Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

No, its not.

Get Sanders on the ballot.  Every sane person in the USA will vote for him.  Put Hillary on there and I'm "wasting" my vote on Johnson.

From both a moral and practical standpoint the Democratic party can't simply override the nominee selected by its voters.  Not only would it damage the brand long term, it would also cut into Sanders numbers and their chances in down ballot races. Those head to head polling numbers that make Sanders look so good are hypotheticals that don't account for how he would get the nomination. If he got it because the Dems decided to ignore the preferences of women/African-Americans/southerners to nominate the old white guy from the Northeast, a huge chunk of Sanders' support in those head-to-head polls vs Trump would disappear in the blink of an eye. 

You think Sanders supporters are bitter?  Imagine if someone actually got the nomination stolen from them by the party instead of just offering up crazy conspiracy theories about how that might have happened.

 

[The Commish]

At some point we draw a line in the sand and determine enough is enough.  I've never had a major party candidate I'd be willing to vote for ever.  I now have one and the DNC is hell bent in cutting off it's nose to spite it's face just because "it's Hillary's time".  Why would I support that?  Why would I want to support either party?  They've been in charge of this country for a long time.  Wall Street is doing fine, but the average Joe is not.  What's in it for me to support someone who doesn't support me or fight for things I deem worth fighting for?

Because it's rational.  

Don't think that word means what you think it means.  There's nothing rational about voting someone into office that you think is part of the problem and it doesn't matter if the other person is a larger/smaller part of the problem.  Votes for either are a vote for problems.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Don't think that word means what you think it means.  There's nothing rational about voting someone into office that you think is part of the problem and it doesn't matter if the other person is a larger part of the problem.  Votes for either are a vote for problems.

I think maybe you don't know what the word means.  Just because something is problematic doesn't mean it's not rational to choose it.  People make rational choices to do something they don't like just because it helps them avoid something they hate a lot more all the time. This is no different.

You can choose not to do so if you want, to stand on the sidelines rather than joining the fight against the worse of two evils just because you just can't stomach joining up with the lesser evil.  But that's a decision based on principle, not rationality. One of them is going to win.

And don't give me that "long term view" nonsense either.  A Trump victory would be a disaster in the long term when it comes to issues of ethics and accountability, because he would have illustrated that they don't matter to voters and provided a road map for how to succeed without worrying about them.

 

[Zegras11]

Ethics and accountability are what Clinton is all about.  

 

[RCon]

Why? Why can't you say, for example: "I am putting aside all of my concerns with Hillary Clinton for the time being because the greater goal is to defeat Donald Trump." This was essentially Jerry Brown's position yesterday when he endorsed her. If you mean what you say why can't you do the same thing? 

What if my actual position is "Trump must be defeated at all costs, and I'm extremely worried that Hillary will lose to him because she's so horrid"?  Then, shouldn't I be railing against her now in hopes that she will be indicted sooner rather than later, in hopes that the DNC will come to its senses and tell her to step down, in hopes that her supporters will all abandon her now before the convention?

Hell, if you mean what you say, that Trump would be the worst thing ever, you should be jumping on the "Hillary can't be the nominee" bandwagon too, because out of Sanders, Biden, Clinton, Warren, Kerry, etc., the only one that might lose to Trump is...  Clinton.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

People in 2015 were in a bad mood perceiving that all politicians are crooked, that a Bush/Clinton oligarchy would choose our candidate, that the establishment would fix it so it would be so, and that the system was rigged to guarantee it, and so who does the DNC put forward as its candidate, while facing someone who is maybe truly the biggest threat to our republic since Huey Long while at the same time being a great natural politician as it turns out?

Really, great move, Reince Preubus and DWS need to get a motel room together and do meth for a straight week to get their heads straight.

 

[shadrap]

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/01/hillary-clinton-donated-70000-veterans/

Quick calculations:  $15 million to charity.  15 million for expenses & salaries(guess).  $139 million gross income.  Looks more like a Clinton Family cash cow.  IMO

 

[timschochet]

What if my actual position is "Trump must be defeated at all costs, and I'm extremely worried that Hillary will lose to him because she's so horrid"?  Then, shouldn't I be railing against her now in hopes that she will be indicted sooner rather than later, in hopes that the DNC will come to its senses and tell her to step down, in hopes that her supporters will all abandon her now before the convention?

