of scandals and criticism for questionable activities?

Fully trust her to do what I want her to do as Zpresident

Well, she does have a following. I was just wondering what the attraction was other than she has a "D" after her name. So far nobody has been able to tell me.

They’ve told you. You’re simply choosing not to listen.

But please entertain us. Tell me a more accomplished first lady of the last half of the 20th century. Or a more accomplished Senator from her class. Do Secretaries of State accomplish anything on their own? Ever?

No, they don't tell me. I have asked. And if they had, I would choose to listen. And be careful. Zone 1 rules apply for this thread.

And yes, though the Secretary of State of course serves at the pleasure of the President with the consent of the Senate, the SofS has an extremely important job and tremendous responsibility. The three stand out SofS in the 20th Century were:

George C. Marshall served under President Truman from 1947-49) He helped negotiate the postwar policy of containment and promoted the Truman Doctrine that provided military aid for Greece and Turkey, developed the Marshall Plan for rebuilding postwar Europe, was instrumental in organizing the Organization of American States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

And if you guys were alive then with the Internet, you’d be criticizing him for not taking out Russia while we were there.

His successor, Dean Acheson,1949-53, helped create NATO, brought West Germany into the European defense system, and master minded the policy of armed intervention in Korea.

Which gave us the stalemate in a useless war that has kept us there for now 60+ years.

Henry Kissinger, 1973-77, under Presidents Nixon and Ford, was highly influential with the President and Congress in national security affairs, he was best known for negotiating relaxed tensions and promote trade with China and the Soviet Union and pioneered the art of “shuttle diplomacy,” or persuading people who normally would not talk to us to enter into negotiations.

Highly influential…ahh...

In this century, Colin Powell was instrumental in negotiating new sanctions against Iraq and negotiating and signing of the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions in May 2002. His successor, Condoleeza Rice was able to persuade a very reluctant President Bush to allow her to at least enter into negotiations with North Korea and Iran to find a solution to their nuclear programs--had her efforts continued in that effort, we might not be in as big a mess as we are in now after eight years of Obama administration bungling. She also wrote and obtained approval for the terms of a U.N. resolution to investigate war crimes in Sudan, something else GWB had resisted during his first term.

As a good soldier, Colin Powell followed orders and lied his ass off to sell the war to the UN and the American people.
Conde Rice sexed up the Intel; "We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” or something like that.

So what was it again that Hillary accomplished as SofS that will make it into the history books?

Didn’t commit us to Korea for 6 decades, didn’t lie to get us into a war that costs 5,000 US Soldiers lives and tens of thousands of Iraqis or miss the strategic advantage to wipe out the Commies in the USSR while we had the men and material to do it—that lead to the cold war that lead to Reagan plunging us in to a debt cycle that we have yet to emerge from.

Still, Marshall, Kissinger, Powell and Rice have something that some real estate developer from Manhattan don’t have and that is experience of a world stage, a diplomatic reservoir of experiences and customs that you just don’t innately have, relationships with heads of state, etc… IF you don’t think that is valuable, you’re simply not qualified to have this conversation. Sorry.

So Hilllary didn't do anything so that qualifies her? Okay.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

--Feel Great. America usually gets it right. They did with BHO twice. Got the pop vote right in 2000. Got it right in 92 and 96.

I'm confident they will get it right in 2016 with HRC being elected comfortably in the Electoral Vote count and by a few million votes in the Popular.




2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

--Sure. HRC is the most qualified person to seek the Presidency since Bush 41.

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Supreme Court nominees. It's pretty much all that matters. She will have the chance to appoint 3 or 4.

What makes her the most qualified?


All the accomplishments she can point to as first lady? Senator? Secretary of State?

as accomplished as any other First Lady, Senator, or SoS

Her honesty and trustworthiness?

Her convictions and consistency?

The lack of scandals and criticism for questionable activities?

Fully trust her to do what I want her to do as Zpresident

Well, she does have a following. I was just wondering what the attraction was other than she has a "D" after her name. So far nobody has been able to tell me.

