What is so bad about Hillary Clinton?

amother

Navy

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 6:35 am

amother wrote:

Where do you think all these jobs will miraculously come from? How valuable will a college education be if everyone can get one for free? Employers will just raise their standards and seek employees with a more exclusive, more expensive, college degree. And of course to make college accessible to all you'd have to lower the admission standards and dumb down the curriculum so the education will hardly be more than a worthless piece of paper, free for the recipient but not free for you and me. We'll all be paying a lot more in taxes for this wonderful program which will have no discernible effect other than to create an enormous group of disgruntled, unemployed college grads who are furious that they didn't get what they were promised: a good job.

So you're happy as a clam with an uneducated populace, and a subclass of people who cannot find jobs.

Okey-dokey.

FTR, I don't believe that government-funded college is a necessity, given the relatively low cost of public colleges. I would, however, like to see more financial aid being made available.

Also FTR, there are no admission requirements for CUNY community colleges. Every NYC student with a hs diploma or GED is guaranteed admission into a CUNY.

amother

Navy

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 7:05 am

amother wrote:

To navy amother --- the quoting is not working so I will just bold your words and respond.

Abortion is not antithetical to Torah values. Indeed, many frum women have abortions, with the advice and approval of their rabbis. Indeed, one could state that an OPPOSITION to abortion in all cases is anthetical to Torah values.

In any case, please cite a source for Clinton stating that she supports abortion of a full-term, healthy baby.
Aborting a healthy baby when the mother's life is not at danger is 100% murder. Most republicans and conservatives support an abortion when the mother's life is in danger. The vast majority of abortions in the US do not fall under that category. From 1973-2005 there were 56,405,766 abortions in the US. Over 1 mllion in 2015. Over 56 MILLION abortions -- how many of those children were killed because their mother was at risk of dying if she gave birth??? (see here for the statistics: http://www.mccl.org/us-abortion-stats.html)
My gosh. So terrible.
Non-Jews are also required not to kill, you know.

I provided a link that Hillary supports abortion in the 9th month until the actual labor. The leftist approach to abortions has nothing to do with the mother's health. It's that they say the baby in the womb is not a human -- it's just a fetus -- until it is born. Just google and you will find plenty more links:
Regarding her position supporting abortion at all stages of pregnancy - including during the actual labor:
http://www.washingtontimes.com.....-abortion/

So heartbreaking.

The article doesn't say what you claim it does. Again, Clinton supports DX abortions, which are NOT abortions during labor.

And, again, Jewish law not only PERMITS but REQUIRES abortion under certian circumstances. You would like to have a law in place that does not allow women to comply with halacha. Nice.

amother wrote:

Pro-gay marriage.
Yes, she is. She believes in giving equal rights to all Americans, including those whom Hashem made gay. But she does not support requiring rabbis to perform weddings.
The Gemara says that Sdom and Gemorra was destroyed when men starting writing ketbuot to other men. (Meaning: when men starting marry men).

The US should not be legislating religious law. But even if it should, 1.4% of Americans are Jewish, and a large percentage of those are not Orthodox. By contrast, 2.1% are Muslim, 1.2% Hindu, 13% no religion, and the rest Christian. So I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be my religion that would be legislated. But if you'd be OK with, say, you're kids being required to genuflect in school every day, then go ahead and support a destruction of the separation of church and state. Me, I figure that if I were opposed to gay marriage, I'd turn down an invitation to a wedding of two gay people; that's a lot easier.

amother wrote:

Please provide a single instance in which any woman has ever been "harassed" by a transgendered woman in a restroom.

Really? See here: (at least 5 instances when transgendered "women" harrassed women in a mixed restroom.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/.....acomo

Do you read these articles? Because, again, it doesn't say that at all. Is says that on 5 occasions -- FIVE, out of all the times that people use public restrooms every day -- men dressed up as women, BUT NOT TRANSGENDERED -- engaged in inappropriate activities.

So, shall we also outlaw mikvahs, because of Freundel? Outlaw seminaries because of abuse? Because those people were all what they claimed to be.

[quote="amother']

She's the best friend that Israel has in this election.
A pretty lousy friend.
She opposes Jews living in Judea/Samaria (aka the west bank) -- 200,000 Jews live there. A re-enactment of gush katif is something I would hate to see.
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/N.....fault.aspx

Regarding her critism of Israel during the Gaza war:
https://unitedwithisrael.org/w.....uote]

She does indeed oppose Jews living in the West Bank because, in the long run, she believes that it will be given to the PA to form a Palestinian State. Lots of people who staunchly support Israel believe the same. So its not that she doesn't support Israel, its that she doesn't support YOUR vision of Israel. Big difference.

