Would we really be better off under President Clinton?

[NUance]

13 hours ago, huKSer said:

I didn't like either so I voted for someone else.  

 

I feel that Clinton is the Democratic equivalent to Nixon.  And probably the same results

 

Trump at least tweets his dirty laundry

 

Me too!  I voted for Gary Johnson of the Independent party.   Gary Johnson was the best Johnson running in 2016.  I just couldn't bring myself to vote for either of the other two johnsons put forth by the major parties.  Hillary is a  crooked johnson and Trump is just a big johnson.    

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Fru said:

The "They're both bad" argument is repugnant. One was a qualified, career politician with baggage but would have been a completely survivable one term President. The other option was a reality show TV star. 

 

Just because one is really really bad, doesn't mean the other would have been good.

[Nebfanatic]

11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Just because one is really really bad, doesn't mean the other would have been good.

But it would have been better, which is better. Would you rather cut off a finger or an arm? You're basically saying cut off the arm because we will lose the finger either way

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

But it would have been better, which is better. Would you rather cut off a finger or an arm? You're basically saying cut off the arm because we will lose the finger either way

No, I'm saying I don't want to cut off either one.

[Fru]

29 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Just because one is really really bad, doesn't mean the other would have been good.

 

I think you're misinterpreting my post. I'm not saying she'd have been good. I'm saying she was the better option. Better doesn't necessarily mean good. 

 

Hilary would have been like a 24 hour stomach flu. Trump is like Pancreatic cancer. Both are bad, but I know which one I'd rather have. 

[Fru]

47 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I get where you're coming from, but we don't know what Hillary would have done (or what Trump may yet do). We're speculating about an alternate reality.

 

Be honest. Would Hillary have put this guy in charge of guarding our nukes? 

 

[NUance]

42 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

But it would have been better, which is better. Would you rather cut off a finger or an arm? You're basically saying cut off the arm because we will lose the finger either way

 

Finger?  Arm??  Your metaphor isn't nearly harsh enough.  One is like cutting off your arms and your balls.  The other is like cutting off your legs and your ears.  Both candidates are just terrible, terrible people—and even worse leaders.  

[knapplc]

We survived eight years of Bush II.  Clinton II would have been the same thing, just on the other side of the political spectrum. 

 

People are referring to Hillary as if she was awful, awful, awful. She wasn't, she's just bad, like W was bad.  Hillary is not, was not, and would not be awful in a similar manner as Trump is awful, not by a long shot. 

 

This is the sad result of years of misinformation.  It's cool not to like Hillary - I don't.  But let's not pretend her corruption is in any way remotely the same or similar as Trump's. Hers is akin to W's.  That's a level of normal we should all be striving for in this climate.  We'll be lucky if Trump's successor is just that normal level of corrupt.

[Danny Bateman]

I think part of what @Fru is saying is that given who the primaries spat out of the nominees, Clinton & Trump were the only two people who realistically could be the next president. It really became an either-or situation at that point. That's kind of a necessary presupposition to the conversation. Maybe if Bernie won the Dem nominee & Bloomberg hopped in as an independent as he was rumored to do, nobody gets to 270 and Congress opts for Bloomberg over Trump. But I digress...

 

Whether or not we like a system that gives us those two candidates is another discussion, which I also think is a good one to have.

 

My favorite way of phrasing Hillary I actually heard on Todd N Tyler of all places: She was "bad, within the normal parameters." Trump is the type of uncharted awful we've never seen before.

 

@TGHusker I forgot about the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem. That was a needlessly inflammatory move done to pander to the the Religious Right and a similarly corrupt head of state in Netanyahu. Shocking that tensions in the Middle East have worsened since then. I guess we're all just waiting for the Kush to come through with his peacemaking skills...

[RedDenver]

45 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

Be honest. Would Hillary have put this guy in charge of guarding our nukes? 

 

True, but while it's ridiculous and makes us look bad, I think any lasting damage from Perry is pretty minimal.

 

17 minutes ago, knapplc said:

We survived eight years of Bush II.  Clinton II would have been the same thing, just on the other side of the political spectrum. 

 

People are referring to Hillary as if she was awful, awful, awful. She wasn't, she's just bad, like W was bad.  Hillary is not, was not, and would not be awful in a similar manner as Trump is awful, not by a long shot. 

 

This is the sad result of years of misinformation.  It's cool not to like Hillary - I don't.  But let's not pretend her corruption is in any way remotely the same or similar as Trump's. Hers is akin to W's.  That's a level of normal we should all be striving for in this climate.  We'll be lucky if Trump's successor is just that normal level of corrupt.

I have to disagree. Bush 2 (aka Cheney Strikes Back) was way worse just on the Iraq War decision alone. Trump is awful and is has the potential to be much worse than Bush 2, but he hasn't actually done anything worse than invading Iraq. Trump is doing tons of smaller things that dominate the discussion because each one of them is terrible, but IMO they don't come close yet to adding up to the colossal disaster of invading Iraq.

 

If Hillary started a war with Syria (or much, much worse Russia), that'd be WAY worse than anything Trump has done so far. Trump has the capacity and the inclination to do worse, but he hasn't actually gone there yet.