In our culture of binary comparisons and evaluations whereby one is either the best or most notable at "whatever" singular thing is under discussion, Mrs. Clinton doesn't stand out as the superlative embodiment of anything in particular, even though she's got a long list of actual accomplishments. While it's not true for anyone like you or me that being very good isn't enough, it seems we have a tacit expectation that our political leaders be "the best" at something, and in not being the best, they are by default no good at all. That false dilemma is the one Mrs. Clinton and her supporters face when asked "what's her claim to fame?"

The answer is that she's excelled a many things and her strength is found in her being very good at dealing with nearly everything that comes her way and that she's had enough losses and victories in her life which inform her now as she's on the cusp of being called to apply the learnings from all those experiences. That sort of thing is very hard to quantify, plus when coupled with a culture that looks either at "what's wrong," what are one's weaknesses and downfalls, or what are one's great successes that outstrip others, it's all the more difficult to get folks to understand that Mrs. Clinton is "a forest," not one or two "trees" that are "bigger and greener than all the others."

So strip away all the academic language and whatever argument is contained in there, and what do you have? A secretary of state who excelled in many things. But nobody can quite remember what those were?

 

[Foxfyre]

As Rush has just pointed out, there is a huge industry in this country tied to elections. Those who raise funds. Those who run campaigns and act as paid consultants to the candidates. Those who produce the advertisements that appear everywhere day and night. Those who charter transportation for their candidates. And provide security. And so on and on and on.

Trump does not need or use any of that and he threatens their important little niche in our society. That is exactly why they oppose him.

Well, just how huge is that industry? Can we have some quantification of it that allows us to understand its size in comparison to other industries? Did Mr. Limbaugh quantify just how much money advertisers spend on political advertising in comparison to non-political advertising, for example?

FEC: $7B spent on 2012 campaign

Seems to me to be a good size industry.

I suspect many things seem one way or another to you, and yet in fact are not at all as they seem. A $7B industry is not, as industries go, that big of an industry. I haven't checked, but I don't think it's anything more than what might be called a line of business or practice area/focus at one or several professional services firms.

• Accenture revenue: $31B
• McKinsey & Company revenue: $8.3B
• Deloitte revenue: $35B
• Omnicom Group revenue: $15.3B
• Interpublic Group revenue: $7.5B

I know that to an individual $7B is a lot of money. It's a huge sum for an individual public relations firm or political consultancy. Even the companies above would not leave $7B on the table, so to speak. But to refer to the sums spent across what is in fact several industries -- advertising/media, transportation, hotels and lodging, food and beverage, and consulting and public relations at the least -- that's really not that much.

• Size of US industries as of 2014 -- Remember that what Rush said (per you) is that there's a "huge" industry built around politicking. Well, whatever it is, even if it qualifies as an industry, it ain't huge.

What is a little bit interesting, if that be the best term for it, is that a somewhat small quantity of buyers -- namely the candidates -- spend $7B on "stuff" purchased from suppliers in the industries noted above (and perhaps a few others), but for that to be surprising, it'd need to be the sum spent solely by Presidential hopefuls. Why? Because upon considering not just Presidential elections, but also those for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governorships, state legislative office, sheriffs, etc., $7B is tantamount to "chump change" even though in total it's less so.

So how does Rush come to say what he did about the "huge" industry surrounding political campaigns? Well, first and foremost, his whole stock in trade is is ability to inflame his listeners and devotees by appealing to their ire over their not having received "something" that someone else did. I think too that what allows Rush to call the "industry" huge is that he knows the demographics of his audience, and accordingly he realizes

• most of his listeners have no idea what it means to be an industry,
• most of his listeners have no idea what is or is not a huge industry and aren't likely to check,
• to most of his listeners, $7B sounds huge
• to everyone who doesn't dwell in the world of big numbers, $7B is huge, and for anyone it is a huge sum to have as a personal net worth, the value of sales in the company they own, the endowment of their high school or college, and other measures that are applicable at an individual or very local level, i.e., a level at which an individual can actually relate.

For as much as I find little that Rush says of merit beyond entertainment, I nonetheless know the man isn't a complete fool. Far from it. The man knows that his job, his raison d'etre is to generate listenership for the radio networks that carry his show. The "Chicken Little" approach is an excellent way to do that. Accordingly, he's quite adept at choosing molehills out of which he can make mountains.

