Jump to content


Democratic Election Thread


Recommended Posts

 

I seriously don't get what anyone could possibly see in Hillary Clinton to think she'd ever be a quality president. Other than some idiot rooting for history being made with the first female president, I have no idea why anyone would vote for this slimy piece of trash...

 

 

 

 

Then you're either incapable of trying to understand perspectives other than your own, or you're unwilling. I can easily understand and grasp why someone would honestly vote for any candidate running on either side.

 

 

It's not that at all. The reason I can't understand is because she's a lying, manipulative criminal who should be locked up in a penitentiary but somehow isn't because of political favor.

 

With pretty much every other candidate, I can understand why they'd potentially vote for them. For example:

Bernie - If they don't understand finance and don't believe in free enterprise. If they believe in taking money away from people who have earned it and giving it to people who haven't. People who vote for Sanders view him as a Robin Hood-type figure.

Trump - If they believe that he will get the wall built, bring back thousands of jobs, leverage China to order North Korea to stand down, shut down Obamacare, etc. Someone who will be firm on issues both at home and abroad and won't back down.

Cruz - Another one that I'm really not sure about, honestly. He comes across to me as a liar and will say whatever he thinks will get him votes.

Rubio - Lots of people - If they're impressed with his stances on Christianity and religion in general. If they like the smooth talking, intelligent sounding spokesperson that he could potentially be.

Jeb - If they're not appalled by the idea of the Bush family being back in the office, and if they agree with his stances on issues that differ with Trump.

Carson - If they want a person who will be (in my opinion) the best person at delegating responsibility. I think he's in over his head and would get pushed around a lot, but I think his intelligence and being very level-headed are a great strength of his.

Kasich - I'll honestly defer on him and say that I honestly don't know much about him.

 

So as you can see, I can absolutely see why people would vote for a majority of candidates. Just not Hillary (and Cruz).

Link to comment

 

 

I seriously don't get what anyone could possibly see in Hillary Clinton to think she'd ever be a quality president. Other than some idiot rooting for history being made with the first female president, I have no idea why anyone would vote for this slimy piece of trash...

 

 

 

 

Then you're either incapable of trying to understand perspectives other than your own, or you're unwilling. I can easily understand and grasp why someone would honestly vote for any candidate running on either side.

 

 

It's not that at all. The reason I can't understand is because she's a lying, manipulative criminal who should be locked up in a penitentiary but somehow isn't because of political favor.

 

With pretty much every other candidate, I can understand why they'd potentially vote for them. For example:

Bernie - If they don't understand finance and don't believe in free enterprise. If they believe in taking money away from people who have earned it and giving it to people who haven't. People who vote for Sanders view him as a Robin Hood-type figure.

Trump - If they believe that he will get the wall built, bring back thousands of jobs, leverage China to order North Korea to stand down, shut down Obamacare, etc. Someone who will be firm on issues both at home and abroad and won't back down.

Cruz - Another one that I'm really not sure about, honestly. He comes across to me as a liar and will say whatever he thinks will get him votes.

Rubio - Lots of people - If they're impressed with his stances on Christianity and religion in general. If they like the smooth talking, intelligent sounding spokesperson that he could potentially be.

Jeb - If they're not appalled by the idea of the Bush family being back in the office, and if they agree with his stances on issues that differ with Trump.

Carson - If they want a person who will be (in my opinion) the best person at delegating responsibility. I think he's in over his head and would get pushed around a lot, but I think his intelligence and being very level-headed are a great strength of his.

Kasich - I'll honestly defer on him and say that I honestly don't know much about him.

 

So as you can see, I can absolutely see why people would vote for a majority of candidates. Just not Hillary (and Cruz).

 

I'm going to assume that when you talk about Hillary being a criminal that your complaint is about the ongoing email server thing. We can't make people care about her sending classified data from unsecured email servers and plenty of people simply don't understand what the big deal is. There are also a lot of people that simply see it as a smear campaign and after hearing about Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi for the last 18 months it's hard to not fault them.

Link to comment

 

 

 

I seriously don't get what anyone could possibly see in Hillary Clinton to think she'd ever be a quality president. Other than some idiot rooting for history being made with the first female president, I have no idea why anyone would vote for this slimy piece of trash...