Hell, if you mean what you say, that Trump would be the worst thing ever, you should be jumping on the "Hillary can't be the nominee" bandwagon too, because out of Sanders, Biden, Clinton, Warren, Kerry, etc., the only one that might lose to Trump is...  Clinton.

As I explained to Jayrod- even if I accepted your analysis (I don't) it's too late. Hillary will be the nominee. That ship has sailed. The only question now is whether or not she will be President, or if Trump will. 

 

[Jayrod]

There IS a nomination process and its not over yet.  It is still numerically possible for Sanders to win.  A massive win by Sanders next Tuesday would put him ahead in delegates.  It is a longshot, but there is still a chance.  Your own state alone could swing the primary in his favor.

An indictment announcement sometime this week could do it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[The Commish]

I think maybe you don't know what the word means.  Just because something is problematic doesn't mean it's not rational to choose it.  People make rational choices to do something they don't like just because it helps them avoid something they hate a lot more all the time. This is no different.

You can choose not to do so if you want, to stand on the sidelines rather than joining the fight against the worse of two evils just because you just can't stomach joining up with the lesser evil.  But that's a decision based on principle, not rationality. One of them is going to win.

And don't give me that "long term view" nonsense either.  A Trump victory would be a disaster in the long term when it comes to issues of ethics and accountability, because he would have illustrated that they don't matter to voters and provided a road map for how to succeed without worrying about them.

Again...we are talking from two different perspectives.  I'm looking at the war, not the individual battles.  So if my goal for the war is to win the war and the only way to win that war is make a tough decision to change direction in attempt to get the train back on the tracks, I can't help but look at the two options presented by the GOP/Dems and shake my head.  They aren't going to help with the larger war, so this is a battle I am not really all that interested in "winning" for one problem over another.  It's completely irrational for one to continue to contribute to the problem they are wanting fixed.  Stop digging is a completely rational position in this context.  That's what not voting for these options is...it's the equivalent of ceasing the dig.

ETA:  TL'DR version:

Even if I subscribed to the "anything to defeat Trump" mentality.  Hillary isn't part of the "anything" part of the equation, especially with Sanders still hanging around.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

As I explained to Jayrod- even if I accepted your analysis (I don't) it's too late. Hillary will be the nominee. That ship has sailed. The only question now is whether or not she will be President, or if Trump will. 

I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary in this case because Donald is a buffoon and a joke. If we need to "fix the system", let's do that. Right now, the system provides a choice between 2 options in November. Voting for Trump isn't going to "fix" that.

 

[RCon]

What if my actual position is "Trump must be defeated at all costs, and I'm extremely worried that Hillary will lose to him because she's so horrid"?  Then, shouldn't I be railing against her now in hopes that she will be indicted sooner rather than later, in hopes that the DNC will come to its senses and tell her to step down, in hopes that her supporters will all abandon her now before the convention?

Hell, if you mean what you say, that Trump would be the worst thing ever, you should be jumping on the "Hillary can't be the nominee" bandwagon too, because out of Sanders, Biden, Clinton, Warren, Kerry, etc., the only one that might lose to Trump is...  Clinton.

As I explained to Jayrod- even if I accepted your analysis (I don't) it's too late. Hillary will be the nominee. That ship has sailed. The only question now is whether or not she will be President, or if Trump will. 

The point is that I disagree with you on all of these.  It's not too late.  She is horrid.  She might well lose to this clown.

For sake of argument, assume that I'm right on all of that.  Under those circumstances, shouldn't the goal be to find a way, any way, to have the Democrats choose someone else, anyone else?

 

[The Commish]

A Trump victory would be a disaster in the long term when it comes to issues of ethics and accountability, because he would have illustrated that they don't matter to voters and provided a road map for how to succeed without worrying about them.

And I sort of ignored this because I wanted to address it specifically.  From my POV, the two candidates represent this...not just Trump.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Yeah, I am almost certain to vote 3rd party at this stage - not because they will win - but because if they start to get consistent support, we start to see better candidates, and more nuanced positions.

Neither Clinton nor Trump would make good presidents.  I doubt either would completely sink the country, though I think there are greater risks with Clinton.  My read on Trump is that he is not really a confrontation-type of guy - he barks alot (and likes that type of confrontation) but when it gets down to it - I don't think he will make any critical errors and bite off more than he can chew. 

