Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (1 Viewer)

[Sinn Fein]

As do the people who refuse to vote for her because they don't love her.

This argument- let's call it the Commish/Sinn Fein argument -is based on the obviously false premise that negative results can be isolated to a single cause.  That's not the case.  If Trump is elected president we'll all bear some measure of responsibility. Yes, that includes Clinton and those who supported her in the primary assuming there was another option who would have won... but it also includes those who refused to vote for her in the general election even though they are intelligent enough to see that she's clearly preferable to Trump. You don't get a pass, because nobody ever gets exactly what they want, and you should act accordingly.

Hell if it were up to me we'd amend the Constitution and give Obama a third term. But I'm not gonna blame the people who enacted the 22nd Amendment if Trump wins, because that would be stupid and pointless.  You play the cards you're dealt.

You've got to know when to hold 'em,

Know when to fold 'em

Know when to walk away,

And, know when to run....

 

[The Commish]

To be fair, the recent sniping with Tim hasn't exactly been enticing reading

I understand your perspective.  I'm simply saying that your decision to vote in that manner means you'll bear some responsibility if Trump loses (assuming you would vote Clinton if you were forced to pick one of the two). And to be clear I would also bear some responsibility, either for not doing enough to support an alternative during the primaries or for not doing enough to support Clinton during the general.  Neither of us would bear as much responsibility as a Trump voter, of course, but that doesn't mean we get off scot-free.  We're all in this mess together.

To an extent (as you say) of course.  I've never said otherwise.  At this point, I feel like the parent who keeps telling their kid not to touch the hot stove.  Up til this point, I've slapped his hand away time and time again.  Well, I'm tired of the kid not listening, so I am thinking, maybe it's time for him to learn the hard way.  I'll continue to tell him it's not a good idea to touch the hot stove, but if he reaches for it, that's on him.  Maybe he'll learn that way.  If not, I'll have to regroup and figure something else out.  

 

[timschochet]

It's like you haven't read a thing I've posted.  I have never, ever played the "Don't look at me, I didn't vote for....." card and I fully acknowledge there are many moving pieces.  I have four cards to play this go around.  I'll play the one that best suits the direction I think this country should go, just like I do every other election.

The problem I have with most of the    around this subject is the insistence that I only have two cards.  That's categorically false.

Why only 4 cards? You can write in anyone you'd like, which makes your amount of cards theoretically infinite. And anyone you write in has as much chance as Johnson or Stein. Which is zero. 

If you were trying to decide who might be national champion in football this season, would you spend hours studying the schedules for Idaho and North Texas? 

 

[The Commish]

It's like you haven't read a thing I've posted.  I have never, ever played the "Don't look at me, I didn't vote for....." card and I fully acknowledge there are many moving pieces.  I have four cards to play this go around.  I'll play the one that best suits the direction I think this country should go, just like I do every other election.

The problem I have with most of the    around this subject is the insistence that I only have two cards.  That's categorically false.

Why only 4 cards? You can write in anyone you'd like, which makes your amount of cards theoretically infinite. And anyone you write in has as much chance as Johnson or Stein. Which is zero. 

If you were trying to decide who might be national champion in football this season, would you spend hours studying the schedules for Idaho and North Texas?

Not in my state...or a lot of states actually.  

ETA:  And I am not trying to predict something here...I'm trying to make something happen.  Not sure what your analogy has to do with this particular situation.  I predicted months ago that Hillary would be our next President, but she seems to be trying to prove me wrong.

 

[TobiasFunke]

To an extent (as you say) of course.  I've never said otherwise.  At this point, I feel like the parent who keeps telling their kid not to touch the hot stove.  Up til this point, I've slapped his hand away time and time again.  Well, I'm tired of the kid not listening, so I am thinking, maybe it's time for him to learn the hard way.  I'll continue to tell him it's not a good idea to touch the hot stove, but if he reaches for it, that's on him.  Maybe he'll learn that way.  If not, I'll have to regroup and figure something else out.  

