What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slapdash said:
I keep hearing something like 90% of Sanders supporters are already in the fold anyways.  How about you people leave the rest of us alone and actually try to make positive arguments in favor of your candidate for once?  

The convention was a rare break in the fear-mongering/bullying that the party has been doing for the past year.  Clinton got a nice bump in the polls and even liberals who dislike her such as myself where at least feeling less worried about her as president.  However, Clinton and her supporters have gotten right back to this crap the last few weeks.  Shocking that her poll numbers are faltering.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

This is so on point.

 
Slapdash said:
I keep hearing something like 90% of Sanders supporters are already in the fold anyways.  How about you people leave the rest of us alone and actually try to make positive arguments in favor of your candidate for once?  

The convention was a rare break in the fear-mongering/bullying that the party has been doing for the past year.  Clinton got a nice bump in the polls and even liberals who dislike her such as myself where at least feeling less worried about her as president.  However, Clinton and her supporters have gotten right back to this crap the last few weeks.  Shocking that her poll numbers are faltering.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right?

Can you find me one post in this thread that challenges or harasses or questions a non-Clinton voter unprompted?  Almost all the posts you seem to be complaining about are responses to people coming into Tim's "Official Hillary Clinton 2016" thread to crap on her and her candidacy and her supporters, not the other way around. 

I'm not gonna act like the Trumpkins and ask the critics of the candidate to leave, and I assume Tim and other people who plan to vote for her won't either.  I'm more than happy to defend my preferred candidate from criticisms and attacks, both legitimate and stupid, to almost anyone who wants to engage on the subject. I'd also be happy offer up positive arguments in favor of her, if I ever got the feeling anyone cared to hear them. I've done it from time to time, and others who like her more than I do have done it more. But I've never gotten that feeling. Not a surprise given the demographics of this forum, but still. I think you've got it backwards on who isn't leaving whom alone. 

 
Rove! said:
Don't tell me, tell Mr Silver
Click to expand...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

I’m tired of hearing about the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times tracking poll.

I’m tired of hearing about the poll from Donald Trump fans such as Reince Priebus, Matt Drudge and Donald Trump himself.1There’s nothing wrong with being your own No. 1 fan! They frequently cherry-pick that poll because it consistently shows much better results for Trump than the other surveys. As of Tuesday morning, for example, the poll showed the race as virtually tied — Hillary Clinton 44.2 percent, Trump 44.0 percent — even when the national poll average has Clinton up by about 6 percentage points instead.

This has been a fairly consistent difference between this poll and most others. Take the LA Times poll, add 6 points to Clinton, and you usually wind up with something close to the FiveThirtyEight or RealClearPolitics national polling average. What’s the source of the LA Times poll’s Trump lean? There are good “explainers” from The New York Times’s Nate Cohn and Huffington Post Pollster’s David Rothschild. Long story short: The poll’s results are weighted based on how people said they voted in 2012. That’s probably a mistake, because people often misstate or misremember their vote from previous elections.2In particular, it’s likely that more people say they voted for the winner than actually did. Imagine, for example, that respondents in a poll claim they voted for Barack Obama by 10 percentage points, when he actually beat Mitt Romney by 4 percentage points. The LA Times poll will conclude that it has too many Obama voters, most of whom are also Clinton voters, and therefore downweight Clinton’s numbers. But some of those Obama “voters” actually voted for Romney or sat the election out.

The poll does some other things differently also, some of which I like. For instance, it allows people to assign themselves a probability of voting for either candidate instead of saying they’re 100 percent sure. And the poll surveys the same panel of roughly 3,000 people over and over instead of recruiting new respondents. That creates a more stable baseline and can therefore be a good way to detect trends in voter preferences, although it also means that if the panel happened to be more Trump-leaning or Clinton-leaning than the population as a whole, you’d be stuck with it for the rest of the year.
Click to expand...

 
TobiasFunke said:
Do you guys seriously not understand why, say, a Muslim might vote for Clinton?