With Clinton, I can rest assured that abortion rights will remain the same - which is simply not a concern I have - but I do worry that her fiscal policy will be full of short-term bumps, that lead to bubbles, that lead to recessions - see, Bill.  I do worry that her foreign policy will lead us into military conflict unnecessarily, and without proper planning on an end-game - which always makes a bad situation worse.  I trust Clinton slightly more on the environment, but I don't really trust either of them.

i think Joshua had it right the whole time - The only winning move is not to play. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Again...we are talking from two different perspectives.  I'm looking at the war, not the individual battles.  So if my goal for the war is to win the war and the only way to win that war is make a tough decision to change direction in attempt to get the train back on the tracks, I can't help but look at the two options presented by the GOP/Dems and shake my head.  They aren't going to help with the larger war, so this is a battle I am not really all that interested in "winning" for one problem over another.  It's completely irrational for one to continue to contribute to the problem they are wanting fixed.  Stop digging is a completely rational position in this context.  That's what not voting for these options is...it's the equivalent of ceasing the dig.

Except that this analogy doesn't work because we're gonna keep digging even if you personally decide not to participate.  So it's a question of whether you want to at least prevent the hole from being blown a mile wide and a mile deep.

And please don't tell me that they're remotely the same from an ethics and accountability standpoint. Yesterday Trump trashed the press for literally doing their job and holding him accountable for the most basic of promises- donating money to charity as promised. He pens reporters in a cage, paints them as the enemy and sics his devoted cult on them. He refuses to respond to allegations and insists on the veracity of things that have been proven to be false- say what you will of Clinton, but at least when she says something misleading or wrong she generally will explain herself and/or apologize. He refuses to be interviewed on camera (can't answer questions on his own).  He promulgates ridiculous and dangerous anti-science conspiracy theories without remorse.  He won't even comply with the most basic of document requests made of presidential candidates.

This is a "lesser of two evils" contest from an ethics and accountability standpoint only in the sense that a bb gun is the lesser of two evils when compared to a nuclear weapon. I guess it's technically true, but saying it kind of misses the ####ing point.

 

[timschochet]

Yeah, I am almost certain to vote 3rd party at this stage - not because they will win - but because if they start to get consistent support, we start to see better candidates, and more nuanced positions.

Neither Clinton nor Trump would make good presidents.  I doubt either would completely sink the country, though I think there are greater risks with Clinton.  My read on Trump is that he is not really a confrontation-type of guy - he barks alot (and likes that type of confrontation) but when it gets down to it - I don't think he will make any critical errors and bite off more than he can chew. 

With Clinton, I can rest assured that abortion rights will remain the same - which is simply not a concern I have - but I do worry that her fiscal policy will be full of short-term bumps, that lead to bubbles, that lead to recessions - see, Bill.  I do worry that her foreign policy will lead us into military conflict unnecessarily, and without proper planning on an end-game - which always makes a bad situation worse.  I trust Clinton slightly more on the environment, but I don't really trust either of them.

i think Joshua had it right the whole time - The only winning move is not to play. 

It is astounding to me that someone with your stated political beliefs could write "I believe there are greater risks with Clinton."

 

[psychobillies]

Dude on the other side is vilifying and threatening the free press 2nd amendment and its vital role as a check on public officials at every opportunity, embracing conspiracy theories and dangerous lies with no recourse, refusing to release standard information provided by all presidential candidates government officials, and you all are in here complaining about the vagaries of NARA regulations as applied to non-.gov electronic communications while expressing your deep concerns about integrity and accountability.

Is this some sort of weird denial thing?  I don't like what Clinton did with her emails either, but holy ####, if you really care about integrity and accountability and openness as much as you say you do, how about we take down the massive elephant in the room first?

And don't give me that "long term view" nonsense either.  A Trump victory would be a disaster in the long term when it comes to issues of ethics and accountability, because he she would have illustrated that they don't matter to voters and provided a road map for how to succeed without worrying about them.

I can't tell if you're just messing with everyone at this point.  Hillary is just as bad and would be a complete disaster as president.  

 

[squistion]

Rex Huppke ‏@RexHuppke May 30

Bernie Sanders is at the Warriors game. He'll be disappointed when he learns that the the team that scores the most points wins.

 

[BassNBrew]

Except that this analogy doesn't work because we're gonna keep digging even if you personally decide not to participate.  So it's a question of whether you want to at least prevent the hole from being blown a mile wide and a mile deep.