I'm not entirely sure what is what in this metaphor, but given your general distaste for "establishment" politics I'm not sure a Trump win would be the lesson you think it would be.  He would very likely be a complete disaster, and the most likely result of a non-establishment outsider populist type being a complete disaster would be to further entrench the establishment. It would be a "don't know what you've got 'till it's gone" type thing.  And every politician who promised to shake things up in the future would be tied to Trump by their opponents.

 

[cobalt_27]

If it wasn't for people like you, Trump would be getting pounded by a better candidate.  (I don't necessarily mean Bernie -- there would have been other folks in the race if Clinton hadn't strong-armed everybody out).  In the highly unlikely event that Trump wins, Clinton cheerleaders need to take a long look in the mirror.  You guys backed the only candidate he could possibly beat.

This is so spot on, it's sad.  I place substantial blame on people like @timschochet who promoted Hillary, not just as a good Presidential candidate, but laughably as one who would win over voters and easily win.  He and others buried their heads in the sand with her, obfuscated or otherwise evaded the facts and her deficiencies, and put this country in jeopardy for supporting such a vile, corrupt candidate who is on the verge of losing to a crazy person.  

I understand and agree to an extent with Tonias Funk's argument that Trump voters bear the blame as well.  Obviously they do.  But, some of us have been pleading with people to take off their rose colored glasses with Hillary and take a step back and survey just how threatening she was as a candidate in the democratic race...that she has decades of skirting the truth and with the looming server and foundation scandals, she was unfit to present to the rest of the country, even as an alternative to Trump.  Think of how crazy this is...that anyone could lose to Trump.  But, some of us were very adamant from the beginning that the one person who could lose was Hillary.  And Tim and others just put up garbage crap, so out of touch with politics and her compromised candidacy that we are on the brink of a crisis if she loses.

And, not to lay all the blame on Tim.  Of course he is not fully responsible.  But, he represents that large enough swath of blind cheerleaders who paid no attention, couldn't be bothered by other opinions, let alone informing themselves of Hillary's political problems, and were otherwise close-minded fools.  They bear so much blame for is if she loses.

 

[timschochet]

Hey nice to know I'm not fully responsible. 

I wanted Hillary because of all the candidates with a chance of winning, she represents the closest to what I believe. If she wins I will be very happy, obviously. But if she loses I will not blame anybody. And if anyone wants to blame me, as Cobalt is already doing, all I can say is that I will always be proud I supported her and was vocal about it. 

 

[Aerial Assault]

let's call it the Commish/Sinn Fein argument 

oof

 

[The Commish]

I'm most concerned about the reality that the dem party is on the same track the GOP is (all be it very early on said path).  The ground swell is beginning and people are complaining about the shady practices and that they aren't being listened to.  The last thing we need is two parties in the same state the GOP is in right now, so every time I see a candidate that adds fuel to that fire, you can be assured I am not voting for that candidate because, to me, that's just adding fuel to the fire.  

This isn't about Trump for me.  The GOP is burning to the ground.  For it to be viable, it has to be rebuilt.  

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Not sure how you see this analogy. Personally, as you know, I don't regard Hillary as a crappy candidate. But if you do, I argue that it's irrelevant. 

Among registered voters, 38% have a favorable view of Hillary and 37% have a favorable view of Trump.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is so spot on, it's sad.  I place substantial blame on people like @timschochet who promoted Hillary, not just as a good Presidential candidate, but laughably as one who would win over voters and easily win.  He and others buried their heads in the sand with her, obfuscated or otherwise evaded the facts and her deficiencies, and put this country in jeopardy for supporting such a vile, corrupt candidate who is on the verge of losing to a crazy person.  

I understand and agree to an extent with Tonias Funk's argument that Trump voters bear the blame as well.  Obviously they do.  But, some of us have been pleading with people to take off their rose colored glasses with Hillary and take a step back and survey just how threatening she was as a candidate in the democratic race...that she has decades of skirting the truth and with the looming server and foundation scandals, she was unfit to present to the rest of the country, even as an alternative to Trump.  Think of how crazy this is...that anyone could lose to Trump.  But, some of us were very adamant from the beginning that the one person who could lose was Hillary.  And Tim and others just put up garbage crap, so out of touch with politics and her compromised candidacy that we are on the brink of a crisis if she loses.

