Who are you voting for?

[Osmia]

still not certain on who I am voting for but I can tell you that it will not be Hilldabeast.... if for no other reason than the comment she made regarding the deaths of those in Benghazi.
"What difference at this point does it make?"



Not saying that she lied to the families of the slain but she has lied about lying and has been caught on multiple occasions doing so.

When I saw the fox news logo on that video, I knew I would have to jump in and point out the context, something that isn't one of Faux News' strong points. The whole exchange is here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...t-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/

The pertinent Q and A between Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Clinton is below. It's pretty clear that the "what difference" comment was in reference to her preceding sentence, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans?"

I mean, assuming for the sake of argument that Hillary Clinton was the devil incarnate, she's still a smart lawyer, a good politician, a good diplomat, and someone with political ambitions (this happened in 2013). Why on earth would she say something like "what difference does it make that these Americans were killed"? It would be incredibly stupid, and whatever her many faults may be, she's not stupid.

I do fault her for saying something like that, which given her experience, she must have know could and would be taken out of context for partisan political purposes by Fox news and the rest of the right-wing propaganda apparatus.

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.​

 

[Osmia]

....
This is what people like Sen. Ron Johnson seek. A fucking soundbite. Something to share with their deluded, disinformed base, which starts to salivate at the mere thought that a blow might have been struck against evil liberalism with no critical regard for its actual value.

I kind of think Sen. Johnson wasn't looking to do that. He probably wasn't sorry to see Hillary Clinton say something that so obviously could (and would) be used against her, but his questioning seemed tough but mostly fair. And notice that his Q&A session ended right after Hillary's infamous comment; he said: "OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary." If he had the slightest belief that she was referring to the American deaths, he would have said something like "Madame Secretary, did I just hear you say blah blah blah!? Please clarify." Or something like that.

I hang this one squarely on faux news, breitbart and their ilk.

 

[LuckySmiles]

When I saw the fox news logo on that video, I knew I would have to jump in and point out the context, something that isn't one of Faux News' strong points. The whole exchange is here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...t-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/

The pertinent Q and A between Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Clinton is below. It's pretty clear that the "what difference" comment was in reference to her preceding sentence, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans?"

I mean, assuming for the sake of argument that Hillary Clinton was the devil incarnate, she's still a smart lawyer, a good politician, a good diplomat, and someone with political ambitions (this happened in 2013). Why on earth would she say something like "what difference does it make that these Americans were killed"? It would be incredibly stupid, and whatever her many faults may be, she's not stupid.

I do fault her for saying something like that, which given her experience, she must have know could and would be taken out of context for partisan political purposes by Fox news and the rest of the right-wing propaganda apparatus.

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.​

I've never taken that statement to mean anything out of context and still see it as ridiculous and showing she behaves when caught in a lie.

That video cartoon protest story was a blatant (and pretty weak) lie. As you said, Clinton is not that stupid, and if she did believe that, that was going on she'd have to be a bit dumb, or she thought the Americans people must be that dumb to buy it and she's lying about it. Take your pick. I'm 99% sure it's the second option.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I do fault her for saying something like that, which given her experience, she must have know could and would be taken out of context for partisan political purposes by Fox news and the rest of the right-wing propaganda apparatus.

I don't really fault her for that. As long as that machine has an audience too dense to see what is going on, they are going to prosper; they are going to find their soundbites.

I remember the hubbub over the "Bin Laden determined to strike in US". Real easy to go back with the clarity of hindsight and critique the actions of those in the fog.

I kind of think Sen. Johnson wasn't looking to do that. He probably wasn't sorry to see Hillary Clinton say something that so obviously could (and would) be used against her, but his questioning seemed tough but mostly fair. And notice that his Q&A session ended right after Hillary's infamous comment; he said: "OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary." If he had the slightest belief that she was referring to the American deaths, he would have said something like "Madame Secretary, did I just hear you say blah blah blah!? Please clarify." Or something like that.

I hang this one squarely on faux news, breitbart and their ilk.

I make no distinction at this point between the Republicans and their megaphones.



You have to be pretty dumb to buy into the falsehoods this man presents.

 

[MissBlaire]

Well I am starting to sour on all this Trump bashing. Not because it isn't true though.

