And that's not to mention leaking classified information in those public hearings. First, back in the Benghazi/Issa days, there was a CIA safe house blown and I'm pretty sure there was something else more recent.If what the House says about Clinton is true and after all those investigations, hearings, and taxpayer money spent they still don't have anything concrete despite everyone 'knowing' how criminal she is, then they themselves are grossly incompetent by any objective measure.
I can't bring myself to vote for pathetic incompetents.
The problem is Trey Gowdy and the other Republican members of the house select committee have been caught lying and fabricating evidence against Clinton multiple times. People don't realize this because that part doesn't make the nightly news, only the initial accusations.
So if there was something real it wouldn't matter since the Republicans have literally done worse trying to make something up in the first place.
yeah and when you bring it up people claim you are the one projecting... annoying as hell how the well has been poisoned to the point that only the poisoners can make accusations.
Some of us have our own theories of why she's not crushing him - Orfamy's polarization is a large part of it. Trump has a floor, because enough people will flat out vote party no matter what. 30 years of Republican smears are another part. Misogyny is another.
I don't buy Orfamy's polarization argument for various reasons. Some of what I mentioned above which is obvious to those who are following but some more because of the numbers themselves.
These numbers supposedly have decreased (I think the current percentage is around 22% republican), but according to Wiki (yes, I know, it can be very suspect at times) the percentages in 2010 were
The latter result is more in line with Gallup polling in 2010 that found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats (tying a 22-year low), 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents
No matter how many are hardline, that is NOT anywhere close to the poll numbers. If it were, Clinton would win by a landslide. Even if the hardline party members all voted, in fact if ALL the republicans voted as one solid block (which if we understand what's happening, there are a LOT of unhappy republicans as well) it still comes nowhere close to 45% much less 40% much less 35%. It's due to the independents. If you want to know what's happening, you have to look beyond simple party affiliation and understand WHY independents might be voting the way they are.
The ONLY way you get something that much over 30% is if you have some independents voting or polling on your side. It goes for Clinton, it goes for Trump.
My focus is that if one wants better polling numbers, the independents have to be won over.
My #1 priority if I were on Clinton's staff would be to find some way to restore the public's faith and trust in the news and reports from the media.
Other than that, I think she's playing a smart campaign. Let Trump self destruct and keep out of the lime light for the most part. If you aren't doing much it's hard to make any snafu's that can be torn apart by the press. Meanwhile, Trump seems very eager to do a LOT of snafu's to himself...so sitting back seems to be the smart move overall.
The problem is, of course, that a LOT of the public feels the media is not being honest in it's portrayal of Trump. The DNC leaks help to back up and reinforce that image...which is where the problem comes in. It doesn't matter as much if Trump absolutely annihilates himself and the press reports it, if no one believes the press is being honest in the first place.
*thinks that interesting people skip over his other comments but Yd's get quoted...*
...I take that mostly from her time as Secretary of State. The Kaine stuff there's room for argument on—I don't see how you can not see her foreign policy as aggressive. She wanted to send an aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea after North Korea sank a South Korean ship. She was one of the biggest voices in convincing Obama to intervene in Libya. She advocates going further than what President Obama has done in Syria. She criticized Obama for being willing to negotiate with Iran without preconditions. She tried to push Obama to take a more aggressive action in Afganistan. She antagonizes China. She leans on Kissinger for advice.
Even putting Iraq aside, Clinton is much more aggressive in her foreign policy than Obama, and probably Trump (though for decidedly different reasons—Trump follows neonazi "America First" propaganda, after all). You can argue that all these policy differences are strengths and that Obama was wrong, but compared to him, she's a hawk. That's just objective math.
Unlike the "Clinton is dishonest and heartless" narrative, the "hawk narrative" has endured for a reason.