And, not to lay all the blame on Tim.  Of course he is not fully responsible.  But, he represents that large enough swath of blind cheerleaders who paid no attention, couldn't be bothered by other opinions, let alone informing themselves of Hillary's political problems, and were otherwise close-minded fools.  They bear so much blame for is if she loses.

Sorry, but this fact doesn't absolve you of responsibility if Trump wins (even if we assume it's true, which it might not be).

I've been saying for years that term limits are silly and undemocratic and unhelpful, but if he wins I'm not gonna crow about it and blame everyone who didn't listen to me. I wish we lived in a world where Obama could run for a third term that he would almost certainly win, just as you wish we lived in a world where Sanders or some other person was the Democratic nominee.  But we don't live in that world, and people have to take responsibility for their actions in the world we do live in.

 

[Slapdash]

Even if you don't like her, please vote for her anyhow. Trump's numbers are rising; nobody can afford to stay on the sidelines any longer. 

If it wasn't for people like you, Trump would be getting pounded by a better candidate.  (I don't necessarily mean Bernie -- there would have been other folks in the race if Clinton hadn't strong-armed everybody out).  In the highly unlikely event that Trump wins, Clinton cheerleaders need to take a long look in the mirror.  You guys backed the only candidate he could possibly beat.

 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

If someone says they're not voting for Trump, that should be enough. as long as Trump doesn't get the vote. It comes down to 2012 Obama voters not switching to Trump, and getting out to vote. Face it, the anti-Hillary crowd may have different arguments, but it's the same outcome, they very likely didn't vote for Obama either. And IIRC, some folks in here voted Romney in 2012 and are going Hillary now. The idea that Trump/Romney/McCain voters have to vote for Hillary probably isn't needed to beat Trump.

 

[HellToupee]

I'm most concerned about the reality that the dem party is on the same track the GOP is (all be it very early on said path).  The ground swell is beginning and people are complaining about the shady practices and that they aren't being listened to.  The last thing we need is two parties in the same state the GOP is in right now, so every time I see a candidate that adds fuel to that fire, you can be assured I am not voting for that candidate because, to me, that's just adding fuel to the fire.  

This isn't about Trump for me.  The GOP is burning to the ground.  For it to be viable, it has to be rebuilt.  

Burn both parties to the ground and then salt the earth

 

[cstu]

If it wasn't for people like you, Trump would be getting pounded by a better candidate.  (I don't necessarily mean Bernie -- there would have been other folks in the race if Clinton hadn't strong-armed everybody out).  In the highly unlikely event that Trump wins, Clinton cheerleaders need to take a long look in the mirror.  You guys backed the only candidate he could possibly beat.

How is it any of our fault that Clinton strong-armed everyone out?  Chafee, Webb, and Lessig dropped out before the primary even started so no one had a chance to support them.  O'Malley dropped out after the Iowa caucus when he got 0.6% of the delegates.  All that was left was to support Bernie or Hillary - I supported Bernie and donated to his campaign. 

What else was I supposed to do to stop Hillary?

 

[bagger]

How is it any of our fault that Clinton strong-armed everyone out?  Chafee, Webb, and Lessig dropped out before the primary even started so no one had a chance to support them.  O'Malley dropped out have the Iowa caucus when he got 0.6% of the delegates.  All that was left was to support Bernie or Hillary - I supported Bernie and donated to his campaign. 

What else was I supposed to do to stop Hillary?

2nd amendment rights apparently.

 

[HellToupee]

How is it any of our fault that Clinton strong-armed everyone out?  Chafee, Webb, and Lessig dropped out before the primary even started so no one had a chance to support them.  O'Malley dropped out have the Iowa caucus when he got 0.6% of the delegates.  All that was left was to support Bernie or Hillary - I supported Bernie and donated to his campaign. 

What else was I supposed to do to stop Hillary?

You were helpless . The DNC pulled this in MA when Warren was running for the senate. They threatened to take away any future support to him if he stayed in the race.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I think my anti-Hillary stance is well-established, but there is a certain irony to the GOPers pointing out that the DNC is to blame for orchestrating the Clinton Coronation, while the GOP sat haplessly by and allowed Trump to steal their nomination.

