Wow! An adult discussion has broken out about a political issue.

Challenge to you all. Stay positive.  Lay out the specifics of Hillary's plans.

In the spirit of the Mets Fans Only thread...

Hard to frame things this way, isn't it?  Much easier to just knock down the other guy.

She takes great care of herself and looks good. I like her position on equal pay, but the ERA has been shot down by Republicans for decades. (How does she propose to get equal pay for women, again?)

springgreen2 said:

She takes great care of herself and looks good. I like her position on equal pay, but the ERA has been shot down by Republicans for decades. (How does she propose to get equal pay for women, again?)

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-briefing/fact-sheet-equal-pay/

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-womens-rights/

Their positions are virtually identical.  HRCs plans are a slightly more detailed.

mjh said:

springgreen2 said:

She takes great care of herself and looks good. I like her position on equal pay, but the ERA has been shot down by Republicans for decades. (How does she propose to get equal pay for women, again?)

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-briefing/fact-sheet-equal-pay/




http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-womens-rights/





Their positions are virtually identical.  HRCs plans are a slightly more detailed.

And how does she pass the "Pay Fairness Act" through Congress?

Keep it positive.

She has for a long time been involved in equal rights for women and minorities.  She is very competent and knows how to work the political system.  She has proven that she can endure the attacks of her political opponents and still move forward.

jeffhandy said:

Keep it positive.

She has for a long time been involved in equal rights for women and minorities.  She is very competent and knows how to work the political system.  She has proven that she can endure the attacks of her political opponents and still move forward.

Sure, but this is a promise. They attack Sanders for ambitious promises. So she has some as well.

HRC is very patient.

She has handled herself with grace and intelligence in the face of long investigations and attacks.  She's smart, never loses her cool, and she's a fighter.  She'll do the best that she can for women and women's rights.  It's time we had a smart woman president.

i

As I noted in the Sanders thread, I plan on voting for Clinton. I'll be voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is in the general.

If intelligence, experience, and hard work mean anything - and I believe they do - then Clinton among the most qualified presidential candidates we've had. She has an impressive ability to get into the wonky details of policy proposals, and she has show an ability to update her views over her career as she learns new information. She also demonstrates a lot of grit and hard work, and she's a team player - she contributes a lot back to the Democratic party.  That last part I find especially important, as achieving anything substantive in politics is very often a collective endeavor. I don't know if Clinton will be any more successful than Obama has been in reaching out to Republicans in Congress; I do feel she'll be better at reaching out to Democrats (as much as I respect Obama, I found this to be a weaker area for him). 

I also think the fact that she'd be the first woman president is important. Gender is, of course, not the only reason to vote for someone, but it's a bit silly to claim that it's not relevant - to say so is to deny that sexism exists.  Gender is certainly a reason why people vote against someone, or think it's ok to pay someone less, or take someone less seriously, ...etc... so it's already an issue.  I think having a smart, qualified, competent president who is also a woman is quite a relevant and significant positive.

Every almost single f-up Clinton has made there's a video of Bernie saying we should do the exact opposite.  I don't know if sound judgment counts for anything anymore, though, particularly among Clinton-supporters, who seem to forgive her for every dumb vote and action that has cost not only trillions of dollars, but the lives of neighbors' children, who were sent to die in the Middle East for a lie. 

She was against gay marriage until the nation instructed her otherwise.

She was for bad trade deals until they became obvious problems.

She was for incarcerating minority populations until the statistics embarrassed her and Bill out of it. 

She was all for giving up rights to the Orwellian named Patriot Act (and never changed given two opportunities while she was mis-representing NY voters in the Senate). 

Some call her pragmatic.  I call her dangerous and dumb with a proven record of poor judgment. 

If you want foreign interventionism, following rather than leading, and lying about almost everything when it's convenient, Clinton is your candidate.   As far as I'm concnered we don't need more leaders with confused morals and debts to Wall Street.

dave said:

Every almost single f-up Clinton has made there's a video of Bernie saying we should do the exact opposite.  I don't know if sound judgment counts for anything anymore, though, particularly among Clinton-supporters, who seem to forgive her for every dumb vote and action that has cost not only trillions of dollars, but the lives of neighbors' children, who were sent to die in the Middle East for a lie. 

She was against gay marriage until the nation instructed her otherwise.

She was for bad trade deals until they became obvious problems.

She was for incarcerating minority populations until the statistics embarrassed her and Bill out of it. 

She was all for giving up rights to the Orwellian named Patriot Act (and never changed given two opportunities while she was mis-representing NY voters in the Senate). 

Some call her pragmatic.  I call her dangerous and dumb with a proven record of poor judgment. 

If you want foreign interventionism, following rather than leading, and lying about almost everything when it's convenient, Clinton is your candidate.   As far as I'm concnered we don't need more leaders with confused morals and debts to Wall Street.

I'm pretty positive this post is not positive.

