(Eta that i was addressing running coach). You talk?
I fail at comprehension.
???
This is key for me on the whole issue of Hillary’s hawkishness. She didn’t learn from the mistake of the Iraq war. Instead, we see a continued push for military interventions, including this little adventure that Obama cited as the worst mistake of his presidency – pushed for by the candidate who claims as a plus for her that Obama trusted her judgement as SecState.
If the electorate chooses Donald Trump in spite of everything he’s said and done he’s what we deserve. In spite of everything he’s somehow still in the running. Hillary is almost as unpopular as he is. Of course, the popularity polls are dismissed as haters gonna hate, because why would anybody hate Hillary Clinton? :rolleyes:
The choices are akin to picking between dysentery and stomach flu. One might be objectively better than the other, but I don’t want either because they both make me sick. If that’s a problem for you, too bad. As an independent I had no choice in the candidates. The people that did picked the two worst candidates available. It’s your problem, not mine.
I applaud your passion… and your choice. In a room where he isn’t surrounded by cheering promoters or a fluff-squad, Trump is a very quiet Nothing. I honestly wouldn’t cross the street to meet him again.
I liked Hillary’s speech, I like what she has to say. I liked her record before, I like it now… and the people who’ve I’ve known (and read about) hating her that I’ve seen over the past 25 years… I’ve truly disliked them for Many other reasons that have Nothing to do with her:
…from hypocrisy to intellectual dishonesty… from smirking willful ignorance to hateful and spiteful racism and bigotry… from only having courage in large groups to just plain Being An Asshole and a Bully.
Simply put, if the people who Hate you come the closest to Evil in America, then there must be one Hell of a Weapon for Good hidden behind blue eyes and a pant-suit.
I’ve never met Hillary, or anyone in her campaign… but I would. I’d shake her hand, and if Bill wouldn’t slug me, I’d give her a hug.
I’d introduce her to my kids and tell them, “This is who a President SHOULD be…”
To be fair, she did at least learn “no ground troops”. That ain’t nothing!
Seriously, Doors, if you think a Trump presidency will be bad for the country, don’t you think it’s rather childish to say: Hey, you got what you deserve? Wouldn’t it be more adult to swallow your pride and vote for whom you think is best of the country, overall? I only ask because I do respect you a a poster here. Someone like DerekMichaels00, I woldn’t bother with.
It’s not about guns. Its not that she’s a woman. It’s not even about her policies. It’s about her.
I went on record years ago when Obama (who I voted for) won. Hillary Clinton is the poster child for what I dislike about politics. Her only principle is expediency, and everything attached to her reeks of it. She moves to New York for the express purpose of being elected, she slams Obama and then carries his water for years, she does something not quite illegal that would have punished any enlisted man in the military and gets a finger wave for it, etc., she’s every bit as slimy as her husband is.
You want her, you can have her. I’m not helping you get her. On the other hand, I’m not hurting you, either. If you can’t muster enough enthusiasm for her within your own party that’s pretty indicative of what people think of her, and that falls entirely on her shoulders.
They better go with Stein, Johnson’s idea of foreign policy is to remove Kim Jong Un from office and place the entire Korean Peninsula under Seoul, with the help of China. But I’m sure there wouldn’t be any violence involved. And it certainly wouldn’t be regime change.
Are you saying that a congressional issue can not be substantive? That’s absurd.
And here I thought this was supposed to be about Clinton, not whatever boogeyman “the Right” is. In any case, the issue identified in the article that I find particularly objectionable was Clinton’s efforts to restrict video games and available media. Nearly the identical law that she pushed was enacted at a state level somewhere else and struck down as unconstitutional - because it violated free speech.
I think this holds Hillary Clinton to a higher standard than most politicians. I find her behavior varies from moral to unremarkable.
And you moved from Florida to Pennsylvania to get a job.
Hillary mastered upstate political issues better than any NY Senator in living memory. Her constituents appreciated that. When she reached the Senate, she was a workhorse, not a showhorse. And when folks begged her to run in 2004 she refused, because the had promised otherwise to her constituents.
I praise the voters of New York. Hillary Clinton and Patrick Moynahan were each imperfect in their way but on the whole top notch Senators.
She ran against Obama then put aside the rancor and joined his administration. Honorable. Admirable even. She was a fine Secretary of State.
So many phony scandals have been hurled at her -none of which bear scrutiny - that I’m not sure what you are referring to. But Colin Powell had a private email address and nobody cared. Even today. Nobody cares about Jason Chaffetz’s (R-UT) gmail address either.
And you don’t think Clinton has paid a price for her private email address? Really? LOL.
By not voting? You know better than that.
The consequences of Hillary losing the election will fall on everyone’s head, even the people who refused to vote.
So, as a military man, how do you feel about Trump’s repeatedly stated intention to blow up NATO?
