Tag Archives: clinton

Trump asked all US ambassadors appointed by Obama to leave office by January 20th. Isn’t that unreasonable, and does this make him thin-skinned?

Katy Burton
Written 32m ago
This question makes me sad for our country. It shows how divided and hateful we have become over the past eight years. Many people disagree with ANYthing President Trump does. It doesn’t seem to matter if it is good or bad, right or wrong, or that other presidents have done the exact same thing. The simple fact that President Trump did it makes it wrong or bad to so many. Those people aren’t thinking objectively (if they are even thinking at all). Their hateful little minds are made up before the situation even presents itself. This is childish and is certainly not benefiting our country.

For the people who are criticizing the appointed Ambassadors not having been given “enough time” before they were replaced, are you telling me those Ambassadors are ignorant? It is nothing new. Wouldn’t/ shouldn’t they have been anticipating it?

What about the “peaceful transition of power” that Hillary was counseling Trump about before the election? You know, when she and 0bama thought she would win. 0bama just couldn’t do enough in his last days to subvert Trump’s administration with his hasty executive orders after her loss.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with everything President Trump does, but neither do I expect criticism for good things. I thought the people of America were better than that. He is piloting our plane, people. Do you really want to do all you can to ensure he crashes? Because America goes down with him.

Visit the Kairos webiste https://cabinet.kairosplanet.com/register/#111b0e

Hillary Clinton, Free to Speak Her Mind

In the most wrenching, humiliating way possible, Hillary Clinton has been liberated. She is now out of the woods again, and speaking her mind.

In her first interview since the election, she acknowledged that she had expected to defeat Donald Trump and that the outcome had been “so devastating.”

“I just had to make up my mind that, yes, I was going to get out of bed, and, yes, I was going to go for a lot of long walks in the woods. And I was going to see my grandchildren a lot and spend time with my family and my friends. They have rallied around me in an amazing way.”

“As a person, I’m O.K.,” she said. “As an American, I’m pretty worried.”

Clinton spoke to me for more than 45 minutes on stage Thursday at Tina Brown’s Women in the World Summit. She seemed relaxed and comfortable, much less guarded than during the campaign.

I’ve known Clinton a bit for many years, and when she was running for office she was always monumentally careful in her language — a natural impulse when critics are circling, but it also diminished her authenticity as a politician. Her prudence came across to voters as “calculating.”

Now she’s out of her shell, freed by defeat, and far more willing to speak bluntly.

“Certainly misogyny played a role” in her loss, she said. “That just has to be admitted.”

She noted the abundant social science research that when men are ambitious and successful, they may be perceived as more likable. In contrast, for women in traditionally male fields, it’s a trade-off: The more successful or ambitious a woman is, the less likable she becomes (that’s also true of how women perceive women). It’s not so much that people consciously oppose powerful women; it’s an unconscious bias.

Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

Clinton characterized the mind-set of some Trump voters as, “I don’t agree with him, I’m not sure I really approve of him, but he looks like somebody who’s been president before.” She did indicate that there were many other factors that contributed to her loss — including her own mistakes.

Clinton acknowledged that Democrats need to do a better job reaching working-class Americans, but she added that part of her problem was that many voters were already struggling with tumult in their lives, “and you layer on the first woman president over that, and I think some people, women included, had real problems.”

I asked what advice she would offer the countless young women who have been galvanized by her loss — in a way they never were by her candidacy — to become more engaged in public life. “Toughen up your skin,” she counseled, referring to the nastiness often directed at prominent women. “Be ready. It’s not a new phenomenon, but it feels new and painful every time it happens to you.”

Clinton noted that when she stepped down as secretary of state, she had an approval rating of 64 percent and was one of the most popular public officials in America. But that was ancient history by Election Day. “Oh my gosh,” she said, “by the time they finished with me, I was Typhoid Mary.”

We talked about lots of issues, including Syria — she advocated attacking Syrian air strips; hours later, President Trump did just that — and she was ready to fire a few salvos of her own. She raised the “chaotic functioning” of the new administration and said she didn’t understand the Trump team’s “commitment to hurt so many people,” from its travel ban to its health care legislation.

Why did she lose the election? Clinton’s staff has conducted autopsies that, she said, suggested that two of the most important factors were the plunder and release of her campaign emails and the last-minute announcement by the F.B.I. director, James Comey, that the investigation into her use of a private email server could be reopened.

So, I asked, when you heard Comey say recently that he had been investigating Trump’s Russia ties since July but couldn’t disclose it then because it’s inappropriate to discuss ongoing investigations, what did you throw at the television?

She savored the question. “Yes,” she said, smiling. “That was one of the high points of the last weeks.”

Clinton said she doesn’t know if there was collusion between the Trump team and the Kremlin, but she urged the formation of an independent commission to investigate. And she noted that whether or not there was collusion, there certainly was a concerted Russian effort to rig the American election.

Russia’s hacking of campaign emails “was a more effective theft even than Watergate,” she said, adding: “We aren’t going to let somebody sitting in the Kremlin, with 1,000 agents, with bots and trolls and everybody else, try to mix up in our election. We’ve got to end that, and we need to make sure that’s a bipartisan, American commitment.”

The issue Clinton seemed most passionate about was the one that has occupied much of her career, ever since she took a job out of Yale Law School with the Children’s Defense Fund: advocacy for women and children. She grew particularly animated in describing what she called Trump’s “targeting of women.”

As a candidate, both in 2008 and in 2016, Clinton was careful not to push too hard on feminist buttons for fear of antagonizing men — which, given the results, was a reasonable concern. But this is where her passions lie, and even as secretary of state traveling to an overseas capital, she would often visit a women’s shelter or an organization fighting human trafficking, dragging along bewildered diplomats and foreign officials to remind them that women’s rights are human rights.

