Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (6 Viewers)

[Rove!]

This becoming a reality show wasn't the work of a single person.

I agree.  It's like they have conspired to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry...

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

One problem we have is that this election has not had any serious policy discussions because of Trump. Our elections serve a real purpose where we get together and sort of come together to make decisions. This whole thing has been a push in terms of what seriously needs to be discussed.

This is different from which recent election?  Oh, sure some of the pretense might have been lost in the coverage this cycle,  but election have been more about personalities and the ability to associate negative characteristics (inexperienced, flip flop,"establishment",  etc.) to the opposition for a long time.

 

[The Commish]

One problem we have is that this election has not had any serious policy discussions because of Trump. Our elections serve a real purpose where we get together and sort of come together to make decisions. This whole thing has been a push in terms of what seriously needs to be discussed.

This is different from which recent election?  Oh, sure some of the pretense might have been lost in the coverage this cycle,  but election have been more about personalities and the ability to associate negative characteristics (inexperienced, flip flop,"establishment",  etc.) to the opposition for a long time.

It just "feels" different because of how over the top the personalities are.  I don't think there have ever been such polar opposites in any election I have ever been part of.  However, it seems like this time around the platitudes are lacking in favor of the personalities.  Guess whatever it takes to get viewers, right?

 

[BeaverCleaver]

This is different from which recent election?  Oh, sure some of the pretense might have been lost in the coverage this cycle,  but election have been more about personalities and the ability to associate negative characteristics (inexperienced, flip flop,"establishment",  etc.) to the opposition for a long time.

We've never had a Presidential election like this where so many people are disgusted to vote for either candidate. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

You guys seem to be conflating policies and issues.  The campaign has been light on policy discussions, but it certainly hasn't been light on discussion of important issues. 

Stuff like accountability to the media and the public, the apparently massive resentment of ethnic and religious minorities among many white Americans, how we treat women both in politics and in general, whether our celebrity/reality TV culture presents dangers we need to be aware of going forward, whether the default bitterness towards "career politicians" is justified vs whether there's value in actual experience and expertise ... those may not be things that Congress can debate and legislate, but it doesn't mean they're not incredibly important. I'd argue they're more important than fixing Obamacare or energy policy or taxation or most of the other stuff people normally mean when they say "policy discussions."

 

[ren hoek]

I don't think policy discussion much matters if politicians can just tell lies and not follow up on any of it.

 

[The Commish]

You guys seem to be conflating policies and issues.  The campaign has been light on policy discussions, but it certainly hasn't been light on discussion of important issues. 

Stuff like accountability to the media and the public, the apparently massive resentment of ethnic and religious minorities among many white Americans, how we treat women both in politics and in general, whether our celebrity/reality TV culture presents dangers we need to be aware of going forward, whether the default bitterness towards "career politicians" is justified vs whether there's value in actual experience and expertise ... those may not be things that Congress can debate and legislate, but it doesn't mean they're not incredibly important. I'd argue they're more important than fixing Obamacare or energy policy or taxation or most of the other stuff people normally mean when they say "policy discussions."

I'd love for us to look at judgment, character, ethics, integrity and morals.  All the things you mention above boil down to these core issues.  So, yeah, let's have this discussion.  I'm all for it.   I've attempted to have that very discussion here a few times this cycle and I'm usually met with :crickets:  For all the  about these sorts of things, I don't think many are really interested.  Hopefully, I am wrong.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'd love for us to look at judgment, character, ethics, integrity and morals.  All the things you mention above boil down to these core issues.  So, yeah, let's have this discussion.  I'm all for it.   I've attempted to have that very discussion here a few times this cycle and I'm usually met with :crickets:  For all the  about these sorts of things, I don't think many are really interested.  Hopefully, I am wrong.

Not sure what this has to with what I wrote, other than the point about the differences in accountability to the media and the public between the two candidates.  All the other issues I raised are external ones, you seem to be talking about the candidates themselves. And I think we've had enough discussion of their "judgment, character, ethics, integrity and morals" to last ten election cycles, so I don't know about being met with crickets.

Unless you want to talk about the "judgment, character, ethics, integrity and morals" of the citizens who are supporting a moronic bigoted hatemongering sex criminal/ aspiring war criminal. Or those who, instead of devoting time and energy to stopping this monster, devote their time and energy to trashing the woman who is still the only thing standing between him and the presidency because she is a bit too hawkish on foreign policy for their tastes or because she used a private email server instead of a government one.  I'm happy to discuss that if you like.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is different from which recent election?  Oh, sure some of the pretense might have been lost in the coverage this cycle,  but election have been more about personalities and the ability to associate negative characteristics (inexperienced, flip flop,"establishment",  etc.) to the opposition for a long time.

