Not sure what this has to do with being "here for the people" or not lol.
Ex-presidents are expected to attend inaugurations. It's true that they don't always, but it's customary to do so. Yes, there have been exceptions. It's been noted that Bush 43 skipped Obama's second inauguration. Also, Carter skipped Clinton's second inauguration, in 1997, while he was on an extended trip to Latin America. Furthermore, Carter and the outgoing President Bush were the only ex-presidents who attended Clinton's first inauguration (Ford, Reagan, and Nixon were alive at the time, but did not attend.) But so fucking what? I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone that this inauguration is a unique situation, since the spouse of one of the living ex-presidents was the President Elect's opponent in the election. So people are going to be scrutinizing what Clinton does much more closely than usual.
If Bill chose not to attend or showed up without Hillary, people would read all kinds of things into it, including that she's a "poor loser" and on and on and fucking on. And now it looks like people are reading bad things into their attending, so I guess they're screwed whether they attend or not. That being the case, I don't blame them for deciding to following custom and protocol. The things that will be said about them for being there won't be nearly as bad as what they'd be subjected to if they stayed home, especially since all the other ex-presidents are going to be there, except for Bush 41 who is about a million years old and in very frail health..
I'm not sure what the hell a neocon even is, but I'd bet the farm, if I had one, that it has nothing to do with why the Clintons are going to attend this travesty. I also find it downright laughable that anyone actually thinks they're bosom buddies with that orange pustule of vileness. If they ever were before, I don't know how they can stand the sight of him now.
Tl/dr: I'm sure they're going because they know it's expected and will look bad to a lot of people if they don't.
Well, the Clintons and Trump were friendly in the past (e.g. the former were guests at the latter's wedding to Melania), and I don't know that you invite people that you hate to your wedding.
I'm not suggesting that they were 'besties', but I think it's important to point out that they were friendly prior to the past year or so.
Also, Merriam Webster's definition of 'neoconservative':
"1. a former liberal espousing political conservatism 2. a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means"
"In the 1960s several well-known socialist intellectuals, including Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, alarmed by growing political extremism on the left, began to move in the other direction. Soon the term neoconservative (or neocon for short) was being attached to them. Rather than simply drifting toward the political center, Podhoretz and Kristol actually moved far to the right, especially on the issue of maintaining a strong military stance toward the rest of the world. The main magazine of neoconservatism became Podhoretz's Commentary; it was later joined by the Weekly Standard, edited by Kristol's son William. Not everyone agrees on how to define these terms; still, it's clear that today you don't have to be a former liberal in order to be a neoconservative."
"Fist known use of 'neoconservative': 1952".
The above is the term you used. The term the OC used was 'neoliberal'.
Definition of neoliberal: "a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods"
"Fist known use of 'neoliberal': 1921".
...Given her stated foreign policy positions, 'neoconservative' actually seems to me to apply where Hillary Clinton is concerned.
I don't feel one way or the other about the main story, but this comment...
I don't know that you invite people that you hate to your wedding.
Really?? I fought for months and months with my partner and her family to keep our wedding as small as possible. I "compromised" at about 20 guests and there were STILL people there that hated one another (and that I barely even knew). Weddings are abso-frickin-lutely the events where you are likely to have the lowest ratio of real friends to frenemies/family/acquaintances/obligations.
Ex-presidents are expected to attend inaugurations. It's true that they don't always, but it's customary to do so. Yes, there have been exceptions. It's been noted that Bush 43 skipped Obama's second inauguration. Also, Carter skipped Clinton's second inauguration, in 1997, while he was on an extended trip to Latin America. Furthermore, Carter and the outgoing President Bush were the only ex-presidents who attended Clinton's first inauguration (Ford, Reagan, and Nixon were alive at the time, but did not attend.) But so fucking what? I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone that this inauguration is a unique situation, since the spouse of one of the living ex-presidents was the President Elect's opponent in the election. So people are going to be scrutinizing what Clinton does much more closely than usual.
If Bill chose not to attend or showed up without Hillary, people would read all kinds of things into it, including that she's a "poor loser" and on and on and fucking on. And now it looks like people are reading bad things into their attending, so I guess they're screwed whether they attend or not. That being the case, I don't blame them for deciding to following custom and protocol. The things that will be said about them for being there won't be nearly as bad as what they'd be subjected to if they stayed home, especially since all the other ex-presidents are going to be there, except for Bush 41 who is about a million years old and in very frail health..
I'm not sure what the hell a neocon even is, but I'd bet the farm, if I had one, that it has nothing to do with why the Clintons are going to attend this travesty. I also find it downright laughable that anyone actually thinks they're bosom buddies with that orange pustule of vileness. If they ever were before, I don't know how they can stand the sight of him now.
Tl/dr: I'm sure they're going because they know it's expected and will look bad to a lot of people if they don't.
Reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/magazine/when-hillary-and-donald-were-friends.html?_r=0
I'm not suggesting that they were 'besties', but I think it's important to point out that they were friendly prior to the past year or so.
Also, Merriam Webster's definition of 'neoconservative':
"1. a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2. a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means"
"In the 1960s several well-known socialist intellectuals, including Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, alarmed by growing political extremism on the left, began to move in the other direction. Soon the term neoconservative (or neocon for short) was being attached to them. Rather than simply drifting toward the political center, Podhoretz and Kristol actually moved far to the right, especially on the issue of maintaining a strong military stance toward the rest of the world. The main magazine of neoconservatism became Podhoretz's Commentary; it was later joined by the Weekly Standard, edited by Kristol's son William. Not everyone agrees on how to define these terms; still, it's clear that today you don't have to be a former liberal in order to be a neoconservative."
"Fist known use of 'neoconservative': 1952".
The above is the term you used. The term the OC used was 'neoliberal'.
Definition of neoliberal:
"a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods"
"Fist known use of 'neoliberal': 1921".
...Given her stated foreign policy positions, 'neoconservative' actually seems to me to apply where Hillary Clinton is concerned.
Reply
I don't know that you invite people that you hate to your wedding.
Really?? I fought for months and months with my partner and her family to keep our wedding as small as possible. I "compromised" at about 20 guests and there were STILL people there that hated one another (and that I barely even knew). Weddings are abso-frickin-lutely the events where you are likely to have the lowest ratio of real friends to frenemies/family/acquaintances/obligations.
Reply
I think the point I was making about them being friendly before the electoral campaign still stands, however. :)
Reply
Leave a comment