And please don't tell me that they're remotely the same from an ethics and accountability standpoint. Yesterday Trump trashed the press for literally doing their job and holding him accountable for the most basic of promises- donating money to charity as promised. He pens reporters in a cage, paints them as the enemy and sics his devoted cult on them. He refuses to respond to allegations and insists on the veracity of things that have been proven to be false- say what you will of Clinton, but at least when she says something misleading or wrong she generally will explain herself and/or apologize. He refuses to be interviewed on camera (can't answer questions on his own).  He promulgates ridiculous and dangerous anti-science conspiracy theories without remorse.  He won't even comply with the most basic of document requests made of presidential candidates.

This is a "lesser of two evils" contest from an ethics and accountability standpoint only in the sense that a bb gun is the lesser of two evils when compared to a nuclear weapon. I guess it's technically true, but saying it kind of misses the ####ing point.

One could argue that Trump running ethically afoul in the presidency would be easier to expose and defeat given Hillary's superior experience and intellect.  If it's a case of the lesser of two evils, Trump would qualify as the "lesser".

That said, I'd feel far better voting Gary Johnson.  Hopefully he can get a seat on the stage so that his ideas can be discussed and debated.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I can't tell if you're just messing with everyone at this point.  Hillary is just as bad and would be a complete disaster as president.  

Clinton has never vilified or threatened the second amendment (no matter what Infowars and Breitbart tell you). Nor has she refused to release something provided by all government officials.

I've made the case for why i think Trump is way way worse than Clinton on issues of ethics and accountability a couple times. I didn't just say "Trump is terrible on ethics and accountability, much worse than Clinton." I explained why I think that, with actual examples of things he's done that I think are many times worse than conducting State Department business on a private server or having a spouse that collected speaking fees. You're welcome to disagree with that of course, but IMO should do so with actual counterpoints and arguments.

 

[Sinn Fein]

It is astounding to me that someone with your stated political beliefs could write "I believe there are greater risks with Clinton."

I am very serious about that.  I have consistently said I don't trust her domestic policies or her foreign policies - for the reasons I mentioned.  Both tend to be very myopic - which creates bigger long-term problems.

I think Trump is a blowhard.  But, I don't think he is dangerous.  I don't fear him ruling via executive order, the way I fear Clinton will operate by executive order.   I do worry about the effect Trump has on his supporters - but overall, I don't think he would do as much actual damage as Clinton.

 

[Jayrod]

I am very serious about that.  I have consistently said I don't trust her domestic policies or her foreign policies - for the reasons I mentioned.  Both tend to be very myopic - which creates bigger long-term problems.

I think Trump is a blowhard.  But, I don't think he is dangerous.  I don't fear him ruling via executive order, the way I fear Clinton will operate by executive order.   I do worry about the effect Trump has on his supporters - but overall, I don't think he would do as much actual damage as Clinton.

I don't know.  They are both freaking awful.  I can't even hold my nose and decide.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I am very serious about that.  I have consistently said I don't trust her domestic policies or her foreign policies - for the reasons I mentioned.  Both tend to be very myopic - which creates bigger long-term problems.

I think Trump is a blowhard.  But, I don't think he is dangerous.  I don't fear him ruling via executive order, the way I fear Clinton will operate by executive order.   I do worry about the effect Trump has on his supporters - but overall, I don't think he would do as much actual damage as Clinton.

His complete disdain for accountability to the press- and by extension the people- doesn't bother you at all?

IMO people focusing only on what Trump would do in office are missing an important point.  If he wins it validates the notion that our politicians can completely disregard any notion that they have to be truthful and accountable. I know everyone says that every politician lies and evades (Clinton included of course), but Trump is orders of magnitude worse on this front than anyone we've ever seen, Clinton included.  At least most others feel the need to respond when they're accused of lying- Trump vilifies the accuser. If the American people don't hold him accountable for that, why would any other politician in the future feel the need to act differently?

You guys talk about maybe losing this election battle but eventually winning the war, but when it comes to the push for integrity and accountability so popular among Sanders supporters, a Trump general election victory ends the war.  We'll have a new army of post-Trump, post-truth, post-accountability politicians.

 

[pantagrapher]

Your third party vote will have zero effect on anything.

 

[squistion]

I am very serious about that.  I have consistently said I don't trust her domestic policies or her foreign policies - for the reasons I mentioned.  Both tend to be very myopic - which creates bigger long-term problems.