 

 

 

 

Then you're either incapable of trying to understand perspectives other than your own, or you're unwilling. I can easily understand and grasp why someone would honestly vote for any candidate running on either side.

 

 

It's not that at all. The reason I can't understand is because she's a lying, manipulative criminal who should be locked up in a penitentiary but somehow isn't because of political favor.

 

With pretty much every other candidate, I can understand why they'd potentially vote for them. For example:

Bernie - If they don't understand finance and don't believe in free enterprise. If they believe in taking money away from people who have earned it and giving it to people who haven't. People who vote for Sanders view him as a Robin Hood-type figure.

Trump - If they believe that he will get the wall built, bring back thousands of jobs, leverage China to order North Korea to stand down, shut down Obamacare, etc. Someone who will be firm on issues both at home and abroad and won't back down.

Cruz - Another one that I'm really not sure about, honestly. He comes across to me as a liar and will say whatever he thinks will get him votes.

Rubio - Lots of people - If they're impressed with his stances on Christianity and religion in general. If they like the smooth talking, intelligent sounding spokesperson that he could potentially be.

Jeb - If they're not appalled by the idea of the Bush family being back in the office, and if they agree with his stances on issues that differ with Trump.

Carson - If they want a person who will be (in my opinion) the best person at delegating responsibility. I think he's in over his head and would get pushed around a lot, but I think his intelligence and being very level-headed are a great strength of his.

Kasich - I'll honestly defer on him and say that I honestly don't know much about him.

 

So as you can see, I can absolutely see why people would vote for a majority of candidates. Just not Hillary (and Cruz).

 

I'm going to assume that when you talk about Hillary being a criminal that your complaint is about the ongoing email server thing. We can't make people care about her sending classified data from unsecured email servers and plenty of people simply don't understand what the big deal is. There are also a lot of people that simply see it as a smear campaign and after hearing about Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi for the last 18 months it's hard to not fault them.

 

Hey...it has to be a "Vast right wing conspiracy" right?

Link to comment

 

Lots of people opposed gay marriage not very long ago. Over time you'd hope people mold their views as they gain understanding. Of course, some are consistent. 'This man believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday. No matter what happened Tuesday!' -- since when has that been regarded as a virtue?

 

Hilary is capable, accomplished, and experienced. She appears more moderate compared to Sanders which may not be your cup of tea, but I prefer centrism to unvarnished ideology that seems unlikely to pass legislature anyway. For starters there are recent gains that must be competently defended in what is known to be a hostile environment.

 

I think she would be quite a good President whose agenda would help secure direction on a number of things I care greatly about, such as healthcare and the environment. I am wary of her hawkish reputation but I think her foreign policy credentials are solid, and at the least she would not shutter the Iran Deal. I don't expect to agree with a President on everything, but her candidacy hits off all the important points for me. I'm disappointed that there aren't Republican candidates who come close to that, but that's the state of that party right now.

Here's my issue with issues like gay marriage.

 

I am perfectly fine with people changing their minds on issues. Heck, I have changed my mind on many issues throughout my life. Other politicians have changed their minds on issues.

 

So.....it is clear that at some point, Hillary changed her mind on gay marriage. That isn't that big of a deal. BUT....when she now comes out and says...."I have supported gay marriage all my life"....That is absolute total BS and is just an example of a politician saying whatever it takes to get votes even if it clearly can be seen as a total lie.

 

And...no, she is not the only one that does that. I just wish a politician would come out and say "hey, at one point in my life I was against gay marriage. However, since then, I have listened and learned more about the issue and have changed my mind."

 

That would garner one heck of a lot more respect from me than the crap she (and others) spew.

 

 

Do you have a source for the bolded? I'm a big Hillary supporter this go around, I follow her campaign pretty closely, and I'm not familiar with her ever having represented the situation that way.

 

On the Issues seems to tell a different story:

 

 

Hillary Clinton defended her evolution on the issue of gay marriage, impatiently telling an interviewer to stop "playing with my words" after she was pressed to explain her change of heart.