In all due respect, I don't think you know what anything means to Rush's audience or what 'sounds huge'. On the other hand, if you listen to the man on the street interviews, it is pretty clear that most Obama, Hillary, or Bernie supporters don't know what anything in government costs and would say that an $18 trillion dollar national debt was no problem. In fact some of them here on USMB have said that. But they are nevertheless insulted if it is pointed out they don't know much about much.

My point is not to be argumentative so much as to emphasize that many fans of many people would find such negative opinion of those fans to be personally insulting. For instance, I don't tune into Rush on a daily basis, but will catch parts or all of his show if out and about in the car or traveling. If asked if I am a fan, I probably am as much as anybody is even though I don't always agree with him or appreciate his approach to some things. And I definitely know how much money $7 billion is and it is not irrelevant to anybody.

Red:
Ignorance (willful or pardonable) is not something limited to conservatives. There are, IMO, plenty of folks who support Mssrs. Obama and Sanders and Mrs. Clinton's economic policies and who don't also understand, independently of what they've heard but not studied themselves, exactly why. Put another way, folks can or do believe "the right thing" for the wrong reasons.

He're an example that is much discussed by the Presidential hopefuls.

One can favor or oppose free trade (trade without artificial restrictions), but regardless of which side one takes on the topic, the instant I hear people extolling their position on the basis of free trade providing for more domestic jobs, I know that whether I agree with them or not, they are "barking up the wrong tree" because free trade's primary benefit is that it keeps prices low, not that it boosts the quantity of jobs that come available.

Job creation happens when productivity, not trade, is increased, and productivity is increased by innovation, by creating something that one is better suited to produce, and thus sell, than are the other folks who may also be able to produce it, but who cannot inherently do so as efficiently (inexpensively) as one can. To the extent that labor is necessarily a major and unavoidable component of the production of "whatever," producing that which one (as a nation) is best at producing is what will create jobs.

Sure, tariffs on imported goods can also make jobs appear in a nation. But when jobs are forced into existence via tariffs, those jobs are artificially created, thus temporary at best. Yes, the people who have those jobs will get paid. Yes, they'll spend their money, mostly domestically. But will the goods they produce be exported outside the country if they are pricier than comparable goods produced abroad? Some might, but mostly they won't be. The result is that the money paid to holders of those newly created jobs is just money rolling around within an economy, not new money being drawn into the economy from elsewhere.

Seeing as we already know the jobs that were "sent" overseas when manufacturers moved some or all of their production operations to Mexico or China were "sent" there because the cost of labor is so much lower there. We also know that if we were to impose sufficiently high tariffs on manufactured goods imported from China, Mexico or wherever at least some producers will return their production to the U.S. for the purpose of supplying U.S. consumers who will in turn have to pay for those goods, inclusive of their higher labor costs. And we know little export of those goods produced by "recaptured" labor will get exported because countries like China and Mexico can produce the exact same goods regardless of whether a U.S. company or other country's company owns the factory.

So what does the imposition of import tariffs (and other restrictions on free trade) mean for the manufacturer? Any or all of several things:

• The maker may split its production operations between the U.S. and a foreign country, selling the U.S. made goods only in the U.S. and the rest sold globally. If they can afford to own the fixed assets needed to produce in both countries, this is what they'd do. But U.S. consumers will pay more for whatever goods the maker produces and sells exclusively to U.S. consumers because the maker will still expect to earn a profit on its goods. The profit margin may be lower or the gross profit earned will be less, but either way, less money accrues to producer because quantity demanded is inversely proportional to price (the slope of a demand curve is negative). (Not including Veblen goods, and most goods aren't that.)
• The maker may exist the U.S. marketplace and decide that selling in China and other parts of the world is more profitable seeing as it cannot afford to produce in both the U.S. and those other places. We all can see that's even fewer jobs being performed in the U.S. than if nothing had changed, and that's even before considering the indirect losses that'd result from such a choice.
• The maker may bring all production back to the U.S. In this scenario, it will yield some profits to foreign competitors who operate in foreign markets because the U.S.-made goods are more expensive. The only way the producer can make the goods cost competitive abroad is to "dump" them onto those foreign markets, thereby accepting lower profits. Trust me, that would be allowed to last for long, certainly not if shareholders and governments can do anything about it.