I think Trump is a blowhard.  But, I don't think he is dangerous.  I don't fear him ruling via executive order, the way I fear Clinton will operate by executive order.   I do worry about the effect Trump has on his supporters - but overall, I don't think he would do as much actual damage as Clinton.

You should:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/265371-trump-obama-led-the-way-on-executive-orders

Trump: Obama 'led the way' on executive orders

"I won't refuse it. I'm going to do a lot of things," Trump said when asked if he would use executive orders in an interview Sunday on NBC"s "Meet the Press."

“I mean, he’s led the way, to be honest with you,” he added, referring to Obama.

The Republican primary front-runner said his executive orders, unlike the president’s, will be for the “right things.”

“But I’m going to use them much better and they’re going to serve a much better purpose than he’s done,” he said.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Your third party vote will have zero effect on anything.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Get Sanders on the ballot.  Every sane person in the USA will vote for him.  

No.

One reason why many sane people will not vote for Sanders.

 

[TheNext0]

It's dead simple for me:

Hillary - don't trust her and won't vote for her

Trump - countless reasons I won't vote for him, pick one

Sanders - seems legit, I'd vote for him

If it's truly Hillary v Trump, then I'm sitting this one out.  My gut tells me that Trump can get more enthusiasm from voters than Hillary, so he's got a shot to win.  I don't like it, but I'm real enough with myself to know that I'll be on the sidelines watching this all go down.  Bernie's the only one that would light a fire under my lazy ###.

 

[dparker713]

Usually there is no need.  Great leaders take time to understand the rules they are bound to so they can be as effective/efficient as possible under the law.

That's an odd idea of how a great leader functions.  Care to give some examples, cause I think of iconoclasts as great leaders - not those that entirely constrained by the system.

 

[Godsbrother]

Your third party vote will have zero effect on anything.

Which is more that can be said for anyone voting for Hillary or Trump.  Those votes will have a negative effect on quite a few things.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Which is more that can be said for anyone voting for Hillary or Trump.  Those votes will have a negative effect on quite a few things.

One of them will be president.  Casting a vote for the better of the two candidates has a net positive effect on the quality of our next president.

 

[Willie Neslon]

I will continue to fight for Hillary Clinton in this thread.

Shocker.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Now you're getting it. Is this important enough or just too boring?

great post

 

[psychobillies]

Clinton has never vilified or threatened the second amendment (no matter what Infowars and Breitbart tell you).

I've made the case for why i think Trump is way way worse than Clinton on issues of ethics and accountability a couple times. I didn't just say "Trump is terrible on ethics and accountability, much worse than Clinton." I explained why I think that, with actual examples of things he's done that I think are many times worse than conducting State Department business on a private server or having a spouse that collected speaking fees. You're welcome to disagree with that of course, but IMO should do so with actual counterpoints and arguments.

You really want me to highlight her ethics and accountability issues for the millionth time in this thread.  You know what they are, and you're free to ignore them.  I just thought your post on all of Trumps flaws applied equally to Clinton.  I honestly wasn't sure if you were messing with everyone.

Tell me again though how Trump has threatened the freedom of the press.  Has he discussed any ideas of restricting it in the same way Hillary has discussed restricting the 2nd amendment?  

Nor has she refused to release something provided by all government officials.

This is why I think you're messing with us.  

 

[dparker713]

The real story here is the lack of judgment and potential lack of ethics/integrity (TBD) along with opening a security hole by hooking an inadequately secured server to government networks as a matter of "convenience" (supposedly).  That's enough right there...don't need to know what was in the emails.

You excoriated Tim, but you're willing to hang Hillary without the most important information.  

 

[dparker713]

Because the DNC kept everyone on the bench off the field and put the thumb down on Sanders' candidacy (I'm not a 'rigged' guy but 1. debates and 2. DWS). A 70+ yo guy from VT, his calling card is "integrity" and he has Hillary campaigning in CA in June. Just think about what someone next gen with a rep for decency like Sanders would be doing right now. And you threaten everyone with Trumpism yet tell everyone they are now extorted into voting for Hillary. Really, thank you.

For an idea on how to win a primary despite these disadvantages, see Obama, Barack.

 

[dparker713]

No, its not.

Get Sanders on the ballot.  Every sane person in the USA will vote for him.  Put Hillary on there and I'm "wasting" my vote on Johnson.

The #### they will.  There are actual Hillary supporters - alot of them.