Forget about other minorities targeted less frequently or directly by Trump. Forget about people who are sympathetic to Muslim Americans and feel an obligation to stand up for any of their fellow Americans unfairly targeted by hateful rhetoric and scapegoating and proposed discrimination.  We can do that whole "empathy" and "values" thing later if you want.  Let's just start with those 3 million+ Americans. You get why they might vote for Clinton, yes?
Click to expand...
Actually, I understand scenarios for any of the other groups you mentioned outside Muslims.  Of all the groups, I have no idea why a Muslim would vote for either.  Trump has demonstrated his attitude towards Muslims with his words and Hillary via actions of the USA in the Middle East.  And there is ZERO evidence that she plans on changing her position on how the Middle East should be handled.

 
TobiasFunke said:
You're kidding, right?

Can you find me one post in this thread that challenges or harasses or questions a non-Clinton voter unprompted?  Almost all the posts you seem to be complaining about are responses to people coming into Tim's "Official Hillary Clinton 2016" thread to crap on her and her candidacy and her supporters, not the other way around. 

I'm not gonna act like the Trumpkins and ask the critics of the candidate to leave, and I assume Tim and other people who plan to vote for her won't either.  I'm more than happy to defend my preferred candidate from criticisms and attacks, both legitimate and stupid, to almost anyone who wants to engage on the subject. I'd also be happy offer up positive arguments in favor of her, if I ever got the feeling anyone cared to hear them. I've done it from time to time, and others who like her more than I do have done it more. But I've never gotten that feeling. Not a surprise given the demographics of this forum, but still. I think you've got it backwards on who isn't leaving whom alone. 
Click to expand...
So instead of stopping the crap, you're justifying the crap with the "they started it" excuse. 

 
The Commish said:
Actually, I understand scenarios for any of the other groups you mentioned outside Muslims.  Of all the groups, I have no idea why a Muslim would vote for either.  Trump has demonstrated his attitude towards Muslims with his words and Hillary via actions of the USA in the Middle East.  And there is ZERO evidence that she plans on changing her position on how the Middle East should be handled.
Click to expand...
Have you talked to any Muslims? 

Have you watched videos like the one embedded here?

Have you listened to all of Mr Khan's speech at the DNC?

Come on. You're way too smart to not grasp why an American Muslim might not want to do everything in their power to keep Trump out of office, including the most obvious thing and helpful they can do to that end- vote for Clinton.  Stop with the "Middle Eastern policies" mental gymnastics and just listen to them.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Have you talked to any Muslims? 

Have you watched videos like the one embedded here?

Have you listened to all of Mr Khan's speech at the DNC?

Come on. You're way too smart to not grasp why an American Muslim might not want to do everything in their power to keep Trump out of office, including the most obvious thing and helpful they can do to that end- vote for Clinton.  Stop with the "Middle Eastern policies" mental gymnastics and just listen to them.
Click to expand...
In my line of work, I talk to many, daily.  Some of them are pretty good friends and agree with me that voting for neither is the responsible thing.  ALL of them are from areas where their families are still living in a war zone of some variation.  Sure, there are some here that don't have families in those areas or their whole family is here, so I'd understand that if they were single issue voters why Hillary might be the appealing choice for them.  However, it's not the "no brainer" "I can't believe why you can't understand how the choice isn't simple for them" choice you are portraying it as...and I've given you the primary reason why.

 
You have a few weeks to correct but you might want to consider this.   The against Trump campaign does not work when you have nothing else.   Vote for HRC because she is not Trump is not going to get you undecided voters.  See this is where a real candidate will be pushing the issues but we all know she is in the pocket, so she can't do that.

 
As the guy who started this thread, let me add that I have not engaged in any criticism of those who will not vote for Hillary or Trump. I would like to try to convince you otherwise, because I think Trump is an existential threat to this nation and Hillary is not. But so long as you don't vote for Trump, you're not responsible for his Presidency; I disagree with Tobias on that one point. 

BUT- I will add that, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, evil triumphs when good people do nothing. The Republican candidates squabbled with each other and while they did so, Trump won the nomination. Now those opposed to Trump are squabbling with each other and while we do, he just might win the Presidency. And if he does all of the distinctions between Hillary and Bernie, between corporate Democrats and grass roots Democrats, won't make a bit of difference. Something to keep in mind. 