See, throughout the '80s and much of the '90s, I lived with no hope. But in my darkest times, the Trumps of this world spoke to me. They were always there at 3 a.m. to reassure me that there was more to life than poverty. They kept my dreams from completely dying.

Now it's true that they offered a false hope. To which I would reply, sometimes a false hope is better than no hope at all.

I completely understand this sentiment. So many people feel the exact way you do. Some hope is definitely better than none...

Unfortunately, Trump is still offering false Hope.

And to me this is very depressing, very real, and very damaging.
He speaks candidly and real to a large group of white civilians who have very little hope, about legitimate problems that they face, which no candidate has ever pandered to.

These people are living in constant fear.
The white working class has had their jobs moved out of country to cheaper labor, have been dealing with poverty and lack of jobs and resources that continue to get worse as the disparity between Corporate wealth and wages deepens. No one is listening, and no one seems to care.
They are terrified that their fears will be realized: that they will become the new minority, that life and the poverty they are in will never get better.

As a democratic participatory socialist, and on a deeper level a communist, I must say that the "Hope" that was being sold was based on the exploitation of the poor and disenfranchised.
His businesses have failed multiple times and he walked away unscathed because he allowed the weight of his failures to fall on the backs of his employees and communities he affected in his endeavors.
He has done nothing but make the plight of the white working class worse, and he will continue to do so under the guise of the promise of wealth and opportunity, the false premise that any working person could rise to similar wealth.

Trump has a very big strength:
Prosperity Theology.
Which in this case is basically the notion that if you are healthy/wealthy you have "Gods Grace"
By associating with him and voting for him, that grace might rub off. People believe that they could possibly access that wealth and prosperity. The association with him brings a feeling of power to people who feel incredibly powerless.

In my opinion, it is important to show the working class that they CAN have power, in numbers, in unions, working together to take away the power from the 1% by putting the means of wealth -the means of production- into the hands of the workers.
After all, the means of production would not function without the workers.

Trump to me is dangerous on many levels. He is a full fledged demagogue, appealing to the fears of people he has NO intention of doing anything for. A vote for Trump is a vote for a fascist regime.
It is so painful to see people who have no hope put their hope in someone who has no intention of taking care of them in any way shape or form, and who will definitely give them increased poverty and a worsened standard of living.

(All this being said, I do not like the bipartisan system or HRC in any way, but I recognize that widespread socio-economic-political change will only come about from the bottom up, with the people recognizing their power as a unified force, and that the "status quo" that HRC would likely keep would allow those community struggles to continue to fight for their rights. While under Trump... well... lets say many many "walls" will be built and likely violent force will be used to stop this community organizing)

 

[Osmia]

I make no distinction at this point between the Republicans and their megaphones.



You have to be pretty dumb to buy into the falsehoods this man presents.

I'm not going to defend Sen. Johnson, far from it. I just think that he, like most partisan Republicans, talks and behaves one way in official proceedings and among colleagues, and talks and behaves quite another way when in front of a TV camera.

In the latter case, his purpose is to inflame partisan feelings and anger, so that the people watching fox news (or whatever) will get worked up and motivated to "spread the word" and turn out to vote for the approved candidates. So, the Republicans keep their followers in a perpetual state of arousal (pardon the pun) to bring pressure to bear on Obama and the democrats and frustrate the democrats' agenda. They do this because they don't have the vision or the power to get anything done themselves.

They seek to delegitimize democratic presidents, which IMO is a dishonorable and dangerous goal. They tried to do it with Bill Clinton, with limited success; they've tried to do it with Obama, and when Hillary takes office, they'll try it with her. The only way around this impasse is to decisively defeat the Republicans in Congress, and in the state governments, and hope that a legitimate conservative party will arise to replace it.

 

[LuckySmiles]

Random ponder I'd really like to a see the first woman President come from a successful military background.

There's a reason why she's not very trusted among serving US military and veterans... and basically a joke in army training.

And it's not because they "watch fox news"

 

[Osmia]

Random ponder I'd really like to a see the first woman President come from a successful military background.

