The General Election

[knapplc]

Rice and Powell should've been investigated with a microscope up their butt too if they engaged in the same activity. I care less about them at this time because they are not seeking the most powerful office in the world. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite, just a realist who doesn't personally care enough to waste my time finding out more about it. If there was any chance at all I would vote for her, I'd do the research and learn more about it. But there is no chance so I'm content letting others demonize her.

I actually agree with you on the Rice & Powell / Clinton difference. She should be placed under higher scrutiny because she wants to be president, more so than Rice & Powell.

 

However, I think you should apply that same logic to your presidential vote. Donald Trump also wants to be president, and he's got as many skeletons in his closet as Clinton, and has zero experience in the realm of politics. If you're going to hold Clinton to a high degree of "show me" (and you should), you owe it to yourself and to your fellow Americans to do the same with Trump.

 

I find it distasteful to vote for Clinton, probably the single most distasteful vote I've ever had to cast. But it's the responsible vote.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

Having lived in Arkansas during most of Bill Clinton's tenure as Governor, I can safely say that Hillary's overriding weakness as a public figure was her desire to maintain "zones of privacy". It was understandable as it was applied to the limited contact with her daughter. But for a public figure in general, her desire to isolate "her" business conflicts with public service.

 

That's grown over time, and to a big degree, it's understandable. She has been the subject of countless investigations over the years (and never been found to be criminally responsible - and let's not forget that all of those investigations were conducted by people that were highly motivated to find criminality).

Yes, she certainly has been highly scrutinized. On one hand, you can assume that nothing substantial coming from that level of scrutiny maybe means there is nothing that bad to be found. But, on the other hand, there is always the thought that where there is smoke there must be fire. I suppose I fall more into that later category, possibly just because I tend to lean a little more right than left but I'm not sure why exactly. I just know I don't like her or trust her, sort of in the same way I don't like Obama. It's not a conscious party line decision and it's not for the same reasons but it is what it is.

 

Her public persona is definitely cold and distant (allegedly, she is quite open and warm with small numbers of people, but I can hardly say I know that personally). Simply put, she grates on people. No doubt about it. To many, Trump does the same.

 

It's easy to see how she'd be offputting to those on the right. But you're right that the people close to her say her public and private personas are quite different.

 

I also concur that this ongoing cascade of investigations and accusations largely the reason she's become so damn secretive. She's wary of throwing the jackals anything to use against her.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

Having lived in Arkansas during most of Bill Clinton's tenure as Governor, I can safely say that Hillary's overriding weakness as a public figure was her desire to maintain "zones of privacy". It was understandable as it was applied to the limited contact with her daughter. But for a public figure in general, her desire to isolate "her" business conflicts with public service.

 

That's grown over time, and to a big degree, it's understandable. She has been the subject of countless investigations over the years (and never been found to be criminally responsible - and let's not forget that all of those investigations were conducted by people that were highly motivated to find criminality).

Yes, she certainly has been highly scrutinized. On one hand, you can assume that nothing substantial coming from that level of scrutiny maybe means there is nothing that bad to be found. But, on the other hand, there is always the thought that where there is smoke there must be fire. I suppose I fall more into that later category, possibly just because I tend to lean a little more right than left but I'm not sure why exactly. I just know I don't like her or trust her, sort of in the same way I don't like Obama. It's not a conscious party line decision and it's not for the same reasons but it is what it is.

 

Her public persona is definitely cold and distant (allegedly, she is quite open and warm with small numbers of people, but I can hardly say I know that personally). Simply put, she grates on people. No doubt about it. To many, Trump does the same.

 

I agree, I dislike Trump for a whole list of other reasons but mostly because he is a flip-flopping pompous ass. I like that he seems to say whatever is on his mind without benefit of any filter. I just wish when he did that though that it wasn't some totally asinine comment.

 

 

Is that really a trait you want in the person in charge of our world diplomacy? It makes me incredibly uneasy.

[Danny Bateman]

In other news, Trump has taken to calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" and has breathed new life into Vince Foster's death.

 

So there's that.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

I shoot a person on accident, it's a horrible accidental death.

 

I shoot a person because I'm mad at him, I'm going to prison.

 

intent matters.

Manslaughter can have jail time.

 

It wasn't my intention to drive too fast but that matters little when I get the ticket.

 

It may not have been the 19 year olds intention to rape the 17 year old girl, who he thought was older, but that doesn't necessarily get him off the hook for statutory rape.

 

There are plenty of drunk drivers who didn't intend to kill somebody. Plenty of people driving while texting who didn't intend to harm or kill others.

 

Intent can make a difference but it doesn't always matter.

 

Actually, you had intent in those crimes (speeding itself is not a crime - it's simply a traffic violation absent something else, such reckless driving).

 

You intended to have sex with the girl - it's incumbent on you to be sure she's of age.

