Hillary's Troubles Solidify

[fm93]

Many Republicans do hate Trump; at least the establishment ones. They've even said they'd rather have Hillary because she's part of the establishment as well.

I couldn't possibly care less about establishment vs anti-establishment stuff. I just want a president who will probably at least be competent in politics (i.e at least knows what's going on). Donald doesn't even come close to meeting that standard.

It's the mass populous that express support for Trump because they're angry and don't give crap about party politics anymore. It's the exact same populous sentiment that led to Brexit.

I agree to an extent, insofar as some of the sentiment that leads his support is also the sentiment that led to Brexit--but I disagree that it was merely anti-establishment anger. Much of it is bigotry against immigrants.

And I think the liberals are far more disgraceful (or just outright more deluded) than the Trump supporters. They actually had an anti-establishment alternative to Hillary in Bernie, who had a good chance of beating Hillary, yet they chose Hillary. Trump supporters really had no such anti-establishment option that had a chance. Liberals are far more pathetic in that scenario.

Uh, no. There is absolutely no scenario in which it's preferable to vote for someone who's so ignorant of foreign politics that he thinks Scotland was "taking its country back" when Scotland actually voted to Remain, is so ignorant/dishonest of domestic politics that he 1) spews the stunningly-wrong falsehood that refugees are pouring into America without any inspections of who they are, and 2) centers his campaign around building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants from Mexico when Mexico isn't even the primary source of such immigrants anymore.

[Cow Poke]

I couldn't possibly care less about establishment vs anti-establishment stuff. I just want a president who will probably at least be competent in politics (i.e at least knows what's going on). Donald doesn't even come close to meeting that standard.


I agree to an extent, insofar as some of the sentiment that leads his support is also the sentiment that led to Brexit--but I disagree that it was merely anti-establishment anger. Much of it is bigotry against immigrants.


Uh, no. There is absolutely no scenario in which it's preferable to vote for someone who's so ignorant of foreign politics that he thinks Scotland was "taking its country back" when Scotland actually voted to Remain, is so ignorant/dishonest of domestic politics that he 1) lies that refugees are pouring into America without any inspections of who they are, and 2) centers his campaign around building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants from Mexico when Mexico isn't even the primary source of such immigrants anymore.

Yeah, Hillary is a MUCH better liar than Trump, so she's clearly more qualified!

[fm93]

Yeah, Hillary is a MUCH better liar than Trump, so she's clearly more qualified!

Oh, she's definitely a better liar in the sense that her lies had some surface-level appearance of plausibility, while Donald's lies are blatantly see-through. But in terms of frequency of lies told? Donald's got her beat by a mile.

Don't vote for him.

I get that you don't want to vote for Hillary. On this point, we agree. But don't vote for Donald. If nothing else, vote third-party. Please.

[Cow Poke]

Oh, she's definitely a better liar in the sense that her lies had some surface-level appearance of plausibility,

No, she's a better liar in that she has far more experience. She'd rather climb a tree and tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth, when the truth would work just as well. It's her character. She can't NOT lie. After all, she was named after the great explorer..... oh, wait... THAT was a lie, too! But her heroic efforts getting shot at --- oh, THAT was a lie... but it's ok, cause it was all a youtube video --- oh, wait... THAT was a lie.....

Don't vote for him.

Hmmmmm.... pinko commie liberal* doesn't want me voting for Trump.......

I get that you don't want to vote for Hillary. On this point, we agree.

Wow. We should celebrate!

But don't vote for Donald. If nothing else, vote third-party. Please.

A vote for anybody other than Trump, at this point, is a vote for Hillary. The Clinton machine needs to be stopped. She treats her staff with contempt, she's a mean self-centered person, she's a pathological liar, she BADLY screwed up the world with her actions as Secretary of State, including her goofy "RESET" (couldn't even get THAT right - used the word "Overcharged") with the Russians - and you see how much better our relations with the Russians are.... She's a hypocrite, demanding equal pay for women, but not paying her own female staff "equally"....

She's a FRAUD... and a MEAN fraud, at that.







*relax, I'm mostly being facetious with that label

[rogue06]

Yeah, Hillary is a MUCH better liar than Trump, so she's clearly more qualified!

I tend to agree but not sure which is worse then I think which can accomplish the least damage and I figured due to his work at alienating Republican allies in Congress, Trump is less likely to harm us.

[seanD]

I couldn't possibly care less about establishment vs anti-establishment stuff. I just want a president who will probably at least be competent in politics (i.e at least knows what's going on). Donald doesn't even come close to meeting that standard.


I agree to an extent, insofar as some of the sentiment that leads his support is also the sentiment that led to Brexit--but I disagree that it was merely anti-establishment anger. Much of it is bigotry against immigrants.