There's a reason why she's not very trusted among serving US military and veterans... and basically a joke in army training

And it's not because they "watch fox news"

Hillary Clinton isn't trusted and well-regarded by military personnel because (1) she's a democrat, and (2) she's a woman.

A female presidential candidate who has a successful military background would do well with military personnel and vets if she was a Republican. If she was a Democrat, I don't think she would do significantly better with military people than any other democrat, which is to say, not well at all.

 

[LuckySmiles]

Hillary Clinton isn't trusted and well-regarded by military personnel because (1) she's a democrat, and (2) she's a woman.

A female presidential candidate who has a successful military background would do well with military personnel and vets if she was a Republican. If she was a Democrat, I don't think she would do significantly better with military people than any other democrat, which is to say, not well at all.

That's a pretty big generalization that gives me the impression you don't associate with many recent veterans and current military. At 18 your political beliefs are not set in stone, you do not sign up because you are a Republican. There are many current and former US military very distrustful of both parties, but Hillary Clinton especially.

It's not as simple as political parties and gender as you suggest. It has everything to do with foreign policy and poor military strategies. I was in high school on 9/11 making my generation the Iraq 2/Afghanistan veterans. As well as a few older ones in places like Kosovo.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

.

I'm not going to defend Sen. Johnson, far from it. I just think that he, like most partisan Republicans, talks and behaves one way in official proceedings and among colleagues, and talks and behaves quite another way when in front of a TV camera.

In the latter case, his purpose is to inflame partisan feelings and anger, so that the people watching fox news (or whatever) will get worked up and motivated to "spread the word" and turn out to vote for the approved candidates. So, the Republicans keep their followers in a perpetual state of arousal (pardon the pun) to bring pressure to bear on Obama and the democrats and frustrate the democrats' agenda. They do this because they don't have the vision or the power to get anything done themselves.

They seek to delegitimize democratic presidents, which IMO is a dishonorable and dangerous goal. They tried to do it with Bill Clinton, with limited success; they've tried to do it with Obama, and when Hillary takes office, they'll try it with her. The only way around this impasse is to decisively defeat the Republicans in Congress, and in the state governments, and hope that a legitimate conservative party will arise to replace it.

The blue I agree with. The red? Well, that's the part that really depresses me. For one thing, we don't have a legitimate liberal party either. They play the same games. I think the Democrats at this point have compromised their way far enough to the right to qualify as an extreme conservative party.

Random ponder I'd really like to a see the first woman President come from a successful military background.

There's a reason why she's not very trusted among serving US military and veterans... and basically a joke in army training.

And it's not because they "watch fox news"

I would like to see our military deglamorized. Not demonized, mind you, but deglamorized.

Should US military/veteran opinions carry more weight than the citizenry they serve? Let's hope not. But if they do, lets not steal their voice to support our own views.

Hillary is a pig, sure. But at least some of the veterans prefer her to the option. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...0e1540-6307-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html

 

[LuckySmiles]

.


Should US military/veteran opinions carry more weight than the citizenry they serve? Let's hope not. But if they do, lets not steal their voice to support our own views.

I think the opinion of those who they have put their lives more directly and immediately in the hands of Presidential policy is worth listening to. Yet they are a small part of the vote and their voice is not as important to many.

 

[Osmia]

That's a pretty big generalization that gives me the impression you don't associate with many recent veterans and current military. At 18 your political beliefs are not set in stone, you do not sign up because you are a Republican. There are many current and former US military very distrustful of both parties, but Hillary Clinton especially.

It's not as simple as political parties and gender as you suggest. It has everything to do with foreign policy and poor military strategies. I was in high school on 9/11 making my generation the Iraq 2/Afghanistan veterans. As well as a few older ones in places like Kosovo.

You're correct--it was a big generalization. I believe I was thinking mainly of officers, who, when I see them in the news media talking politics, I see them as informally representing their service branch, or the military in general. When I see enlisted persons talking politics, I see them as speaking for themselves. And officers do tend to be more conservative/Republican than enlisted (see below). You're also correct that I "don't associate with many recent veterans and current military." My father served in the Army in Korea, but he never talked about it. I've had various friends and coworkers over the years who were veterans or in the Reserve, but for the most part their military backgrounds and their politics weren't something we talked about much. Earlier in my adult life, I had a good friend who had been in the Navy, doing anti-submarine warfare. He had some interesting stories.