 

Clinton now supports the right of same-sex couples to wed, but that was not the case during her time as first lady, senator, and secretary of state. When NPR's Terry Gross chalked up her changing positions to political expediency, though, Clinton pushed back.

 

"I think you're reading it very wrong," she said. "Just because you're a politician doesn't mean you're not a thinking human being. You gather information, you think through positions, you're not 100% set, thank goodness, you're constantly re-evaluating where you stand. That is true for me. One of my big problems right now is that too many people believe they have a direct line to the divine and they never want to change their mind about anything," she added.

Source: Jake Miller, CBS News, "Don't Twist My Position" , Jun 12, 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

I seriously don't get what anyone could possibly see in Hillary Clinton to think she'd ever be a quality president. Other than some idiot rooting for history being made with the first female president, I have no idea why anyone would vote for this slimy piece of trash...

 

 

 

 

Then you're either incapable of trying to understand perspectives other than your own, or you're unwilling. I can easily understand and grasp why someone would honestly vote for any candidate running on either side.

 

 

It's not that at all. The reason I can't understand is because she's a lying, manipulative criminal who should be locked up in a penitentiary but somehow isn't because of political favor.

 

With pretty much every other candidate, I can understand why they'd potentially vote for them. For example:

Bernie - If they don't understand finance and don't believe in free enterprise. If they believe in taking money away from people who have earned it and giving it to people who haven't. People who vote for Sanders view him as a Robin Hood-type figure.

Trump - If they believe that he will get the wall built, bring back thousands of jobs, leverage China to order North Korea to stand down, shut down Obamacare, etc. Someone who will be firm on issues both at home and abroad and won't back down.

Cruz - Another one that I'm really not sure about, honestly. He comes across to me as a liar and will say whatever he thinks will get him votes.

Rubio - Lots of people - If they're impressed with his stances on Christianity and religion in general. If they like the smooth talking, intelligent sounding spokesperson that he could potentially be.

Jeb - If they're not appalled by the idea of the Bush family being back in the office, and if they agree with his stances on issues that differ with Trump.

Carson - If they want a person who will be (in my opinion) the best person at delegating responsibility. I think he's in over his head and would get pushed around a lot, but I think his intelligence and being very level-headed are a great strength of his.

Kasich - I'll honestly defer on him and say that I honestly don't know much about him.

 

So as you can see, I can absolutely see why people would vote for a majority of candidates. Just not Hillary (and Cruz).

 

I'm going to assume that when you talk about Hillary being a criminal that your complaint is about the ongoing email server thing. We can't make people care about her sending classified data from unsecured email servers and plenty of people simply don't understand what the big deal is. There are also a lot of people that simply see it as a smear campaign and after hearing about Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi for the last 18 months it's hard to not fault them.

 

Hey...it has to be a "Vast right wing conspiracy" right?

 

 

I'm curious why nobody seems to be sending the wolves after Colin Powell or Condi Rice, because they were guilty of the exact same thing as Clinton. The majority of Dems do not care about the email issue. Obviously the vast majority of the GOP does. Independents seem to as well at about a 50% clip. We'll see how that plays out in the general.

 

Email stats from poll (p.7)

 

I swear, I'm not going after you today, BRB. Just a couple thoughts. :lol:

Link to comment

It's a simple reality that politicians will say things they have to, and also change their tune when either they can or they have to. Ten to fifteen years ago it was OK to advocate for civil unions and legal rights while shying away from controversy by rejecting a move for same-sex marriage. The POTUS before the current one tried to introduce the idea of a US Constitution Amendment defining marriage. The vote to go to Iraq was near unanimous. Those were just the times; a politician had to be able to operate on the fringe to survive.

 

It's the history of this movement that has changed those waters dramatically. Again, I'm not worried in the least about it -- there's no mystery on where Hilary stands on gay marriage today.

 

Similarly it's not impossible that some of these loudmouthed Republican candidates will evolve into moderates in future times. However, for them to survive now, they must feed into the xenophobic, jingoistic chauvinism of the Tea Party. The 'softer' Republicans have been weeded out en masse in recent years. Perhaps a strong Republican president could guide his party back to sane waters, but given the degree to which the party is fractured, that seems unlikely. Much more likely (especially with the current field) is a candidate effectively ruled by his party's ugly radical wing, not the other way around.

