Remembering The Clinton Years.

Bill Clinton was a breath of fresh air. He was compassionate with a social conscience but he took no bull and wasn't afraid to stand up to his enemies. Why did I ever support Michael Dukakis? And why did I think he'd make a good president?

 

Well I certainly did not care for Dukakis at all and I liked Bill at first but watching all the manufacturing jobs leave the country after NAFTA kinda left a bad taste in my mouth. Seems like he may have been involved at Epstein island which is pretty sad if it's true.

 

Clinton lowered the budget deficit, paid down the country's debt.

Something no Republican has ever done, despite running on cutting the government spending.

He started to close military bases all over the country.

 

Yeah i get that, I used to be a long haul truck driver back then and I watched the industrial parks become ghost towns. Textile mills and manufacturing of all sorts just shut down, friends and family lost their jobs at bottle factories and extrusion plants they had worked at for years, The impact seemed more magnified through the eyes of personal experience if that makes any sense?

 

I think about the prosperity that My Wife and I experiences during the Clinton Years. Our investments and portfolio soared and we planned retirement in 2000. Then came AWOL George, Deferment Dick, 9-11 and two recessions. We lost two thirds of our life savings in seven years under Republican incompetence, and wars based on lies.

 

Thats an interesting post

Clinton did some good stuff, both at home and abroad.

I don't think we should be thinking so simply that if One new epstein that they were a bad person. 'Guilt by association' is wrong. There was a time before people new epstein was bad. To criticise Clinton for being associated with epstein, is like criticising someone for being associated today, with 'the Rock'. I don't mean that he'll be discovered bad in years to come: my point is; we think he's OK, just as people did years ago in relation to epstein. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Free trade agreements are a good thing. Good for both trading economies and most companies.
However, they're perhaps not so good for companies whose products are of lesser quality or of lesser value or less desirable.

From the 1970s and 1980s, when quality and productivity in UK were poor, we customers began looking for better quality product. We collectively (and generally), buy what's best regardless of where it's made.

German cars (and more recently Hyundai and KIA) are most sought after. Our chosen foods are British if they can be grown, reared or cultivated here but Irish meats, dairy and poultry if we can get them because they are better. Clothing; choose your label if you're into that but it's most often made in China/Taiwan or other relatively Eastern company. Tailored or bespoke may be made here but fabric made elsewhere.

I know plenty of stuff that's made in America but it seems few want it outside the USA because they believe they can buy better quality elsewhere. Cars, clothing, furniture, food, electronics - all chosen from Germany, Spain, France, South Korea, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, UK or, rather, from high-quality manufacturers in those countries and others. Those other countries do likewise. So, if companies aren't competitive they'll die because not enough customers will want their stuff. If they outsource materials or ingredients, to bring them in from another country then, maybe the local provider should have upped their game.

Even Tesla....was an early player in EV but European brands have relegated tesla to an also-ran, mediocre brand. I liked the concept when I sat in one in LA in 2013 before others joined the segment but I wasn't impressed with the interior quality or the ride. As soon as AUDI entered the market, we had high-quality EVs. Many more now from several countries.

There's an old saying: 'if you snooze, you lose'.

I think the job creators in the US need to waken up and look at what else is out there. Unless they up their game, they won't have product that Europe or elsewhere will buy in any great numbers.
That seems to be the same opinion as is held by many Americans, who stopped buying US-made cars in favour of European and Eastern. Wait until they discover other countrys', companys' white goods and more. I think they'll switch in those product segments too.

I'm not suggesting at all, that the USA is crap. It's far from it. To suggest that it is would be ridiculous.

However I also think the notion that the USA is best and makes the best is equally ridiculous. In the global context it's an 'also-ran' (in the competition but nowhere near winning) and until government and company leaders realise and accept that, the jobs market for the normal decent American won't improve.

Europe is bigger than USA. 500m people versus 350 million people. It's self-sufficient too and outsources by choice. It's also friendly with other countries around the world and enjoys trading with them without tariffs.
The people of the USA are the people who'll suffer most with current government and business practice in the USA.

And, of course, the upset in recent times is down to Republicans but it isn't they who are suffering.