Somehow both parties managed to do their worst here - and that is how we ended up in this quagmire.  DNC should not have strong armed the legit candidates out of the race before it started, and the GOP should have been better organized to coalesce behind a "mainstream" GOP candidate, rather than allow the 18-ring circus to continue as long as it did.

 

[Guest]

Why people really don't trust Clintons:

www.politico.com/story/2016/08/bill-clinton-used-tax-dollars-to-subsidize-foundation-private-email-support-teneo-227613

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why people really don't trust Clintons:

www.politico.com/story/2016/08/bill-clinton-used-tax-dollars-to-subsidize-foundation-private-email-support-teneo-227613

Here's a version that goes clicky.

Bill Clinton aides used tax dollars to subsidize foundation, private email support

Program for ex-presidents paid salaries and benefits to Clinton aides at the center of controversies

- This gets to the heart of what we have been saying: PUBLIC resources and advantages used for PRIVATE benefit.

- And by the way I think it is getting more and more likely that Hillary's data was intermixed on the same server allowing Foundation and Teneo access. Which is another component to the above but also adds the extra problem of Classified information being open to those without clearance.

 

[Guest]

Here's a version that goes clicky.

- This gets to the heart of what we have been saying: PUBLIC resources and advantages used for PRIVATE benefit.

Hidden from view and when discovered, "Well, look, we didn't do anything illegal and other presidents did it too."  No contrition.  Distorted facts.  Entitlement.  

 

[IC FBGCav]

As do the people who refuse to vote for her because they don't love her.

This argument- let's call it the Commish/Sinn Fein argument -is based on the obviously false premise that negative results can be isolated to a single cause.  That's not the case.  If Trump is elected president we'll all bear some measure of responsibility. Yes, that includes Clinton and those who supported her in the primary assuming there was another option who would have won... but it also includes those who refused to vote for her in the general election even though they are intelligent enough to see that she's clearly preferable to Trump. You don't get a pass, because nobody ever gets exactly what they want, and you should act accordingly.

Hell if it were up to me we'd amend the Constitution and give Obama a third term. But I'm not gonna blame the people who enacted the 22nd Amendment if Trump wins, because that would be stupid and pointless.  You play the cards you're dealt. Hillary dealt.

Fixed.   

 

[IC FBGCav]

If someone says they're not voting for Trump, that should be enough. as long as Trump doesn't get the vote. It comes down to 2012 Obama voters not switching to Trump, and getting out to vote. Face it, the anti-Hillary crowd may have different arguments, but it's the same outcome, they very likely didn't vote for Obama either. And IIRC, some folks in here voted Romney in 2012 and are going Hillary now. The idea that Trump/Romney/McCain voters have to vote for Hillary probably isn't needed to beat Trump.

I voted Bill twice and Obama twice and will never cast my vote for HRC.   The hate for HRC is not a partisan thing, time to wake up.

 

[Da Guru]

During the American Legion speech she looked pale and exhausted with huge bags under her eyes, and was practically mumbling. Very low energy. Sad!

I agree something is not right. Dr. Drew was fired for saying she has serious health issues. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

March 2015:

A Clinton spokesman also emphasized that no taxpayer money was used to purchase or maintain a private email server operated for the former president’s staff starting in 2007, which Hillary Clinton started using in 2009.

Today:

Taxpayer cash was used to buy IT equipment — including servers — housed at the Clinton Foundation, and also to supplement the pay and benefits of several aides now at the center of the email and cash-for-access scandals dogging Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

- I think it's just a matter of time when Foundation becomes Teneo.

 

[cstu]

Here's a version that goes clicky.

- This gets to the heart of what we have been saying: PUBLIC resources and advantages used for PRIVATE benefit.

- And by the way I think it is getting more and more likely that Hillary's data was intermixed on the same server allowing Foundation and Teneo access. Which is another component to the above but also adds the extra problem of Classified information being open to those without clearance.

The public resources are part of an ex-President's pension.  As far as I know there are no rules about what the employees he hires can and cannot do.