Link to comment

 

 

Lots of people opposed gay marriage not very long ago. Over time you'd hope people mold their views as they gain understanding. Of course, some are consistent. 'This man believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday. No matter what happened Tuesday!' -- since when has that been regarded as a virtue?

 

Hilary is capable, accomplished, and experienced. She appears more moderate compared to Sanders which may not be your cup of tea, but I prefer centrism to unvarnished ideology that seems unlikely to pass legislature anyway. For starters there are recent gains that must be competently defended in what is known to be a hostile environment.

 

I think she would be quite a good President whose agenda would help secure direction on a number of things I care greatly about, such as healthcare and the environment. I am wary of her hawkish reputation but I think her foreign policy credentials are solid, and at the least she would not shutter the Iran Deal. I don't expect to agree with a President on everything, but her candidacy hits off all the important points for me. I'm disappointed that there aren't Republican candidates who come close to that, but that's the state of that party right now.

Here's my issue with issues like gay marriage.

 

I am perfectly fine with people changing their minds on issues. Heck, I have changed my mind on many issues throughout my life. Other politicians have changed their minds on issues.

 

So.....it is clear that at some point, Hillary changed her mind on gay marriage. That isn't that big of a deal. BUT....when she now comes out and says...."I have supported gay marriage all my life"....That is absolute total BS and is just an example of a politician saying whatever it takes to get votes even if it clearly can be seen as a total lie.

 

And...no, she is not the only one that does that. I just wish a politician would come out and say "hey, at one point in my life I was against gay marriage. However, since then, I have listened and learned more about the issue and have changed my mind."

 

That would garner one heck of a lot more respect from me than the crap she (and others) spew.

 

 

Do you have a source for the bolded? I'm a big Hillary supporter this go around, I follow her campaign pretty closely, and I'm not familiar with her ever having represented the situation that way.

 

On the Issues seems to tell a different story:

 

 

Hillary Clinton defended her evolution on the issue of gay marriage, impatiently telling an interviewer to stop "playing with my words" after she was pressed to explain her change of heart.

 

Clinton now supports the right of same-sex couples to wed, but that was not the case during her time as first lady, senator, and secretary of state. When NPR's Terry Gross chalked up her changing positions to political expediency, though, Clinton pushed back.

 

"I think you're reading it very wrong," she said. "Just because you're a politician doesn't mean you're not a thinking human being. You gather information, you think through positions, you're not 100% set, thank goodness, you're constantly re-evaluating where you stand. That is true for me. One of my big problems right now is that too many people believe they have a direct line to the divine and they never want to change their mind about anything," she added.

Source: Jake Miller, CBS News, "Don't Twist My Position" , Jun 12, 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

I seriously don't get what anyone could possibly see in Hillary Clinton to think she'd ever be a quality president. Other than some idiot rooting for history being made with the first female president, I have no idea why anyone would vote for this slimy piece of trash...

 

 

 

 

Then you're either incapable of trying to understand perspectives other than your own, or you're unwilling. I can easily understand and grasp why someone would honestly vote for any candidate running on either side.

 

 

It's not that at all. The reason I can't understand is because she's a lying, manipulative criminal who should be locked up in a penitentiary but somehow isn't because of political favor.

 

With pretty much every other candidate, I can understand why they'd potentially vote for them. For example:

Bernie - If they don't understand finance and don't believe in free enterprise. If they believe in taking money away from people who have earned it and giving it to people who haven't. People who vote for Sanders view him as a Robin Hood-type figure.

Trump - If they believe that he will get the wall built, bring back thousands of jobs, leverage China to order North Korea to stand down, shut down Obamacare, etc. Someone who will be firm on issues both at home and abroad and won't back down.

Cruz - Another one that I'm really not sure about, honestly. He comes across to me as a liar and will say whatever he thinks will get him votes.

Rubio - Lots of people - If they're impressed with his stances on Christianity and religion in general. If they like the smooth talking, intelligent sounding spokesperson that he could potentially be.

Jeb - If they're not appalled by the idea of the Bush family being back in the office, and if they agree with his stances on issues that differ with Trump.