 

[The Commish]

Again...we are talking from two different perspectives.  I'm looking at the war, not the individual battles.  So if my goal for the war is to win the war and the only way to win that war is make a tough decision to change direction in attempt to get the train back on the tracks, I can't help but look at the two options presented by the GOP/Dems and shake my head.  They aren't going to help with the larger war, so this is a battle I am not really all that interested in "winning" for one problem over another.  It's completely irrational for one to continue to contribute to the problem they are wanting fixed.  Stop digging is a completely rational position in this context.  That's what not voting for these options is...it's the equivalent of ceasing the dig.

Except that this analogy doesn't work because we're gonna keep digging even if you personally decide not to participate.  So it's a question of whether you want to at least prevent the hole from being blown a mile wide and a mile deep.

And please don't tell me that they're remotely the same from an ethics and accountability standpoint. Yesterday Trump trashed the press for literally doing their job and holding him accountable for the most basic of promises- donating money to charity as promised. He pens reporters in a cage, paints them as the enemy and sics his devoted cult on them. He refuses to respond to allegations and insists on the veracity of things that have been proven to be false- say what you will of Clinton, but at least when she says something misleading or wrong she generally will explain herself and/or apologize. He refuses to be interviewed on camera (can't answer questions on his own).  He promulgates ridiculous and dangerous anti-science conspiracy theories without remorse.  He won't even comply with the most basic of document requests made of presidential candidates.

This is a "lesser of two evils" contest from an ethics and accountability standpoint only in the sense that a bb gun is the lesser of two evils when compared to a nuclear weapon. I guess it's technically true, but saying it kind of misses the ####ing point.

See, at some point we have to hold ourselves accountable for what we can control and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing.  If we all do the right thing on our own, we don't have to worry about others doing the right thing.  It takes care of itself.  Why should I be looked upon unfavorably because I realized I should stop digging and refuse to dig any longer?  That's the definition of disenfranchisement at it's finest IMO.  

I get your rage with Trump, but it's blinding you to similar characteristics of Hillary IMO.  I know I can't change your mind and I know you're in the moment, but to me these distinctions don't really matter as they pertain to the press.  She has this "vast right wing conspiracy" shtick going on as an effort to avoid self reflection.  I can pick many examples of the bold being completely false the most recent being this server fiasco.  If she had simply come clean and done the "opps....my bad.  That wasn't the smartest thing to do.  Here's everything" shtick, this would have stopped being news a year ago, but she did the opposite.  She doubled down on "I did nothing wrong" and "others did it" (with many others thrown in).  I appreciate you using the term "generally" in the description though as it shows you know she's really not all that forthright with her comments.

And if I'm being honest, I don't really care how either of them play with the press.  I see little value of our press these days.  They are part of the political  anymore.  And honestly, I don't care to see any Presidential tax returns...never have, never will.  Yeah, I find it entertaining when they refuse to give them over.  He's not the first and he won't be the last.  I actually sorta get why he wouldn't turn them over if he's really being audited, but I admit I have paid little attention to the events around his taxes.  I simply don't care about them.

I want to be clear, that this isn't a defense of the buffoon.  I just think there are other things to be upset about.  We know exactly why he won't go on camera and it's mind boggling that some don't see it, but we can't change other peoples' minds.  I also happen to think what you're seeing is a lot of show too.  What he actually believes is an unknown to me, which is the strongest argument I can think of for not allowing him in office.  

 

[Jayrod]

The #### they will.  There are actual Hillary supporters - alot of them.

  So they will vote for Trump if Sanders is on the ballot?

 

[Sinn Fein]

His complete disdain for accountability to the press- and by extension the people- doesn't bother you at all?

IMO people focusing only on what Trump would do in office are missing an important point.  If he wins it validates the notion that our politicians can completely disregard any notion that they have to be truthful and accountable. I know everyone says that every politician lies and evades (Clinton included of course), but Trump is orders of magnitude worse on this front than anyone we've ever seen, Clinton included.  At least most others feel the need to respond when they're accused of lying- Trump vilifies the accuser. If the American people don't hold him accountable for that, why would any other politician in the future feel the need to act differently?

You guys talk about maybe losing this election battle but eventually winning the war, but when it comes to the push for integrity and accountability so popular among Sanders supporters, a Trump general election victory ends the war.  We'll have a new army of post-Trump, post-truth, post-accountability politicians.

I have to say that the irony of a Hillary supporter talking about ethics and accountability is rich.

