The US Election 2016, Part IV

[Meshugger]

Huh.

 

 

 

Clinton took $100k cash from & was director of company that gave money to ISIS

 

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760118982393430016

[Raithe]

This might be a thing to consider...

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yet another argument why the two party system needs to be ended: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/party-724083-democrats-economic.html

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.

 

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with.

 

Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.

 

 

Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change.

 

 

What are your arguments then for voting Trump?

[Elerond]

Huh.

 

 

 

Clinton took $100k cash from & was director of company that gave money to ISIS

 

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760118982393430016

 

It seem that Clinton worked for said company in 80s and 90s and said company gives money to charity in Clinton's name (Bill not Hilary). And said company has done business in Syria and seems to have paid taxes and bought oil from ISIS.

[Malcador]

Toyota supports ISIS I hear.

[Bartimaeus]

 

snip

 

Yeah, that's all great and everything, except for the part where only like 17-18 million people (I can't remember how many votes she got exactly, but it's somewhere around here) actually voted for Hillary in the primaries, out of about 220 million voting-eligible adults in the U.S. (or of an estimated, based on previous elections, 135 million or so people who will actually even be motivated enough to vote this election). In other words, yes, a majority (and I mean this in the most literal sense, as it's not even a supermajority) of the people who voted in the primaries for Hillary might be excited about her (...and we cannot even accurately access how excited people are about Hillary, particularly with all the revelations that were happening towards the end of the primaries as well as after...), but that's ignoring the fact that those core voters are only a fraction of the total amount of people expected to vote for her in the presidential election.

 

Now, the biggest flaw in this argument is that these figures mostly hold true for previous primaries and candidates, too. But, well, when the combined unfavorability ratings of the two nominees are literally historical, I think it's perhaps worth considering the possibility that most people, in general, are even less excited about the prospect of voting for either candidate, and will be "voting against" their least liked candidate even more this election than in previous.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Leferd]

 

 

 

snip

Yeah, that's all great and everything, except for the part where only like 17-18 million people (I can't remember how many votes she got exactly, but it's somewhere around here) actually voted for Hillary in the primaries, out of about 220 million voting-eligible adults in the U.S. (or of an estimated, based on previous elections, 135 million or so people who will actually even be motivated enough to vote this election). In other words, yes, a majority (and I mean this in the most literal sense, as it's not even a supermajority) of the people who voted in the primaries for Hillary might be excited about her (...and we cannot even accurately access how excited people are about Hillary, particularly with all the revelations that were happening towards the end of the primaries as well as after...), but that's ignoring the fact that those core voters are only a fraction of the total amount of people expected to vote for her in the presidential election.

 

Now, the biggest flaw in this argument is that these figures mostly hold true for previous primaries and candidates, too. But, well, when the combined unfavorability ratings of the two nominees are literally historical, I think it's perhaps worth considering the possibility that most people, in general, are even less excited about the prospect of voting for either candidate, and will be "voting against" their least liked candidate even more this election than in previous.

That's fair. It'll be hard to gauge with limited data...but at the very least, Democratic voters (as the base of her support) do actually like her. They'll probably come out with a poll asking this very question.

 

 

In other news, Johnson is getting a town hall with CNN. I'll likely watch.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/libertarian-town-hall-gary-johnson-william-weld/index.html

[Pidesco]

Toyota supports ISIS I hear.

 

Toyota supports practically every irregular warfare outfit in the world.

[Enoch]

I'll second Leferd's points to the effect that many/most Clinton supporters like her.  I'll take a pass at explaining why.  I don't necessarily agree with 100% of what is below, but I am close to several people who do.

 

 

Her persistence is admirable.  Since the moment she appeared as a public figure, there has been a vocal segment of the population who despise her beyond reason and have been willing and eager to believe and promote any and all ridiculous theories that cast her in a negative light.  (First, she was a hardcore-feminist socialist ideologue; later amended to a craven waffler with no principles.)  After Bill's term ended, it would have been very easy for her to slip into private practice as a lobbyist, attorney, corporate board member, etc., and make a lot more money than you do in public office.  But that would've meant that the haters won.  So **** them. 

 

(The standard retort to such is to cast this persistence as power-mad ambition.  And here's where folks see sexism.  Whether it's acknowledged or not, public perception of ambitious qualities in women are almost always perceived as more negative than the same in men.  Everybody who runs for President is ambitious-- why is it only the women who are disliked for it?)