 

[cstu]

I think my anti-Hillary stance is well-established, but there is a certain irony to the GOPers pointing out that the DNC is to blame for orchestrating the Clinton Coronation, while the GOP sat haplessly by and allowed Trump to steal their nomination.

Somehow both parties managed to do their worst here - and that is how we ended up in this quagmire.  DNC should not have strong armed the legit candidates out of the race before it started, and the GOP should have been better organized to coalesce behind a "mainstream" GOP candidate, rather than allow the 18-ring circus to continue as long as it did.

Where's the line when it comes to this stuff?  The DNC went overboard pushing Hillary but on the other hand if the GOP had pushed harder then Trump wouldn't be the nominee. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The public resources are part of an ex-President's pension.  As far as I know there are no rules about what the employees he hires can and cannot do.

This is a new one on me. Bill had a multi million dollar consulting business - he made 6 mill on consulting vs 9 mill on speaking fees in 2013 or so IIRC.

You think other presidents have gotten as much as or close to $16 million in PUBLIC money so presidents can go profit to the tune of $15 million in PERSONAL profit a year? And you think we the people have been paying the salaries and benefits for the managers and directors at private entities? I'd like to see the homework on that.

You're telling me that the US government has been paying the salaries of people like Justin Cooper who work at private consulting firms? Gonna need a link.

 

[timschochet]

I think my anti-Hillary stance is well-established, but there is a certain irony to the GOPers pointing out that the DNC is to blame for orchestrating the Clinton Coronation, while the GOP sat haplessly by and allowed Trump to steal their nomination.

Somehow both parties managed to do their worst here - and that is how we ended up in this quagmire.  DNC should not have strong armed the legit candidates out of the race before it started, and the GOP should have been better organized to coalesce behind a "mainstream" GOP candidate, rather than allow the 18-ring circus to continue as long as it did.

With regard to the DNC, what you have stated is simply false and it's getting repeated so often by people like yourself that I'm starting to be afraid that it will be taken for granted (much as Hillary's supposed "corruption" is now assumed by so many people.) 

The DNC had almost NO effect on choosing the Democratic nominee. Had there been no DNC, Hillary would have been the nominee. Had the DNC supported somebody else, Hillary would have been the nominee. This is because she had (1) full name recognition (2) overwhelming support from black voters (3) there was nobody in the Democratic field with the charisma and newness (first serious black candidate) of a Barack Obama. In the end Biden, Booker, Kaine, Warren etc. chose not to run because they would have had no chance against Hillary. Nobody strong armed them; nobody had to.  The moment Hillary decided to run again she was a shoo in for the nomination. 

 

[timschochet]

but on the other hand if the GOP had pushed harder then Trump wouldn't be the nominee. 

I don't think this is true either. Ultimately Trump is the nominee because the conservative base agreed with him about immigration issues, trade, and Muslims. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think this is true either. Ultimately Trump is the nominee because the conservative base agreed with him about immigration issues, trade, and Muslims. 

Did you read BS's article? Is there anything in there that you took away from that, in terms of actual information about why Hillary is (supposedly, per you) struggling?

 

[timschochet]

I voted Bill twice and Obama twice and will never cast my vote for HRC.   The hate for HRC is not a partisan thing, time to wake up.

It mostly is. About 90% of those who hate Hillary are Republicans, I would guess. A Dem voter like yourselves represents a distinct minority IMO. 

 

[BeaverCleaver]

It mostly is. About 90% of those who hate Hillary are Republicans, I would guess. A Dem voter like yourselves represents a distinct minority IMO. 

A lot of Bernie supporters don't like her as well.

 

[Guest]

Clintons are lawyers with no principle.  What I yearn for would be a leader that doesn't need to have things constantly discovered, but would instead proactively lead.  

"We are going to take proactive measures to recuse ourselves from situations that are a conflict of interest.  We are going to fund our own staffs and not rely on public funding.  We are going to take measures to ensure transparency and fairness.  We are going to take steps to ensure compliance with laws and regulations meant to ensure open government."