Slightly off topic but I think it needed to be 'said'.

 

It's a pretty fair post. Its fascinating how reasonable the thinking is when Clinton is associated with Epstein. Does Trump deserve this same outlook as you are suggesting for Clinton?

 

Both Bush Presidents were horrible.

 

I think so, which means we need to know the full picture about everyone who was an epstein associate be that an acquaintance or close friend or somewhere in between.

 

I have no doubt that Clinton and Trump were knee deep in the Epsteen dilemma. Men that are driven to have power are vulnerable to excesses. I am sure that Clinton is intelligent to know that illegal activities were in play. I do not consider Trump had the same level of intelligence. He is just a rich brat and bully who destroys the careers of attorneys, trying to defend him. All of the others are just using their status as celebrities to promote their indiscretions.

 

Given that we have seen the actions of both Clinton and Trump whilst in office, performing their public role in office, I think there can be no equivalence.

I think anyone who thinks roping Clinton into Epstein matters equally to Trump isn't just part of the problem in USA politics but, more significantly, they're part of the mechanism that will make the majority in the USA poorer.

Also; they're contributing to the dimininution of the USAs position on the world stage, which means the USA will be a bit-part player.

I think we should take account of something significant. When the so-called 'special relationship' became a thing, the EU didn't exist. Now that it does - and it became an entity after WWII - it's no longer necessary or, even, needed.

For the hard of learning; that means the USA isn't needed. Of course the rest of the world would like the US to be involved constructively but that doesnt just seem impossible today but, that, it'll be a long time, if ever, before that nation can be trusted as an honest partner. I consider that much more than sad. It may even create the situation where the US is vulnerable to Russian or Chinese decisions withoit the formerly considered 'allies' being there to assist. It's as though there is one conjoined entity; the EU along with Oz,NZ and some others sticking together such as to fend iff Russia and China, leaving the USA on its own.

How many conflicts has the USA won on its own?!. I feel annoyed for the normal, sensible, decent American ( not that there's just one lol), who's potentially to be subjected to the consequences of the orange balloon.

 

Would you care to explain why you have no doubt? I await evidence to prove Clinton was an equal player in the epstein world.

He may have been as pleased as any guy, for a young woman (an adult), to take his pants down and do stuff but that's wholly different from paedophilia!! It's also wholly different from his performance as President, where he actually, and personally ( not his staff or minions) brought conflict to an end. (He was personally instrumental in ending militia activities in Ireland and awakening GB to errors ir made in that region). WTF has the current President actually done in that regard elsewhere?! I'll sit back and wait for the answer.

Im not a fan of one who mixes business with pleasure but credit where it's due: Clinton ended conflicts yet the current incumbent has inflamed tensions, created tension where it didnt exist, killed people in a nin-war situation without any judicial or evidential basis and diminished the status of the US.

For those who may feel offended by my opinion, I am sorry. I only mean to describe the consequences of the current incumbent in the WH and to try to convey the damage he is doing to his fellow country folk and his country generally. Of course, I also question why the inhabitants let him behave as though it's his country when, in fact, it's the country of the people.

 

Yes but that is not what I am saying. Many many news channels have already condemned Trump as guilty just because of some photos. Why then are we defending Clinton when similar photos and relationships existed? I'm just asking about the bias itself. Most people are saying you would have to be an idiot to think Trump is innocent. Yet we are not applying that to Clinton? Dems didn't talk about releasing the files while Biden was in office. They just admitted that Trump was right and that he kicked Epstein out of Mara Lago because he was being a creep many years before this was a thing. Does that exonerate Trump? I personally think they were all involved but that's irrelevant to my position. I am asking if we are applying the same standards across the board and if not, why?

 

You do recall that Clinton banged a much younger woman in the oval office and stuck a cigar in her hoo ha while he was married and the President right?

 

Mr. Clinton did not need Epstein to pull chicks, he had a lot of charm.

But Why such a fascination for Jeffrey Epstein? He's dead.
Is there some vicarious thrill in reviewing his exploits?

Is it a distraction from something else?

 

Do you know there's a difference between abuse of underage girls and abuse of office?