Your other link doesn't work. But honestly, do you think that criticism of any aspect of another country means that you're opposed to that country? So I guess that Israel is utterly anti-American, given Netanyahu's statements and positions. And Trump, using the same logic, is very much pro-Russia and anti-Israel.

But Clinton cannot have been more clear in this campaign: When “your soldiers are under attack, you have to respond... It’s a very different undertaking for Israel to target those who are targeting them... And I think Israel has had to defend itself, has a right to defend itself.”

Fox

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 11:48 am

amother wrote:

Op here. Thanks fox for your reply. Answers like "she's evil" and "everything she says is a lie" are the kind of non answers I was hearing until now.
So, why is it such a big deal that the clintons have a fund that foreign donors give to? I don't know I can't get worked up about it based on what you said. also why would you be upset if she's trying to shut down jihadi social media accounts? That's how Isis recruits among others.

In general I don't respond to anonymous posters on a thread like this, but I'll make an exception since you asked so nicely! Smile

The reason the Clinton Foundation is such a big deal is that

1. Donors representing foreign governments and powerful non-governmental players have made huge donations -- in the tens of millions of dollars. In a number of cases, these donors had business with the State Department during Clinton's tenure and/or were seeking help from the U.S. at the time.

2. Even if you argue that there was no inappropriate influence because of Clinton Foundation donations, the appearance of impropriety is disturbing.

3. And even if you dismiss the problem of appearances, it is problematic that Clinton herself has never seen or acknowledged the problem. She seems oblivious to the fact that it might just be a wee bit suspicious for, say, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to give the Clinton Foundation $25 million in 2014 -- as she was gearing up for this election cycle.

The reason that shutting down jihadi social media accounts is concerning is because Clinton doesn't seem to realize how delicate and sensitive this is -- at least based on her website statement.

Sure, it seems easy to say, "Hey, Akbar! No recruiting for ISIS through Facebook!" None of us would be opposed to that in the least.

But censoring speech is a very slippery slope, and it often leads to unintended consequences. Many of the same people who want to censor jihadi recruitment would be perfectly content to include, for example, social media from kiruv organizations in the same ban.

Perhaps that sounds outlandish, but virtually every totalitarian society starts by censoring speech that might reasonably be censored, and keeps expanding the parameters of what needs to be censored for the good of the people. There is a reason Americans should guard the Bill of Rights zealously, even when it seems counterintuitive.

In particular, driving Muslim voices from mainstream social media is likely to backfire. They can simply move into a "dark web" kind of environment using proxy servers. This will make jihadi causes even more glamorous to potential recruits and make it even more difficult to gather intelligence or counteract recruiting attempts.

Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

amother

Navy

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 1:35 pm

Fox wrote:

In general I don't respond to anonymous posters on a thread like this, but I'll make an exception since you asked so nicely! Smile

The Clinton Foundation is (IMNSHO) a wonderful organization that has raised a lot of money and done a lot of good. It has a tremendous amount of transparency. (Money contributed to the Foundation was publicly disclosed and went to charitable efforts, such as fighting neglected tropical diseases that infect as many as a billion people. The financials audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the global independent accounting company, and the foundation’s tax filings show that about 90 percent of the money it raised went to its charitable programs. (Trump surrogates have falsely claimed that it was only 10 percent and that the rest was used as a Clinton “slush fund.”) No member of the Clinton family received any cash from the foundation, nor did it finance any political campaigns. In fact, like the Clintons, almost the entire board of directors works for free. – freely taken from the Newsweek article, FTR.) The name of every donor, along with the range of donations, is listed on the website. The Clintons themselves donated $1 million in 2015. Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton have ever received a salary from the Foundation. And while Ms. Clinton was Secretary of State, she was not on its Board.

Nevertheless, I understand why some people are concerned. After all, as Donald Trump pointed out, people like him give money because they expect to receive something in return, and there are a number of foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation. That’s why Clinton has already outlined what will happen if she is elected. Bill Clinton would step down from the Foundation Board, and it would stop accepting money from foreign and corporate sources.

The Clinton Global Initiative is already set to be shut down.