It is correct though.

Oops.   My bad.   I totally missed the thread title.    

OK, so I should now be forced to come up with some positive things to say about her. 

Her sense of entitlement is somewhat endearing.  
Her close ties to corporate America mean good things for all, right?  
She can hold a position on an issue until just the right moment when it becomes unpopular and then pretend she never held it.   Not everyone can do that. 

@Dave, Thanks for giving expression to the reason I, for one, could not possibly support Clinton.

springgreen2 said:

@Dave, Thanks for giving expression to the reason I, for one, could not possibly support Clinton.

So, if she is the candidate in November, you plan on not voting?

No wonder I find MOL ever more loathesome. I know better than to open political threads. 

tjohn said:

springgreen2 said:

@Dave, Thanks for giving expression to the reason I, for one, could not possibly support Clinton.

So, if she is the candidate in November, you plan on not voting?

Why aren't you asking Dave that, or Drummerboy?

Just answer the question.  Are you going to cut off your nose to spite your face?

Wait for it.

drummerboy said:

dave said:

Every almost single f-up Clinton has made there's a video of Bernie saying we should do the exact opposite.  I don't know if sound judgment counts for anything anymore, though, particularly among Clinton-supporters, who seem to forgive her for every dumb vote and action that has cost not only trillions of dollars, but the lives of neighbors' children, who were sent to die in the Middle East for a lie. 

She was against gay marriage until the nation instructed her otherwise.

She was for bad trade deals until they became obvious problems.

She was for incarcerating minority populations until the statistics embarrassed her and Bill out of it. 

She was all for giving up rights to the Orwellian named Patriot Act (and never changed given two opportunities while she was mis-representing NY voters in the Senate). 

Some call her pragmatic.  I call her dangerous and dumb with a proven record of poor judgment. 

If you want foreign interventionism, following rather than leading, and lying about almost everything when it's convenient, Clinton is your candidate.   As far as I'm concnered we don't need more leaders with confused morals and debts to Wall Street.

I'm pretty positive this post is not positive.

It is correct though.

This.

I think Bernie is awesome. An inspiration. He's awakened much of the population to politics and the realities of income and other inequalities. I want to give him a big hug.

But I'm a Hillary guy. Hillary will win. Don't discount that. She'll decimate the GOP candidate on the stump. And she'll be strong for the right policies. I don't give a good G-ddamn how late she came to them. She's tough, she's hard, she's on my side and will stand up to an obstructionist Congress and get things done. Better than Bernie. 

Just so we're clear: I think Bernie is awesome. An inspiration. He's awakened much of the population to politics and the realities of income and other inequalities. I want to give him a big hug. I was feeling the Bern for many, many months but my pragmatic side has come to the fore. Do I want inspiration or do I want a kick-ass, policy-smart, battle-hardened liberal Democrat fighting for me? 

I'm ready for Hillary.

She'll be able "to get things done."  I hear this a lot. May I ask, to get what done?

What exactly, does she, and do you, want to get done?  This is unclear.  

I'll wait...  

tjohn said:

springgreen2 said:

@Dave, Thanks for giving expression to the reason I, for one, could not possibly support Clinton.

So, if she is the candidate in November, you plan on not voting?

I'm here to help.

http://www.jill2016.com

Ridski, your sexist, narcissistic, nasty, cztrasian attempts to draw smirks from your MOL buddies at my expense are probably drawing deep yawns by now from many other MOLers.  These attempts at ad hominem humor have jumped the shark. Say goodnight, Ridski.

gerryl said:

No wonder I find MOL ever more loathesome. I know better than to open political threads. 

Apparently, you don't, as evidenced by the black type on green field above.

springgreen2 said:

What exactly, does she, and do you, want to get done?  This is unclear.  

I'll wait... "> 

You seem much more opposed to HRC than most here are to Bernie. He's my second choice. Who's yours?

GL2 said:

springgreen2 said:

What exactly, does she, and do you, want to get done?  This is unclear.  

I'll wait... "> 

You seem much more opposed to HRC than most here are to Bernie. He's my second choice. Who's yours?

I don't see this as a popularity contest.

springgreen2 said:

Ridski, your sexist, narcissistic, nasty, cztrasian attempts to draw smirks from your MOL buddies at my expense are probably drawing deep yawns by now from many other MOLers.  These attempts at ad hominem humor have jumped the shark. Say goodnight, Ridski.

I'm serious, springgreen2. If you're so bent against Clinton, you should really be backing the Green Party candidate, who would be closest to your goals. Not now, obviously, but when Clinton wins the primary.

ridski said:

tjohn said:

springgreen2 said:

@Dave, Thanks for giving expression to the reason I, for one, could not possibly support Clinton.

So, if she is the candidate in November, you plan on not voting?

I'm here to help.

http://www.jill2016.com

Third-party?         

Hello? Ralph Nader? Is Ralph home please...?