The only thing I have to go on are my impressions, formed (hopefully) with critical thinking, and minimal bias or prejudice, and backed up (hopefully) by hard data. For example, this Gallup polling report supports my impression that the military (current and veterans) skew Republican, but as you say, it's not black and white. This article in Time makes some similar points. An excerpt:

Indeed, there has been a conservative drift among U.S. military officers since the draft ended. In a 2009 survey of 4,000 Army officers, Heidi Urben, an active-duty officer and doctoral candidate at Georgetown University, found that between 1976 and 1996, the share of senior military officers identifying itself as Republican jumped from one-third to two-thirds, while those claiming to be moderates fell from 46% to 22%.
​

That's a pretty significant change. I think it's an interesting point (for another discussion)--that the draft appears to have brought in a fairly representative cross section of the country's population at that time. The volunteer military is more self-selected (i.e., many of the people that were drafted in the 60s and 70s would almost certainly not have volunteered).

FWIW, I think the US should have mandatory military or some alternative service requirement, like Israel. Among other benefits, it would reduce the cultural/political gap between people with military experience and those without it.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I think the opinion of those who they have put their lives more directly and immediately in the hands of Presidential policy is worth listening to. Yet they are a small part of the vote and their voice is not as important to many.

U.S. Army Sergeant Steven Hildreth:

“Trump is that kid back on the block who says, ‘I would have joined but I would punch out a drill sergeant for yelling at me.’ He’s that support guy who talks about how he’s ‘basically infantry.’ In short, he’s a chump who doesn’t know his rear end from a hole in the ground. Sit down before you hurt yourself, Donnie.”

 

[LuckySmiles]

FWIW, I think the US should have mandatory military or some alternative service requirement, like Israel. Among other benefits, it would reduce the cultural/political gap between people with military experience and those without it.

Agree, that plus many of the skills learned in the military are much more educational and helpful for real life than in many American colleges at the moment.

 

[LuckySmiles]

U.S. Army Sergeant Steven Hildreth:

“Trump is that kid back on the block who says, ‘I would have joined but I would punch out a drill sergeant for yelling at me.’ He’s that support guy who talks about how he’s ‘basically infantry.’ In short, he’s a chump who doesn’t know his rear end from a hole in the ground. Sit down before you hurt yourself, Donnie.”

Of course they're both effing scary! but Hillary's already gotten a bunch of people killed and thinks she knows what she's doing, therefore to me and many, more scary. I kind of maybe expect (hope) Trump would defer more to the generals and leaders around him that wouldn't be in Clinton's gang.

 

[Admiralfoot]

.
The blue I agree with. The red? Well, that's the part that really depresses me. For one thing, we don't have a legitimate liberal party either. They play the same games. I think the Democrats at this point have compromised their way far enough to the right to qualify as an extreme conservative party.

Hillary is a pig, sure. But at least some of the veterans prefer her to the option. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...0e1540-6307-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html

I agree both parties play games. In honesty, I really don't see more than 10 cents difference between the two parties lately. But I don't see the Democrat party as being extremely conservative? I think Republicans have compromised vastly more than the Democrats. I think that explains the emergence of the Tea Party and the nomination of Donald Trump. Republican voters got tired of their elected officials giving in to easily on every issue. Both parties trample the Constitution and are quick to take freedoms away from us. They say they are taking away freedoms to keep us safe. But I believe they are taking them from us to have control over us. And when government is in control, the population is less safe as a result.

 

[Osmia]

I agree both parties play games. In honesty, I really don't see more than 10 cents difference between the two parties lately. But I don't see the Democrat party as being extremely conservative? I think Republicans have compromised vastly more than the Democrats. I think that explains the emergence of the Tea Party and the nomination of Donald Trump. Republican voters got tired of their elected officials giving in to easily on every issue. Both parties trample the Constitution and are quick to take freedoms away from us. They say they are taking away freedoms to keep us safe. But I believe they are taking them from us to have control over us. And when government is in control, the population is less safe as a result.

The Democratic party, and the Republicans, are ultimately both playing the same game, which is to maintain the current plutocratic system. This entails means making reforms and adjustments on the margins, sufficient to keep their respective supporters mollified, without making fundamental change.