My general sense with Trump, who I have not studied much, is that he lies to embellish, in a sense of bravado and self worth.  When Clinton lies its to coverup and obfuscate.  Trump is the consummate bull####er.  He is very light on details, but tells a "good" story.  So, his lies tend to be brushed over as not serious.  Clinton, on the other hand, is the consummate detail freak.  She can tend to lose sight of big picture things, but knows the intimate details better than anyone.  When she lies about the details - it comes across as very deliberate and calculated.  Those lies do not play well in public.

Take the "sniper" incident.  If Trump tells that same story (or even Bubba for that matter) - the notion of sniper fire becomes just color in a colorful story about flying into Bosnia.  And, they both probably cover themselves by saying "we were told we were flying into a sniper's cross-hairs - man those were crazy times"  Nobody expects either of them to get the details right.  But, when Clinton tells it - every one knows she is detail oriented, and very circumspect with her words.  The lasting conclusion is that Trump and Bubba are telling a BS story to a rapt audience, but Hillary is telling a calculated lie intended to draw a specific, albeit false, reaction.

Her entire response to the email server was one calculated lie after another.  She knew she was parsing words, and she knew they were not true - she simply calculated that the truth would never come out, so no need to be more forthcoming.  As facts became known, her version of the "truth" evolved.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm comparing the two on ethics and accountability simply because that seems to be the one thing that Sanders voters and other "none of the above" folks in this thread seem to be hanging their hat on, not because I think it's the biggest and most important difference between Trump and Clinton.  I'm aware of Clinton's shortcomings in this area- my argument is merely that Trump's are bigger and more dangerous.  To simplify it- even if they did lie with the same frequency (they don't), at least Clinton seems to feel she has some basic obligation to defend or apologize for anything she says that isn't accurate. Trump in contrast simply tells the press- and by extension all of us- to go #### ourselves.

 

[pantagrapher]

Clinton's massive ethics problems are getting paid a lot for speeches, fundraising the way presidential candidates fundraise, and setting up her work email because the State Department's setup was a cluster####.

 

[timschochet]

Clinton vs Trump is not some short term battle in a much longer war. This IS the war. Right here. Right now. Hillary wins or we're screwed. I absolutely believe that. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

And if I'm being honest, I don't really care how either of them play with the press.  I see little value of our press these days.  They are part of the political  anymore. 

IMO this is really silly and   I think (hope?) you're conflating "talking heads on CNN and Fox News" with "the press."  Talking heads on 24 hour news stations are useless and part of the problem, I agree with that, but that's like 0.0001% of the press. The press that Trump vilifies- investigative reporters and reporters on campaign beats- as well as reporters on Hill, agency, and state and local government beats are the absolute lifeblood of a democracy.  Without them we might as well not have elections; we can just appoint a king or something.  When was the last time anyone here looked at a primary document without having been prompted, directly or indirectly, by the work of the press?  I'm guessing for most of you the answer is never.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Good morning. 

I've read all the criticism over the last few pages and I regard it, frankly, as unjust. Jon claims I'm willfully ignorant of facts. This despite that last night I posted a Politicfact judgment which contradicted some of my earlier claims and made my candidate look bad. Cobalt claims I am not interested in sharing ideas unless they are my ideas. I think there's enough evidence to prove that this is not so. In terms of this thread I have responded to nearly every criticism and attack against Hillary. Why would I do that if I wasn't interested in exchanging ideas? Am I only exchanging ideas in his eyes if I come I accept his negative view about Hillary Clinton? Surely there are enough people in this thread attacking Hillary- is it necessary for me to join them? 

Anonymousbob thinks Im insulting everyone with whom I've disagreed over the email story by stating that I found the legal details confusing and boring. How then, he demands, can I claim to have a strong opinion? By writing this he obviously hasn't read me, because I have NEVER offered a strong opinion about whether or not Hillary violated the rules or the law. My strong opinion was over whether it mattered one way or the other, particularly in terms of her qualifications for the Presidency. My belief is that it does not. As regards the question of whether rules or laws were broken, I have been VERY consistent all along: I was skeptical, but unsure, confused by the conflicting arguments, hopeful that it would go away, confident there would be no indictment, and bored by the whole thing. I've stated all of this openly and never hidden any of it. I don't think I've insulted anyone. 