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
You have a few weeks to correct but you might want to consider this.   The against Trump campaign does not work when you have nothing else.   Vote for HRC because she is not Trump is not going to get you undecided voters.  See this is where a real candidate will be pushing the issues but we all know she is in the pocket, so she can't do that.
Click to expand...
No offense, but this is just uninformed. Hillary promotes policy in every speech. All of her policies are on her website in full detail. The media doesn't cover it- they only care when she attacks Trump. 

 
The Commish said:
In my line of work, I talk to many, daily.  Some of them are pretty good friends and agree with me that voting for neither is the responsible thing.  ALL of them are from areas where their families are still living in a war zone of some variation.  Sure, there are some here that don't have families in those areas or their whole family is here, so I'd understand that if they were single issue voters why Hillary might be the appealing choice for them.  However, it's not the "no brainer" "I can't believe why you can't understand how the choice isn't simple for them" choice you are portraying it as...and I've given you the primary reason why.
Click to expand...
Now you're putting words in my mouth. The discussion started with you saying you couldn't understand why anyone would possibly want to vote for either Clinton or Trump.  I was simply challenging that, saying for example that I think you probably could understand why a Muslim American would vote for Clinton. You obviously walked back that declaration a bit in the bolded, which is pretty weak but good enough for me. I don't want to get into a debate about how a particular Muslim is voting or should vote.

 
timschochet said:
No offense, but this is just uninformed. Hillary promotes policy in every speech. All of her policies are on her website in full detail. The media doesn't cover it- they only care when she attacks Trump. 
Click to expand...
Funny, everyone here was sick of Bernie's spiel when he wasn't being covered by the media but it's the media fault HRC can't get the policies out to the public.   Is there anything that is her fault?   Friggin amazing how myopic the devoted to her are.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
No offense, but this is just uninformed. Hillary promotes policy in every speech. All of her policies are on her website in full detail. The media doesn't cover it- they only care when she attacks Trump. 
Click to expand...
As if those policies will become reality. Read through Obama's promises and compare to reality. Or Bush's. Doesn't matter who the President is, they all make a ton of promises on policy and then once in office, reality sets in and they can get only a percentage done.

In the end you want someone at the helm that can project American values to the world, compromise domestically and generally not drive the bus over a cliff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
You have a few weeks to correct but you might want to consider this.   The against Trump campaign does not work when you have nothing else.   Vote for HRC because she is not Trump is not going to get you undecided voters.  See this is where a real candidate will be pushing the issues but we all know she is in the pocket, so she can't do that.
Click to expand...
Sure, let's give it a try.  Multiple posters have asked for it, let's see how it goes

Here's some reasons I support Clinton for president:

- She prioritizes the welfare of children and has done so her entire life, both in general and in specific policies like her push for paid family leave, raises for early childhood educators, and so on and so on.  I have three young children of my own and I appreciate that perspective.

- She has significant public service experience.  The job of president is in my opinion largely "chief administrator."  It's a day to day grind, not the grand gestures we see on movies and TV. She's better qualified for that job than any candidate in recent memory.

- She is likely to nominate a Supreme Court justice who shares my perspective on the Constitution.

- She is a pragmatist, one of the few to run for president recently. The truth of most issues is often somewhere in the middle and she and I agree on a number of issues in that respect.

-She'll push to keep the Clean Power Plan in effect.

-I agree with her positions on criminal justice reform

That's a start. I could go on for a while, but let's see how the new pro-Hillary message plays.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Sure, let's give it a try.  Multiple posters have asked for it, let's see how it goes

Here's some reasons I support Clinton for president:

- She prioritizes the welfare of children and has done so her entire life, both in general and in specific policies like her push for paid family leave, raises for early childhood educators, and so on and so on.  I have three young children of my own and I appreciate that perspective.

- She has significant public service experience.  The job of president is in my opinion largely "chief administrator."  It's a day to day grind, not the grand gestures we see on movies and TV. She's better qualified for that job than any candidate in recent memory.