This article by David Frum (one of George W. Bush's speechwriters) helped me understand the rise and popularity of Donald Trump better than anything I've read. It's not that the Republican elected officials "gave in," it's that they have consistently told their voters what they wanted to hear, while at the same time governing to serve the interests of the wealthy and assuming that their voters were OK with this. The Republicans have been doing this since Reagan; staking out socially conservative positions to mollify their voters, while at the same time, supporting one-sided free-trade agreements (along with the Democrats) that would ultimately destroy communities and lives by moving good jobs overseas.

So, in this election, we have: (1) A millionaire who habitually shades the truth, and is intimate with, and has easy access to, the top levels of wealth and power all over the world; and (2) A billionaire who lies pretty much any time he opens his mouth, and is intimate with, and has easy access to, the top levels of wealth and power all over the world.

It's not much of a choice, except that Clinton is more stable, smart, cautious, experienced and thoughtful than Trump. She's less likely to make uninformed, stupid decisions that cause difficulties for this country and everyone in it.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

But I don't see the Democrat party as being extremely conservative?

I suppose it depends on which issues and which level of government you focus on when you talk about the left/right issue. You are right though, mainly because of my use of the word "extremely". Moderate conservatives would have been fairer, whereas political hookers would have been fairer still.

I probably could have been clearer too, by avoiding the terms like "conservative/liberal" and sticking to "Republican/Democrat". Or better yet, "BatshitFuckingInsane/CorruptWhoresWhoHaveOnly99%SoldOut".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ws-how-republicans-are-an-endangered-species/


I like Chomsky's description here, think it starts at 1:20.

The Republicans have been doing this since Reagan; staking out socially conservative positions to mollify their voters, while at the same time, supporting one-sided free-trade agreements (along with the Democrats) that would ultimately destroy communities and lives by moving good jobs overseas.

I long felt that the last people who ever would have wanted abortion legalized were the Repulicans. Seemed like for all of the 80's and most of the 90's I was surrounded by people who voted on that issue alone.

 

[Osmia]

I suppose it depends on which issues and which level of government you focus on when you talk about the left/right issue. You are right though, mainly because of my use of the word "extremely". Moderate conservatives would have been fairer, whereas political hookers would have been fairer still.

I probably could have been clearer too, by avoiding the terms like "conservative/liberal" and sticking to "Republican/Democrat". Or better yet, "BatshitFuckingInsane/CorruptWhoresWhoHaveOnly99%SoldOut".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ws-how-republicans-are-an-endangered-species/


I like Chomsky's description here, think it starts at 1:20.

I long felt that the last people who ever would have wanted abortion legalized were the Repulicans. Seemed like for all of the 80's and most of the 90's I was surrounded by people who voted on that issue alone.

Chomsky makes a good point. It's gotten to the point where the Democrats are the single ruling party, with a spectrum of beliefs, but fundamentally they're dedicated to preserving the existing social and economic order (which is the very definition of "conservative"). The Republicans, through their own choices and behavior (and demographic trends), have marginalized themselves and have gone off the deep end, as Chomsky says. The only thing they seem able to do at this point is obstruct the democrats (at the federal level) and disenfranchise the poor and minorities (at the state level). I think they're in an irreversible death spiral; the only question being how much damage they choose to do on the way down.

If Hillary is elected, there's a very good chance that the Citizens United decision will be reversed, That would be biggest single step that could be taken to reduce the excessive political influence of corporations and the super-wealthy.

 

[JoleneBrody]

The Democratic party, and the Republicans, are ultimately both playing the same game, which is to maintain the current plutocratic system. This entails means making reforms and adjustments on the margins, sufficient to keep their respective supporters mollified, without making fundamental change.

This article by David Frum (one of George W. Bush's speechwriters) helped me understand the rise and popularity of Donald Trump better than anything I've read. It's not that the Republican elected officials "gave in," it's that they have consistently told their voters what they wanted to hear, while at the same time governing to serve the interests of the wealthy and assuming that their voters were OK with this. The Republicans have been doing this since Reagan; staking out socially conservative positions to mollify their voters, while at the same time, supporting one-sided free-trade agreements (along with the Democrats) that would ultimately destroy communities and lives by moving good jobs overseas.

