Hillary Clinton
Rand Paul is probably kicking himself for not running on the Libertarian line this year.
dave said:
Rand Paul is probably kicking himself for not running on the Libertarian line this year.
Of all the years to awkwardly and painfully try to project oneself as an insider! My gawd!
eliz said:
And because Jill Stein is a quack.
sac said:
Alfa75 said:
Why not vote for Jill Stein if you want a woman with truly progressive positions to be elected?
Because our current two-party system (which most certainly needs reform) means that she won't be elected.
There is that. (I haven't really dug in, but the anti-vax thing definitely wasn't a good first impression for me. But the reason I haven't dug in is because I know that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump, so even if she aligned perfectly with all of my political positions, I wouldn't vote for her as a third party candidate in an election like this where the stakes are so high.)
And that is precisely why the two parties have us by the balls.
sac said:
eliz said:
And because Jill Stein is a quack.
sac said:
Alfa75 said:
Why not vote for Jill Stein if you want a woman with truly progressive positions to be elected?
Because our current two-party system (which most certainly needs reform) means that she won't be elected.
There is that. (I haven't really dug in, but the anti-vax thing definitely wasn't a good first impression for me. But the reason I haven't dug in is because I know that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump, so even if she aligned perfectly with all of my political positions, I wouldn't vote for her as a third party candidate in an election like this where the stakes are so high.)
terp said:
Ah, the all too predictable Circling of the Wagons. Yep. Hillary is a bastion of principle...sure. She gets huge speaking fees from big wall street firms and the like because she's such an engaging speaker. Bill got a $750 K for a less than 30 minute speech w/ Ericsson and it had absolutely nothing to do with her ability to influence in the WH. Sure.
I think part of the problem is that so much of this is considered ethical by the oligarchs that others probably look at it and say "meh. Ethics are only for those that challenge us."
You guys would circle the wagons around Pol Pot if it meant getting a Dem in the WH over Trump. You don't want Trump. I get it. But that doesn't make Hillary *****ing Clinton ethical all of a sudden.
You know that I am more than willing to consider proof and evidence of your insinuations about Hillary.
But I've seen nothing that paints Hillary any more than your average America politician. Not a great thing, perhaps, but certainly nothing special.
But like I said to Mr. Fusion - I'm all ears. Prove your assertions. Hell - prove any assertion that shows that she has behaved in some frighteningly corrupt manner.
terp said:
dave said:
Rand Paul is probably kicking himself for not running on the Libertarian line this year.
Of all the years to awkwardly and painfully try to project oneself as an insider! My gawd!
Now that's a terrific observation- I confess I hadn't thought about him at all as we've lurched on to where we are today.
Haha damn man his pops must be like "You should have talked more about the gold standard, boy. Listen to your old man."
drummerboy said:
You know that I am more than willing to consider proof and evidence of your insinuations about Hillary.
But I've seen nothing that paints Hillary any more than your average America politician. Not a great thing, perhaps, but certainly nothing special.
But like I said to Mr. Fusion - I'm all ears. Prove your assertions. Hell - prove any assertion that shows that she has behaved in some frighteningly corrupt manner.
Seriously. All your average American Politicians have their ex-President Husbands just happen to run into the DoJ head on a tarmac to discuss the weather while their under investigation by the FBI. That stuff happens all the time. Its a small world filled with little coincidence just like that. Happens every day.
She doesn't get prosecuted because of who she is, not because she is innocent. You guys and your 1%. You do realize that 99.9999999999999999999% of Americans get prosecuted for what Hillary did with the emails.
Or as Glenn Greenwald notes: Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — Until Hillary Clinton
Setting the bar for ethics at that of an American politician is setting the bar woefully low. I'm quite certain Hillary cannot even rise to that level.
eliz said:
And because Jill Stein is a quack.
sac said:
Alfa75 said:
Why not vote for Jill Stein if you want a woman with truly progressive positions to be elected?
Because our current two-party system (which most certainly needs reform) means that she won't be elected.
I admit the anti-vax and some of the other positions of the Green Party are woo. But this is nothing compared to Clintons sabre-rattling wrt Russia, sucking up to Wall Street, the dubious ethics surrounding the "Clinton Foundation", dishonesty about the TPP, etc. etc. Yes a vote for the GP may be a vote for Trump, but at this point I'm not sure that is the worst thing in the world. The GP may get enough of the vote to get funding and evolve as a serious challenger to the duopoly. The Democrats need to be shown what it means to ignore a large element of society. We are going to need to seriously address green issues (climate change) and both of the main parties have nothing to offer.
As far as I'm concerned, where this election is concerned, a vote for Trump IS the worst thing.
sac said:
As far as I'm concerned, where this election is concerned, a vote for Trump IS the worst thing.
OK, Trump is awful on a lot of things. But: do you fancy nuclear war with Russia? And are you OK with more TPP like trade deals? Because that is what you are likely to get with HRC. Hillary's record of poor judgement on just about any important issue is a matter of record; with Trump, who knows?
I think the world is probably safer with Trump than Clinton, but internally some Americans won't be as safe with Trump. That's what makes this election particularly annoying.
dave said:
I think the world is probably safer with Trump than Clinton, but internally some Americans won't be as safe with Trump. That's what makes this election particularly annoying.