- She is likely to nominate a Supreme Court justice who shares my perspective on the Constitution.

- She is a pragmatist, one of the few to run for president recently. The truth of most issues is often somewhere in the middle and she and I agree on a number of issues in that respect.

-She'll push to keep the Clean Power Plan in effect.

-I agree with her positions on criminal justice reform

That's a start. I could go on for a while, but let's see how the new pro-Hillary message plays.
Click to expand...
It's a good list, though I don't trust her to be an advocate for any of this because I don't really think she gives a ####. Maybe she does the kids, but who knows with her how she'll abuse her power and if she'll advocate for any of what's on here.

What I can get behind is the Supreme Court.  Either she or Kaine will make superior nominations that will have long-standing ramifications.

Hence, that's the only reason I'm voting for this ticket--in support of this ticket.  Every other reason is a defensive posture against Trump.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
The Commish said:
In my line of work, I talk to many, daily.  Some of them are pretty good friends and agree with me that voting for neither is the responsible thing.  ALL of them are from areas where their families are still living in a war zone of some variation.  Sure, there are some here that don't have families in those areas or their whole family is here, so I'd understand that if they were single issue voters why Hillary might be the appealing choice for them.  However, it's not the "no brainer" "I can't believe why you can't understand how the choice isn't simple for them" choice you are portraying it as...and I've given you the primary reason why.
Click to expand...
Now you're putting words in my mouth. The discussion started with you saying you couldn't understand why anyone would possibly want to vote for either Clinton or Trump.  I was simply challenging that, saying for example that I think you probably could understand why a Muslim American would vote for Clinton. You obviously walked back that declaration a bit in the bolded, which is pretty weak but good enough for me. I don't want to get into a debate about how a particular Muslim is voting or should vote.
Click to expand...
I'm not putting words in your mouth.  Weren't you challenging me earlier on the understanding of hyperbole?  Perhaps you should brush up on the topic yourself ;)

Obviously, I can come up with reasons (valid or not doesn't really matter) people would choose to vote for Hillary.  However, when Muslims were brought up I was thinking about the general rule and not the exception (like those who are Muslim, but their whole family is here in the US not being impacted by US foreign policy in their homeland).  Generally speaking, a Muslim supporting Hillary makes little sense to me and makes ZERO sense if they are supporting Trump.

 
I support Hillary's platform. I'm not a fan of hers personally, but I generally support her policies. 

She advocates for women and childrens issues (and wish she would spend more time focusing on those).

She genuinely worked with W and Schumer to get rapid financial response to New York after 9/11.

I believe she has the tenacity to get the job done every day, even though I don't personally like her.

 
The Commish said:
I'm not putting words in your mouth.  Weren't you challenging me earlier on the understanding of hyperbole?  Perhaps you should brush up on the topic yourself ;)

Obviously, I can come up with reasons (valid or not doesn't really matter) people would choose to vote for Hillary.  However, when Muslims were brought up I was thinking about the general rule and not the exception (like those who are Muslim, but their whole family is here in the US not being impacted by US foreign policy in their homeland).  Generally speaking, a Muslim supporting Hillary makes little sense to me and makes ZERO sense if they are supporting Trump.
Click to expand...
That's because you're viewing voting as a moral or ethical decision and reject the "lesser of two evils" reasoning.  Many people do not. And I think that many minorities would say they don't even have that option, because the greater of the evils is YUUUGE.

Anyway let's move on.  I'm trying to take the requested pro-Clinton approach around here instead of an anti-Trump one. To that end- Clinton is the first presidential candidate I can recall who has courted Muslim voters.

 
cobalt_27 said:
TobiasFunke said:
Sure, let's give it a try.  Multiple posters have asked for it, let's see how it goes

Here's some reasons I support Clinton for president:

- She prioritizes the welfare of children and has done so her entire life, both in general and in specific policies like her push for paid family leave, raises for early childhood educators, and so on and so on.  I have three young children of my own and I appreciate that perspective.