Uh, no. There is absolutely no scenario in which it's preferable to vote for someone who's so ignorant of foreign politics that he thinks Scotland was "taking its country back" when Scotland actually voted to Remain, is so ignorant/dishonest of domestic politics that he 1) spews the stunningly-wrong falsehood that refugees are pouring into America without any inspections of who they are, and 2) centers his campaign around building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants from Mexico when Mexico isn't even the primary source of such immigrants anymore.

No one cares what you want. I don't. Anti-establishment is important because it allows an understanding of populous sentiment, which is what only really interests me about politics and is why I even bothered caring about this particular political race. Society in general is angry, being expressed in multiple ways, which is why anti-establishment populous uprisings are happening, and why Bernie and Trump had so much pull in this election. The libs had Bernie, yet they chose Hillary, one of the most corrupt pro-establishment candidates we've probably ever had in a awhile. Nothing touches the stupidity of that in this atmosphere. Absolutely nothing.

[Cow Poke]

Oh, she's definitely a better liar in the sense that her lies had some surface-level appearance of plausibility...

Here's a brief list of some Hillary doozies.....

http://www.politifact.com/personalit...yruling/false/rulings_tom-false.gifrulings_tom-false.gifrulings_tom-false.gifrulings_tom-false.gifrulings_tom-false.gif

[Cow Poke]

I tend to agree but not sure which is worse then I think which can accomplish the least damage and I figured due to his work at alienating Republican allies in Congress, Trump is less likely to harm us.

Yeah, that's what I'm counting on.... the only thing that concerns me is that he may abuse, even more than Obama did, Executive Power, because Obama has made it "ok".

[Cow Poke]

Here's a batch that includes her claim to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary and her claim to have been fired upon by snipers....

Dead BrokeSniper Fire Immigrant Grandparents Sir Edmund HillaryThe Few, The Proud, The MarinesSecret E-MailsBenghazihttp://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/t...#ixzz4DC1uMK2t

[Terraceth]

And, as I pointed out last time in response:
"the complete idiocy and factual falsity of their quotes is hilarious. In their defense, they were, of course, writing at a time where democracy hadn't been widely used as a form of government. So they couldn't have known what we know now - that democracies work perfectly fine for centuries."

Where? What current country that lasted for centuries is a democracy? As far as I know, no current countries are actually democracies. All of the supposed "democracies," including your own country, are in fact republics.

To be fair, the term "democracy" has been very much expanded over the years so in the modern vernacular it frequently extends to republics. However, we're not using that definition of democracy, certainly not in those quotes from people who were using the original definition before its meaning got expanded in popular usage. The original definition of democracy was DIRECT rule by the people. This is in contrast to republics, which have elected officials (as well as, generally speaking, a constitution that can override popular opinion). Direct democracy is essentially nonexistent in the world. Indeed, "democracy" in its original meaning is basically just a less unruly version of mob rule.

It turned out in the centuries that followed that democracies worked really well all across the Western world. Whereas the stupidly over-engineered system that they designed for America worked fairly badly, leading to civil war in the US,

Again, democracies have NOT been shown to work because they aren't around! The "democracies" of the world are in fact republics!

Also, say what now? The "stupidly over-engineered system" caused the civil war? The civil war was about slavery (well, okay, it was about other things too, but slavery was the primary part of it). What the heck does that have to do with the "stupidly over-engineered system"? The people in the north were generally against slavery, the people in the south were generally for it, and it was causing the country to get torn apart and led to the civil war (again, "slavery caused the civil war" is a bit of a simplification, but it was the primary motivation). This would have been the case even if the government had been set up differently. I'm baffled as to how you can claim the government's setup somehow led to the civil war when it was essentially irrelevant.

failing in other countries that tried to copy it, and leading to the current governmental paralysis / shutdowns / 6% congressional approval rating that the US has today.

Because the US always had things like a 6% congressional approval rating throughout its entire history, right? Oh wait, it didn't. That's a more recent phenomenon. As recently as 2002 it was at 84%, and the government format (constitutional republic) was the same then as it is now. You also say this as if other "democracies" (again, actually republics) don't have people get dissatisfied with the ruling government also at times.

[Cow Poke]

To be fair, the term "democracy" has been very much expanded over the years so in the modern vernacular it frequently extends to republics....

It's like any country that has a fair degree of freedom, and the people can actually vote on stuff... that gets conflated with "democracy".

[Terraceth]

A vote for anybody other than Trump, at this point, is a vote for Hillary.

And by the same logic, a vote for anybody other than Hillary is a vote for Trump. This idiom remains meaningless. A vote for someone is a vote for who you voted for, not a vote for someone you didn't vote for.