It's different in that - aside from the fact that Hillary came in with a couple scandals built in while Trump has been truly record setting by (without doing the math) having maybe 1 controversy every roughly 2 weeks - one of the candidates does not have any set of policies at all. Trump has no real, serious policies. The issues are real (like Tobias says) but there is no discussion or serious debate when one side of the campaign is actually anti-intellectual, anti-policy as a philosophy.

 

[knowledge dropper]

I don't think policy discussion much matters if politicians can just tell lies and not follow up on any of it.

These two are like cartoon characters of politicians.  It's like we have taken all the worst traits of politicians and dumped it on two people.  It's Mayor Quimby from the Simpsons vs. President Baltar from Battlestar Gallactica.  

 

[Joe Summer]

Accusing a 12 year old child who was raped of seeking out older older men, fantasizing about them romantically, and exaggerating about their physically attacking her? Nahhhh...

The more I think about this, the less I have a problem with it. It wasn't Clinton's job or duty or obligation to decide if a 12-year-old was capable of understanding her actions. Clinton's job was to defend her client within the law, presenting facts to the judge and jury. Let them decide if those facts are relevant.

This country celebrates attorneys who defend the indefensible, and rightly so. It's one of the founding principles of the Republic.

And I can't help but wonder if those who would criticize Clinton are the same types who favor charging child criminals as adults. Because it's kind of the flip side of the same coin.

You know, Atticus Finch browbeat a mentally-challenged teenage girl without any proof of his allegations, and he's revered and celebrated as a fictional American hero.

 

[Rove!]

The more I think about this, the less I have a problem with it. It wasn't Clinton's job or duty or obligation to decide if a 12-year-old was capable of understanding her actions. Clinton's job was to defend her client within the law, presenting facts to the judge and jury. Let them decide if those facts are relevant.

This country celebrates attorneys who defend the indefensible, and rightly so. It's one of the founding principles of the Republic.

And I can't help but wonder if those who would criticize Clinton are the same types who favor charging child criminals as adults. Because it's kind of the flip side of the same coin.

You know, Atticus Finch browbeat a mentally-challenged teenage girl without any proof of his allegations, and he's revered and celebrated as a fictional American hero.

My issue is the levity with which she relays the tale.  Most would consider it a grim duty and dirty task, but she's doing victory laps and laughing...it kind of abhorrent

 

[tommyboy]

which ones of you are this?    https://stream.org/astroturf-outrage-machine-of-paid-trolls-floods-social-media-to-counteract-negative-news-about-hillary-clinton/

 

[NCCommish]

Can't stand Hillary. But this whole thing on where she was appointed to defend a rapist? Got to give her a pass. In our system this is they way it is done. It sucks. It is often like raping the victim a second time but even this guy deserved his day in court and a vigorous defense. John Adams defended the soldiers who were responsible for the Boston Massacre, at great personal risk, setting the bar for what the American justice system would be. A place where everyone got their day and a vigorous defense.

 

[The Commish]

Not sure what this has to with what I wrote, other than the point about the differences in accountability to the media and the public between the two candidates.  All the other issues I raised are external ones, you seem to be talking about the candidates themselves. And I think we've had enough discussion of their "judgment, character, ethics, integrity and morals" to last ten election cycles, so I don't know about being met with crickets.

Unless you want to talk about the "judgment, character, ethics, integrity and morals" of the citizens who are supporting a moronic bigoted hatemongering sex criminal/ aspiring war criminal. Or those who, instead of devoting time and energy to stopping this monster, devote their time and energy to trashing the woman who is still the only thing standing between him and the presidency because she is a bit too hawkish on foreign policy for their tastes or because she used a private email server instead of a government one.  I'm happy to discuss that if you like.

Perhaps I am missing your point, but IMO all the topics you listed are symptomatic of the problems our politicians have with judgment, character, ethics, integrity and morals.  Meaning, if they were sound in those areas, we wouldn't have to worry about racism, sexism, cronyism, "pushing the envelope as to guilt/innocence.  I am talking about the candidates themselves because they, themselves, are the ones displaying these behaviors.  There have been several of us here who have said our standards are in these sorts of things, but there's been no real discussion about the ethics behind (insert topic of discussion here), or what it says about person X's character if we observe them doing/saying Y.  99.999999% of the discussions immediately gravitate to "what he/she did was/wasn't illegal so______" and my favorite "everyone else does it too" types of discussions.  I don't believe there is any genuine desire to look at the core of these people...it's too depressing.

