Hillary Clinton Says Europe Must ‘Get a Handle’ on Migration to Thwart Populism – Matt Stevens- Megan Specia and Patrick Kingsley -The New York Times

By
Nov. 22, 2018, 375

“Europe’s leaders need to send a much stronger message that they will no longer offer “refuge and support” to migrants if they want to curb the right-wing populism spreading across the Continent, Hillary Clinton warned in an interview published Thursday.

Mrs. Clinton said that while the decision of some nations to welcome migrants was admirable, it had opened the door to political turmoil, the rise of the right and Britain’s decision to withdraw from the European Union.

“I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame,” Mrs. Clinton said in the interview with The Guardian, which was conducted before the United States midterm elections this month.

“I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message — ‘we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support’ — because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic,” she said.”

David Lindsay Jr.

Hamden, CT | Pending Approval

Thank you Hillary Clinton for speaking out clearly on such an important issue. Other commenters have already explained why some of us think she is right. Overpoluation and limited resources are dangerous new realities to ignore or not deal with. I was deeply disappointed by the article itself, and the journalists, for covering carefully the gossip side of the story, and not reporting on what else Hillary had to say to support her postion. It is sad that so much coverage, even at the Times, is about the gossip and mud slinging, at the expense of the hard story that is short-changed.

Here are the top comments at the NYT which I endorsed:

F

Frankster

Paris6h ago

Times Pick

I absolutely cannot understand that a simple factual observation by Hillary Clinton provokes this controversy. The Democratic Party lost the election by pretending that this issue didn’t exist. The Democrats lost contact with their electorate and remember, the United States is, still, a democracy. Those who do not want to restrict this kind of immigration all go to the same parties but that does not make their views a majority view.

4 Replies356 Recommended

JP commented 7 hours ago

J

JP

MorroBay6h ago

I am no big fan of Hillary’s, but she’s absolutely right on this one. Europe is absolutely not able to handle refugees in these numbers, nor from ME countries. They’re full up, resources are getting tight, government services are strained, and their cultures are not going to change at such a rapid pace. Merkel made a huge miscalculation, as elites in government will typically do, living in their security bubbles and upper social stratum. Things are changing folks, the planet is overpopulated, resource depletion is upon us, and the world’s leaders need to take note. Birth control, fixing failed ME and Central American states, cleaning up pollution, and preserving our remaining important resources must become paramount if we’re going to survive. Unfettered capitalism, rampant depletion of nonrenewables, and dumping toxins into the ground, air and water for short term profit must be reined in. We are headed for authoritarian rule and back to survival of the fittest unless we change course, and the sooner the better.

4 Replies317 Recommended

 

Lloyd Sullivan commented 6 hours ago

L

Lloyd Sullivan

Henderson, NV4h ago

Times Pick

Hillary has gotten it wrong for much of her political career, but she got this one right and, amazingly, she didn’t opt for the politically correct line. There are 7 billion people on the planet, going on 8 billion. Many of the places where these people live offer a marginal existence at the very best. This a truly terrible fact of life, but it is a fact. No one in the First World can blame the inhabitants of these parts of the Third World for seeking a better life. Were we in their shoes we would do the same. But humanity is finally beginning to understand that the planet’s resources are finite. Immigrants flooding across borders away from scare resources to countries with more, or better-managed, resources, are the result and the flood is unsustainable. Populists know this, fear this and it drives their rhetoric. Unfortunately, their rhetoric on the subject of immigration is not groundless. Their ranks will only continue to grow as immigrant numbers rise.

5 Replies234 Recommended

  

T.R.Devlin commented 7 hours ago

T

T.R.Devlin

Geneva6h ago

Her comments are common sense; treating migrants whether refugees or economic migrants humanely, is essential.But given the demographic imbalances between Europe and Africa and the Middle East, the issue of migration needs to be handled collectively and intelligently if it is not to cause further political turmoil in Europe.

1 Reply199 Recommended

.

Climate of Complete Certainty – by Brett Stephens – NYT

“Right on the merits. Confident in their methods. Sure of their chances. When Bill Clinton suggested to his wife’s advisers that, considering Brexit, they might be underestimating the strength of the populist tide, the campaign manager, Robby Mook, had a bulletproof answer: The data run counter to your anecdotes.

That detail comes from “Shattered,” Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes’s compulsively readable account of Clinton’s 2016 train wreck. Mook belonged to a new breed of political technologists with little time for retail campaigning and limitless faith in the power of models and algorithms to minimize uncertainty and all but predict the future.”

The comments section was closed, so I wrote a letter to the NYT:
Brett Stephens wrote in his op-ed Climate of Complete Certainty, “Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities.”