So, in this election, we have: (1) A millionaire who habitually shades the truth, and is intimate with, and has easy access to, the top levels of wealth and power all over the world; and (2) A billionaire who lies pretty much any time he opens his mouth, and is intimate with, and has easy access to, the top levels of wealth and power all over the world.

It's not much of a choice, except that Clinton is more stable, smart, cautious, experienced and thoughtful than Trump. She's less likely to make uninformed, stupid decisions that cause difficulties for this country and everyone in it.

Well you just perfectly summed up my feelings, thanks!

YEAH WHAT HE SAID!

 

[LuckySmiles]

So, in this election, we have: (1) A millionaire who habitually shades the truth, and is intimate with, and has easy access to, the top levels of wealth and power all over the world; and (2) A billionaire who lies pretty much any time he opens his mouth, and is intimate with, and has easy access to, the top levels of wealth and power all over the world.

It's not much of a choice, except that Clinton is more stable, smart, cautious, experienced and thoughtful than Trump. She's less likely to make uninformed, stupid decisions that cause difficulties for this country and everyone in it.

Disagree Disagree Disagree.

Clinton has access to "top levels of wealth and power all over the world" and has proven herself to be a liar. Her loyalties are not to America, they are to her paid sponsors. People think just because she's wanted to be President her whole life, she won't let the country fall apart.

I think her very strong desire to be President by any means necessary is why she is so compromised, and puts America in a more vulnerable position.

Here is the other part of being a successful entrepreneur in America, you often learn that in order to do it "legally" you either have to have unlimited access to money or politicians in your favor. An easy example could be a town that won't issue a liquor license (often costing 10's of $1000's of to begin with) to a business owner, unless they pay off the right people or know the right people. And that is at a very small time business Joe America level. Someone on a higher level has likely encountered the same types of things multiple times in all directions.


If the same person one day turns around and tries to expose some of that for what it is... who is going to be the most upset? Even if only a bit of it is exposed, it is worth it. It is much more beneficial for the "little people." IMO

Also Edit: This is why the internet is so wonderful, is because those regulations are not as stringent yet. I think that's a matter of time and it's something I easily see on Clinton's "to do" list.

 

[Osmia]

Disagree Disagree Disagree.

Clinton has access to "top levels of wealth and power all over the world" and has proven herself to be a liar. Her loyalties are not to America, they are to her paid sponsors. People think just because she's wanted to be President her whole life, she won't let the country fall apart.

I think her very strong desire to be President by any means necessary is why she is so compromised, and puts America in a more vulnerable position.

Here is the other part of being a successful entrepreneur in America, you often learn that in order to do it "legally" you either have to have unlimited access to money or politicians in your favor. An easy example could be a town that won't issue a liquor license (often costing 10's of $1000's of to begin with) to a business owner, unless they pay off the right people or know the right people. And that is at a very small time business Joe America level. Someone on a higher level has likely encountered the same types of things multiple times in all directions.


If the same person one day turns around and tries to expose some of that for what it is... who is going to be the most upset? Even if only a bit of it is exposed, it is worth it. It is much more beneficial for the "little people." IMO

Also Edit: This is why the internet is so wonderful, is because those regulations are not as stringent yet. I think that's a matter of time and it's something I easily see on Clinton's "to do" list.

We can agree to disagree about most of the above, but I do respect your arguments for your positions. One thing I do want to disagree about is your point about "her strong desire to be President by any means necessary is why she is so compromised."

I'm not sure what you mean by "any means necessary," but as for ambition, it comes with the territory. The presidency, and the process of getting elected, are extremely demanding, perhaps the most difficult job in the world, as is often remarked. Anyone who wants to be president has to really want to be president. That means they have to be extremely motivated and ambitious--they need "fire in the belly." Leaving aside other considerations, I would rather have an ambitious career politician as president than someone who doesn't seem to have much interest in the nuts and bolts of actually being president (or for that matter, much interest in being a winning candidate).

