Would we really be better off under President Clinton?

[Moiraine]

Clinton is no more corrupt than your average senator. She just gets way more attention because she's been under a microscope since the 90's.

[Guy Chamberlin]

12 hours ago, TheSker said:

Selling magic beans has won many.....maybe most.....elections.

 

True that.

 

It's a snake oil business.

 

Back in primary season, when Donald Trump was building up steam but everyone agreed he would flame out, his brand of magic beans seemed almost comical.

 

Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it!

I have a plan to defeat ISIS in 100 days!

Healthcare is easy! Let's repeal the nightmare of Obamacare and I'll show you!

We're getting killed in foreign trade! I'll negotiate the best deals you've ever seen!

America first!

Drain the swamp!

You're gonna love President Trump. Trust me!

 

He never offered specifics, and a lot of voters probably didn't want them. Donald Trump didn't exactly articulate the issues that resonated with Americans as much as play to simplistic fears. That's the easy part. By no means is he the first candidate to do this, but I think he's the worst. The worst in the lifetime of people who've been around and seen a lot, including plenty of Republicans and patriots and people who understand the Constitution. So bad that I think we've entered uncharted waters for America. That may come off as Trump-hating overreaction, but wow.....the checklist of disturbing behavior is so long.

 

I think we did emerge with a mandate for change, and only because Hillary Clinton came in with one of the most well-oiled political machines in history were we denied an election between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, an election many pollsters claim Sanders could have won.

 

Most believe Obama would have trounced Trump in a mythical third term. Who knows. 

 

But if Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders could have beaten Donald Trump, what is the will of the American people, other than profound Hillary Clinton fatigue?

 

The change we got sure as hell isn't draining the swamp. 

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

But if Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders could have beaten Donald Trump, what is the will of the American people, other than profound Hillary Clinton fatigue?

 

It'd be interesting to see a poll of people who voted for Hillary asking them if they voted for her or against Trump.  My vote was against Trump, period. I had no interest in another Clinton presidency.  I doubt that's a unique position. 

[RedDenver]

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It'd be interesting to see a poll of people who voted for Hillary asking them if they voted for her or against Trump.  My vote was against Trump, period. I had no interest in another Clinton presidency.  I doubt that's a unique position. 

Done:

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, Redux said:

Now, would we have been better off under Hillary?  No, not really.  From a populace perspective, yes.  But we would trade the blundering playground kid attitude for the smug and clearly corrput one.  We would trade unease with allies for shady dealings in our borders.  Healthcare would still be a monopoly, gas prices would still rise, government spending as a whole wouldn't be affected that much and the only thing that would truly be different from a big picture is that "Yay, we got a female up in da hizzouse!".

 

Impossible question to answer unless anyone has access to Rick Sanchez's portal gun.  Trading puppet for puppet isn't a hypothetical to give much thought to.

 

No. It's not an impossible question to answer. 

 

Healthcare isn't a monopoly.

Gas prices aren't the President's decision.

The 2017 Tax Bill profoundly affects government spending, and hid a giant f#&% you to the American people.

Trading unease with allies for shady dealings in our borders isn't even a thing. Try again. 

The blundering playground kid is ALSO smug, corrupt, and elitist, so you'll need to come up with other adjectives for your trade.

The choice of Supreme Court Justice -- denied Obama -- will affect millions of lives for years to come.

Betsy DeVos. Scott Pruitt. Rick Perry. Steve Mnuchin etc., etc.,etc. --- you gotta be kidding me. 

 

The rancor and obstructionism would remain, so a s#!tty time would be had by all, but America would be a slightly less dangerous country than it is today.

[Big Red 40]

2 hours ago, Redux said:

Now, would we have been better off under Hillary?  No, not really.  From a populace perspective, yes.  But we would trade the blundering playground kid attitude for the smug and clearly corrput one.  We would trade unease with allies for shady dealings in our borders.  Healthcare would still be a monopoly, gas prices would still rise, government spending as a whole wouldn't be affected that much and the only thing that would truly be different from a big picture is that "Yay, we got a female up in da hizzouse!".

 

Impossible question to answer unless anyone has access to Rick Sanchez's portal gun.  Trading puppet for puppet isn't a hypothetical to give much thought to.

To me, the whole smug, corrupt, unlikable thing that's used to denounce Clinton could be used to a much greater extent with Trump. I cant think of a more corrupt , egotistical, smug, and extremely unlikable person than Trump. 

More important to me is which candidate is going to surround themselves with quality people, provide diplomacy,  well thought out policies, and work to improve the lives of the general populace. I don't think Trump has done any of those things either, Hillary would have been the better choice on those criteria.   

[Guy Chamberlin]

16 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It'd be interesting to see a poll of people who voted for Hillary asking them if they voted for her or against Trump.  My vote was against Trump, period. I had no interest in another Clinton presidency.  I doubt that's a unique position. 

 

It worked both ways. Many of Trump's votes were anti-Hillary votes. Like, a substantial percentage. I heard some numbers on the radio, but couldn't find them in my halfassed Google search.

 

We ran the least-liked candidates in history against each other. 

[RedDenver]

20 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

No. It's not an impossible question to answer. 

 

The rancor and obstructionism would remain, so a s#!tty time would be had by all, but America would be a slightly less dangerous country than it is today.