[Nebfanatic]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

No, I'm saying I don't want to cut off either one.

Too bad. There were no other choices. I apologize but voting Johnson is a copout. There was zero chance of him winning and Hillary was clearly the better of two evils. Hindsight is 20/20 especially given the outcome, but even at the time this was evident. I didn't want to vote for Hillary, but I most certainly didn't want the orange man as our leader.

[TGHusker]

15 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

I think part of what @Fru is saying is that given who the primaries spat out of the nominees, Clinton & Trump were the only two people who realistically could be the next president. It really became an either-or situation at that point. That's kind of a necessary presupposition to the conversation. Maybe if Bernie won the Dem nominee & Bloomberg hopped in as an independent as he was rumored to do, nobody gets to 270 and Congress opts for Bloomberg over Trump. But I digress...

 

Whether or not we like a system that gives us those two candidates is another discussion, which I also think is a good one to have.

 

My favorite way of phrasing Hillary I actually heard on Todd N Tyler of all places: She was "bad, within the normal parameters." Trump is the type of uncharted awful we've never seen before.

 

@TGHusker I forgot about the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem. That was a needlessly inflammatory move done to pander to the the Religious Right and a similarly corrupt head of state in Netanyahu. Shocking that tensions in the Middle East have worsened since then. I guess we're all just waiting for the Kush to come through with his peacemaking skills...

 

I like that description and I can agree wt it - 'bad within the normal parameters'.  In other words we know what we are dealing with and can make logical adjustments.  Wt Trump - we are all thrown for a loop.

[knapplc]

9 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

 

I like that description and I can agree wt it - 'bad within the normal parameters'.  In other words we know what we are dealing with and can make logical adjustments.  Wt Trump - we are all thrown for a loop.

 

That's exactly - AND ONLY - why I voted for Hillary.  She's the evil I know.  Trump is an evil unto himself, and the first of his kind in the history of this country.

 

He is doing lasting damage to the office he was given by the Electoral College and to America, Americans, and our standing in the world.  And most of what he's doing (sowing discord, dividing the nation, crapping on our allies, starting trade wars, etc) directly benefits our worst enemies.

 

It's almost like he's not working for America, but against it. 

 

As much as I hate Hillary, she wouldn't be doing this.  She'd be doing different, corrupt things, but she wouldn't be doing this. 

[TGHusker]

I'm going to throw a bone to those who voted for Hillary as I've thought about this more - I've been thinking about it since I posted my original long bullet point post.   In my heart of hearts - looking beyond my filters, biases, and social conservative leanings - I will say if a gun was up to my head and I had to make a decision - Hillary would have been the better president than Trump and I would have voted for her if I had to choose between the 2.   Some have said or questioned if  their corruption the same - maybe, maybe not.  We see issues with both and I expect that we'll see more wt Trump. Regardless, Trump has a greater corrupting influence. I see the Clintons as people who live on the edge and enriching themselves - their decisions affect them primarily (unless you believe the body count list, vince foster, etc - and you have to separate Bill's female abuse issues from Hillary.  We all know of Trump's female abuse issues also).   But as far as influence on a party, the Office, and the country - Trump will have and has had  already a more corrupting influence. What he has done to the Repub party (and  they are not victims - they voted for and still support the guy) has made it unrecognizable to what it was 20 years ago.  What he appears to be doing of mixing Trump Inc wt Govt is corrupting.  What he did wt Russia is the worse kind of corruption - it corrupts our  sacred practice of free elections. 

 

We won't know the long term results of Trumps domestic and foreign policies for some time but we can predict what may happen.  Our image in the world is and will continue to go down, we will become more isolated, and tax cut and spend may  lead to the same disaster that we saw in 207-8 under GWB - but wt different causes.  The moral example of Trump is also a disaster.  He has corrupted evangelicals  who saw him as the only one who could carry their water for them. Too many have sold their prayer closet for the political altar. It would have been better to suffer more as an 'outsider' than to be corrupted by being at the table of power.  While some have said, we didn't elect a national pastor, it is no reason to embrace the guy who doesn't know 1st Corinthians from TWO Corinthians.

 

So - I change my vote (assuming I had to choose one) from none of the above to Hillary (as I in my imagination hold my nose and pull the lever for her). 

16 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

That's exactly - AND ONLY - why I voted for Hillary.  She's the evil I know.  Trump is an evil unto himself, and the first of his kind in the history of this country.

 

He is doing lasting damage to the office he was given by the Electoral College and to America, Americans, and our standing in the world.  And most of what he's doing (sowing discord, dividing the nation, crapping on our allies, starting trade wars, etc) directly benefits our worst enemies.

 

It's almost like he's not working for America, but against it. 

 

As much as I hate Hillary, she wouldn't be doing this.  She'd be doing different, corrupt things, but she wouldn't be doing this. 

agree - see my last post directly above ^^^^

[NUance]

The problem is, you folks are examining this ex post.  At the time of the election Hillary was known to be corrupt.  Trump, on the other hand, was an outsider.  For the most part, what Trump would do as President was unknown.   At least with Trump some people could *hope* that he would be a good president.  After all, at least he was a good entrepreneur.