Hillary Clinton

bramzzoinks said:

Just what the world needs an extremely hypocritical limousine liberal. But I doubt he would want to leave his 400 acre NJ estate and his horse-set friends. 

Why do you hate those who've gained hard-earned wealth?

mikescott said:

BCC said:

mikescott said:

BCC said:

mikescott said:

BCC is persistent -- and just does not understand the issue -- and can't be objective because of his hatred of HRC.  

Same issue - point out what I don't understand. So far you have wandered all over the lot.

wandered all over the lot?  

It has been explained to you many times. -- and I don't think anyone can succeed getting someone to actually read what has been said when that person is stubborn and wearing blinders.

 

Yes you wandered all over the lot.

What has been explained to me or is this simply your way of dodging the question?

Explain how I have wandered all over the lot...

And re-read the hundreds of posts from many explaining to you.

Or try answering the question that has been posed to you.... who are you voting for and why instead of saying the same thing over and over about HRC.  

'  Bush/Cheney war crimes for instance' -'Trump – the Russians'

What does that have to do with Hillary's serious violations of regulations with regard to the
e-mails

(Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rubio, etc)?

The first three were operating under different regulations and I am unaware of Rubio 's misdeeds.

Leaving that aside, do I have to remind you we don't use others misdeeds to justify our own.

As to asking me for whom I am voting, - do your homework first

Actually, someone else proposed him for prez (somewhat jokingly) and you're the one who decided to tear into him, ineptly, with the incessant horse farm thing.  But even if I alone raised the comparison, it is relevant.   The point is, the are famous people who have clean personal reputations, which is especially noteworthy in this era of gossip prying and online character assassination.  If the crazed pitchfork and torch  mob felt the need to nominate a true outsider to ride into town and clean up the riff raff (yeah right) there are many people of real accomplishment, personal integrity, decency etc. they could have chosen from.   That they chose your hero is a refection of how mentally regressed large segments of our population have become.

GL2 said:
bramzzoinks said:

Just what the world needs an extremely hypocritical limousine liberal. But I doubt he would want to leave his 400 acre NJ estate and his horse-set friends. 

Why do you hate those who've gained hard-earned wealth?

He did not build it.

hoops said:

BCC said:

No problem, just point out the flaws in my argument.

seriously?  

you dont listen or acknowledge anyones objections or arguments.  theres nothing in what you say thats compelling, so why should I bother?

If there are so many 'flaws' in my argument it should be easy to point out a few. A 'flaw' seems to be
disagreeing with you and ml1.

 if you still won't answer I won't bring it up again and anyone reading this can draw their own conclusion.

very jokingly

bub said:

Actually, someone else proposed him for prez (somewhat jokingly) 

bramzzoinks said:

Just what the world needs an extremely hypocritical limousine liberal. But I doubt he would want to leave his 400 acre NJ estate and his horse-set friends. 

Or the US and European tour he's currently on and will be on until September.

ridski said:

bramzzoinks said:

Just what the world needs an extremely hypocritical limousine liberal. But I doubt he would want to leave his 400 acre NJ estate and his horse-set friends. 

Or the US and European tour he's currently on and will be on until September.

He can buy a few hundred acres more of "farmland" while his "foundation" gives almost no grants.

bramzzoinks said:

ridski said:

bramzzoinks said:

Just what the world needs an extremely hypocritical limousine liberal. But I doubt he would want to leave his 400 acre NJ estate and his horse-set friends. 

Or the US and European tour he's currently on and will be on until September.

He can buy a few hundred acres more of "farmland" while his "foundation" gives almost no grants.

Yep. Capitalism is a wonderful thing.

Capitalists are great. Capitalists pretending to be socialists are not.

BCC said:

What does that have to do with Hillary's serious violations of regulations with regard to the
e-mails 

There's been serious consequences for Clinton, in that it's unnecessarily complicated her campaign and hurt her reputation - but beyond Clinton, no one else has been harmed by this. So I have a hard time getting very exercised over these "serious violations" of regulations that have had absolutely no serious consequences for anyone beyond Clinton. Even if we assume the worst case scenario, where all the classified emails were accessed by Trump or some other anti-American power, they would have learned that we have a drone program in Pakistan and that State talked to the president of Malawi. I'm sorry, but I just can't get all that upset over that.

And like all good capitalist bosses, Springsteen is known to drive a hard bargain with his employees and capture as large a portion of revenue for himself as possible. And his offers of employment are take it or leave it. Due to erratic scheduling at his whim, his employees often need to work side jobs to make ends meet.

Unless charity=socialism, not sure what you're getting at.  I'm not aware of any  positions Springsteen has taken about class leveling or government owning the means of production etc..  In music and elsewhere he has expressed sympathy about the decline of blue collar employment but isn't that what Trump claims to be concerned about too ( but for white people only, of course).  The truth is, Springsteen got put in the conservative  dog house for criticizing certain high profile police brutality incidents, not because he's some kind rock and roll Jane Fonda or Sean Penn.