Do you mean the world would be better with an anti-muslim US president?
Muslims outside of the US will be better off with an anti-interventionist US president. Clinton and Kaine have already signaled it's war for Syria.
If you think Trump is less hawkish than Clinton, I've got a degree from Trump U to sell you...
He has literally proposed going to war for oil. Real friend of people in the middle east...
Candidates who will bomb brown people to death with our tax dollars in descending order of probability:
Clinton
Trump
Johnson
Alfa75 said:
sac said:
As far as I'm concerned, where this election is concerned, a vote for Trump IS the worst thing.
OK, Trump is awful on a lot of things. But: do you fancy nuclear war with Russia? And are you OK with more TPP like trade deals? Because that is what you are likely to get with HRC. Hillary's record of poor judgement on just about any important issue is a matter of record; with Trump, who knows?
I do not believe that is what we are likely to get with HRC. I probably will not support all of her foreign policy initiatives, but I don't think she has a "trigger finger" and I seriously worry about Trump having those nuclear codes.
Echoing some other posters, can you cite the specific instances you are talking about as "a matter of record"?
I'm not sure that the residents of the former eastern bloc countries will feel safer with Trump in the White House.
PVW said:
If you think Trump is less hawkish than Clinton, I've got a degree from Trump U to sell you...
This!
terp said:
Ah, the all too predictable Circling of the Wagons. Yep. Hillary is a bastion of principle...sure. She gets huge speaking fees from big wall street firms and the like because she's such an engaging speaker. Bill got a $750 K for a less than 30 minute speech w/ Ericsson and it had absolutely nothing to do with her ability to influence in the WH. Sure.
I think part of the problem is that so much of this is considered ethical by the oligarchs that others probably look at it and say "meh. Ethics are only for those that challenge us."
You guys would circle the wagons around Pol Pot if it meant getting a Dem in the WH over Trump. You don't want Trump. I get it. But that doesn't make Hillary *****ing Clinton ethical all of a sudden.
She has fooled the American public for a long time. I don't think she will last a full term in the White House
dave said:
I think the world is probably safer with Trump than Clinton, but internally some Americans won't be as safe with Trump. That's what makes this election particularly annoying.
Well here's Europe's take on the choices:
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/31/europe-would-elect-hillary-clinton-landslide/
I'd like to see any response from anywhere in the world that is preferring Trump over Hillary. Russia maybe...
terp said:
drummerboy said:
You know that I am more than willing to consider proof and evidence of your insinuations about Hillary.
But I've seen nothing that paints Hillary any more than your average America politician. Not a great thing, perhaps, but certainly nothing special.
But like I said to Mr. Fusion - I'm all ears. Prove your assertions. Hell - prove any assertion that shows that she has behaved in some frighteningly corrupt manner.
Seriously. All your average American Politicians have their ex-President Husbands just happen to run into the DoJ head on a tarmac to discuss the weather while their under investigation by the FBI. That stuff happens all the time. Its a small world filled with little coincidence just like that. Happens every day.
She doesn't get prosecuted because of who she is, not because she is innocent. You guys and your 1%. You do realize that 99.9999999999999999999% of Americans get prosecuted for what Hillary did with the emails.
Or as Glenn Greenwald notes: Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — Until Hillary Clinton
Setting the bar for ethics at that of an American politician is setting the bar woefully low. I'm quite certain Hillary cannot even rise to that level.
really? That's your thing? That Bill Clinton met with the AG?
seriously?
Thanks for proving my point. You guys got nothing.
author said:
terp said:
Ah, the all too predictable Circling of the Wagons. Yep. Hillary is a bastion of principle...sure. She gets huge speaking fees from big wall street firms and the like because she's such an engaging speaker. Bill got a $750 K for a less than 30 minute speech w/ Ericsson and it had absolutely nothing to do with her ability to influence in the WH. Sure.
I think part of the problem is that so much of this is considered ethical by the oligarchs that others probably look at it and say "meh. Ethics are only for those that challenge us."
You guys would circle the wagons around Pol Pot if it meant getting a Dem in the WH over Trump. You don't want Trump. I get it. But that doesn't make Hillary *****ing Clinton ethical all of a sudden.
She has fooled the American public for a long time. I don't think she will last a full term in the White House
Fooled us about what, exactly?
I don't get it. If Hillary is the anti-Christ, shouldn't there be miles and miles of proof of her evil ways?
Yet, no one here has offered even the slightest bit of evidence.
Why would that be, do you think?
I'm voting for her, but I'll try.
It's not one big thing. It's a repeat, over and over, of lies. A 25-year ongoing ride of dissembling about everything and when she's not lying (about her emails, about her namesake, about taking sniper fire, about releasing transcripts of speeches, etc.), she's on the wrong side of issues until the polls indcate she should no longer hold such positions: On the wrong side of gay marriage. On the wrong side of bad trade deals. On the wrong side of war with Iraq. On the wrong side of how to take action in Libya. Now we have the sale of government appointments to top donors. Probably not unusual for both parties, but I'm glad wikileaks has dragged it into the open.
Like I said, I'm voting for her, but what I'm questioning is this whole democracy thing that has given us an historically bad set of alternatives this year.
Edit: fixed a typo
No you're not.