The preceding is a very simple example, but it illustrates how by understanding how supply, demand and free trade function in the macroeconomic realm, whether one favors or opposes free trade, one can tell instantly from what another says as the reason why they favor or oppose free trade whether they do so for the "right" reason -- something intrinsic to the actual functioning of free trade -- or the "wrong" one, something external to what free trade is and can or cannot achieve. Almost without exception, free trade opponents, Bernie and Donald included, oppose free trade and yet not one of them will openly say that what they actually want to and must use to bring back those jobs is tariffs, which by definition are curtailments of free trade, but they are not trade of any sort. Too, not one of them has even remotely broached the downsides of tariffs. Similarly, not one person whose posts I've read on USMB has said a word about it being tariffs (maybe other forms of protectionism as well) that they favor.

Now when folks do own up to what it is about tariffs that will bring manufacturing back to the U.S., then I know they know what they are talking about and have simply made a conscious decision about whether the seeing protectionism or free trade as being better for the U.S. in the near term. With such folks, I'd then ask them for what they see as their long term solution. There are, however, no such folks commenting on USMB about free trade (bringing manufacturing back to the U.S.) of whom I've had reason to ask that because not one has shown they "get" the different impacts of free trade, restrictions on it, and productivity.

So, no, whom one supports is irrelevant to me; a person can support a liberal or a conservative and and very clearly to me not know what one is talking about.. What matters to me is what one supports and why, but the "why" needs to be something that makes sense with the way things actually work, in this case, the way economics works. That is unless someone has invented a whole new system of economics of which I'm unaware.


Blue:
They might. If they are insulted, well, they are. I'm not trying to insult folks. I'm trying to be honest with them and in what I have to say. Sometimes the truth hurts, and sometimes reality bites, but that doesn't me articulating that "such and such" is the reality isn't something to take personally. There are certainly topics about which I know little, but then I also don't have much to say about those topics because I know quite well that I am not well informed enough to even know if what I may hear about them, let alone what I might think of them, is BS or not.

When someone says of me that I suffer from myopia on a given matter, I know whether I do or not, no matter what they say. If they are right, they are. That's no insult, and I'll willingly agree with them. More likely, however, is that knowing I'm not well versed on something, I'm not going to have much to say, so they won't have cause to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. What I do when I don't understand something is ask questions so that I can gain an understanding.

Green:
Fan, not a fan....I wasn't going there. I'm just speaking of the bulk of the man's audience, which in all likelihood is comprised of folks who agree with Rush. Are they personal fans of his? I don't know. I often enjoy reading Fareed Zakaria's editorials. Would I call myself a fan of his? Probably. Do I agree with him? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but I nonetheless always find his remarks enjoyable to read; he gives me things to think about, or ways to think about them, that sometimes I hadn't identified prior to reading his column.

From what I have seen with the analysis, most people listen to Rush because he agrees with THEM. Not the other way around.

 

[candycorn]

as accomplished as any other First Lady, Senator, or SoS

Fully trust her to do what I want her to do as Zpresident

Well, she does have a following. I was just wondering what the attraction was other than she has a "D" after her name. So far nobody has been able to tell me.

They’ve told you. You’re simply choosing not to listen.

But please entertain us. Tell me a more accomplished first lady of the last half of the 20th century. Or a more accomplished Senator from her class. Do Secretaries of State accomplish anything on their own? Ever?

No, they don't tell me. I have asked. And if they had, I would choose to listen. And be careful. Zone 1 rules apply for this thread.

And yes, though the Secretary of State of course serves at the pleasure of the President with the consent of the Senate, the SofS has an extremely important job and tremendous responsibility. The three stand out SofS in the 20th Century were:

George C. Marshall served under President Truman from 1947-49) He helped negotiate the postwar policy of containment and promoted the Truman Doctrine that provided military aid for Greece and Turkey, developed the Marshall Plan for rebuilding postwar Europe, was instrumental in organizing the Organization of American States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

And if you guys were alive then with the Internet, you’d be criticizing him for not taking out Russia while we were there.

