“Right or wrong” is beating Trump. Trump is that bad for the country. But when have I ever said it was about anything aside from beating Trump?
How could I possibly know this? No trial has been conducted, no witnesses questioned publicly, no evidence publicly discussed and challenged, no formal legal defense put forth.
Really? I suppose you have access to evidence that no one else but the FBI and Justice do. You’ve clearly made up your mind, regardless.
Really? Are you saying that he admits to having faults? Or are you saying that he doesn’t try to hide his faulty behavior? Because I believe the latter, but I believe it’s because Trump doesn’t think he has any faults.
The question is pretty simple: was her account allowed? Was it secure? The answers to those questions are already adequately answered for the purposes of deciding whether she is fit to be President. You cannot claim shock and surprise that she did something criminal after the fact and whine to state officials that a ballot change is justified.
Feel free to show me anywhere I mentioned anything about the political questions.
Again, the questions are answered for you. I prefer to have the facts in front of me before I make a decision. But that’s me.
Relative to Trump? Absolutely – she is a nigh-infinitely superior option to Trump. Much, much more fit to be President than Trump, regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
Who has expressed this? Sounds like yet another straw man.
It’s hard to have faith in a woman who thinks that you wipe a server with a Sham-Wow.
Sure…now. But once Sanders got the nomination? Then the Republican “big hate” would be totally focused on the Socialist Atheist, and his polls would drop. The Republicans have been letting him off easy, because they want him to be the nominee.
Clinton has already been through the big mud-throw; there isn’t going to be any large drop in her numbers once she has the nomination.
(There’s a charming local case here in San Diego, where a liberal-leaning labor union has publicly endorsed a liberal Democrat…and also a particular second-tier Republican, specifically in hopes the Republican will upset his own party’s front-runner.)
I don’t think he admits to anything; I’m saying that he’s transparent about who he is. Whether or not he’s actually reflecting for a moment on his own shit show is irrelevant – he is who he is and doesn’t try for a moment to calculate or calibrate anything. That’s been his appeal up to this point, and while we can ridicule his devotees as being a bunch of angry middle-aged uneducated (mostly-white) saps, the fact is, the perceived authenticity of his character, through his apparent lack of concern for how his antics play in the press, is something that is disarming in the eyes of ordinary people who tend to vote for personality over policies.
Maybe all of what I’ve described above explains why I’ve been an obnoxious critic of Bernie Sanders and Bernie voters at times. Has nothing to do with not liking Bernie or his ideas, many of which I do agree with. But it’s this stupid tendency to believe that we have to support or oppose a candidate based on how ‘authentic’ and ‘sincere’ they appear to be on television. I couldn’t give a drop of rat’s piss how sincere someone seems to be. I don’t even necessarily always care that much about the particular individual’s faults. Is this person going to vote against republican stupidity? Okay, check. Is this person going to sign laws proposed by a democratic congressional majority into law?!?!?!?! Okay, check. Does this person have at least some working knowledge of Congress, the DOD, the CIA, the UN, the FBI, and relationships between K street, Wall St, and Main St? Okay, check. That’s what matters. Nothing else.
She emailed from home and went against cyber security protocols. This never happens to other people.:rolleyes:
Not to this extent! Not including e-mailing our civil defense plans to Putin, not sending theoretical models for tactical nukes to North Korea. Not saying she did those things…but she could have! And the FBI would never have done anything, they’ve been putty in the liberal’s hands ever since J. Edgar Hoover broke up the Klan!
There is nothing wrong with evaluating matters this way - but I hope you realize it’s pure partisanship. It’s why people struggle to identify support for Clinton rather than opposition to her opponents.
You care about opposing Rebupilcans and passing laws favored by Democrats. Clinton is simply a placeholder that can fit those criteria who happens have the guise of electability.
If you can’t win your own party I don’t see how you are more electable.
Party voters’ tastes are not the same as general election voters, which is why Joe Lieberman and Lisa Murkowski won their Senate races despite being defeated in primaries.
Statistical artifact (which, I know, is only one step above “The exception that proves the rule” :rolleyes:). That’s trying to make a national-election stew from two state oysters.
Yes, it’s partisanship, but there is more to partisanship than just belonging to a club. Democratic leadership is going to produce policies that benefit more people more evenly than those that are proposed by Republican leadership. Opposition to her opponents is reason enough to vote for someone, and unlike some, I also expect to be more than just a political speedbump against republicans. I actually do have confidence that she will support progressive legislation, and she will probably be pushed to support more progressive policies and will do so more than she ever has.
No, this couldn’t be more incorrect. Some politicians are better at campaigning, organizing, lobbying, and coalition building than others. Some people realize that getting laws passed in a nation with as much diversity as ours requires more than just getting in front of a large audience and tv cameras and complaining about how the system isn’t right. And I’m trying to tone down my criticism of Bernie, so I don’t mean it the way it might appear as it is written. This goes beyond Bernie Sanders and applies to any candidate. I’m not saying that Clinton doesn’t have her flaws – she absolutely does. She may well turn out to be a disappointment, but so could any candidate. I’m betting on Clinton because, despite the near certainty of republican obstructionism and more investigations, I think she will probably draw from the experiences of her husband who emerged from near impeachment with extremely high approval ratings. She’ll find ways to leave the republicans in congress looking like the village idiots that they are.
:rolleyes: Ok, show’s over.
(**Luci ** is, of course, joking.)
Fine. But that’s not what you said earlier. Your criteria were three fold - oppose Republicans, sign laws passed by Democrats in congress, and have working knowledge of the federal political landscape. That was all, right? Nothing else mattered according to you.