Perhaps Clinton was naive in thinking that no one could fault her for a charitable foundation from which she received no monies. Sort of like having someone give money to your favorite charity. But that has been remedied.

OTOH, while Trump has now (today) said that he would sever his relationship to his companies – which have deep foreign ties – if he were elected, he would still leave them in the hands of his children. Now, I suppose that one shouldn’t expect him to divest of his business interests. But we’re talking direct money to him and his family, not monies for charity. Read the Newsweek article, explaining how Trump’s interests differ from American foreign policy. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/0......html Of course, since he refuses to release tax returns, no one knows the extent of the issue.

I agree that pro-ISIS sites should not be shut down. I’m less troubled by Clinton’s rhetoric than by Trump’s blatantly anti-Muslim rhetoric, though.

amother

Navy

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 1:43 pm

Just to add --

In the records posted by the Clinton Foundation, Saudi Arabia shows up as having given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation started. When it began in 1997, the foundation’s main goal was to build the Clinton presidential library, although it left open the option to "engage in any and all other charitable, educational and scientific activities" that nonprofits are allowed to do under federal law.

The Washington Post reported that Saudi Arabia gave about $10 million to build the library. (According to the Post, the Saudis gave a similar amount to the George H.W. Bush library.) After the library donation, the Saudis gave very little and stopped giving entirely during the time Clinton was secretary of state. She stepped down in early February 2013.

Saudi Arabia gave again in 2014, but it was a small fraction of what it had given before. (Politifact states that these details come from news reports, and when they brought the numbers to the foundation staff, they said they were accurate.)

The foundation first revealed Saudi giving in December 2008. The total was in the $10 million to $25 million range then, and it hasn’t changed since.

So the Saudi thing is a red herring.

Source -- Politifact

Fox

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 2:26 pm

Jeanette wrote:

As long as we're worried about the free speech rights of terrorists, why are people not concerned about trump's threat to "open up libel laws" to go after journalists who criticize them? After all the main purpose of the first amendment is to preserve our right to freely criticize our leaders.

Let's discuss what is meant by "open up libel laws."

Right now, libel laws work as follows (Legal Information Institute of Cornell University Law School via The Washington Post):

Quote:

To win a defamation case, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, defamation claims have been limited by First Amendment concerns. Thus, for instance, public officials and public figures (people who are famous) must show that statements were made with actual malice to recover in an action for defamation. Actual malice means that a statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false. In addition, a plaintiff must show actual malice by "clear and convincing" evidence rather than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, preponderance of the evidence.

A private person suing about a matter of private concern need only show negligence, meaning that the defendant knew the statement was false, or would have known if she or he had exercised reasonable care.

Because the definition of "actual malice" is not codified in regard to public figures, Trump is suggesting either codifying it or, more radically, downgrading the standard to more closely approach that enjoyed by private citizens.

I have mixed feelings about this; on one hand, I'm resistant to anything that sounds like encroachment on First Amendment rights. One the other hand, journalists and media outlets are making it hard to defend them. Practices such as defining virtually everyone as a "public figure" have already been rejected by at least one jury, and journalists from across the political and cultural spectrum have become more and more sloppy about sourcing their stories.

As to why no one is interested in discussing this, I don't know. I started a thread some time ago regarding the Gawker verdict and the role of Peter Thiel in bringing its demise. The thread received exactly one response. So apparently freedom of the press and limits thereof is not a pressing concern for Imamothers.

Fox

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 2:39 pm

amother wrote:

Source -- Politifact

Navy Amother, I don't respond point-by-point to anonymous posts. I can fully understand why you might want to be anonymous, but I don't find these kinds of discussions fruitful unless everyone involved is willing to be accountable.

That said, I'll make three points:

1. Politifact has routinely been documented as having a left-leaning bias. That's perfectly all right -- as long as you add sources from across the political spectrum for more credibility.

2. I would urge you to review the investigative reporting done by Ken Silverstein on the Clinton Foundation. Silverstein has written for a wide variety of publications, including Mother Jones and Slate -- hardly voices for the vast right-wing conspiracy.

3. I've said this a number of different ways, but apparently it bears repeating: Believing that Clinton is not qualified to be President does not mean believing that Trump is a wonderful person or that he has no drawbacks as a candidate.

amother

Navy

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 2:46 pm

Fox wrote:

One of the things that is considered in connection with a determination of actual malice is whether the defendant followed proper journalistic practices. In other words, being "sloppy about sourcing stories" may well rise to the level of actual malice.