- She has significant public service experience.  The job of president is in my opinion largely "chief administrator."  It's a day to day grind, not the grand gestures we see on movies and TV. She's better qualified for that job than any candidate in recent memory.

- She is likely to nominate a Supreme Court justice who shares my perspective on the Constitution.

- She is a pragmatist, one of the few to run for president recently. The truth of most issues is often somewhere in the middle and she and I agree on a number of issues in that respect.

-She'll push to keep the Clean Power Plan in effect.

-I agree with her positions on criminal justice reform

That's a start. I could go on for a while, but let's see how the new pro-Hillary message plays.
Click to expand...
It's a good list, though I don't trust her to be an advocate for any of this because I don't really think she gives a ####. Maybe she does the kids, but who knows with her how she'll abuse her power and if she'll advocate for any of what's on here.

What I can get behind is the Supreme Court.  Either she or Kaine will make superior nominations that will have long-standing ramifications.

Hence, that's the only reason I'm voting for this ticket--in support of this ticket.  Every other reason is a defensive posture against Trump.
Click to expand...
And this is, in a nutshell, the problem with Hillary Clinton.  People don't trust what's coming out of her mouth.  The foundation all these things TF mentions is fractured from the start.  Now, I happen to believe her when she speaks of women's health and children.  I was encouraged early on when the ads we were seeing around here were her work with women and children.  I thought she was finally getting it.  Reality is, women and children aren't enough.  So then she's forced into trying to convince us she's passionate about things she's not passionate about.  That's tough to cover up.  

 
The Commish said:
And this is, in a nutshell, the problem with Hillary Clinton.  People don't trust what's coming out of her mouth.  The foundation all these things TF mentions is fractured from the start.  Now, I happen to believe her when she speaks of women's health and children.  I was encouraged early on when the ads we were seeing around here were her work with women and children.  I thought she was finally getting it.  Reality is, women and children aren't enough.  So then she's forced into trying to convince us she's passionate about things she's not passionate about.  That's tough to cover up.  
Click to expand...
I'm not all that concerned about "passion." I like that she shares mine and Whitney Houston's about the importance of kids, but I don't really care if she's not passionate about, say, the Clean Power Plan.  I only care that she supports it. Generators don't remove extra tons of CO2 emissions from the atmosphere if the president is super into it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
The Commish said:
I'm not putting words in your mouth.  Weren't you challenging me earlier on the understanding of hyperbole?  Perhaps you should brush up on the topic yourself ;)

Obviously, I can come up with reasons (valid or not doesn't really matter) people would choose to vote for Hillary.  However, when Muslims were brought up I was thinking about the general rule and not the exception (like those who are Muslim, but their whole family is here in the US not being impacted by US foreign policy in their homeland).  Generally speaking, a Muslim supporting Hillary makes little sense to me and makes ZERO sense if they are supporting Trump.
Click to expand...
That's because you're viewing voting as a moral or ethical decision and reject the "lesser of two evils" reasoning.  Many people do not. And I think that many minorities would say they don't even have that option, because the greater of the evils is YUUUGE.

Anyway let's move on.  I'm trying to take the requested pro-Clinton approach around here instead of an anti-Trump one. To that end- Clinton is the first presidential candidate I can recall who has courted Muslim voters.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's because I can't understand why they'd vote FOR a person who's been part of a mass destabilization of an area where a lot of their family still is, but we can move on.  I replied to one of these "pro Hillary posts" already, but to this one, I have a question.  Does Hillary have a record of reaching out to Muslims throughout her career in public service?  I'm not talking about voting on a bill or supporting a funding measure etc.  The article you link here, are there examples of this throughout her career?  As one who's been given plenty of reason to be skeptical of her, you can see why I'd be skeptical of this, right?

IMO, it's refreshing that one tries to provide reasons to vote FOR her, but the problem is always going to come back to trust (or lack thereof) as the foundation on which all these other things are built.  I'm not moving into any house where the foundation isn't solid.

 
I understand people reject voting for the lesser of two evils, but I find the double-standard to be totally disingenuous. Where are all the anti-Trump posts from those claiming that both candidates don't meet the bar? What I see are a lot of anti-Hillary posts from that crowd. My guess is some are closet Trump voters without the guts to say it, cloaking behind "not voting for either because I'm so ####### moral".