In our conversation, she was scathing in denouncing Trump’s version of the “global gag rule,” which cuts off money for any health provider abroad that offers abortion counseling or promotes abortion rights, and Trump’s plan to defund the United Nations Population Fund, which battles maternal mortality and helps women get access to contraception.

Asked about the infamous photo of Republican men discussing women’s health, Clinton described her favorite internet meme: a group of dogs around a conference table, with the caption, “today’s meeting on feline health care.”

Visit the Kairos webiste https://cabinet.kairosplanet.com/register/#111b0e

Dear Clinton supporters: Recall wont matter

Dear Clinton supporters: Recall wont matter

News that Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has requested a recount in Wisconsin, and will likely do the same in Michigan and Pennsylvania, has raised faint hopes among Hillary Clinton supporters that somehow Donald Trump will not become the next president of the United States.

Now that Clinton's campaign has said it will participate in the recount efforts, those supporters' hopes have been lifted even higher.

To put the matter bluntly: They should give up that hope.

There is essentially zero chance that the recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will change Trump's lead, which number in the thousands, not hundreds, in all three states. Trump is winning Wisconsin by a little more than 27,000 votes; his lead in Michigan sits at around 11,000; and his lead in Pennsylvania is insurmountable at over 68,000.

This is not Florida 2000. On Election Night in 2000, George W. Bush held a 1,784 vote lead over Al Gore in Florida's election for president, representing just 0.031 percent of the 5.8 million votes cast in the state. After a recount — which the US Supreme Court halted by a 5-4 vote — Bush ultimately won Florida by 537 votes, securing the presidency. Yet even if the Court had allowed the recount to proceed, the margin would not have swung by much.

This is not Washington 2004, where a recount reversed the result, handing Democrat Christine Gregoire a 129-vote win over Republican Dino Rossi after he initially had a 261-vote lead on election night.

This is not Minnesota 2008, where a recount gave Democrat Al Franken a 225-vote win over Republican Norm Coleman, reversing Coleman's initial lead of 215 votes.

All of these recounts had one significant fact in common: the margin of victory was in the hundreds, not thousands. And the shifts in vote totals after the recounts were very small.

In the past 15 years, a statewide recount has reversed the winner from the election-night tally only three times — in the Washington 2004 governor's race (a 390-vote shift), the 2008 Minnesota US Senate race (a 440-vote shift), and a 2006 election in Vermont for Auditor of Accounts, which initially had a 137-vote margin on election night that changed to a 102-vote win for the other candidate after the recount (a 239-vote change).

FairVote, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for electoral reform, found that from 2000-2012 there were only 22 statewide recounts across the country, and the average shift in those recounts was just 0.026%.

But, a Clinton supporter might say, what if the machines were hacked? What if the election was actually rigged? It is an ironic sentiment given that Trump was the one claiming widespread election rigging before the election and Clinton supporters blasted Trump for refusing to say whether he would honor the results.

Irony aside, there is simply no evidence of election hacking, as Clinton's top lawyer, Marc Elias, himself conceded. Of course, now that Stein has begun the process, it is perfectly reasonable for Clinton and her lawyers to stay involved. But her supporters should not take that fact as a sign that the election is still in question.

Prolonging the campaign by seeking a recount breeds unwarranted doubt about the legitimacy of our elections — without any real evidence to back it up. Our democratic system relies on everyone accepting the result. That legitimacy suffers when mere speculation calls the result into question with little evidence of rigging and Electoral College vote totals that decisively determine a winner.

Moreover, all of this talk of recounts and election rigging obscures the more important fact about our elections: We impose too many obstacles on voters for no good reason. We need to work harder to eliminate onerous voting laws and make voting easier, not focus on long-shot recounts that provide only false hope. For instance, this recount effort does nothing to address issues surrounding Wisconsin's controversial voter ID statute, which improperly prevented some people from voting.

While Stein's futile recount effort should give no solace to Clinton supporters, there is a silver lining to the current debate: It might finally prompt Congress and state legislatures to devote greater resources to election technology.

We desperately need better voting equipment and stronger post-Election Day audits. Going into this election, experts warned about the woefully out-of-date equipment that most states use. Indeed, old machines — especially if they do not allow for a paper trail — raise the possibility, however small, of election hacking. Old machines can lead to long lines, lost votes, and other Election Day problems.

Updated voting technology can increase turnout by making voting easier. As just one example, Doña Ana County, New Mexico uses Voting Convenience Centers instead of precinct-based polling places, meaning that anyone in the county can vote at any of the 40 centers instead of having to go to their assigned home precinct. This makes it easier to vote near work or school and eliminates the possibility of having to vote via a provisional ballot — which could potentially not count — if a voter shows up at the wrong place.

This system shows that improved technology can both enhance the integrity of our election system — a standard Republican talking point — and also make voting more accessible to more people, thereby increasing the electorate — something Democrats usually strive to achieve.

The recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will do nothing to assuage the fears of Clinton supporters who recoil at the thought of a Trump presidency. But at a minimum, they should force politicians on all sides to re-examine how we run our elections.

Like it or not, Donald Trump will become our next president. Hopefully, when he runs for re-election in four years, we will have a stronger election system that makes voting easier, more convenient and accessible, less susceptible to manipulation, and more easily verifiable. That's the closest to a "win" that Clinton and her supporters can expect.

Reprinted From CNN

Thomas Prendergast
 

 

Visit the Kairos webiste https://cabinet.kairosplanet.com/register/#111b0e