Its far from an insurmountable standard. Read about Richard Sprague's claims against PNI, for example. And Richard Jewell did quite well on that front. (He was found to be a public figure because of the interviews he gave, which did hurt his claims.)

Nor is it a standard that should be changed. Newspapers need to be able to report on events and on public figures without fear of litigation.

Think about it. Can you imagine a world in which Hillary Clinton could sue Donald Trump for making false comments about her health?

The real problem are bloggers and other smaller media sources, IMNSHO. They don't vet their content, and use incendiary, often misleading, headlines and verbiage. This started on the right, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, but has gotten worse, and is an ill of all sides of the political spectrum.

ally

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 2:49 pm

amother wrote:

That's hardly what I said. I said your so-called free education will be lacking in quality and essentially amount to no education despite being called college, and it won't be free either, only paid for by people other than the recipients. I also said this plan will not increase employability or create jobs that do not exist and won't miraculous exist simply because more people have gone to college. In short, I care about those problems but this plan will not solve them.

I don't understand why free education automatically lacks in quality and amounts to no education. Noone is telling colleges that they have to lower their standards or hand their degrees out on the street.

The idea of free college is not to create jobs that do not exist. It is to open up access to a broader sector of society and increase admission based on merit rather than socioeconomic standing. It is offering opportunity for people to cross those same socio-economic barriers. Whether it increases your employability depends on what your employability was before you had access to free college.

Of course, as an isolated policy, it is not going to instantaneously create an even level playing ground - tuition cost is only one part of the equation. Other factors like attitudes towards higher education, mentorship, even s-x ed, also have a significant role.

Finally it is clear that such a policy is costly, and would need to be carefully implemented, probably in stages. That doesn't mean it is not worthwhile in the long term.

amother

Navy

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 3:06 pm

Fox wrote:

Shrug. I've read them. I even read Breitbart on occasion. I don't need to provide you with a bibliography when responding to you. Particularly not when you clearly misspoke about the Clinton Foundation's rating as a charitable organization, information that is readily available.

You want to attribute deals that were approved by numerous agencies to a donation to the Clinton Foundation.

If its play for pay, why did Brunei and Canada donate the same amount, but one received increased weapons deals of 18%, while the other received a decrease of 81%?

My question is, what was the level of weapons deals with countries that did not donate. I haven't found that yet.

ETA, even if you believe that Politifact is left leaning, the facts are the facts. Do you have information to show that there were Saudi contributions made when I said they weren't?

Fox

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 3:22 pm

ally wrote:

Finally it is clear that such a policy is costly, and would need to be carefully implemented, probably in stages. That doesn't mean it is not worthwhile in the long term.

There are a couple of problems with the free college model:

1. The unintended consequences of government interference.

Why have college costs increased so dramatically in comparison to inflation? In large part, because of government-guaranteed student aid. The economic psychology is easy: if you're a college and you suddenly discover that your students can get, say, $2500 more in government financial aid than in previous years, you suddenly find that tuition happens to be about $2500 more.

What are colleges spending all that money on? In large part, non-academic administrators who keep up with all the paperwork demanded by various governmental agencies from schools accepting financial aid. The number of administrators has risen something like 400+ percent in the last 30 years. Higher education is nearly as regulated as banking.

2. If we can't teach basic skills in high school, why will we be able to do so in college?

There is no real reason that a college degree is necessary or even particularly useful. What employers want are people who are literate in language and math; who are able to solve problems; and who can learn. Those are the things that should be handled in elementary school and high school. But, of course, many schools are so bad that students come out with virtually nothing.

Why do we think that colleges -- even community colleges -- will be able to miraculously avoid the problems of local secondary schools?

3. When something is free, there's never enough to go around.

This is a basic tenet of even a quasi-free market economy. In fact, its proof is in planned economies, such as those undertaken by the former Soviet Union. Making something free simply means that those with the inclination and savvy will find ways to get more than their fair share.

So are there educational reforms that would make sense?

1. Reduce federal and state support for underperforming state research universities. Require state universities to revise their mission statements to reflect the needs of the state, not the illusions of grandeur of their academic staff. Put that money into community colleges, including ways to minimize tuition.

2. Revise the missions of state universities to scale back and/or eliminate (depending on the mission of the university) the basic freshman and sophomore core courses, requiring students instead to attend a community college.