EDIT: With regards to your edit, like I said, I'm still voting for Clinton/Kaine. Doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge their weaknesses. And am I supposed to like Kerry more for some reason? Stop assuming my affiliations. I can support Sanders, and Obama, and Clinton, and Kaine, while still acknowledging their problems. Furthermore, "toeing the party line" is not a substitute for serious belief, because someone who toes the party line can get away with a lot of passivity. Someone who toes the party line on transgender rights, for instance, might just support transgender people in the military, then immediately drop it, like that's all it takes. That's why Kaine's personal beliefs do matter a little.
Incidentally, just to be fair and equal: "Ignore Sanders's clear apathy towards serious gun control action and focus on how many times he waves his fingers in
Jill Stein and Gary Johnson's foreign policies are, if I recall correctly, my least disliked aspects of their policies. That said, I get the sense that Johnson takes his "f+&&-you-I-got-mine" approach to basically everything, and that's not great for our allies.
I liked Sanders's stance on foreign policy. He's the only candidate I can recall who has made efforts to acknowledge that both Israel and Palestine have legitimate grievances that need to be addressed.
But if I have to choose between the president who unwisely antagonizes s$+~ty regimes and the president who would abandon our allies to those s$&!ty regimes and take delight in forcing the nation we hit with the atomic bomb to develop its own nuclear arsenal, guess who I'm gonna vote for? I'll take the hawk over the bantam rooster any day of the week.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, I'm an Independent who started this election undecided, but settled on Sanders fairly quickly. I don't particularly like Clinton, and there are definitely things she could've handled better... but every time the Republicans scream about her doing something wrong, I kind of figure they're crying wolf. o wo; This coming from someone who voted Republicans for President since he was old enough to vote, by the way, and in a heavily Democrat state no less.
As others have stated, they have tried very hard, for a very long time, to discredit her, and I do not believe she is the most amazing criminal mastermind ever. There's tons of smoke they've made... but no fire at the bottom. All they're doing is pushing me further and further from supporting their party in the foreseeable future. I'm planning to vote for Clinton, and I won't even be feeling sour about it anymore. Whatever her flaws - and they do exist - she is preferable to the only other candidate who has a realistic chance of getting elected.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said, people here can scream all they want
And if the neonazi gets elected, trust me, I will.
As I said, people here can scream all they wantAnd if the neonazi gets elected, trust me, I will.
Is that before or after the nuclear fallout from him 'accidentally' nuking Las Vegas and Salt Lake City?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Vomits]
Anyway,
John Hinckley Jr., who shot Ronald Reagan, freed for good from mental hospital
Just tell him Trump's dating Jodie Foster and everything should be fine.
I found this pretty persuasive, honestly. I can dislike someone's politics while finding them personally likeable, sympathetic and/or relateable. I do not personally dislike Hillary Clinton.
More tales of Hillary's collegiate experiences:
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I found this pretty persuasive, honestly. I can dislike someone's politics while finding them personally likeable, sympathetic and/or relateable. I do not personally dislike Hillary Clinton.
An interesting read, and not something I, as a dude, would have thought much about.
And yeah, I love (sarcasm) how she's simultaneously a criminal mastermind who ruthlessly control everything behind the scenes, and too blitheringly incompetent to have not been caught red-handed by Glenn Beck.
But the same sort of things have been said about Obama, Bush Jr. and Trump himself. They're either Machievellian masterminds authoring all of our life's woes, or absolute morons who couldn't be trusted with a lit match, let alone the nuclear codes. No middle ground, it seems.
Hyperbole rules. Eleven is the new ten. No, did I say eleven? Too small, we're going to have only the biggest numbers, the best numbers! People will see the size of our numbers and be so impressed! You'll love them, believe me!
I'm sure some of us remember when Giuliani was running for the nomination, and his talks seemed like mad-libs that were "noun verb 9/11". It's nice to see that not every politician who was involved in the aftermath uses it to try to score points.
Fully aware of the irony due to repeated sniping with Lord Dice:
Statewide Primary Day Standout to support Vote No on 2!
"Join others in our community this Thursday, September 8th, for a statewide Visibility Day to Vote No on 2!