This is unacceptable nonsense. This is the way Bill O’Reilly writes. O”Reilly states one or two facts, and then a conculsion, not supported by the facts he has stated, and then, does not offer any evidence to support the final, damning conclusion. If this statement is true, why is there not a single example offered to support it. A big bad generality is the tool of a smear artist.

As one commentator wrote correctly, comparing Hillary Clinton taking poling data too seriously, and the public taking climate change science seriously, is a false equivalence.

Stephens analysis of Clinton’s hubris was excellent, but his twisting argument in the sentence above in neither acceptable, nor professional. Almost all science is based on probabilities. That is not a sin, that is because 100% certainty is expensive to prove, even if the concept is easy to embrace. This unsupported trash talk might have been fine at the WSJ, but it is not the standard here at the NYT.

Hillary Clinton lost the White House because of these five real reasons – Kelly Riddell – Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:Hillary Clinton’s team would like you to believe it was FBI Director James B. Comey, Russian hacking, or American racism, xenophobia and bigotry that caused her to lose the White House.

In reality, it was campaign malfeasance. Here are five examples, where Mrs. Clinton’s campaign team strategically blew it.1. Taking the month of August offIn August, the polls indicated Mrs. Clinton had a lead, and Donald Trump had just come off a very ugly feud with Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of a fallen soldier.Still, Mr. Trump was not out — he still had a base of 36 percent to 43 percent of the national vote.Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton’s team decided to give her a summer break to focus on star-studded fundraising events in the Hamptons and Martha’s Vineyard.”

Source: Hillary Clinton lost the White House because of these five real reasons – Washington Times

Why Hillary Clinton Needs to Be Two-Faced – by Jonathan Rausch – The New York Times

“The Japanese, whose political culture is less idealistic than our own, have a vocabulary for socially constructive lying. “Honne” (from “true sound”) is what we really believe. “Tatemae” (from “facade”) is what we aver in public. Using honne when tatemae is called for is considered not bravely honest but rude and antisocial, and rightly so. Unnecessary and excessive directness hurts feelings, foments conflict and complicates coexistence.”

Source: Why Hillary Clinton Needs to Be Two-Faced – The New York Times

Fact Checks of the Third Presidential Debate – The New York Times

Reporters for The New York Times fact-checked the statements made by Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump during Wednesday’s presidential debate.

Source: Fact Checks of the Third Presidential Debate – The New York Times

“Mr. Trump said Mrs. Clinton deleted 33,000 of her private emails after she got a subpoena.

Mostly true.

Hillary Clinton’s aides did delete about 33,000 emails from her private server, emails that she said were “personal” in nature. The F.B.I., however, indicated that many of the deleted emails may, in fact, have been related to her work at the State Department.

Days after The New York Times first disclosed Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email system in March 2015, the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, asked that her emails be preserved and subpoenaed those that were related to the attacks.

But about three weeks later, an unidentified computer specialist realized that he had not destroyed an archive of emails that was supposed to have been deleted a year earlier, according to the F.B.I. report. The specialist then used a program known as BleachBit to delete an unknown number of emails, the F.B.I. said.

It is unknown how many of the deleted emails related to the Benghazi attacks and might have been covered by the congressional subpoena.

Mrs. Clinton told F.B.I. investigators that she was unaware that the aide had deleted the emails. The F.B.I. did not find evidence to contradict that assertion.”

— Eric Lichtblau

What We Know About Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Server – The New York Times

By ALICIA PARLAPIANO UPDATED SEPT. 2, 2016

“A federal judge on August 22 ordered the State Department to plan for the releaseof nearly 15,000 emails uncovered by the F.B.I. during its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information on a private email domain as secretary of state. In July, The F.B.I. recommended no charges against Mrs. Clinton and said that there was no evidence that those emails were “intentionally deleted,” but called her handling of her email at the State Department “extremely careless.” ”

Source: What We Know About Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Server – The New York Times

I was particularly interested in:

“January 2016

The State Department announces that it will not release 22 emails that contain “top secret” material. The classifications of the emails were increased after the fact; they were not marked when they were sent. Three days later, the first presidential primary is held in Iowa.”

This last paragraph could mean several things. Whether Hillary Clinton was being careless or not, depends on a classification that had not occurred yet. Since we do not have all the facts, we should bow to the authorities who investigated these actions. The investigators decided unanimously that Clinton had not done anything that deserved punishment, and some investigators, like the Republican appointed FBI director said she was sometimes egregiously careless, but he recommended against pressing any charges.

What appears in these articles, is another story, that the great bureaucracies of Washington DC have their own turf wars, split between Republican vs Democrat political factions. Also, the determination of what is secret, or top secret, and what is not, is complex, non-scientific, and frequently political. In this complex and difficult set of subjects, Trump and the Hillary Haters are interested in smearing Hillary, since it is very difficult for non experts in the investigation lab to understand the complexities.