 

She also has a wonk's approach to policy-- understands nuance, learns the fine points, and can apply them.  She's smart, and a capable manager of large organizations.  This contributes to the perception that she has no persistent principles, though, because it's hard to stick to bumper-sticker slogans when you understand that the devil is always in the details.  It's a rare politician who can both handle policy on a detailed level like that and deliver effective campaign-trail soundbites, and that she's not. 

 

That said, she has done some dumb things, usually out of reflexive concern for privacy.  While I can understand why a public figure who has been attacked as relentlessly as she has for 3 decades is going to want to be very careful about what is or isn't in public view, the whole private email server thing was really stupid.  (And it was super-dumb for the Department's attorneys and IT folks to let her do it.)  Those determined to hate her assume that this was done to cover for something nefarious, but none of that has ever been proven (despite insane amounts of investigation), and there are still folks willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. 

Edited August 1, 2016 by Enoch

[Pidesco]

Crossposting from the UK thread:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-racism-immigration-eu-referendum-result-what-it-means-eurospectic-areas-a7165056.html

 

Why you shouldn't vote for the openly racist party.

[Volourn]

Agreed. People saying mean things is comparing to cutting the head off people or blowing up., Let's not forget all the hateful nonsense spouted from  those who voted against Brxit right?

 

 

("The standard retort to such is to cast this persistence as power-mad ambition.  And here's where folks see sexism.  Whether it's acknowledged or not, public perception of ambitious qualities in women are almost always perceived as more negative than the same in men.  Everybody who runs for President is ambitious-- why is it only the women who are disliked for it?)"

 

This is nonsense. First, there is a difference between being ambitious and being power angry. Men, btw, are also attacked for being power hungry. Look at the attacks against Trump. But, yeah, 'power hungry' is always seen as a good thing for men. Yet  people trash Trump for being a power hungry maniac 9which he is). Calling someone power hungry has NOTHINg to do with sexist. How many times do we see MALE dictators being slammed for being power hungry. How come you never cry about sexism in those situations? Hillary Clinton isn't called power hungry for being a woman. She is called power hungry because she is. The manipulation of the  democratic nominations illustrates this. The erause of her emails are another.

 

 

"Those determined to hate her assume that this was done to cover for something nefarious, but none of that has ever been proven (despite insane amounts of investigation), and there are still folks willing to give her the benefit of the doubt."

 

I always find it easy to hate on someone who laughs at rape victims.

[Valsuelm]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz6mtgnV1uw

[Ganrich]

 

 

That said, she has done some dumb things, usually out of reflexive concern for privacy.  While I can understand why a public figure who has been attacked as relentlessly as she has for 3 decades is going to want to be very careful about what is or isn't in public view, the whole private email server thing was really stupid.  (And it was super-dumb for the Department's attorneys and IT folks to let her do it.)  Those determined to hate her assume that this was done to cover for something nefarious, but none of that has ever been proven (despite insane amounts of investigation), and there are still folks willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

 

I will start this by saying I am not a fan of HC. I do think she has done many unsavory things in her career, but most of the other times it wasn't easily proven. In this case, whether or not it was for nefarious purposes or was intentional is irrelevant. The law states that negligence is enough. Comey even said she was extremely careless. Negligence and carlessness are one in the same. There are many from the military and smaller fish on capital hill that have been tossed in jail or lost their position for less. Patreus (sp), for instance.

"Oops" doesn't cut it when discussing confidential papers because if it did then we would know everything because people would let crap slip all the time. If they don't fear the sword then they would be even more careless.

 

Not to mention she lied to congress multiple times when they grilled her.

 

"Was anything classified?"

 

HC: No.

 

Comey: 3 emails were marked classified.

 

"Did you use multiple devices?"

 

HC: No, only one device.

 

Comey: Yes, multiple devices were used.

 

Bill Clinton was nearly impeached for lying to congress about much less important things.

 

My two cents is they aren't prosecuting at the present because of a couple reasons. If they did it would cascade into ANYONE that sent her an email to that domain, and didn't report her using a private email. Which means it could liquidate the majority of Capital Hill, and probably all the Obama Administration.

 

Another reason is that Obama could very well step in and pardon her. Seeing that it would save his bacon too... Yeah, he probably would.

 

Perhaps, they aren't running forward just yet because they are waiting till after the election and Obama to step down. One of the Laws that she potentially broke actually removes her ability to run from any public office. So, it's an incredibly odd situation.