The Clinton machine needs to be stopped. She treats her staff with contempt, she's a mean self-centered person, she's a pathological liar, she BADLY screwed up the world with her actions as Secretary of State, including her goofy "RESET" (couldn't even get THAT right - used the word "Overcharged") with the Russians - and you see how much better our relations with the Russians are.... She's a hypocrite, demanding equal pay for women, but not paying her own female staff "equally"....

She's a FRAUD... and a MEAN fraud, at that.

And yet, I still can't see her as particularly worse than Trump.

Incidentally, I'm surprised that Darrell Castle (Constitution Party) isn't getting more attention as the alternative to Trump, as he seems to be what a lot of the anti-Trump conservatives would be looking for. I understand why Gary Johnson is getting a lot more attention (as he's the only third party candidate who I can see as having a real chance--even if it is a very small chance--of actually winning the election), but I barely see mention of Darrell Castle in conservative publications that go on about how bad Trump is.

[Cow Poke]

And by the same logic, a vote for anybody other than Hillary is a vote for Trump. This idiom remains meaningless. A vote for someone is a vote for who you voted for, not a vote for someone you didn't vote for.

Nonetheless, some of us will be voting AGAINST the other person by voting for the only other person who has a chance to beat them. Potato PuhTOTTO.

And yet, I still can't see her as particularly worse than Trump.

She's evil.

Incidentally, I'm surprised that Darrell Castle (Constitution Party) isn't getting more attention as the alternative to Trump, as he seems to be what a lot of the anti-Trump conservatives would be looking for. I understand why Gary Johnson is getting a lot more attention (as he's the only third party candidate who I can see as having a real chance--even if it is a very small chance--of actually winning the election), but I barely see mention of Darrell Castle in conservative publications that go on about how bad Trump is.

Trump is a master of media - he's spending ZERO in comparison to Hillary's millions, and getting as much, if not more, attention.

[fm93]

A vote for anybody other than Trump, at this point, is a vote for Hillary. The Clinton machine needs to be stopped. She treats her staff with contempt

As does Donald. We'll call it a wash here.

she's a mean self-centered person

As is DEFINITELY Donald. Again, a wash.

she's a pathological liar

Hey, whaddya know--just like Donald! And for what it's worth, Politifact rates comparatively more of his statements to be at least somewhat false. In fact, only 23% are rated as even half-true.

she BADLY screwed up the world with her actions as Secretary of State, including her goofy "RESET" (couldn't even get THAT right - used the word "Overcharged") with the Russians - and you see how much better our relations with the Russians are....

Donald risks jeopardizing America's relations with Mexico, Scotland, Russia, China, the Middle East... I think it'd be worse with him. At least Hillary was limited to Secretary of State, whereas Donald would have oversight (or lack thereof) over even more things.

She's a hypocrite, demanding equal pay for women, but not paying her own female staff "equally"....

It's my understanding that the report containing that allegation only listed around 8-12 high-level employees, and that's a small sample size from which to derive an overall trend, especially at high-level. After all, those are typically the most experienced and well-credentialed employees, who can to an extent adjust and negotiate their own compensation.

But anyhow, Donald rails against illegal immigrants but had Polish illegal immigrants work on his construction projects. One of his central points in his tirade against immigrants is his allegation that they're dangerous rapists, but Donald has been notoriously sympathetic to rapists when they aren't perceived as foreign enemies--when the Pentagon released a 2013 report on sexual assault in the military, he blamed it on the authorities who placed men together with women, instead of putting the guilt on the men for choosing to rape.

He talks about "making America great" by having more domestic jobs, but many of his business products are produced in China. He lies and doubles down on his lies about seeing thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 attacks, and after the Orlando shooting, he wrote a tweet that began "Appreciate the congratulations on being proven right about terrorism"--practically celebrating after an attack.

She's a FRAUD... and a MEAN fraud, at that.

Just like--guess who?--Donald! Another wash.


Now for the tie-breaking factors. Your objections to Hillary's character may have some basis, but it's possible to be a good president despite being a less-than-great person. Hillary does have political experience, while Donald has absolutely none. Hillary is essentially a long-time cook who can get the order right but sometimes spits in people's food, while Donald has no cooking experience but thinks he can be a successful chef at a top restaurant.

They've both told their share of lies, but Donald's lies involve deliberate fearmongering and conspiracy. He's accused Obama of being a Muslim and not being a US citizen, and has accused the US of having supported terrorist organizations. He's insisted that refugees are pouring into the country and we don't know who they are, when the reality is that very few refugees are entering, and only after they've passed an extensive vetting process that takes at least a year.

[Starlight]

The original definition of democracy was DIRECT rule by the people. This is in contrast to republics, which have elected officials (as well as, generally speaking, a constitution that can override popular opinion).

I guess anything can become true if you make your definitions stupid enough.