 
The Commish said:
Actually, it's because I can't understand why they'd vote FOR a person who's been part of a mass destabilization of an area where a lot of their family still is, but we can move on.  I replied to one of these "pro Hillary posts" already, but to this one, I have a question.  Does Hillary have a record of reaching out to Muslims throughout her career in public service?  I'm not talking about voting on a bill or supporting a funding measure etc.  The article you link here, are there examples of this throughout her career?  As one who's been given plenty of reason to be skeptical of her, you can see why I'd be skeptical of this, right?

IMO, it's refreshing that one tries to provide reasons to vote FOR her, but the problem is always going to come back to trust (or lack thereof) as the foundation on which all these other things are built.  I'm not moving into any house where the foundation isn't solid.
Click to expand...
I don't really have a problem with trusting her. Sure she lies, but IMO no more so than the average politician. It just gets more play because she's the most scrutinized non-president politician history as far as I can tell. If she says she favors a particular stance on an issue I have no reason to think that's not how she actually feels or what she actually hopes to do if she's elected.

I DO have concerns about her lack of transparency, but that's a different matter. And I don't see any relationship between her unfortunate transparency issues and whether she'll support the policies and principles she claims to support.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
I understand people reject voting for the lesser of two evils, but I find the double-standard to be totally disingenuous. Where are all the anti-Trump posts from those claiming that both candidates don't meet the bar? What I see are a lot of anti-Hillary posts from that crowd. My guess is some are closet Trump voters without the guts to say it, cloaking behind "not voting for either because I'm so ####### moral".
Click to expand...
I don't have to be anti Trump, we all know he is not a good candidate.   HRC is a horrible candidate but people constantly make excuses for her and try to pass her off as viable candidate which IMO she isn't.   I voted Obama twice and will never vote HRC because she simply isn't worthy, not only is she liar like Trump but she is a cheater too.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I don't really have a problem with trusting her. Sure she lies, but IMO no more so than the average politician. [Her lies] just gets more play because she's the most scrutinized non-president politician history as far as I can tell.  If she says she favors a particular stance on an issue I have no reason to think that's not how she actually feels or what she actually hopes to do if she's elected.

I DO have concerns about her lack of transparency, but that's a different matter. And I don't see any relationship between her unfortunate transparency issues and whether she'll support the policies and principles she claims to support.
Click to expand...
I'm very interested in a thoughtful analysis of this question.  It's been bugging me for quite some time.  Anyone an jump in, but what's the direction of causation, in your opinion?

Is it at all possible in your mind that she might, perhaps, possibly, maybe lie more than the average politician.  And, if so, coupled with her transparency issues you noted above, is it possible that the scrutiny she receives is a result of--caused by--her excessive vagaries, half-truths, lies, lack of transparency?  I've heard the notion that sexism is in play or that she's liberal so the Rebublican establishment disproportionately goes after her.  Hence, the argument is that she is scrutinized more; therefore we simply know more about her lies than politicians who are less scrutinized. But, what doesn't jive with me on this is there have been plenty of female politicians, many/most of whom are Democrats, and one of them are seen even remotely as untruthful, evasive, deceptive as she is.

So, I go back to the possibility...maybe she is more deceptive and lies more than other politicians and, thus, maybe the spotlight shines brighter on her because of these issues.

Thoughts?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Grace Under Pressure said:
I understand people reject voting for the lesser of two evils, but I find the double-standard to be totally disingenuous. Where are all the anti-Trump posts from those claiming that both candidates don't meet the bar? What I see are a lot of anti-Hillary posts from that crowd. My guess is some are closet Trump voters without the guts to say it, cloaking behind "not voting for either because I'm so ####### moral".
Click to expand...
You're really bad at this...no offense.