Clinton doesn't lead in this way, and she has no such principles -- which are all that People really want.  Instead she is shifty, duplicitous and unworthy of high office.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

Where's the line when it comes to this stuff?  The DNC went overboard pushing Hillary but on the other hand if the GOP had pushed harder then Trump wouldn't be the nominee. 

My take, for whatever its worth, is that each party should protect their interests.  For the DNC, I think the mistake they made was in determining their interests before anything got sorted.  I don't think Bernie was ever going to be their guy - but he exposed enough flaws that a mainstream democrat could have gotten a foothold in the primaries.  Except that the DNC/Clinton Machine kept everyone out - there were no endorsements or big money donors willing to back anyone else.  That was a mistake - assuming Clinton was the best candidate.  As it is, they picked the one candidate who could lose to Donald Trump - no matter how you slice it - that is a mistake.

For the GOP, I think they tried - but again backed the wrong horse initially - Jeb Bush.  But, even as bad as Jeb was in the primaries - I think the GOP would kill (amirite 2nd Amendmenters?)  to have Jeb Bush as their candidate now.  I am assuming the GOP looked a Trump the same way I did - he has a low ceiling, and will start to lose when the field narrows.  I was wrong, but I don't get paid to be right on that decision.  The GOP should have been thinking big picture - and house and senate races - and started to winnow the field much sooner than they did.  Maybe it was backing Rubio or Kasich, and getting the party leaders organized behind one candidate.  As it is, they let Trump win the nomination, who is literally the only person in the country who could lose to Hillary Clinton in a general election - that is a mistake.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It mostly is. About 90% of those who hate Hillary are Republicans, I would guess. A Dem voter like yourselves represents a distinct minority IMO. 

You're confusing issues again - Democrats who dislike Hillary is not the same as Democrats who won't vote for her.

Hillary's Unfav number among Dems >10%.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Clintons are lawyers with no principle.  What I yearn for would be a leader that doesn't need to have things constantly discovered, but would instead proactively lead.  

"We are going to take proactive measures to recuse ourselves from situations that are a conflict of interest.  We are going to fund our own staffs and not rely on public funding.  We are going to take measures to ensure transparency and fairness.  We are going to take steps to ensure compliance with laws and regulations meant to ensure open government."

Clinton doesn't lead in this way, and she has no such principles.  Instead she is shifty, duplicitous and unworthy of high office.  

And you know what, it matters, in a number of ways.

It's not just the moral issue or the diminished leadership and the affect on national pride and respect for government, it also diminishes our resources and time, and it gets used as a wedge by both sides in public policy debates. It corrupts and corrodes our process and governance in a myriad of ways.

 

[The Commish]

I think my anti-Hillary stance is well-established, but there is a certain irony to the GOPers pointing out that the DNC is to blame for orchestrating the Clinton Coronation, while the GOP sat haplessly by and allowed Trump to steal their nomination.

Somehow both parties managed to do their worst here - and that is how we ended up in this quagmire.  DNC should not have strong armed the legit candidates out of the race before it started, and the GOP should have been better organized to coalesce behind a "mainstream" GOP candidate, rather than allow the 18-ring circus to continue as long as it did.

Where's the line when it comes to this stuff?  The DNC went overboard pushing Hillary but on the other hand if the GOP had pushed harder then Trump wouldn't be the nominee. 

Might as well throw the press/media in this bonfire too....their failure to bring to light the Trump nonsense early and often was a significant contributing factor to his success.  Focusing on his  rather than his lack of information/thoughts/ideas/plans got them eyeballs all while throwing legitimacy towards what would be considered absurd in other election cycles.

 

[Sinn Fein]

With regard to the DNC, what you have stated is simply false and it's getting repeated so often by people like yourself that I'm starting to be afraid that it will be taken for granted (much as Hillary's supposed "corruption" is now assumed by so many people.) 

The DNC had almost NO effect on choosing the Democratic nominee. Had there been no DNC, Hillary would have been the nominee. Had the DNC supported somebody else, Hillary would have been the nominee. This is because she had (1) full name recognition (2) overwhelming support from black voters (3) there was nobody in the Democratic field with the charisma and newness (first serious black candidate) of a Barack Obama. In the end Biden, Booker, Kaine, Warren etc. chose not to run because they would have had no chance against Hillary. Nobody strong armed them; nobody had to.  The moment Hillary decided to run again she was a shoo in for the nomination. 