As for motivation, there are much easier ways to get rich, or exercise power, than being president. Just as nobody should become a doctor for the money (because there are much easier ways to make that kind of money), nobody seeks to become the president for the money. Someone whose primary motivation is accumulating power might be drawn to the presidency, but anyone who's had junior high civics or government (or whatever it's called these days) knows that while the American presidency does come with a lot of inherent power, the ability to actually accomplish something often depends on the cooperation and consent of others (it requires leadership and persuasion). The presidency has a lot of gray areas where the president's power is limited or constrained, as Obama has discovered. So, anyone whose motivation is power is going to be very frustrated (assuming they plan to stay within the constitution and not become a dictator).

Call me naive, but I think most (maybe all) of the serious candidates for the office are motivated by a sense of public service or duty (and that includes Trump, IMO). The fact that they're ambitious shouldn't detract from that. If they weren't ambitious, they would never get anywhere close to being a candidate.

 

[Osmia]

Here's a really good opinion column by Jennifer Rubin, a conservative columnist at the Washington Post: "Why Hillary Clinton’s shadiness won’t be fatal." She lays out the corruption case against both of the Clintons, and I can't really disagree with it. Her point, though, is that Hillary will win because her opponent is simply unacceptable to so much of the electorate. Here are a couple of good excerpts:

"The Clintons have always felt both entitled and persecuted. In their decades in public life, they have played fast and loose with rules and norms that inhibit others, always winding up just a smidgen short of illegality. Their sense of self-righteousness leads them to conclude that they are being “hounded” for inconsequential matters. The lesson they learn is invariably the wrong one: We can get away with it. They rationalize that it’s just the vast right-wing conspiracy at work — and the Republicans usually chip in by wildly overplaying their hand (e.g. asking her repetitive questions for 11 hours in a Benghazi hearing, demanding a special prosecutor)."

. . . .​

"I doubt this new tidbit about the foundation will change many voters’ minds. Those siding with her are either true Hillary Clinton believers, Democratic die-hards and/or people convinced that Donald Trump is nuts and a danger to the republic. In short, she has already nailed down the segment of voters who prefer “corrupt” over “unhinged.” So long as Trump is her opponent, she sails along."​

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Libertarians weigh in on Trump: "Yeah, he's a pig..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/u...ick&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article


edit:
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-immigration-2016-8

 

[Finley]

Didn't read through much of the thread past the first few pages. I just wanted to chime in on a nope vote. Trump is horrible, clearly. Clinton is horrible. If Stein wasn't dangerous to sex workers I would vote for her, but the whole Nordic Model thing is very dangerous.

Soooo, sitting this one out cause I refuse to go against my conscience.

 

[Osmia]

Just on principle, I don't usually find humor involving Hitler to be funny, but this is an exception -- really funny. The setup is that Hitler is the mastermind behind Trump, but is having trouble controlling him, specifically on the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants (which of course Trump originally didn't find acceptable at all, until he recently did--maybe. It's hard to tell.)

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Just on principle, I don't usually find humor involving Hitler to be funny, but this is an exception -- really funny. The setup is that Hitler is the mastermind behind Trump, but is having trouble controlling him, specifically on the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants (which of course Trump originally didn't find acceptable at all, until he recently did--maybe. It's hard to tell.)

LOLLOLLOL

oh shet

Coulter's book as kindling? Makes sense, I guess, since her stuff certainly isn't fit to wipe your ass with.

These last couple days, just hilarious.

Trump is gonna deport em! Trump is gonna build a wall! Because he knows what to do! And he's not afraid to do it!
Only now he's not! Because he is a benevolent leader who listens to the people!



If you are a true Trump supporter, it's time to remove your head from your ass (and tear down those "Make America Great Again" posters on your way out).

Only one logical reason to vote Trump at this point...

Give them a plate full of what they asked for. Make sure they sit there until they eat every last goddamn bite.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

too late to edit. Just gotta say, this gets funnier the more you watch it.
Matt Drudge on suicide watch...burn down the warehouse...lol

 

[JoleneBrody]

too late to edit. Just gotta say, this gets funnier the more you watch it.
Matt Drudge on suicide watch...burn down the warehouse...lol

"make sure Cristie didn't eat all the donuts, I need one"

BWAHAHAHAHAHA this was amazing

 

[Osmia]

Today's WTF...