I will continue to fight for Hillary Clinton in this thread. There's me and squistion, sometimes TGunz. DParker, Tobias, BFS, and CTSU will defend Hillary from time to time but she's not their first choice. Everybody else who comtributes to this thread is strongly opposed to Hillary Clinton. So yeah we are surrounded. I kinda like that. I feel I'm fighting the good fight here. And she's gonna win. 

Yes, I've read you. You're claiming something you don't really know anything about or care to know about doesn't really matter. You've had strong opinions on this topic as well. You're saying this isn't a big deal and arguing against those who disagree. Many of them have at least read up on some details. You haven't, you don't care to, and yet you still claim its not a big deal. That's the sort of thinking I'd expect from Donald Trump. I keep thinking better from you. 

 

[timschochet]

His complete disdain for accountability to the press- and by extension the people- doesn't bother you at all?

IMO people focusing only on what Trump would do in office are missing an important point.  If he wins it validates the notion that our politicians can completely disregard any notion that they have to be truthful and accountable. I know everyone says that every politician lies and evades (Clinton included of course), but Trump is orders of magnitude worse on this front than anyone we've ever seen, Clinton included.  At least most others feel the need to respond when they're accused of lying- Trump vilifies the accuser. If the American people don't hold him accountable for that, why would any other politician in the future feel the need to act differently?

You guys talk about maybe losing this election battle but eventually winning the war, but when it comes to the push for integrity and accountability so popular among Sanders supporters, a Trump general election victory ends the war.  We'll have a new army of post-Trump, post-truth, post-accountability politicians.

All true, but it goes well beyond that. Trump's election would mean a rejection of intellectualism, of multiculturalism, of respect for minorities, of all of the positive changes we have made as a society over the last 50 years. The title to this thread is absolutely accurate: he will bring with him ignorance and bigotry to the Oval Office. 

 

[AnonymousBob]

Your third party vote will have zero effect on anything.

Your vote in general will have zero effect on anything. Your state is going to go the way it's going to go with or without your support. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Stop bullying tim just because he doesn't have a law degree, GB! 

As far as I can tell this regulation simply provides recordkeeping guidelines for agencies, it does not criminalize behavior by individuals. I see no provision directing criminal (or any) penalties for agency leadership for failure of the agency to comply anywhere in Part 1236, or in fact anywhere in Subchapter B (although admittedly I didn't actually read the whole thing, just skimmed the relevant parts). 

Can you connect the dots for me? 

The fact that there isn't an enforcement provision or penalty doesn't make the action not a violation.  In fact, this is one of the many existing criticisms of NARA regulations - that the only possible redress is a civil suit for failure to comply, which is less than certain to obtain any relief.  Because of the way regulations are drafted, those lawsuits tim hates are really the only way to deal with this issue at the moment.  There are a host of laws and regulations out there that have no penalty provisions or enforcement mechanisms - that doesn't mean that acting contrary to those laws and regulations isn't a violation of them.

Again, I'm not saying the IG report explicitly states that Clinton should go to jail.  But it explicitly states that her actions are violations of regulations that have legal effect and authority behind them - she violated the regulations promulgated as a result of statutory direction, which means she had a legal duty and violated it.  And it leaves open the question of whether she committed acts that have criminal penalties behind them.

 

[TobiasFunke]

All true, but it goes well beyond that. Trump's election would mean a rejection of intellectualism, of multiculturalism, of respect for minorities, of all of the positive changes we have made as a society over the last 50 years. The title to this thread is absolutely accurate: he will bring with him ignorance and bigotry to the Oval Office. 

Well, sure.  Like I said I'm focusing on the ethics/accountability angle because it seems to be the one thing that people leaning "none of the above" are hanging their hat on when they say they're both bad and it doesn't matter.  They seem to think that Trump's xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, penchant for insane conspiracy theories, complete absence of a viable proposal or logical position, affinity for war crimes, and lack of intellectual curiosity is counterbalanced by Clinton's ethics and accountability issues. Thus the incessant focus on Clinton from that perspective as opposed to discussion of her stances on the issues and qualifications and and how she compares to Trump on those things.

So I'm simply pointing out that in addition to Trump's xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, penchant for insane conspiracy theories, complete absence of a viable proposal or logical position, affinity for war crimes, and lack of intellectual curiosity, he's also pretty terrible when it comes to ethics and accountability.

 

[AnonymousBob]

The #### they will.  There are actual Hillary supporters - alot of them.

You believe Bernie supporters will and should back Hillary if she's the nominee, yes?