We'll be meeting at 5pm in Lowell at the island/circle in front of City Hall . We'll provide the signs (or make your own if you're inspired!)
Hope to see you there. Keep the cap! Public funds for Public schools!"
Looks like Hillary's old pals at Wal-Mart are funding this.
Arkansas Residents Jim and Alice Walton Pony Up $1,835,000 to Raise Charter Cap in Massachusetts
I'm sure some of us remember when Giuliani was running for the nomination, and his talks seemed like mad-libs that were "noun verb 9/11". It's nice to see that not every politician who was involved in the aftermath uses it to try to score points.
Even in that article, she uses 9/11 to justify invading Iraq.
"The controversial decision – the hardest of her political life, she has said – was predicated on her response to the collapse of the twin towers.
As she told WNYC’s Brian Lehrer, the 9/11 attacks “marked me, and made me feel [fighting terrorism] was my No1 obligation as a senator”.
Micah Zenko, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,..."
It should be noted that the Council on Foreign Relations is a corporate/military lobbying organization responsible for some of the worst aspects of our foreign policy. Hillary is a tool of the Council.
Clinton's time "serving" NY was spent the same way as throughout her career - promoting neoliberalism.
I'm not big on politicians who wrap themselves in 9/11, which Clinton has done, but at least she helped pass a temporary health care funding bill for first responders when she was a senator and publicly backed the permanent funding bill last fall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure some of us remember when Giuliani was running for the nomination, and his talks seemed like mad-libs that were "noun verb 9/11". It's nice to see that not every politician who was involved in the aftermath uses it to try to score points.Clinton's time "serving" NY was spent the same way as throughout her career - promoting neoliberalism.
It is a very different thing to answer a question about why wall-street banks donated money to you, than it is to bounce around like uncle-sam-the-jack-in-the-box and scream at the top of your lungs for 6 months that you saved New York on 9/11. If you can't (or won't) see that then having an actual discourse with you on the topic is out of the question.
If you can't (or won't) see that then having an actual discourse with you on the topic is out of the question.
[Looks at what I actually wrote]
[Looks at your response]Perhaps actual discourse is out of the question...
[Looks at what I actually wrote]
A news link covering a Clinton/Sanders debate where she says the reason wall street banks donated to her campaign fund was due a relationship fostered by supporting said banks after 9/11 - A thing she said and did.
[Looks at your response]
bounce around like uncle-sam-the-jack-in-the-box and scream at the top of your lungs for 6 months that you saved New York on 9/11
A thing he said and did.
Do you or do you not recognise a difference between those two things?
Do you or do you not recognise a difference between those two things?
My post was a response to Scythia's statement, " It's nice to see that not every politician who was involved in the aftermath uses it to try to score points."
I posted two examples of Clinton using 9/11 to push agendas that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 - Accepting Wall Street donations, and the invasion of Iraq. There are many other examples of Clinton using 9/11 to justify all kinds of domestic surveillance, militarization of the police, etc.Rudy and the Bush administration, as well as Bloomberg, are by far the most frequent users of 9/11 for political reasons- something that is absolutely revolting and offensive. But it is revolting and offensive when 9/11 is used to push an agenda, regardless of who does it, the volume they do it, or whether they do it once or a million times.
I would point out that going out and having a photo-op with the victims of a tragedy doesn't really mean much. Clinton went out and visited victims of unexploded ordinance in Laos, which is nice, but goes on to praise the people who are responsible for the policy in the first place. If Clinton really cared about the victims of bombed or destroyed buildings, she would not be so eager to bomb Iraq, Libya, etc. and support and sell bombs to despotic regimes.
Do you or do you not recognise a difference between those two things?My post was a response to Scythia's statement, " It's nice to see that not every politician who was involved in the aftermath uses it to try to score points."
I posted two examples of Clinton using 9/11 to push agendas that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 - Accepting Wall Street donations, and the invasion of Iraq. There are many other examples of Clinton using 9/11 to justify all kinds of domestic surveillance, militarization of the police, etc.Rudy and the Bush administration, as well as Bloomberg, are by far the most frequent users of 9/11 for political reasons- something that is absolutely revolting and offensive. But it is revolting and offensive when 9/11 is used to push an agenda, regardless of who does it, the volume they do it, or whether they do it once or a million times.