 

[cstu]

which ones of you are this?    https://stream.org/astroturf-outrage-machine-of-paid-trolls-floods-social-media-to-counteract-negative-news-about-hillary-clinton/

WTF, I could get paid for this???

 

[cstu]

My issue is the levity with which she relays the tale.  Most would consider it a grim duty and dirty task, but she's doing victory laps and laughing...it kind of abhorrent

Laughter is a coping mechanism. 

 

[tommyboy]

except for Khalid Sheik Mohammed.   We should have just shot him in the head

 

[TobiasFunke]

Perhaps I am missing your point, but IMO all the topics you listed are symptomatic of the problems our politicians have with judgment, character, ethics, integrity and morals.  Meaning, if they were sound in those areas, we wouldn't have to worry about racism, sexism, cronyism, "pushing the envelope as to guilt/innocence.  I am talking about the candidates themselves because they, themselves, are the ones displaying these behaviors.  There have been several of us here who have said our standards are in these sorts of things, but there's been no real discussion about the ethics behind (insert topic of discussion here), or what it says about person X's character if we observe them doing/saying Y.  99.999999% of the discussions immediately gravitate to "what he/she did was/wasn't illegal so______" and my favorite "everyone else does it too" types of discussions.  I don't believe there is any genuine desire to look at the core of these people...it's too depressing.

Yeah, you totally lost me here. The stuff I listed was external. The notion that, for example, the virulent strain of bigotry among resentful white males brought out from under a rock by Trump's candidacy is not "symptomatic" of a problem with our politicians. I'd say the exact opposite- some of the politicians we've been nominating and electing lately are a symptom of the problems of bigotry, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, etc. If you think "the candidates themselves" are the ones displaying these behaviors, you are very very wrong.

This reads like a strained effort to raise and defend your "I'll only vote for someone who meets my standards no matter who they're running against" position. I really don't feel like debating that perspective any more. I was talking about something totally different. I was disputing the idea that this campaign wasn't addressing the important issues, I think it's brought up some incredibly important stuff that needed to be discussed.

 

[knowledge dropper]

which ones of you are this?    https://stream.org/astroturf-outrage-machine-of-paid-trolls-floods-social-media-to-counteract-negative-news-about-hillary-clinton/

That certainty explains the faux outrage at decades old comments by Trump.  So pathetic.  

 

[Joe Summer]

That certainty explains the faux outrage at decades old comments by Trump. So pathetic.

So you're saying that all of those religious leaders and prominent Republicans are actually paid trolls?

 

[Gr00vus]

That certainty explains the faux outrage at decades old comments by Trump.  So pathetic.  

There's nothing faux about it. What he was saying in that recording was flat our reprehensible. And there's no time limit on reprehensible. Particularly when the guy hasn't changed at all since those statements were made.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

There's nothing faux about it. What he was saying in that recording was flat our reprehensible. And There's no time limit on reprehensible. Particularly when the guy hasn't changed at all since those statements were made.

They prefer deplorable FYI.

 

[knowledge dropper]

There's nothing faux about it. What he was saying in that recording was flat our reprehensible. And There's no time limit on reprehensible. Particularly when the guy hasn't changed at all since those statements were made.

Let he who has never talked with his buddies about members of the opposite sex cast the first stone. 

 

[Gr00vus]

They prefer deplorable FYI.

I'm trying to avoid their trigger words. They're so delicate and sensitive, I don't want to unduly upset them. They've got enough to deal with trying to rationalize their defense of this dirtbag.

 

[cobalt_27]

Let he who has never talked with his buddies about members of the opposite sex cast the first stone. 

You need work on your weak strawman.  It's normative to discuss the opposite sex.  It is vile to boast about sexual assault...and, more directly to you, its pathological of you to normalize it.

 

[Gr00vus]

Let he who has never talked with his buddies about members of the opposite sex cast the first stone. 

I've never talked about sexually assaulting anyone. I guess that's a part of your repertoire?

:Warms up first stone throwing arm:

 

[cstu]

Let he who has never talked with his buddies about members of the opposite sex cast the first stone. 

How many times have you bragged to your buddies about hitting on married women while your pregnant wife it at home?

 

[knowledge dropper]

How many times have you bragged to your buddies about hitting on married women while your pregnant wife it at home?

Never.  However, there is no proof he did it and how is this unacceptable and Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, JFK, etc. ok?

Be consistent 

 

[cobalt_27]

Never.  However, there is no proof he did it and how is this unacceptable and Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, JFK, etc. ok?