I've never stepped foot in the Trump thread...I do all my bashing of both here.  And in here, I've said approximately 8 million times what kind of ###### I believe he is.  Sorry you missed them.  Morality isn't the strong suit of this thread...the bar has been set at "legal vs illegal".  You'll have to take that issue up with those setting that bar.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
I understand people reject voting for the lesser of two evils, but I find the double-standard to be totally disingenuous. Where are all the anti-Trump posts from those claiming that both candidates don't meet the bar? What I see are a lot of anti-Hillary posts from that crowd. My guess is some are closet Trump voters without the guts to say it, cloaking behind "not voting for either because I'm so ####### moral".
Click to expand...
Anti-Trump posts are like pointing out the obvious.

Hillary on the other hand is such a professional fake, some people actually believe and like what she says. They deserve the anti-Hillary posts they're getting for that.

I'm half inclined to think some of the pro-Hillary posters are paid to be here promoting Hillary. I have zero evidence for that, but it's well known Obama's campaign did "grassroots" efforts on the internet and some even said those efforts made a huge difference back in '08. If they're not paid, then they must be retired or unemployed to post as much as they do here. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
I don't really have a problem with trusting her. Sure she lies, but IMO no more so than the average politician. It just gets more play because she's the most scrutinized non-president politician history as far as I can tell. If she says she favors a particular stance on an issue I have no reason to think that's not how she actually feels or what she actually hopes to do if she's elected.

I DO have concerns about her lack of transparency, but that's a different matter. And I don't see any relationship between her unfortunate transparency issues and whether she'll support the policies and principles she claims to support.
Click to expand...
This is a significant difference between our POVs.  Funny thing is, I was of your opinion 15ish years ago.

 
Politician Spock said:
Anti-Trump posts are like pointing out the obvious.

Hillary on the other hand is such a professional fake, some people actually believe and like what she says. They deserve the anti-Hillary posts they're getting for that.

I'm half inclined to think some of the pro-Hillary posters are paid to be here promoting Hillary. I have zero evidence for that, but it's well known Obama's campaign did "grassroots" efforts on the internet and some even said those efforts made a huge difference back in '08. If they're not paid, then they must be retired or unemployed to post as much as they do here. 
Click to expand...
I agree, they stay on point with 100% never wavering no matter what she does.   There is nothing in life I am that blind too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
Anti-Trump posts are like pointing out the obvious.

Hillary on the other hand is such a professional fake, some people actually believe and like what she says. They deserve the anti-Hillary posts they're getting for that.

I'm half inclined to think some of the pro-Hillary posters are paid to be here promoting Hillary. I have zero evidence for that, but it's well known Obama's campaign did "grassroots" efforts on the internet and some even said those efforts made a huge difference back in '08. If they're not paid, then they must be retired or unemployed to post as much as they do here. 
Click to expand...
I've often wondered if squis wasn't adonis :lol:   Remember that guy?

 
I'll give you my short take cobalt.  Hillary and Bill have been under a microscope for so long that caution has turned to paranoia.  In her zeal to protect herself Hillary has taken many ill advised and inappropriate actions to close off public scrutiny of her life and work.  This is the lack of tranparency TF speaks of.  

As for her policy choices, I'd like to see how her flip flops hold up to previous Presidential candidates before she is tarred and feathered as some out of ordinary reprobate.  I remember Romney running away from his health plan and also deciding abortion was wrong after he said it was okay.

I look at Hillary as cold fish and, based on some accounts, a stern and calculating manager.  I worked with someone like that and it sucked so no way would I work for her.  But, those types of managers do get the job done.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My short list:

  • I do think she'll try to follow through with the Wall Street regulations (I particularly like that she's for a tax on high-frequency trading).  Warren and Sanders aren't going to bat for her and getting nothing in return.  
  • The Supreme Court
  • Her tax plan
  • Her infrastructure plan
  • Paid family leave
  • Wants to overturn Citizen's United.
 
cobalt_27 said:
I'm very interested in a thoughtful analysis of this question.  It's been bugging me for quite some time.  Anyone an jump in, but what's the direction of causation, in your opinion?

