Specifically what damage do you expect Hillary to do to the country in four years?
Not what do you think she WANTS to do, or would do if she could, but what do you fear she WILL do, i.e., will actually BE ABLE to do that will cause such dreadful, irreparable harm to the USA that you feel you must vote for Trump?
Keep it specific. Keep out “she lies,” she’s wooden, strident, all the personal things you don’t like about her. I’m talking only about policy and what she could actually DO that would damage the USA in your opinion.
STAY ON TOPIC. DO NOT DEVIATE FROM MY QUESTION. KEEP IT SPECIFIC. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS (we’ve heard all those already).
You don’t have to like her, but what do you FEAR about her?
I’m not asking about policy or facts. I’m asking the people who are voting for Trump because “HE’S NOT HILLARY!” what it is about the prospect of a Hillary presidency that causes them to take this position?
Definitely not a Trump voter. But to list possible damaging outcomes they and others voice concern about for the next four-eight years of a Clinton presidency (not in order of likelihood):
U.S. involvement in serious foreign war(s), in part due to perceived need to boost the image of “toughness” of a woman chief executive,
one or more major scandals following the typical Clinton pattern, at minimum disruptive and at worst provoking impeachment or other Constitutional crisis,
nomination of one or more leftist Supreme Court justices to wreak whatever mischief one happens to fear,
big tax increases on the middle class as it becomes clear that the government is far short of money to meet its obligations, not to mention free college tuition and other goodies promised by Clinton, for which taxing the 1% (or 5%, or even 10%) will not remotely suffice.
large numbers of Americans will go blind if they have to look at her bizarre collection of Chairwoman Maoist pantsuits for any length of time.*
Of course, to some extent a number of these fears could apply in equal or greater intensity to a Trump presidency (substitute “far right” for “leftist” in #3, and “hairpieces/fake tan” for “pantsuits” in #5).
Thank you for that, Jackmannii. Interesting that it took a non-Trump supporter to come up with this list. Number 3 seems to be a biggie. Do you think people realize she can’t do the others without congressional support? (Except for the wardrobe thing.)
I guess the Trumpsters haven’t rung in because they’re still fiddling with their crayolas. (BTW, you write with the pointy end.)
It’s cute you think you’re going to get a good cross section of Trump supporters on this board. Why not ask those at an ecclesiastical conference, ‘Atheism, what’s the appeal?’
…you’ve posted in the freaking pit. If you didn’t want “personal attacks”: then posting in the single forum that allows personal attacks is a pretty fucking stupid thing to do.
I’m not a Trump supporter (I’m voting third-party, probably for Jill Stein), but I share a lot of the concerns that people on both the noninterventionist left and the cultural-reactionary right have about Hillary, so I think I can sort of channel what (some of) their thought processes might be. Here are some things that I think one could reasonably fear from a Clinton presidency:
A ‘hawkish’ approach towards Russia, ending up in a new Cold War at best and an actual Vietnam-esque shooting war at worst.
More interventions in the Middle East that end up destabilizing countries, along the lines of what happened in Libya.
Encouraging mass immigration from countries where many or most people hold values that are deeply incompatible with most Americans. Europe has experienced this kind of thing on a large scale (the Rotherham rape scandals were probably the best example), and I wouldn’t want America to follow their example.
Overturning the Hyde Amendment, allowing government funding of elective abortions, picking one or two more pro-choice Supreme Court Justices that will lock Roe into place for another generation.
At a realistic level, I think Hillary Clinton will have a lot of Republican opposition to 3) and 4), as well as opposition from the general public to 3) specifically, so I don’t think she will find open borders and government-funded abortions as easy to accomplish as she might like. It’s more the foreign policy stuff that I really worry about. If Hillary was less ‘muscular’ on foreign policy I might suck it up and vote for her, as much as I dislike her and her husband, since at least she’s smarter and more level-headed than Donald. I’m not voting for someone who has gone on record comparing present-day Russia to Nazi Germany though, so I’m going to have to stick with Jill Stein, who seems to be the only consistent non-interventionist in the race.
I don’t think Hillary Clinton cares about her ‘image’, particularly. I think she’s motivated by a deep ideological commitment to liberal interventionism, and to the idea that it’s America’s role (and her role) to spread liberal values around the world, even at the cost of getting involved in wars.
I am a very reluctant Hillary voter, and my primary concern and basis for that reluctance is the four years of judicial appointments she will be making.
Of course, since I have no particular comfort that Donald will appoint decent choices to the bench either, this is not a factor that tends to incentivize a Donald vote for me. I suppose it’s possible that Trump will, if elected, appoint textualist judges to the federal bench. But since I cannot trust much else the man has said, it seems foolish to trust this.
If there were some way I could trust this, it might tip the scales back towards a Trump vote. Might… because there is so much other crap from him to overcome. But judicial appointments are, in my view, the single biggest long-term threat to our nation of self-governance. And since Donald has done nothing to inspire trust in me over all, I regard this issue as a wash for both candidates – I judge each a terrible risk.
I absolutely agree with this. But tell me, do you think that more justices like Scalia, Alito, and Thomas – who know beforehand what far-right conservatives want and figure out how to read that into the Constitution, even if it requires an interpretation so bizarre that it makes constitutional scholars’ heads spin – are consistent with the principle of democratic self-governance?
In general, do you think that bitterly divided 5-4 decisions are consistent with the principle of democratic self-governance? Or are they only consistent with the noble principles of democracy when the 5 vote is on your side?