Be consistent 

It's not ok.  Period.  I know you think changing the subject helps to obscure this issue, but it doesn't. Boasting about sexual assault is awful, period.  Trump boasted about sexual assault, therefore it is awful, independent of what anyone else has said or done.  You defending Trump for boasting about sexual assault is equally awful.

 

[Gr00vus]

Never.  However, there is no proof he did it and how is this unacceptable and Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, JFK, etc. ok?

Be consistent 

No proof? He's on record talking about it. Talking about it is reprehensible enough. Talking is the behavior that is under discussion. If proof comes out that he actually did it, that just makes him even more reprehensible. 

Also, link to where anyone here has said it's o.k. for anybody please.

 

[NCCommish]

Never.  However, there is no proof he did it and how is this unacceptable and Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, JFK, etc. ok?

Be consistent 

No fan of Bills and have called him out many times for his lies. Trump's comments were vile. You know it. I know it. Women know it. And someone else did such and such isn't much of a defense as most of us learned long before we turned 70.

 

[NCCommish]

No proof? He's on record talking about it. Talking about it is reprehensible enough. Talking is the behavior that is under discussion. If proof comes out that he actually did it, that just makes him even more reprehensible. 

Also, link to where anyone here has said it's o.k. for anybody please.

Gloria Alleged has proof lining up. This storm is just getting cranked up.

 

[knowledge dropper]

It's not ok.  Period.  I know you think changing the subject helps buy you some time, but it doesn't. Boasting about sexual assault is awful, period.  Trump boasted about sexual assault, therefore it is awful, independent of what anyone else has said or done.  You defending Trump for boasting about sexual assault is equally awful.

Buying time for what?  You floppers getting all upset over his dumb boastful comments over something he never did is so silly.  If he was actually ACCUSED of grabbing women there it would be a whole different ballgame.  

 

[cobalt_27]

Buying time for what?  You floppers getting all upset over his dumb boastful comments over something he never did is so silly.  If he was actually ACCUSED of grabbing women there it would be a whole different ballgame.  

He has been accused of sexual assault.  Many times.  He has boasted about sexually assaulting women. And somehow in your Trumpkin brain you think he just talks about sexual assault.

 

[Joe Summer]

ledge dropper:

However, there is no proof he did it

There is proof that he bragged about committing sexual assault, something Clinton never did. Also, he basically advocated for sexual assault as a dating "tip" -- again, something that Clinton never did. Those things are indefensible except maybe to the deplorables.

You can argue that all the outrage is really just fake outrage generated by paid internet trolls, but the polls don't support that theory at all. Are you going to start blaming the general public for failing to see that the outrage is manufactured? Because that's the same public that fell for Trump's scam in the first place. Not exactly something you want to hang your hat on.

 

[NCCommish]

Buying time for what?  You floppers getting all upset over his dumb boastful comments over something he never did is so silly.  If he was actually ACCUSED of grabbing women there it would be a whole different ballgame.  

You do realize everything he accused Bill of he has done and been sued for. You do realize women are lining up to tell their story about Trump groping them. This wasn't just talk. It's his life's MO.

 

[Parrothead]

You do realize everything he accused Bill of he has done and been sued for. You do realize women are lining up to tell their story about Trump groping them. This wasn't just talk. It's his life's MO.

i'd love to see Donald and the Clinton's in the same cell block!  (though to be fair, I wouldn't send Hillary to federal pound me in the ### prison)..

 

[TobiasFunke]

More stuff that never happens

New York Times gives Hillary veto power over quotes in their articles

Yeah, this is obviously not a common practice. Obviously some sort of wacky conspiracy must be at work.

Certainly Wikileaks made up this email exchange between a NYT reporter and the Hillary campaign where the reporter blatantly stated "you could veto what you didn't want. That's why I selected the 5 or 6 I sent to you".

Never Happens.

Did you just pull me making fun of you for embracing a nonsense conspiracy theory about Clinton working with AP to "leak" primary delegate counts in June as if it's somehow relevant to this totally unrelated and frankly not all that controversial story about using quotes in a NY Times profile according to a "Lifezette" review of a wikileaks post?

And for that matter ... "Lifezette"?

Let it go, man. So you bought into a silly conspiracy theory that made no sense back in June, and I told you so.  That's fine.  Nobody cares, and nothing that happens after that other than actual evidence that the conspiracy you alleged was real will change that. I didn't hold it against you, and had totally forgotten about it until you brought it up.

You might be better off defending your candidate bragging about sexual assault than peddling this crap.

 

[Gr00vus]

getting all upset over his dumb boastful comments over something he never did is so silly.