His successor, Dean Acheson,1949-53, helped create NATO, brought West Germany into the European defense system, and master minded the policy of armed intervention in Korea.

Which gave us the stalemate in a useless war that has kept us there for now 60+ years.

Henry Kissinger, 1973-77, under Presidents Nixon and Ford, was highly influential with the President and Congress in national security affairs, he was best known for negotiating relaxed tensions and promote trade with China and the Soviet Union and pioneered the art of “shuttle diplomacy,” or persuading people who normally would not talk to us to enter into negotiations.

Highly influential…ahh...

In this century, Colin Powell was instrumental in negotiating new sanctions against Iraq and negotiating and signing of the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions in May 2002. His successor, Condoleeza Rice was able to persuade a very reluctant President Bush to allow her to at least enter into negotiations with North Korea and Iran to find a solution to their nuclear programs--had her efforts continued in that effort, we might not be in as big a mess as we are in now after eight years of Obama administration bungling. She also wrote and obtained approval for the terms of a U.N. resolution to investigate war crimes in Sudan, something else GWB had resisted during his first term.

As a good soldier, Colin Powell followed orders and lied his ass off to sell the war to the UN and the American people.
Conde Rice sexed up the Intel; "We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” or something like that.

So what was it again that Hillary accomplished as SofS that will make it into the history books?

Didn’t commit us to Korea for 6 decades, didn’t lie to get us into a war that costs 5,000 US Soldiers lives and tens of thousands of Iraqis or miss the strategic advantage to wipe out the Commies in the USSR while we had the men and material to do it—that lead to the cold war that lead to Reagan plunging us in to a debt cycle that we have yet to emerge from.

Still, Marshall, Kissinger, Powell and Rice have something that some real estate developer from Manhattan don’t have and that is experience of a world stage, a diplomatic reservoir of experiences and customs that you just don’t innately have, relationships with heads of state, etc… IF you don’t think that is valuable, you’re simply not qualified to have this conversation. Sorry.

So Hilllary didn't do anything so that qualifies her? Okay.

Much like Cal Ripken didn't do anything as a SS for the Orioles or Charles Barkley didn't do anything as a forward for the Suns.

You simply place no value on the experience, relationships, diplomatic bandwidth. That's cool. But you sound pretty ignorant when you claim that she's accomplished nothing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, she does have a following. I was just wondering what the attraction was other than she has a "D" after her name. So far nobody has been able to tell me.

They’ve told you. You’re simply choosing not to listen.

But please entertain us. Tell me a more accomplished first lady of the last half of the 20th century. Or a more accomplished Senator from her class. Do Secretaries of State accomplish anything on their own? Ever?

No, they don't tell me. I have asked. And if they had, I would choose to listen. And be careful. Zone 1 rules apply for this thread.

And yes, though the Secretary of State of course serves at the pleasure of the President with the consent of the Senate, the SofS has an extremely important job and tremendous responsibility. The three stand out SofS in the 20th Century were:

George C. Marshall served under President Truman from 1947-49) He helped negotiate the postwar policy of containment and promoted the Truman Doctrine that provided military aid for Greece and Turkey, developed the Marshall Plan for rebuilding postwar Europe, was instrumental in organizing the Organization of American States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

And if you guys were alive then with the Internet, you’d be criticizing him for not taking out Russia while we were there.

His successor, Dean Acheson,1949-53, helped create NATO, brought West Germany into the European defense system, and master minded the policy of armed intervention in Korea.

Which gave us the stalemate in a useless war that has kept us there for now 60+ years.

Henry Kissinger, 1973-77, under Presidents Nixon and Ford, was highly influential with the President and Congress in national security affairs, he was best known for negotiating relaxed tensions and promote trade with China and the Soviet Union and pioneered the art of “shuttle diplomacy,” or persuading people who normally would not talk to us to enter into negotiations.

Highly influential…ahh...