Is it at all possible in your mind that she might, perhaps, possibly, maybe lie more than the average politician.  And, if so, coupled with her transparency issues you noted above, is it possible that the scrutiny she receives is a result of--caused by--her excessive vagaries, half-truths, lies, lack of transparency?  I've heard the notion that sexism is in play or that she's liberal so the Rebublican establishment disproportionately goes after her.  Hence, the argument is that she is scrutinized more; therefore we simply know more about her lies than politicians who are less scrutinized. But, what doesn't jive with me on this is there have been plenty of female politicians, many/most of whom are Democrats, and one of them are seen even remotely as untruthful, evasive, deceptive as she is.

So, I go back to the possibility...maybe she is more deceptive and lies more than other politicians and, thus, maybe the spotlight shines brighter on her because of these issues.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Well, anything's possible.  I can't quantify her lying myself, I can just offer my impressions based on observing politics and bolster that with the objective analyses of lies on the campaign trail by Politifact and whatnot.

Yes, I think the scrutiny and the impression that she's deceptive may well be a product of her lack of transparency.  Her relationship with the press is a vicious circle- she doesn't trust them, they portray her negatively as a result (the Clinton Foundation coverage was particularly irresponsible IMO especially compared to the relative lack of coverage of the vastly shadier and more corrupt and less "good" Trump Foundation), she trusts them even less, and on and on it goes.

I don't really know how much of it is sexism, though. I think that affects her electoral fortunes (if she was a man I think she'd be up 10+ points and if Trump was a woman his campaign would have fizzled by the Iowa caucuses), but not media coverage and perceptions of her truthfulness.

As for the spotlight- I think she's unique.  She's been in the public eye for a quarter-century straight without running for president. I can't think of anyone else to whom that applies, which makes it hard to do comparisons. So of course there's a ton of material out there for anyone who wants to be critical of her.

 
cobalt_27 said:
Im very interested in a thoughtful analysis of this question.  It's been bugging me for quite some time.  Anyone an jump in, but what's the direction of causation, in your opinion?

Is it at all possible in your mind that she might, perhaps, possibly, maybe lie more than the average politician.  And, if so, coupled with her transparency issues you noted above, is it possible that the scrutiny she receives is a result of--caused by--her excessive vagaries, half-truths, lies, lack of transparency?  I've heard the notion that sexism is in play or that she's liberal so the Rebublican establishment disproportionately goes after her.  Hence, the argument is that she is scrutinized more; therefore we simply know more about her lies than politicians who are less scrutinized. But, what doesn't jive with me on this is there have been plenty of female politicians, many/most of whom are Democrats, and one of them are seen even remotely as untruthful, evasive, deceptive as she is.

So, I go back to the possibility...maybe she is more deceptive and lies more than other politicians and, thus, maybe the spotlight shines brighter on her because of these issues.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
It's a perception driven by a narrative of being in the political spotlight for over 20 years.  The numbers don't back up Hillary being a serial liar or even one of the worst offenders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html?_r=0

https://datavizblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/who-lies-more-a-comparison.jpg?w=906

 
TobiasFunke said:
Well, anything's possible.  I can't quantify her lying myself, I can just offer my impressions based on observing politics and bolster that with the objective analyses of lies on the campaign trail by Politifact and whatnot.

Yes, I think the scrutiny and the impression that she's deceptive may well be a product of her lack of transparency.  Her relationship with the press is a vicious circle- she doesn't trust them, they portray her negatively as a result (the Clinton Foundation coverage was particularly irresponsible IMO especially compared to the relative lack of coverage of the vastly shadier and more corrupt and less "good" Trump Foundation), she trusts them even less, and on and on it goes.

I don't really know how much of it is sexism, though. I think that affects her electoral fortunes (if she was a man I think she'd be up 10+ points and if Trump was a woman his campaign would have fizzled by the Iowa caucuses), but not media coverage and perceptions of her truthfulness.

As for the spotlight- I think she's unique.  She's been in the public eye for a quarter-century straight without running for president. I can't think of anyone else to whom that applies, which makes it hard to do comparisons. So of course there's a ton of material out there for anyone who wants to be critical of her.
Click to expand...
Donald Trump.  Many more you just have to think "hard".   But keep the excuses coming.  ;)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
262K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top