 

If she isn't charged then I view it as proof that there is now an example that many people at the top are immune to the rule of law. When rule of law is completely ignored at the top is when this Government is steering toward something much more nefarious. That means the plebs still must follow the laws, but those elites are exempt. Laws only work if we follow them and punish those who break them without exception. When laws aren't followed, and punishment not delivered for breaking them, then we set precedent that tells everyone else that they can ignore them as well.

[HoonDing]

Trump spamming tweets again. Someone must've said something mean about him.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Crossposting from the UK thread:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-racism-immigration-eu-referendum-result-what-it-means-eurospectic-areas-a7165056.html

 

Why you shouldn't vote for the openly racist party.

Yes, don't vote for the party that supports BLM.

[Meshugger]

 

Who will be more aggressive against Putin and his predictions? Or who can ease tension and make a good deal? Hillary or Trump?

[Elerond]

 

Who will be more aggressive against Putin and his predictions? Or who can ease tension and make a good deal? Hillary or Trump?

 

Neither understands Putin, so I would not bet on good deal in either case.

 

 

Clinton - Obama dynasty

 

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.

 

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with.

 

Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.

 

 

Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change.

 

 

What are your arguments then for voting Trump?

 

 

 

That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected.

 

If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself.

 

Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day.

[Longknife]

 

Crossposting from the UK thread:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-racism-immigration-eu-referendum-result-what-it-means-eurospectic-areas-a7165056.html

 

Why you shouldn't vote for the openly racist party.

Yes, don't vote for the party that supports BLM.

 

 

Sadly, this is a worldwide phenomenon at the moment. I'm afraid I don't know the details because I do little more than tutor english and get an elementary look at people's study works, but all sociologists I know have whispered of a rise in xenophobia worldwide. I should really bother asking what the proposed causes are, cause it's really cause for concern. It's sadly not really a case where, even if the UK and the USA dodged that bullet, the rest of the world might not and then it wouldn't matter. Add xenophobia to a general list of things that are a danger globally for the next decade or so.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

 

Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.

 

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with.

 

Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.

 

 

Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change.

 

 

What are your arguments then for voting Trump?

 

 

 

That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected.

 

If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself.

 

Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day.

 

 

Then you have your answer, look for third party candidate that actually offers you something that you like. 

[Leferd]

Clinton - Obama dynasty

 

I'm counting on George P. Bush.

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.

 

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with.

 

Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.

 

 

Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change.

 

 

What are your arguments then for voting Trump?

 

 

 

That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected.

 

If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself.

 

Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day.

 

 

Then you have your answer, look for third party candidate that actually offers you something that you like. 

 

 

When our discussion was initially about Hillary and winds up being about how I should vote third party, that speaks volumes about her. Never in the past has it been so difficult to defend the two major party candidates to the point such a discussion reliably results in someone conceding that third parties are the answer.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.

 

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with.

 

Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.

 

 

Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change.

 

 

What are your arguments then for voting Trump?

 

 

 

That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected.

 

If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself.

 

Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day.

 

 

Then you have your answer, look for third party candidate that actually offers you something that you like. 

 

 

When our discussion was initially about Hillary and winds up being about how I should vote third party, that speaks volumes about her. Never in the past has it been so difficult to defend the two major party candidates to the point such a discussion reliably results in someone conceding that third parties are the answer.

 

 

You asked positive redeemable qualities about her I listed some, you dismissed them as worthless to you, so I asked if you have reason to vote Trump and you indicate that you aren't any more willing to vote for him and you think that both Clinton and Trump have done bad job to explain why you should vote them, so there really isn't any other logical conclusion than that you should look for third party candidate that you think is worth of your vote.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

That said, she has done some dumb things, usually out of reflexive concern for privacy.  While I can understand why a public figure who has been attacked as relentlessly as she has for 3 decades is going to want to be very careful about what is or isn't in public view, the whole private email server thing was really stupid.  (And it was super-dumb for the Department's attorneys and IT folks to let her do it.)  Those determined to hate her assume that this was done to cover for something nefarious, but none of that has ever been proven (despite insane amounts of investigation), and there are still folks willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. 

Oh please. Would you allow Casey Anthony to babysit your kids? After all she was acquitted. The sad thing is being irredeemably corrupt and being an effective President are not mutually exclusive but let's not kid ourselves about who and what Hillary Clinton is. Anyone who wants to vote for her should of course do so but they should know what they are buying. A they shouldn't piss down the rest if our backs and tell us it's rain.

 

Now it will come as no surprise she will never get my vote and it would not matter if she was the most honest and upright politician in the history of the trade. Her political philosophy is the exact opposite of mine in just about every subject. Which is the best reason in the world not to vote for someone IMO.