3. Continue tax breaks for non-profit private colleges contingent on offering scholarship packages that do not allow average student debt to exceed a reasonable percent of average graduate salaries after a five-year period.

4. Negotiate teacher union contracts based on outcomes with appropriate bonuses for innovation in succeeding with challenging populations.

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 4:53 pm

Fox wrote:

It does not sit well with me when a candidate is more concerned about going after personal critics than with protecting the free speech of others.

Particularly since trump has a long track record of making every issue all about him. He does not seem capable of seeing or considering the needs of others. I get that he has a need for self-aggrandizement, I don't know why we as a country have to indulge this pathological whim.

As for Peter thiel, his name is being bandied about as trumps Supreme Court pick (he does have a law degree but no judicial experience). So I guess trump does not have an issue with the role Peter thiel played in shutting down gawker.

Fox

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 5:29 pm

Jeanette wrote:

It does not sit well with me when a candidate is more concerned about going after personal critics than with protecting the free speech of others.

That seems to be a problem afflicting all sides in politics today. Actually, I misspoke. Politics today is much more civilized than in the 19th century. Anyone who thinks either the Clinton or Trump campaign is aggressive should visit the Lincoln Library in Springfield, IL, and see the collection of campaign material against Abraham Lincoln.

Jeanette wrote:

As for Peter thiel, his name is being bandied about as trumps Supreme Court pick (he does have a law degree but no judicial experience). So I guess trump does not have an issue with the role Peter thiel played in shutting down gawker.

This goes to one of the questions that Clinton supporters should be asking, and the fact that they continue to focus on Trump's lack of likeability reflects a serious problem with Clinton's campaign strategy:

Trump's style of leadership and management is to delegate, and we've seen that throughout the campaign. A very legitimate question, IMHO, is, "To whom is Trump planning to delegate the running of the country?" The answer may very well be, "Ivanka and Peter." Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. In fact, I might even be more enthusiastic about an Ivanka and Thiel tag-team than DJT. But I think it's an important question.

The problem with analyzing Thiel's attack on Gawker is that it's difficult to separate out the abstract situation of a multi-billionaire essentially litigating a business to death with the fact that Nick Denton and AJ Daulerio behaved like walking arguments against freedom of the press. A lot of people are uneasy with Thiel's strategy, but no one wants to be put in the position of defending Gawker.

I can't imagine Thiel being confirmed for SCOTUS -- my guess is he would have a much more unofficial but nevertheless powerful role.

However, if he wants to continue as an avenging angel against outing, I'd point him in the direction of Honey Boo-Boo. I mean, it was no doubt upsetting to be officially outed by Gawker. But getting outed by the likes of Honey Boo-Boo is just . . . pitiful. No one wants to be reminded of that during Presidential debates!

Fox

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 6:15 pm

Jeanette wrote:

But the fact that you take it for granted that someone else (not even sure whom yet) will be leading the country behind the scenes if trump is elected is even more concerning.

Well, that's an issue for any President. I think you have to assume that you're really voting for an administration -- not an individual. In Clinton's case, we already know the cast of characters. And I'd definitely vote for Ivanka and Thiel over Sidney Blumenthal!

Jeanette wrote:

So far I haven't seen Hillary threaten or punish media outlets that criticize her so no false equivalencies, please.

Not for lack of trying! Sadly, Clinton's campaign has become a template for the art of not getting it. She attempted to take on Breitbart by reading a handful of satirical headlines -- with a straight face! But her campaign didn't count on having The Guardian publish an article praising the quality of Breitbart's actual articles -- and mentioning the crazy headlines -- on the same day.

There are so many great things she could have said to bring Breitbart down a notch or two. My own personal favorite is referring to Breitbart as "The premiere site for Trump fanfiction." That would have actually served her purpose perfectly! But that would have required people on her campaign staff to know what fanfiction is; explain it to her; and teach her to pronounce it as one word. Not happening.

This was supposed to be her big anti-alt-Right speech, and she not only didn't take on the alt-Right in any meaningful way, she inspired more eye-rolling than my own dear DDs are capable of.

Then she followed it up with the "basket of deplorables" remarks, launching enough memes to keep people busy through mid-October, at least.

Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, has been posting on social media a drawing of a newspaper featuring a story about Clinton with the headline, "Old Lady Yells at Frog."

Clinton's relationship with the media is based on an early 1990s model, where she can exert considerable control over the story. She seems completely oblivious to the Internet age.