In this century, Colin Powell was instrumental in negotiating new sanctions against Iraq and negotiating and signing of the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions in May 2002. His successor, Condoleeza Rice was able to persuade a very reluctant President Bush to allow her to at least enter into negotiations with North Korea and Iran to find a solution to their nuclear programs--had her efforts continued in that effort, we might not be in as big a mess as we are in now after eight years of Obama administration bungling. She also wrote and obtained approval for the terms of a U.N. resolution to investigate war crimes in Sudan, something else GWB had resisted during his first term.

As a good soldier, Colin Powell followed orders and lied his ass off to sell the war to the UN and the American people.
Conde Rice sexed up the Intel; "We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” or something like that.

So what was it again that Hillary accomplished as SofS that will make it into the history books?

Didn’t commit us to Korea for 6 decades, didn’t lie to get us into a war that costs 5,000 US Soldiers lives and tens of thousands of Iraqis or miss the strategic advantage to wipe out the Commies in the USSR while we had the men and material to do it—that lead to the cold war that lead to Reagan plunging us in to a debt cycle that we have yet to emerge from.

Still, Marshall, Kissinger, Powell and Rice have something that some real estate developer from Manhattan don’t have and that is experience of a world stage, a diplomatic reservoir of experiences and customs that you just don’t innately have, relationships with heads of state, etc… IF you don’t think that is valuable, you’re simply not qualified to have this conversation. Sorry.

So Hilllary didn't do anything so that qualifies her? Okay.

Much like Cal Ripken didn't do anything as a SS for the Orioles or Charles Barkley didn't do anything as a forward for the Suns.

You simply place no value on the experience, relationships, diplomatic bandwidth. That's cool. But you sound pretty ignorant when you claim that she's accomplished nothing.

Again I will remind you that Zone 1 rules are in effect for this thread.

I made no such claim. I asked you what she had accomplished that qualifies her to be President. You mentioned some things she has not done, but nothing that she has accomplished. So so far, your argument is that Secretary of States don't accomplish anything by themselves and that she is qualified by what she hasn't done. I didn't say that. You did.

So I know what Ripkin and Barkley have done that qualifies them to be in the positions they hold or held. It isn't that they were part of a team that qualifies them, but what they accomplished with the team. It isn't what they didn't do that qualifies them but what they have accomplished. The real talent and skills they bring to their respective teams.

What has Hillary accomplished that qualifies her?

 

[longknife]

Latest Delegate Count @ RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 â?? Republican Delegate Count

Latest Delegate map

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Republican Nomination

 

[320 Years of History]

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

--Feel Great. America usually gets it right. They did with BHO twice. Got the pop vote right in 2000. Got it right in 92 and 96.

I'm confident they will get it right in 2016 with HRC being elected comfortably in the Electoral Vote count and by a few million votes in the Popular.




2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

--Sure. HRC is the most qualified person to seek the Presidency since Bush 41.

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Supreme Court nominees. It's pretty much all that matters. She will have the chance to appoint 3 or 4.

What makes her the most qualified?


All the accomplishments she can point to as first lady? Senator? Secretary of State?

as accomplished as any other First Lady, Senator, or SoS

Her honesty and trustworthiness?

Her convictions and consistency?

The lack of scandals and criticism for questionable activities?

Fully trust her to do what I want her to do as Zpresident

Well, she does have a following. I was just wondering what the attraction was other than she has a "D" after her name. So far nobody has been able to tell me.

In our culture of binary comparisons and evaluations whereby one is either the best or most notable at "whatever" singular thing is under discussion, Mrs. Clinton doesn't stand out as the superlative embodiment of anything in particular, even though she's got a long list of actual accomplishments. While it's not true for anyone like you or me that being very good isn't enough, it seems we have a tacit expectation that our political leaders be "the best" at something, and in not being the best, they are by default no good at all. That false dilemma is the one Mrs. Clinton and her supporters face when asked "what's her claim to fame?"

