The US Election 2016, Part IV

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

[Enoch]

 

 

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.

 

 

This was discussed at length a few iterations of this thread ago, but Comey's conclusion was reasonable.  He was not being asked if a case could technically be made for criminal prosecution-- he was being asked whether a prosecution was worthwhile based on past results and the strength of the evidence.  He looked at past results and concluded that absent evidence of treasonous intent, massive quantities of information, or obstruction of justice, such a prosecution would have been unprecedented.  (With Patraeus, there was evidence that he deliberately leaked information, rather than simply put it in an unsafe container, and that he obstructed the subsequent investigation.)  Unless he was lying about the strength of the evidence, she was treated consistently with how other (non-famous) suspects were in the past-- historically, such violations have been taken care of with employment discipline (reprimand, loss of clearance, or termination) rather than criminal punishment. 

 

And, on classified stuff in general:  The overwhelming reaction of nearly everybody who gets a security clearance and begins to access classified information is "Seriously, they classified this?"  Way way too much stuff gets classified, because the authorities with the power to do it lack any reason not to.  The attitude is often that, if something isn't classified, everybody who matters will assume it is unimportant.  It is not shocking that somebody in a position like SecState might get a little numb to the dire warnings on yet another country report stamped "Secret," despite having been cribbed together mostly from back issues of The Economist.  It doesn't say great things about her that she missed a few, and if you view that as disqualifying, I can't say that's not a valid choice.  But it's also not necessarily a sign that she's covering up her scheme to weaken America from the inside as a precursor to the inevitable Uraguayan invasion. 

Edited August 2, 2016 by Enoch

[Enoch]

@GD,

 

The thing is, I don't buy the "irredeemably corrupt" line.  If she's really irredeemably corrupt, and trying to profit personally from her positions of power, she's really quite bad at it.  She'd have made more money simply signing up as a partner with a law firm after Bill's term.  Hell, the beneficiary of most of the payouts people are highlighting has been a charity that gets pretty good marks for transparency.  The folks who hate her have succeeded in establishing a general air of scandal around her-- 1 slightly smelly accusation doesn't make much of a stir, but follow it up with 27 bs accusations, and folks who aren't paying very very close attention will start to think that there's probably fire behind that smoke.  (Which, again, isn't to say that she hasn't honestly screwed some things up.) 

 

 

Also, more generally, I like you, and I appreciate seeing your viewpoint around here, but the Johnson spam is getting tiresome.  We get it-- you're a Libertarian.  Does every post really have to feature that call to action? 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

There's some libertarian spam everyone can enjoy.

[Guard Dog]

Only the humorous ones. Hey I've avoided all the "Johnson" double entendre ones. And good lord are there a lot of them. 

 

In all seriousness this election does offer an exciting opportunity for the LP to have some actual electoral success. By that I mean getting 5% of the vote which seems like a make able goal. That will of course guarantee ballot access in 2020 and it has a few other benefits. There is also a chance to appear in the debates which would be very interesting. 

[Volourn]

_{It is not always about money though. It is about power. No doubt about it Hillary wants to be Prez for the #1 reason so she can brag about it not because she wants to help the cluntry. Also, ANYONE who seriously laughs at rape victims 9as opposed to making silly 'rape' jokes) will ALWAYS be irredeemable.}

[Hurlshort]

We have people pimping Trump and Clinton here, not sure why GD can't share his Libertarian stuff.

 

To be more accurate, we have a lot of people complaining about Trump and Clinton. I actually prefer to see a few positive posts about who is a good candidate and why.

[Leferd]

Welp. Looks like the RNC was a bust.

 

 

...And The Donald completely flopped.

 

[Bartimaeus]

I mean, sure, Trump has been completely embarrassing himself and seemingly deliberately trying to make himself seem as unlikable as possible...but when has he not been doing that?

[Raithe]

[Guard Dog]

The contrast in this video is pretty stark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs448eq1k9M

[Gorth]

The contrast in this video is pretty stark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs448eq1k9M

Hypocrisy indeed... better strike now since we all know that Assad has stockpiles of WMD's! (I wonder if anyone is going to buy that argument a second time?)

[BruceVC]

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/08/01/poll-hillary-clinton-leading-donald-trump-after-conventions.cnn

 

Guys good news, we are now seeing a 7 point lead after the DNC for Clinton. It was  a nice bounce for   her 

Edited August 2, 2016 by BruceVC

[Elerond]

 

The contrast in this video is pretty stark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs448eq1k9M

Hypocrisy indeed... better strike now since we all know that Assad has stockpiles of WMD's! (I wonder if anyone is going to buy that argument a second time?)

 

 

That speech was after WMD (chemical weapon, rockets containing sarin) were provably used in Ghouta, Syria against civilian population. Although it has been under disputation was strike done by Assad's regime or opposition, but eventually Assad's regime eventually decided to give up their chemical weapons to be destroyed. 

[Volourn]

"Guys good news, we are now seeing a 7 point lead after the DNC for Clinton. It was  a nice bounce for   her  :dancing:"

 

Yeha, a lot of pro rapists love Hillary. More power to them.

[Gorgon]

The contrast in this video is pretty stark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs448eq1k9M

I dunno about that. Very different situations. Besides it's mostly the Russians bombing in support of Assad isn't it. The coalition is trying to hit IS. Lots of civilians getting caught up in the mix. Those that haven't fled yet. 

 

The US gained next to nothing by all the ordinance expended over Vietnam, the same could be true for it's efforts against IS, if that's the insinuation then I agree. 

[HoonDing]

 

I can totally see some Trumpist nutter with an assault rifle showing up at a Clinton rally

[Malcador]

Trump certainly needs to learn to not saying stupid things.

[Guard Dog]

Hollande really shouldn't talk like this. If Americans get the idea in our heads that electing Trump will annoy Europe it is probably as good as done. The best way to get Americans to do what you want is to pretend not to give a damn what we do.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-02/hollande-labels-trump-s-excesses-in-election-race-as-sickening

[HoonDing]

Since when do Americans care about anything outside their borders though

[Longknife]

Since when do Americans care about anything outside their borders though

 

I do.

 

....Helps my borders extend beyond the United States though, I suppose.

[Bartimaeus]

Since when do Americans care about anything outside their borders though

 

Hmm, judging by the number of wars we've instigated and deliberately decided to be involved with, the number of military, economic, and otherwise political pacts we've made with other countries, all the military bases we have all around the world, and probably a bunch of other things...I would say "probably for at least a while now". Obviously, the actual answer is a lot more nuanced than that...as so should be the question.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Volourn]

Isd this the same Hollande who enjoys it when his people are mass mu4rdered  largely because of HIS failures as a leader?

 

 

"French presidential elections are next year and it’s unclear if Hollande, the most unpopular leader in modern French history"

 

'Nough said 'bout this nutball. he doesn't even care about French people. (not that Trump care abaout Amewrikans either).

[Darkpriest]

 

Since when do Americans care about anything outside their borders though

 

Hmm, judging by the number of wars we've instigated and deliberately decided to be involved with, the number of military, economic, and otherwise political pacts we've made with other countries, all the military bases we have all around the world, and probably a bunch of other things...I would say "probably for at least a while now". Obviously, the actual answer is a lot more nuanced than that...as so should be the question.

 

 

It should be phrase "your average american" - most of which rarely care what's beyond their neighborhood and city. But to say it is different anywhere else, it would be a lie. others just look more to what's goin on in the US as the US is the one with the more tentacles fixed in other places, be that either capital or military.

[Raithe]