No, getting upset about a guy espousing sexual assault is the proper response for any well adjusted human being. You trying to pass it off as no big deal, well, it's not silly, let's go with unsavory for now just to keep things pleasant.

 

[tommyboy]

It's not ok.  Period.  I know you think changing the subject helps to obscure this issue, but it doesn't. Boasting about sexual assault is awful, period.  Trump boasted about sexual assault, therefore it is awful, independent of what anyone else has said or done.  You defending Trump for boasting about sexual assault is equally awful.

I don't think you know what sexual assault is.  Settle down, Gerald 

 

[cobalt_27]

You do realize everything he accused Bill of he has done and been sued for. You do realize women are lining up to tell their story about Trump groping them. This wasn't just talk. It's his life's MO.

And, even if none of this were the case, to use the excuse that it's "just words...just locker room talk" is vile and dangerous.  Regardless, as you noted, there are many accusers who have made public the fact that his behavior corroborates all the boasting about his sexual assault history.

 

[Parrothead]

I don't think you know what sexual assault is.  Settle down, Gerald 

"Hey Griswold, where do you think you are going to put a tree that size?"

"Bend over and I'll show you!"

 

[Gr00vus]

I don't think you know what sexual assault is.  Settle down, Gerald 

Grabbing a woman's ###### when she hasn't given consent is a definition of sexual assault. Pretty sure kissing women when they haven't given consent is sexual assault too, but I'm certain grabbing a woman's ###### when she hasn't given consent is sexual assault.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think you know what sexual assault is.  Settle down, Gerald 

I'm real confident that grabbing someone by the ##### is sexual assault.

 

[cobalt_27]

I don't think you know what sexual assault is.  Settle down, Gerald 

Well, I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about and you support Trump.  

I win.

 

[The Commish]

Yeah, you totally lost me here. The stuff I listed was external. The notion that, for example, the virulent strain of bigotry among resentful white males brought out from under a rock by Trump's candidacy is not "symptomatic" of a problem with our politicians. I'd say the exact opposite- some of the politicians we've been nominating and electing lately are a symptom of the problems of bigotry, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, etc. If you think "the candidates themselves" are the ones displaying these behaviors, you are very very wrong.

This reads like a strained effort to raise and defend your "I'll only vote for someone who meets my standards no matter who they're running against" position. I really don't feel like debating that perspective any more. I was talking about something totally different. I was disputing the idea that this campaign wasn't addressing the important issues, I think it's brought up some incredibly important stuff that needed to be discussed.

I went back and reread it....I misunderstood what you said initially.  Sorry about that.  I think there's good discussion to be had here as well and I start off with a question of "which is it?"  Specifically to the bold above.  Is Trump bringing these people out of the woodwork or is Trump a product of these people?  Personally, I think it's the former.  These people are all over the place.  What's unique, from my point of observation is that these people have never had a single person that was willing to represent them in all facets.  We have always had politicians that play to the "women are lesser" crowd.  Our laws and treatment of women in the workplace reflect this clearly.  Bigotry is on full display at all times in our society.  Anti-intellectualism is a core portion of politics in this country.  There's plenty of evidence of this in both parties. And there's plenty of evidence that these groups of people are pandered to election after election.  The difference this time around is Trump has decided to pander to all of them in the most anti-PC way possible.  

I don't think there are a ton of people who think all the various things that Trump is spewing.  Most might be in line with 1 or 2 (max) of his positions.  That seems to be all it takes on the GOP side of the isle (this goes to how anti-intellectualism manifests itself in the GOP).  However, there has to be SOMETHING that brings them all together.  I believe that something is fear which is manifest in anger.  So my question is, what the hell are people afraid of?  If I had to guess, people are afraid because they don't feel like they can trust that the government is on their side.  As of today, I think it all stems from that.  Question is, how does it get fixed?

 

[tommyboy]

I don't support trump but I also don't give a #### about his locker room bragging. 

I highly doubt trump is getting any hot chicks he didn't pay for in advance

 

[Gr00vus]

I don't support trump but I also don't give a #### about his locker room bragging. 

I highly doubt trump is getting any hot chicks he didn't pay for in advance

Espousing sexual assault != locker room bragging. Are you o.k. with espousing sexual assault? Because that's what Trump was doing. Trying to pass that off as innocuous stupid guy banter is a pretty shameful thing to attempt.

 

[cobalt_27]

I don't support trump but I also don't give a #### about his locker room bragging. 

I highly doubt trump is getting any hot chicks he didn't pay for in advance

Take a step back for a second.  You shouldn't care about locker room bragging about consensual conquests.  But, I sure hope you care when you hear about non-consensual sexual assault.  The latter is what Trump boasted about.