 

You intended to drink - it's incumbent on you to not exceed legal limits.

 

Again, intent is a necessary element in almost every crime.

 

Well that's BS and you know it. You're just splitting hairs and changing the argument now. I agree it is incumbent to know the girls age and to not get drunk and get behind the wheel. And maybe that trips the "legal" intent wire but I can guarantee you that many, many people have done those things with no intent of harming anyone. That is the type of "intent" I was addressing with BRB.

 

The intent doesn't always go to the whether you intended the result. In some crimes, the intent requirement is whether you intended to act in the MANNER that resulted in the harm. For example, take DUI. If someone grabs you, pours liquor down your throat until you are intoxicated, and you then drive - no DUI. So, no, you're wrong - it's not BS and I'm not splitting hairs. You claimed that intent "has very little to do with most crimes". That's simply wrong. Ask any attorney. I addressed your claim - intent is required. That you don't like being wrong does not make it BS.

 

Sorry for the BS comment but it seemed like you were purposefully twisting my words into some legal definition context when that was not my intent (there's that word again). However, I was wrong to say that intent has little to do with most crimes. Because that places "intent" in the legal context and yes, then it does matter. But I will still stand by my example that many people convicted of crimes had no real conscious intent of committing them even if they were found to have the legal definition of intent. They may have intended to drink and then drive and a consequence of their actions was harming someone. I think we both can agree that their lack of real (not legal) intent to harm others does them little good in court. That is the point I was trying to make.

[JJ Husker]

 

Rice and Powell should've been investigated with a microscope up their butt too if they engaged in the same activity. I care less about them at this time because they are not seeking the most powerful office in the world. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite, just a realist who doesn't personally care enough to waste my time finding out more about it. If there was any chance at all I would vote for her, I'd do the research and learn more about it. But there is no chance so I'm content letting others demonize her.

I actually agree with you on the Rice & Powell / Clinton difference. She should be placed under higher scrutiny because she wants to be president, more so than Rice & Powell.

 

However, I think you should apply that same logic to your presidential vote. Donald Trump also wants to be president, and he's got as many skeletons in his closet as Clinton, and has zero experience in the realm of politics. If you're going to hold Clinton to a high degree of "show me" (and you should), you owe it to yourself and to your fellow Americans to do the same with Trump.

 

I find it distasteful to vote for Clinton, probably the single most distasteful vote I've ever had to cast. But it's the responsible vote.

 

 

 

 

I agree, I dislike Trump for a whole list of other reasons but mostly because he is a flip-flopping pompous ass. I like that he seems to say whatever is on his mind without benefit of any filter. I just wish when he did that though that it wasn't some totally asinine comment.

Is that really a trait you want in the person in charge of our world diplomacy? It makes me incredibly uneasy.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I'm going to stop both of you right here and now.

 

Where have I said I want Trump in charge of anything?

Where have I supported one fricken thing about him?

Where have I said I will vote for Trump? (other than the smart ass comment that there was a 2% chance the ornery in me might throw a vote his way for entertainment value)

 

This is why I should have never come into this thread. Damn slow Fridays before a holiday weekend.

[knapplc]

I was responding to the 2% chance. It's an infinitely greater chance than you've given for voting for Clinton, who is the only logical choice.

[JJ Husker]

I was responding to the 2% chance. It's an infinitely greater chance than you've given for voting for Clinton, who is the only logical choice.

Okay, you got me there. That is real. There is absolutely 0% chance I will vote for Clinton or Sanders and still a possible 2% chance I might vote for Trump. But that 2% is coupled with the fact I would have to be sh#t the bed drunk and also able to discern the names on the ballot when I am voting.....wait, with these candidates, that might actually make it a more solid 2% chance The good money is on me writing in FU or Mickey Mouse for President, if I vote at all.

[Danny Bateman]

Nah you're good JJ. I just noticed you hear that same praise almost without exception from his supporters. I just wonder why others think that would be a positive on a world stage. Entertaining, maybe-- for about two seconds, until the ramifications set in.

 

Not accusing you of anything unsavory

[JJ Husker]

Nah you're good JJ. I just noticed you hear that same praise almost without exception from his supporters. I just wonder why others think that would be a positive on a world stage. Entertaining, maybe-- for about two seconds, until the ramifications set in.

 

Not accusing you of anything unsavory

Well, I agree that in diplomatic or international matters it is a bad thing to not carefully measure your words before opening your trap. That issue is the one that concerns me the most about Trump. However, what I meant when I said I liked that about him was that it is refreshing to not get the typical cover your ass politician speak from him. But, like I said, it would be really nice if when he was speaking with no filter, it wasn't offensive, degrading, misguided, childish, or a totally contradictory position statement like it usually seems to be with him. I think the reason I place him 1 notch above Hillary is just because I've been exposed to her crap much longer. But I for sure don't want anyone to think I like Trump or support him.