Carson - If they want a person who will be (in my opinion) the best person at delegating responsibility. I think he's in over his head and would get pushed around a lot, but I think his intelligence and being very level-headed are a great strength of his.

Kasich - I'll honestly defer on him and say that I honestly don't know much about him.

 

So as you can see, I can absolutely see why people would vote for a majority of candidates. Just not Hillary (and Cruz).

 

I'm going to assume that when you talk about Hillary being a criminal that your complaint is about the ongoing email server thing. We can't make people care about her sending classified data from unsecured email servers and plenty of people simply don't understand what the big deal is. There are also a lot of people that simply see it as a smear campaign and after hearing about Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi for the last 18 months it's hard to not fault them.

 

Hey...it has to be a "Vast right wing conspiracy" right?

 

 

I'm curious why nobody seems to be sending the wolves after Colin Powell or Condi Rice, because they were guilty of the exact same thing as Clinton. The majority of Dems do not care about the email issue. Obviously the vast majority of the GOP does. Independents seem to as well at about a 50% clip. We'll see how that plays out in the general.

 

Email stats from poll (p.7)

 

I swear, I'm not going after you today, BRB. Just a couple thoughts. :lol:

 

Post #142

Link to comment

There's a few things going on here. First, I don't think Hillary or Bill are very clean politicians. You scratch a little of that shiny veneer off and you'll find plenty of dirt.

Second, it's sad that people feel the need to ambush politicians like this. They do because they otherwise have no choice - you'll rarely get a chance to talk to them, and if you do, you'll get some canned answer. A friend of mine was in Washington last week to meet with Senators & Congresspersons, and met with Aide after Aide after Aide. He met with one of the eight people he was supposed to, and got a bunch of canned answers and a form letter in response (not joking).

Third, even though I deplore the need to do things like this, and it's clear these people had an agenda to push rather than answers to get, they should have let Bill answer. That answer could have done this country a lot of good in deciding on our next president.

As the man continued to talk, audience members yelled at him to sit down. “Are you going to let me answer?” Clinton asked. “This is America. I get to answer,” he said. “You listen to me. I heard you,” Clinton snapped as the man turned around and began addressing the crowd.

“I heard your speech. They heard your speech. You listen to me now,” Clinton said, his voice cracking.

“Am I allowed to answer? I’m not your commander in chief anymore but if I were, I’d tell you to be more polite and sit down.”

“I wouldn’t listen!” the man shouted in return.

“Do you have the courage to listen to my answer? Don’t throw him out. Shut up and listen to my answer. I’ll answer it,” Clinton said as the man was pushed out of the gymnasium by sheriff’s deputies.

“Can I just saying something? That’s what’s wrong: his mind has been poisoned by lies and he won’t listen,” Clinton said.

A woman just jumped up and began shouting at the former president.

“Hillary lied over four coffins,” she said as a man near her yelled “bullsh#t.”

“She lied and she lied to those families. So all those families are liars?” she said as Clinton tried to stop her and a Secret Service agent moved closer to the former president.

“Did she lie?” the woman said as Clinton responded, “Will you let me answer?”

“No,” he said. “Why are you afraid to listen to my answer?” Clinton said.

“Are you afraid?” he asked her. “No I’m not afraid because I know you’re going to lie,” she responded.

The video shows her then forcibly removed from the room. Clinton never did answer.

 

 

"Clinton never did answer."

 

Well, of course not. The people had their say, the woman was taken out, and the "crisis" was averted. No reason to answer at that point.

 

I think the Benghazi thing is a ridiculous witch-hunt. But the VA question is a good one, and needs to be answered. That situation is 100x more shameful than Benghazi.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

So if Hillary was in the wrong/lied/covered up...however you would like to phrase it...what should be her punishment?

 

Whatever the punishments for treason, perjury, etc are. Fine, jail time, etc.

 

But why even ask? She'll never go to prison even if it comes out that she was in the wrong. She'll get pardoned like every other politician. When Bush came into office he pardoned all the Clinton-era people from further investigation/retribution, and when Obama took office he did the same thing. The next president, whichever party they're from, will do the same.

 

I'll see a jail cell over Benghazi before Hillary does.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...