The answer is that she's excelled a many things and her strength is found in her being very good at dealing with nearly everything that comes her way and that she's had enough losses and victories in her life which inform her now as she's on the cusp of being called to apply the learnings from all those experiences. That sort of thing is very hard to quantify, plus when coupled with a culture that looks either at "what's wrong," what are one's weaknesses and downfalls, or what are one's great successes that outstrip others, it's all the more difficult to get folks to understand that Mrs. Clinton is "a forest," not one or two "trees" that are "bigger and greener than all the others."

So strip away all the academic language and whatever argument is contained in there, and what do you have? A secretary of state who excelled in many things. But nobody can quite remember what those were?

Red and off topic:
??? What academic language?

Blue:
Eleven Moments that Define Hillary Clinton
What Is Hillary’s Greatest Accomplishment?

I don't know that I'd say that nobody can remember what Mrs. Clinton has done or accomplished. Some folks may not, however. Others may not have bothered to go find out.

As a private citizen:

• Played a leading role in advocating the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides state support for children whose parents cannot provide them with health coverage.
• She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses.
• She initiated and shepherded the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
• She encouraged older women to seek a mammogram for early detection of breast cancer (which is covered by Medicare) and successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the NIH.
• She created Arkansas's Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth.
  
• She was the chair of the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession.
  
• She worked to investigate illnesses that were reportedly affecting Veterans of the Gulf War; now commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome.
• She created an Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.
• She is also the first first lady to hold a postgraduate degree.
• She traveled to more countries than any other first lady had at that time.
• Won a Grammy Award.
• She served on the boards of directors of Wal-Mart and several other corporations.
  
• She was a law professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
  
• She was Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic.
  
• She was President of the Wellesley Young Republicans.
• She interned at the House Republican Conference.
  
• She was a distinguished graduate of Yale Law School.
  
• She was a staff attorney for Children's Defense Fund.
• She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses.
  
• She reformed Arkansas' education system.
• She was partner at the Rose Law Firm.
• Twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.

As a U.S. senator from New York:

• She was the first first woman to be elected to this office.
• She was instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment.
• She took a leading role in investigating the health issues that 9/11 first responders were facing.
• In November 2012, Secretary of State Clinton brokered a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, effecting a ceasefire.
  
• After visiting soldiers in Iraq, Clinton noted that the insurgency had failed to disrupt the democratic elections held earlier, and that parts of the country were functioning well. Noting that war deployments were draining regular and reserve forces, she cointroduced legislation to increase the size of the regular Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain and supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans.
• She was one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act.
  
• She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.
  
• She served on five Senate committees:
  • Committee on Budget (2001–2002)
  • Committee on Armed Services (2003–2009)
  • Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001–2009)
  • Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001–2009)
  • Special Committee on Aging.

• She she introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act.

As Secretary of State:

• She helped to repair a badly damaged U.S. reputation.
  • U.S. Reputation Improves Abroad
    
  • Hillary Clinton: A long journey - BBC News
  • Hillary Clinton revived U.S.'s global authority (opinion) - CNN.com
• She advocated an expanded role in global economic issues for the State Department and cited the need for an increased U.S. diplomatic presence, especially in Iraq, where the Defense Department had conducted diplomatic missions.
• She unveiled the Global Hunger and Food Security program, prevailed over Vice President Biden to send an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan, saved the signing of a Turkish-Armenian accord.
• She served as commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
  
• She assisted the president with major decisions as to the U.S. position with regard to the revolution in Egypt and the decision to use military force in Libya.

I'm sure I've left out things....hopefully you get the idea that you must seek information that doesn't necessarily fall at your feet or that isn't part of pop culture's common awareness. Folks may not know what Mrs. Clinton, a person who's running for President has accomplished, but I'll wager they know who Brad Pitt is married to now and in the past. Now you tell me which information is more worth remembering, and bothering to know in the first place.

One may or may not agree -- it's irrelevant, in terms of her experience and accomplishments, whether one does or not -- politically with the aims and outcomes of some or all of what she's done, but what that has nothing to do with the prowess, nature and extent of excellent performance the woman has demonstrated since she was in college. Moreover, all that stuff she's done has imbued her with literally hundreds of lessons learned -- great and small -- from both her (objective) failures and successes, lessons she will bring to bear if/when she becomes President.