 

I imagine (hope) others that say the same thing about him mean it also as I have explained it. But who knows, I'm sure there are some who like his quasi racist statements and childish attacks.

[Moiraine]

Why do people say Trump says what's on his mind? He can say one thing Wednesday and something the opposite on Thursday. This has happened over and over. So can he not make up his mind, or is he a liar? Why is saying what's on your mind considered a good quality when it changes every day?

 

I find his supporters to be batsh#t crazy. At least I admit that I don't like the person I'm going to vote for. People who genuinely like Trump are mind boggling.

[AR Husker Fan]

 

 

 

 

 

I shoot a person on accident, it's a horrible accidental death.

 

I shoot a person because I'm mad at him, I'm going to prison.

 

intent matters.

Manslaughter can have jail time.

 

It wasn't my intention to drive too fast but that matters little when I get the ticket.

 

It may not have been the 19 year olds intention to rape the 17 year old girl, who he thought was older, but that doesn't necessarily get him off the hook for statutory rape.

 

There are plenty of drunk drivers who didn't intend to kill somebody. Plenty of people driving while texting who didn't intend to harm or kill others.

 

Intent can make a difference but it doesn't always matter.

 

Actually, you had intent in those crimes (speeding itself is not a crime - it's simply a traffic violation absent something else, such reckless driving).

 

You intended to have sex with the girl - it's incumbent on you to be sure she's of age.

 

You intended to drink - it's incumbent on you to not exceed legal limits.

 

Again, intent is a necessary element in almost every crime.

 

Well that's BS and you know it. You're just splitting hairs and changing the argument now. I agree it is incumbent to know the girls age and to not get drunk and get behind the wheel. And maybe that trips the "legal" intent wire but I can guarantee you that many, many people have done those things with no intent of harming anyone. That is the type of "intent" I was addressing with BRB.

 

The intent doesn't always go to the whether you intended the result. In some crimes, the intent requirement is whether you intended to act in the MANNER that resulted in the harm. For example, take DUI. If someone grabs you, pours liquor down your throat until you are intoxicated, and you then drive - no DUI. So, no, you're wrong - it's not BS and I'm not splitting hairs. You claimed that intent "has very little to do with most crimes". That's simply wrong. Ask any attorney. I addressed your claim - intent is required. That you don't like being wrong does not make it BS.

 

Sorry for the BS comment but it seemed like you were purposefully twisting my words into some legal definition context when that was not my intent (there's that word again). However, I was wrong to say that intent has little to do with most crimes. Because that places "intent" in the legal context and yes, then it does matter. But I will still stand by my example that many people convicted of crimes had no real conscious intent of committing them even if they were found to have the legal definition of intent. They may have intended to drink and then drive and a consequence of their actions was harming someone. I think we both can agree that their lack of real (not legal) intent to harm others does them little good in court. That is the point I was trying to make.

 

Yes, we can agree on that - it's actually pretty common, particularly for violent crimes.

[HuskerShark]

Why do people say Trump says what's on his mind? He can say one thing Wednesday and something the opposite on Thursday. This has happened over and over. So can he not make up his mind, or is he a liar? Why is saying what's on your mind considered a good quality when it changes every day?

I find his supporters to be batsh#t crazy. At least I admit that I don't like the person I'm going to vote for. People who genuinely like Trump are mind boggling.

And I (along with most logical thinkers, or anyone with a calculator) think the same thing about the person you supported, so.....

[Enhance]

Why do people say Trump says what's on his mind? He can say one thing Wednesday and something the opposite on Thursday. This has happened over and over. So can he not make up his mind, or is he a liar? Why is saying what's on your mind considered a good quality when it changes every day?

 

I find his supporters to be batsh#t crazy. At least I admit that I don't like the person I'm going to vote for. People who genuinely like Trump are mind boggling.

Someone I've known for a long time in my life is a huge fan of Trump and one of the biggest reasons I won't vote for him.

 

However, this acquaintance also a not-so-subtle racist who values manual labor, believes men should be in charge of everything, has a long list of marital infidelities and bases his opinions entirely on articles from obscure, conservative based internet websites with little journalistic integrity.

 

That is definitely not to say all Trump supporters are like that - in fact, some well-respected and intelligent people have come out in support of Trump. I personally, however, know that I can't in good conscience support a candidate that my aforementioned acquaintance finds valuable qualities in.

 

As a disclaimer, I do have many legitimate political reasons I won't vote for Trump, too.

[JJ Husker]

I think for this election cycle, voters should be required to blow at least a .25 on the breathilyzer before being permitted access to the voting booth and that mail in ballots should be disallowed. This would serve 2 purposes; 1) Provide us citizens with the required amount of numbing for what we are about to do 2) it would give us an excuse for the rest of world that we were drunk and not merely stupid and inept.

 

Who's with me?