In 2010 18 African Americans lived in Rumson so Springsteen is not likely to see any on a regular basis.  

bramzzoinks said:

Capitalists are great. Capitalists pretending to be socialists are not.

A bit like authoritarians pretending to be libertarians, I guess. But hey, everybody's got a hobby horse. Mine's Peter King. Yours is Bruce Springsteen. I can dig it.

He's wealthy, we get it.  If that disqualifies you from speaking up for the "working man," then surely you can't vote for Trump, though I know you will. 

BCC said:

hoops said:

BCC said:

No problem, just point out the flaws in my argument.

seriously?  

you dont listen or acknowledge anyones objections or arguments.  theres nothing in what you say thats compelling, so why should I bother?

If there are so many 'flaws' in my argument it should be easy to point out a few. A 'flaw' seems to be
disagreeing with you and ml1.

 if you still won't answer I won't bring it up again and anyone reading this can draw their own conclusion.

exactly.  

bub said:

He's wealthy, we get it.  If that disqualifies you from speaking up for the "working man," then surely you can't vote for Trump, though I know you will. 

He won't. zoinks is voting for Clinton, as he did for her husband.

Am I, like, the only one keeping track of who people are declaring for here?

calling people hypocrites is the weakest argument there is. It tacitly acknowledges the validity of the point the person is making, and just criticizes the person for not following his/her beliefs.

ridski said:

bub said:

He's wealthy, we get it.  If that disqualifies you from speaking up for the "working man," then surely you can't vote for Trump, though I know you will. 

He won't. zoinks is voting for Clinton, as he did for her husband.

Am I, like, the only one keeping track of who people are declaring for here?

You have good reading comprehension skills. Others here do not.

I have my doubts about some of the voting declarations made on this thread.  I'll leave it at that.

I suggest you read my comments about Trump on MOL. If you have any desire for accuracy. Which I doubt.

bub said:

I have my doubts about some of the voting declarations made on this thread.  I'll leave it at that.

Well, people have the right to change their minds or lie, I'll give you that. Personally I think it's none of our f**king business who someone else is voting for and I'll walk past any exit pollster before I give them the right answer. 

But then I'm British. I think it's been said before, British people are happy to tell you how much they earn, Americans are happy to tell you they voted for, but rarely vice-versa.

I do hate poll watchers who try to get you to report to them before going to your voting station by pretending to have some official role or pretending to be trying to be helpful. I love walking right by them and if challenged loudly calling them what they are, party hacks.

Agreed, its no one's business and it's fine for anyone to say so when asked.  Not so fine I think to be so ashamed of one's choice that one has to lie about it.   I can't know who's lying but I've seen a phenomenon here and elsewhere where people respond to assertions of Trump's fitness solely by trashing Clinton.  It's an indirect, safe way of saying "she's so bad that it make make sense to vote for a Trump."  

Again, read all my comments with very negative things to say about Trump and report back then.

And I actually have tried to be very circumspect in saying negative things about Clinton (and there are things that can be said) only because of how off the charts awful Trump is. So (and please look) you are not going to find many negative things written by me about Clinton. Certainly dwarfed 1000 times by all the negative things I have written about Trump.

PVW said:

BCC said:

What does that have to do with Hillary's serious violations of regulations with regard to the
e-mails 

There's been serious consequences for Clinton, in that it's unnecessarily complicated her campaign and hurt her reputation - but beyond Clinton, no one else has been harmed by this. So I have a hard time getting very exercised over these "serious violations" of regulations that have had absolutely no serious consequences for anyone beyond Clinton. Even if we assume the worst case scenario, where all the classified emails were accessed by Trump or some other anti-American power, they would have learned that we have a drone program in Pakistan and that State talked to the president of Malawi. I'm sorry, but I just can't get all that upset over that.

Actually you don't know what those 22 top secret and above top secret e-mails said. They are considered so important they won' be released, even in redacted form. If you don't think that's 'serious violations', your entitled to your opinion.

bub said:

Agreed, its no one's business and it's fine for anyone to say so when asked.  Not so fine I think to be so ashamed of one's choice that one has to lie about it.   I can't know who's lying but I've seen a phenomenon here and elsewhere where people respond to assertions of Trump's fitness solely by trashing Clinton.  It's an indirect, safe way of saying "she's so bad that it make make sense to vote for a Trump."  

That's a load of crap. No one on MOL, other than ajc has said anything about voting for Trump because Hillary is so bad. A number of people have said they will hold their nose while voting for Hillary.

I stand corrected happily.  I'll hold one nostril and vote for Hillary.   The bad stuff isn't that bad and she's got serious credentials. But if the 'pubs subbed in Springsteen, I'd vote for him in a second.

Having read all of these comments I am just about ready to make up my mind about who to vote for.  It's such a close call.  I think another 100 posts or so should do it.