I would point out that going out and having a photo-op with the victims of a tragedy doesn't really mean much. Clinton went out and visited victims of unexploded ordinance in Laos, which is nice, but goes on to praise the people who are responsible for the policy in the first place. If Clinton really cared about the victims of bombed or destroyed buildings, she would not be so eager to bomb Iraq, Libya, etc. and support and sell bombs to despotic regimes.
So you don't see the difference?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you don't see the difference?
I see Rudy as a pathetic person doing a shameful thing many times to accomplish... uh... I guess he has some private security company or something. Fox news consultant? Who cares?
I see Hillary as the presumptive next president, doing a shameful thing occasionally to justify many bad deeds including significant atrocities.Would you like me to praise Hillary for doing something bad, but less frequently? Here you go:
It's great Hillary doesn't use 9/11 to accomplish terrible things as often as Rudy uses 9/11. Also, it is great that Hillary has better volume control in most instances then Rudy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it really that strange that a legislative person would do things in the interests of businesses in their district? Businesses are part of the community. I would agree that I'd like to see more weight being thrown behind working class constituents, but you'd agree that a senator/congressperson's constituents include the people who work at businesses in their voting district?
I'm not even sure what you're trying to insinuate. That the parties are really the same because Clinton's basically a Republican? That we're a one party state because when one of the parties candidates is blatantly unfit for the job a handful from that party support the other candidate?
Mind you, they'll all be back to full time obstruction come January, but for now it's "they're all the same".
You figure it out. Both parties garner political donations from a large overlap of big money interests. Both Obama and Clinton are fighting states that are trying to implement a single payer health plan because both are heavily funded by Big Pharma and Big Insurance, who give to both parties. Remember that Obama took single-payer off the table BEFORE even starting negotiations with the Republicans. And let us not forget what exactly Bill Clinton did in creating his strategy of triangulation, nor the fact that Obama pretty much told the Progressive and the LGBT movements to kiss off during the bulk of his first term because he was trying to be accommodating to what used to be the mainstream Republican party.
What I'm saying is nothing new. Bernie Sanders USED to say it when he was a candidate, and people like Ralph Nader have never stopped saying it. Clinton is a bog-standard modern Democrat, which means she's a politician that's well to the right of Richard Nixon, even if she is somewhat left of the Tea Party.
March, march march...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that Obama took single-payer off the table BEFORE even starting negotiations with the Republicans.
I find it interesting that you cite as an example of the sameness of the parties -- well, "interesting" is strongly euphemistic, but whatever -- one of the most divisive political fights in the past ten years.
Obama took single-payer off the table because it was a loser. Even the much weakened insurance reform that eventually passed did so without a single Republican vote and required literally every Democratic vote available -- "they" had to drag a 92-year old senator onto the Senate floor in his wheelchair to get the necessary 60 votes for cloture.
And almost instantly after the vote was taken (and the bill signed), the Republicans started a neverending parade of lawsuits to try to get the ACA eliminated or gutted. (And were successful on many of them?)
What I'm saying is nothing new.
No, it isn't. Unfortunately, nor is it in any way sensible. Politics isn't about what you can ask for; it's about what you can deliver. Or, as Bismark put it, "Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best."
Clinton is a bog-standard modern Democrat, which means she's a politician that's well to the right of Richard Nixon, even if she is somewhat left of the Tea Party.
... and since the Tea Party more or less defines the modern Republican party, you can clearly see that the parties are, by your own admission, nowhere near the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, "it was a loser" because of the pervasive influence of "Clinton Democrats" like Lieberman, so it's fair to sort of blame the Democrats for it failing. The Democrats f**#ing controlled Congress. Had they all actually stood behind one another, there would have been no damn excuse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except (again) every time Clinton has been in office she pushes health care reform/single payer or medical care for another group (the 9/11 responders for example).