Tim - get your head out of the sand.

Ask yourself why there were not more mainstream democrats running to replace a popular Democratic president?  Clinton had locked up the endorsements and the big money donors before the race ever began.  At that point, any democrat who dared to cross the line risked political suicide.  The DNC allowed that to happen.

Hillary found herself in a tight race against a 74-yo Socialist from Vermont, who funded his campaign with small donations.  If that does not show you how flawed she is - then you just decide to ignore the obvious.

 

[timschochet]

You're confusing issues again - Democrats who dislike Hillary is not the same as Democrats who won't vote for her.

Hillary's Unfav number among Dems >10%.

Lots of Dems dislike Hillary. Dislike is not the same as hate. Almost all of the hatred comes from the right. 

 

[timschochet]

Tim - get your head out of the sand.

Ask yourself why there were not more mainstream democrats running to replace a popular Democratic president?  Clinton had locked up the endorsements and the big money donors before the race ever began.  At that point, any democrat who dared to cross the line risked political suicide.  The DNC allowed that to happen.

Hillary found herself in a tight race against a 74-yo Socialist from Vermont, who funded his campaign with small donations.  If that does not show you how flawed she is - then you just decide to ignore the obvious.

She locked up the donors because of her name recognition, not because the DNC allowed it to happen. Nobody could have beaten her. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Lots of Dems dislike Hillary. Dislike is not the same as hate. Almost all of the hatred comes from the right. 

Enough with the 'hate' bs. Hillary is a flawed candidate and a flawed person. She stands for nothing people would hate her for. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The 'Hillary hate' bit should go right next to the VRWC bs that Hillary's people put out to drive supporters emotionally. If you fall into it that's on you.

 

[timschochet]

Enough with the 'hate' bs. Hillary is a flawed candidate and a flawed person. She stands for nothing people would hate her for. 

The hatred is very real. A big chunk of the reason for Trump is the right's hatred of Obama and Hillary. We're not talking about dislike or opposition to policy- it's an emotional irrational hate. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The hatred is very real. A big chunk of the reason for Trump is the right's hatred of Obama and Hillary. We're not talking about dislike or opposition to policy- it's an emotional irrational hate. 

Ok Bush hate, Obama hate, Bill Clinton hate, Romney Bane hate, Palin hate, go on....

 

[timschochet]

Ok Bush hate, Obama hate, Bill Clinton hate, Romney Bane hate, Palin hate, go on....

It's gotten worse every election. But I don't think anybody hated Romney...

 

[Guest]

The hatred is very real. A big chunk of the reason for Trump is the right's hatred of Obama and Hillary. We're not talking about dislike or opposition to policy- it's an emotional irrational hate. 

I don't hate.  I have extreme disappntment in a system that annoints people who should need us more than we need them into a construct where it's the other way around.  There are basic flaws in the brains of those who lean strongly left, and those who lean strongly right.  In the case of the left, there's a childlike want to be parented and to blindly adhere to a saccharine set of politely beige ideals while demanding conformity over substance.  The right's abberations are more pronounced, but the left wants to abandon all of the rugged individualism and scrappy ingenuity that made this country for a mommy and daddy monarchy that allows them to grow up spoiled and entitled brats.  In that case, Hillary is your perfect choice.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's gotten worse every election. But I don't think anybody hated Romney...

But they definitely hated Bush, right? I mean American casualties is obviously a big deal, so I wouldn't compare that, but he difference with Hillary is you just don't think corruption is a big deal or a legitimate issue. Others do. And you may hate Trump, but hey once you start 'hating' you're hating.

 

[timschochet]

But they definitely hated Bush, right? I mean American casualties is obviously a big deal, so I wouldn't compare that, but he difference with Hillary is you just don't think corruption is a big deal or a legitimate issue. Others do. And you may hate Trump, but hey once you start 'hating' you're hating.

I don't hate Trump. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't hate Trump. 

I don't think you do either. Your position is rational, emotional but rational and grounded. So not hate.