To be honest though, I like Hillary because outside wonks and inside staff members love her, all top notch people. A lot of it is pretty small-bore stuff though. It’s in this overly long article, starting here: [INDENT][INDENT] Bob Greenstein is the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He has devoted his life to understanding and improving policy that affects the poor. He is among the people in Washington whom I respect most. And when I asked him about Clinton, about what she’s actually gotten done, he gets very specific. “I can give you three personal examples,” he says immediately. The stories he told me are wonky, to say the least. I include all three here because I think the way they echo one another is important. [/INDENT][/INDENT] The first example was in Arkansas. Greenstein had a report recommending that the state use a windfall from 1986 tax reform to raise the bottom tax bracket: the poor and lower middle class paid a surprisingly high share of state income taxes at a time. Hillary absorbed this eye-glazing point and arranged hearings on it, in front of a press core. Greenstein, in contrast, had just planned on issuing a press release. [INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]Example two. Bill Clinton was four weeks into his presidency. He had promised that if you worked full time, you wouldn’t have to raise your kids in poverty. His first budget tried to make good on that promise with a boost in the earned income tax credit. But when Greenstein’s team ran the numbers, the policy didn’t fulfill the promise.
Again, Greenstein wrote a paper. Again, he sent it to Hillary Clinton. He remembers sending it at 2 pm. At 9 am the next morning, he was summoned to the White House. They changed the policy. [/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] And #3: [INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]Example three. It’s now 1999, and Greenstein is trying to get administrative changes made to welfare reform to ensure families don’t lose their food stamps when they return to work. He keeps hitting dead ends. Then he asks for a meeting with Clinton. She peppers him with questions for 30 minutes and then says he’s right, she agrees. The changes get made. [/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] So what’s the point? Who cares? This stuff is so dull! Ezra Klein: [INDENT][INDENT] In each case, Clinton is contacted by somebody who’s smart and credible but doesn’t have a ton of political clout. In each case, the message is that the policy her husband is either administering or making is flawed in some very technical way. And rather than ignore that message, or become defensive about it, she listens. She dives into the details — details that would numb many professional policy staffers, to say nothing of most politicians.
Two things spring from this pattern. The first is change. Clinton is good at getting things done. The second is relationships. People who are on the other side of Clinton’s focus — who know how rare it is for a major politician to take a deep interest in their wonkish obsessions — find themselves unusually enamored of Clinton. [/INDENT][/INDENT] That’s why I like Hillary Clinton and have liked her for years. But in 2008 I figured that there were a lot of people in the US who never saw this side of her, didn’t like Hillary Clinton, and didn’t want to. Plus, I had read a piece in the Washington Monthly about Obama and recognized that he was a top quality orator. So I voted for Obama without regrets.
Hillary Clinton has basically never gotten public credit for her hard and detailed work. But she keeps doing this regardless. That’s basically the definition of character and the opposite of petulance.
ETA: That point took 606 words to make. Frustrating.
You talk. It’s Diplomacy 101. Clearer?
Doors, you were an idiot when you started here, but you have grown. I appreciate that and am pleased you married above your station. 
But some friendly advice is to not regress. Accept that Hillary, with all her flaws, will make a much better president of the country you are willing to fight and die for and not throw away your vote.
Fifteen years and I can only suspect his real name is David. 
As for the rest of you I haven’t a clue. I am Mike, if anyone’s interested.
Since withholding your vote increases the risk of a Republican presidency (yes, yes, especially THIS Republican), yeah, it’s pretty unbelievable.
Withholding my vote from whom? Who is it that you seem to think is entitled to it?
To me people who refuse to vote for their crappy “major” candidate, increasing the chances the even worse other “major” candidate are like people who would never use violence (like even to protect themselves or their family).
Yeah, on some level I think “what the hell is wrong with you, let’s get practical here”
But I ALSO can respect that such a thing is THEIR decision to make and even if misguided IMO it at least is based on some ethical standing rather than practical pragmatism, which is slippery assed slope often use to excuse a buttload of crap.
Such folks can aggravate me. But at least I can respect them.
A word about the Libya intervention. The goal wasn’t to install democracy or even set up a secular state. It was to avert an emerging human rights catastrophe. The backstory was Rwanda, not Iraq. If the goal was to install a friendly government, we would still be there. We aren’t.
The UN Council resolution in Libya was “…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.” It was a narrow mission which in fact succeeded. If we didn’t intervene in Libya, Qaddafi would have gone through with his promise to cleanse Libya “inch by inch, house by house, home by home, alleyway by alleyway.” Qaddafi called the protestors cockroaches. And he had been in power long enough so that we could ascertain that he wasn’t averse to genocidal activity. Libya is in terrible shape today. But it is not Syria. And frankly that’s what we would have had if NATO had not stepped in.
h/t: Everyone says the Libya intervention was a failure. They’re wrong. - Vox
Like Obama, Hillary Clinton supported the hard work involved in getting Iran to disarm. That really was a knotty diplomatic problem, peacefully resolved. Neoconservatives weren’t happy. Moving forwards, Trump is easy to bait: he turns everything into a challenge to his ego even when it conflicts with his electoral interests. ISIS is positively giddy with the prospects of a Trump presidency. As is Putin and North Korea.
Sheesh, the contrasts can’t be more apparent.
The country is entitled to not having a Republican president. That puts the onus on every voter to cast a ballot that will cancel out, or better, overwhelm, a vote for the Republican candidate*.
Abstentions and third-party votes do neither.
*(again: yes, yes, especially THIS Republican)
:dubious:
That’s some serious thinking right there.