Now the democrats did fail to get single payer and saying president Obama is a part of that is plenty fair.
But Clinton's starting position has always been single payer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, independent voter here. I've voted both Republican and Democrat, sometimes for/against the same candidate when hindsight benefit applied (e.g., against Bill Clinton when he was 1st elected, but for him when he ran for re-election; for Obama when he was 1st elected, but sat out his re-election in disgust).
And, to me, there is not a good candidate this time. Hillary represents a continuation of the policies of increasing the wealth gap, sending more of our young people to fight foreign wars, and putting more of our citizens at home in prison. These policies represent, to me, grave evils against the American people, and I unequivocally oppose anyone who champions them, from either party. Stuff like upholding Roe v. Wade and supporting gay marriage are things I strongly support, but -- at the risk of Godwinning the thread -- Hitler also liked dogs, and he made the trains run on time. By themselves, they aren't enough to make up for the big three, and if you're voting based on them, you're basically getting a consolation prize for agreeing to lose.
I find it incomprehensible that the Republicans have redefined their entire party as a carrier for the above-mentioned evils. I find it nauseating that most Democrats are so determined to seek consensus that, being denied someone like Sanders as a candidate, they all run skulking like curs to Hillary and lap her hand, hoping she won't kick them.
I don't expect anyone in either party to agree, but hopefully one of them might understand that refusing to support Hillary is not automatically an act of Republican partisanship.
I mean, if you want an alternative, visit your legislator and ask them to fight for ranked-choice voting or something, like Maine is attempting.
As-is, you have three options: Trump, Hillary, or no effective vote.
Except (again) every time Clinton has been in office she pushes health care reform/single payer or medical care for another group (the 9/11 responders for example).
Now the democrats did fail to get single payer and saying president Obama is a part of that is plenty fair.
But Clinton's starting position has always been single payer.
Sure, though she's further to the right than Obama has been—Obama supports universal health care; she just supports single-payer.
I was referring to the movement of "Democrats" who turned up around the same time Bill Clinton pulled off his coup, not necessarily Democrats who share Clinton's vision.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hillary represents a continuation of the policies of increasing the wealth gap, sending more of our young people to fight foreign wars, and putting more of our citizens at home in prison.
Her past positions have certainly contributed to all of those problems. That said, she claims to have seen the light on the first and last... and even if that were not true, at her worst she was better than Trump is on all three issues.
I agree that neither of the candidates is a 'good' choice... but given a choice between 'poor' and 'horifically bad' I'm going to take the poor choice... rather than sitting it out and complaining when we wind up with horifically bad.
And, to me, there is not a good candidate this time. Hillary represents a continuation of the policies of increasing the wealth gap, sending more of our young people to fight foreign wars, and putting more of our citizens at home in prison. These policies represent, to me, grave evils against the American people, and I unequivocally oppose anyone who champions them, from either party. Stuff like upholding Roe v. Wade and supporting gay marriage are things I strongly support.
So... you have a choice. You're not going to get a realistic candidate who fights the increasing wealth gap this year.
Do you want a candidate who :
* continues support of the increasing wealth gap
* sends more of our young people to fight foreign wars
* puts more of our citizens in prison
* upholds Roe v. Wade
* and supports gay marriage
or one who :
* continues support of the increasing wealth gap
* sends more of our young people to fight foreign wars
* puts more of our citizens in prison
* overturns Roe v. Wade
* and overturns gay marriage
Given a choice between a candidate who promises me some stuff I like and some stuff I dislike, and a character who promises me nothing I like and everything I strongly oppose.... holding out for the perfect candidate seems stupid, selfish, and short-sighted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the primaries Clinton didn't seem very interested in single payer, she took the stance that they'd have to dismantle Obama care before they could get single payer, and while that might have been a ploy, something to paint Bernie's plan as foolish or too idealistic, it seems strange to me that she moved against single payer and instead move towards strengthening Obama care. Now if I were cynical I'd assume it had something to do with campaign contributions.