Over 40 years of following and writing about the cold war and foreign policy, I have read perhaps a dozen times that the subject of classified material is extremely controversial. Inside the government, the various factions are rarely in agreement as to what should be classified, and why. A random of example of disagreement, The Pentagon Papers was classified top secret. It was leaked do the NY Times, by Daniel Ellsberg, one of the co-authors of the report, because as a citizens and whistle blower, he thought the American people should know that the government was not telling the truth in its press releases of what it thought and knew about the poor outcomes occurring in the Vietnam War.

The prosecution of Ellsberg and the NYTimes, I think I recall made it to the Supreme Court, which decided against the government, and in part, that the classification system was being abused to keep the US public stupid about the mishandling of a difficult war by the government.

Agencies Clashed on Classification of Clinton Email- Inquiry Shows – The New York Times

…………. “In the interview, an unidentified F.B.I. official in the international operations division said Mr. Kennedy had complained to him that the F.B.I. classification of the document “caused problems for Kennedy” and that Mr. Kennedy had wanted to give it a different designation and file it in the State Department basement — “never to be seen again.”The unidentified F.B.I. official said he was the one who then “told Kennedy he would look into the email matter if Kennedy would provide authority concerning the F.B.I.’s request to increase its personnel in Iraq.” ”

Source: Agencies Clashed on Classification of Clinton Email, Inquiry Shows – The New York Times

There is plenty of evidence in this article, that Hillary wasn’t doing what she is accused of, as much, or at all. The interagency conflict is what is apparent.

USA TODAY’s Editorial Board: Trump is ‘unfit for the presidency’

“The Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. We’re doing it now.

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.

Source: USA TODAY’s Editorial Board: Trump is ‘unfit for the presidency’

An extraordinary editorial, until it explains why it can not endorse Hillary Clinton.

1. Board is not unanimous. 2. Some think she has a sense of privilege. 3. Some think she has egregiously mishandled classified information with her email server.

This part is pathetic. I don’t even understand the sense of privilege, unless that is code for, she thinks she can act like men do, with assertiveness and wheeling and dealing.

The email scandal is a false narrative. It was not a secret in the US government that she had her own email account, since her email was not a .gov email. Everyone in the goverment could see that, and it was allowed.

The Secretary of State before her, Colin Powell,  and many others, chose to have non government email accounts. Colin Powell even recommended to her that she use her own email account, for reasons to do with flaws in the government email system, I’m guessing.

Hillary Clinton was a fabulous Secretary of State, and there is zero evidence that her using a private email account or server hurt US security or interests ever. Furthermore, this is a classic example of this talented but persecuted woman being held to a higher standard than the men around her. It is an old western tradition to take intelligent and successful women and burn them at a stake.

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton for President – The New York Times

“In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)

But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton — because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken.Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump.The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to rise to them.”

Source: Hillary Clinton for President – The New York Times

I have been listening to Hillary’s book, “Living History,” about her life from childhood, through 8 years as the first lady. She has an amazing story. The Whitewater investigtion, with the Office of the Independent Prosecutor, Ken Starr, went on for about 6 years, cost about that much in millions of dollars, and uncovered zero.

Hillary Clinton: My Plan for Helping America’s Poor – The New York Times

“The true measure of any society is how we take care of our children. With all of our country’s resources, no child should ever have to grow up in poverty. Yet every single night, all across America, kids go to sleep hungry or without a place to call home.

We have to do better. Advocating for children and families has been the cause of my life, starting with my first job as a young attorney at the Children’s Defense Fund, and if I have the honor of serving as president, it will be the driving mission of my administration.

The good news is that we’re making progress, thanks to the hard work of the American people and President Obama. The global poverty rate has been cut in half in recent decades. In the United States, a new report from the Census Bureau found that there were 3.5 million fewer people living in poverty in 2015 than just a year before.”

Source: Hillary Clinton: My Plan for Helping America’s Poor – The New York Times

Great piece by Hillary, followed by excellent, mostly, comments, such as:
Julie Erickson Maplewood NJ 3 hours ago

“I was excited to see that Hillary was putting some of her policy ideas into print. And I am still excited to see the issues she has zeroed in on. I love the idea of putting children first in all our policy decisions. What if Congress considered the impact on children when it debated the budget? Transportation bills? Armed services funding? I believe that different decisions would be made if all of us viewed all policy and funding decisions through that lens.

I’m reminded of the Iroquois Confederation’s “7th generation” principle that says: “Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people and have always in view not only the present but also the coming generations, even those whose faces are yet beneath the surface of the ground — the unborn of the future Nation.”

I don’t think we can get to 7th generation thinking this year or next. Yet perhaps we could have a new vision for our nation, where we put the interests of all children first. Hillary is the right person to champion such a vision, given her work with Children’s Defense Fund. I think many Americans would rally behind that vision. Well, at least I can hope so.”

Reply 86 Recommended