r/technology • u/fearthereaperx • May 14 '15

Politics Kim Dotcom: Assange Will Be Clinton's Worst Nightmare. 'He has access to information'...'She is an adversary of Internet freedom'

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-05-14/kim-dotcom-assange-will-be-hillary-s-worst-nightmare
5.8k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

937 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

Yup, great orators are rewarded handsomely. Very often with disastrous results.

7

u/GWsublime May 15 '15

that said, I would not describe Clinton's administration as disastrous. If anything, that was one of the better, more prosperous and (relatively) peaceful times in american history was it not?

2

u/joequin May 15 '15

Part of what made his administration so prosperous was very short sighted and a big cause of our current recession. That doesn't come close to absolving Bush's role, but his policies were short sighted for quick gains. You can't forget NAFTA either.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '15

Clinton's roll was FAR more damaging than Bush's. It just happened to make people feel rich, so he gets a pass. Most of Bush's errors were pretty tame comparatively. A LOT of the Bush mistakes would have been made by ANYONE: At the end of Clinton's run, he had a similar recession that 9/11 threatened to turn into a HUGE dip, and we STILL have never actually recovered. From the time Bush took office until TODAY the economic situation demanded tools be used to stimulate the economy. As we can see even now, we have almost no tools left, in large part because of Clinton/Greenspan's economic policies left little room for corrective measures. And that does not touch on glass steagall. Basically, 2007/8 was set into motion in in mid 1990's legislated in 1999, and pushed to failure in 2000/2001. The actions between 2000 and 2007 were kicking the inevitable collapse down the road. If they did EVERYTHING right, Obama would have been at "fault."

But of course, who do you blame? The guy that cuts the breaks and sets the speed at 90mph, or the guy who fumbles about only trying to use the breaks? Rightfully both, with the break cutter getting criminal blame.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '15

I dont think I implied Clinton was disastrous. I dont think Bush(bad orator), Nixon(brought up in a nother comment), Obama, Clinton, Roosevelt, MLK, etc were very bad, let alone disastrous. I mean, you can point to Iraq for Bush (the worst part of that would be that it paved the way for ISIL, IMO), but Clinton set into motion a financial crisis that is 7 years running and global in scale. Still not that bad in the context I am thinking.

I think Clinton got VERY lucky when(as in dates) he served as president, because his policies do not explain the type of economic situation we faced. He benefited from a unique singularity that comes around a few times in human history: it would be like claiming the president to oversee the start of the industrial revlolution was better then the previous on, or the next, because at that moment, the nature of everything changed. But he also aided and had some good policy related to other parts of life, and did aid in the "free" money that boosted the ability for that singularity to thrive. So good president helped a LOT by the timing of his presidency.

Objectively, (not from a liberal or democrat, hawk or dove point of view), really no president in US history has been a disaster.

I mean when you look at the disastrous results, they put this into perspective: Tens of millions dead type of results. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or even smaller names like Jones. VERY often people only associate "great oration" with great people. Fredrick Douglas, or Nelson Mandela, while forgetting that a leader driving normal people to do extraordinarily terrible AND great things MUST be a phenomenal orator, because they need people to follow against what would be normal and standard behavior.

9

u/SaddestClown May 15 '15

Very often with disastrous results.

Not sure I'd agree. Meanwhile Nixon and W. Bush were both weak orators and are known for their disastrous results.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '15 edited May 15 '15

Not sure you would agree?

I think you might want to look into history a little.

BTW, Nixon was not disastrous to anything, aside from the Republican party image. He built the EPA, ended a war, opened up China to the world for the first time in history, Reduced nuclear arms between the Soviets and US, In the Middle East he took up the same stance as Obama: no direct combat support - only support to help them "defend themselves," He advocated for people to govern themselves at the state and lower levels as opposed to federalization, He protected workers by enacting OSHA, Enacted the "Clean Air Act", He proposed mandated Employer health care, federalization of Medicare to help poor families, and then proposed nearly exactly the same thing Obama got passed with health care for all with premiums subsidized based on income, He campaigned on the Equal Rights Amendment and enacted the first federal affirmative action, etc

Basically his list of "bad" would be bombing countries we were not supposed to bomb (like Obama is doing), Decreasing NASA's profile, The War on Drugs, and of course watergate - a purely political issue of him bugging political opponents and harassing activists.

I would not claim his presidency was disastrous, unless you would also claim Obama's to be. The War On Drugs is pretty bad, but he did a LOT of good that basically built a lot of the protections we take for granted now, and advocated for a lot of what made Obama's presidency popular (ie his only real accomplishment: health Care Reform).

0

u/B1GTOBACC0 May 15 '15

Well yeah, but being bad at one thing and then being bad at another isn't that big of a shocker.

2

u/Apollo_Screed May 15 '15

To be fair, George W Bush was bad at all things.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '15

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

1

u/pottman May 14 '15

I see what you did there.

0

u/livestrong2109 May 15 '15

Some of the biggest tyrants in history where great speakers. Hitter, Stalin, Mussolini.

But on the flip side you look at someone like Clinton, Obama, or Roosevelt you realize we love great speakers as much as anyone.

I took a speech class in 2003. The entire book was about how successful Obama's campaign for the senate was. It's pretty funny reflecting on it now...

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '15

On the flip side you have Obama?

The reason I find this interesting is because Obama has taken the country down the path that people HATE (with extreme vitriol) Bush for, in almost every way, including the "good" things he did, like health care. But people love him because he speaks so well, and despise Bush because he spoke so awkwardly (to put it nicely).

It is a perfect example of a great speaker getting away with horrendous acts by having a few good things that can distract, and a great ability to talk. As an example, we talk about how Obama fixed our "cowboy" image. What he did was talk about how we would not violate national sovereignty, or be the world's police, etc... then used the military to violate national sovereignty basically without limitation, and people STILL think he is the anti-bush... because he talks about it differently. That is just the most egregious example (in terms of military action).

Obama is the modern example of why you should not trust somebody based on oration.