As far as I can tell, it has more to do with the fact that she's correct.
Remember the Bismark quote above. Unless she gets a landslide of historic proportions, any legislation she proposes will get mangled by a strongly Republican House of Representatives and a Senate that may in theory be Democrat-controlled, but that also requires a 60 vote supermajority in order to get anything accomplished (otherwise, it will simply be filibustered to death). Remember wheeling Sen. Byrd out onto the floor for the sixtieth vote? The reason that Obamacare is as weak as it is is because it was only as strong as the most conservative of those sixty votes would allow it to be.
If she suggests a wholesale rewriting of the ACA, the House will insert all sorts of poison pills into it, simply on a party-line basis if necessary. Better just to leave well enough alone and go for individual changes that she thinks she can finesse through; that way, if she has to veto a bill, she doesn't lose as much political capital.
Let me ask you this -- assume that the election goes "better" (for the Democrats) than the pundits expect, and Clinton finishes with a ten-vote majority in the Senate (55D/45R) and gains forty seats in the House (227R/208D). How would you play things to get single-payer health care passed, signed, sealed, and delivered? The simple answer, IMHO, is that you probably can't, and that while Clinton might have a better answer than you do, she probably couldn't, either.
What I'd gladly vote for is someone willing to fight. If we're giving up before the ballots are even cast than what's supposed to motivate me to vote for her?So you want someone to promise you things they know they can't deliver?
I suppose you'll then be mad at them for breaking their promises.
Again, "art of the possible". That's what good politicians work with. It'll be enough of a fight to get even minor improvements through.
Except that allows your opponents to control the narrative on what is normal and shift the baseline of what is acceptable towards their views.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't vote for Trump, he's making all sorts of promises, not the sort I'd be interested in, but certainly he's suggesting things that would be very hard to pass into law. On the other hand I'd have gladly voted for Sanders. Maybe he couldn't deliver on his promises but he would have at least fought for them.
Clinton's message then seems to be: lower your expectations. We'll only do whatever the republicans will allow.
Maybe that's good enough for you but if I can't vote for someone who's at least willing to fight than why vote at all? If things are so impossible to get though the house and senate than why's Trump a big threat?
Because Trump would be approaching it from the other side. The same entrenched majority in the House that prevents single payer would be glad to repeal the ACA outright -- and would have the votes to do it. Ditto the (presumptive) Senate majority the Republicans would hold if Trump is victorious. Clinton's veto pen can prevent that.
Basically, you have three choices : an improvement, the status quo, or things getting much worse. Except that the improvement is not actually a choice, because it's not actually possible. But there's still a very real choice between keeping the status quo and allowing things to get much, much worse.
Why not let them burn it to the ground then? Democrats did well after Bush and and presumably Trump would be far far worse. Maybe what we need to get change again is to remind independent voters how horrible a republican government can be.I wouldn't vote for Trump, he's making all sorts of promises, not the sort I'd be interested in, but certainly he's suggesting things that would be very hard to pass into law. On the other hand I'd have gladly voted for Sanders. Maybe he couldn't deliver on his promises but he would have at least fought for them.
Clinton's message then seems to be: lower your expectations. We'll only do whatever the republicans will allow.
Maybe that's good enough for you but if I can't vote for someone who's at least willing to fight than why vote at all? If things are so impossible to get though the house and senate than why's Trump a big threat?
Because Trump would be approaching it from the other side. The same entrenched majority in the House that prevents single payer would be glad to repeal the ACA outright -- and would have the votes to do it. Ditto the (presumptive) Senate majority the Republicans would hold if Trump is victorious. Clinton's veto pen can prevent that.
Basically, you have three choices : an improvement, the status quo, or things getting much worse. Except that the improvement is not actually a choice, because it's not actually possible. But there's still a very real choice between keeping the status quo and allowing things to get much, much worse.
Because the house is over firecode limits based off of the number of emergency exits and not everyone will get out safely.