It's not impossible to provide some answer, but it is impossible to know if any of those answers are correct because we can't know what would have happened in some alternate reality. If Trump voters felt the election was stolen (remember that Trump was claiming it was going to be), then there might have been a ton of violence. Or, as I previously pointed out, Hillary could have already gotten us into another war. While I agree that it's likely Hillary would have been better, I don't think it's necessarily proof positive.

[knapplc]

13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Hillary could have already gotten us into another war

 

What's the foundation for this repeated idea? 

[RedDenver]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

What's the foundation for this repeated idea? 

Hillary was pretty hawkish (particularly on Libya, Syria, and Russia), and I don't think that's a secret or I'm the only one with that opinion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillarys-war-how-conviction-replaced-skepticism-in-libya-intervention/2011/10/28/gIQAhGS7WM_story.html?utm_term=.e793b1dc2eca

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/susan-sarandon-hillary-clinton-war_us_5a1b82d7e4b06494807542c0

[knapplc]

None of those opinion pieces mean that Clinton was going to commit to boots on the ground in an actual war - or that the boots she put on the ground would be markedly different than the boots we currently have on the ground throughout the world. 

 

I just don't see the likelihood of Hillary putting us into another Vietnam - or any hot war - as that likely, especially with a Republican-held congress who would be more interested in investigating her than going to war with her. 

 

I mean, if we're talking Cold-War tactics of dancing with China, or special-ops tactics of small units on the ground in Libya & Syria... we have that now.  We had it under Obama & Bush.  We have troops in Africa right now. 

 

I don't see that as much of a thing to fear about Hillary. It's kind of SOP with the American military presence these days.

[Redux]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

No. It's not an impossible question to answer. 

 

Healthcare isn't a monopoly.

Gas prices aren't the President's decision.

The 2017 Tax Bill profoundly affects government spending, and hid a giant f#&% you to the American people.

Trading unease with allies for shady dealings in our borders isn't even a thing. Try again. 

The blundering playground kid is ALSO smug, corrupt, and elitist, so you'll need to come up with other adjectives for your trade.

The choice of Supreme Court Justice -- denied Obama -- will affect millions of lives for years to come.

Betsy DeVos. Scott Pruitt. Rick Perry. Steve Mnuchin etc., etc.,etc. --- you gotta be kidding me. 

 

The rancor and obstructionism would remain, so a s#!tty time would be had by all, but America would be a slightly less dangerous country than it is today.

 

Except it is.  Like we literally cannot peek into another reality to see how things would actually be.  We can only assume.

 

I mean, maybe.  Again, we can't know.  We can only assume.  And those assumptions may be right.

[Redux]

55 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

To me, the whole smug, corrupt, unlikable thing that's used to denounce Clinton could be used to a much greater extent with Trump. I cant think of a more corrupt , egotistical, smug, and extremely unlikable person than Trump. 

More important to me is which candidate is going to surround themselves with quality people, provide diplomacy,  well thought out policies, and work to improve the lives of the general populace. I don't think Trump has done any of those things either, Hillary would have been the better choice on those criteria.   

 

That's because nobody cared about him until he became a political figure and we were told to not like him from most of the media.  Like we all knew who he was, what he was like, that he came across as ignorant.  Yet, somehow, he became president.  Not because not enough people didn't "vote against him".  Not because the democrats strong armed the wrong candidate into the drivers seat.  Not because a bunch of toothless hillbillies came out of the woodwork to vote for Trump.  He won because of two reasons:

 

1- The country as a whole is sick of the status quo

2- The Government chose him

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Clinton is no more corrupt than your average senator. She just gets way more attention because she's been under a microscope since the 90's.

 

Well that and the fact that she tried to become president and the whole FBI scandal thing.

[RedDenver]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

None of those opinion pieces mean that Clinton was going to commit to boots on the ground in an actual war - or that the boots she put on the ground would be markedly different than the boots we currently have on the ground throughout the world. 

 

I just don't see the likelihood of Hillary putting us into another Vietnam - or any hot war - as that likely, especially with a Republican-held congress who would be more interested in investigating her than going to war with her. 

 

I mean, if we're talking Cold-War tactics of dancing with China, or special-ops tactics of small units on the ground in Libya & Syria... we have that now.  We had it under Obama & Bush.  We have troops in Africa right now. 

 

I don't see that as much of a thing to fear about Hillary. It's kind of SOP with the American military presence these days.

True, but we're talking about what-if alternate reality scenarios. And I think Hillary was more likely to have started an actual shooting war than Obama based on her pressing more hawkish positions in every action as SoS that I can remember. I've already said I think it's more likely she'd be better than Trump and that Trump could still start a shooting war, just that it's possible Hillary could have started a war, which would be worse than Trump IMO. I mean, in order to show I'm wrong, you'd have to take the stance that it's impossible for Hillary to have started a war by now. Do you really think that's true?

[Redux]

3 hours ago, NM11046 said:

FIFY.  If we now define and describe political candidates by their spouses then have to do it for both.  Or be honest on both ends. And when I read the later it doesn't sound like a tough decision.

 

Okay, the current president is married to a foreigner who came here on supposedly questionable terms.  The same president who wants illegals to have a harder time getting into this country.  The same president that gets called a racist because of said immigration policies.  It's either highly ironic or a complete fabrication, I honestly don't know which anymore