I think if they can find some way to get Trump to reference Bill's infidelities in the debate, that will look absolutely awful for him. I can't help imagining that his debate prep team is totally flummoxed by this.
Trump :"How can you control the country when you can't even control your own husband's infidelities? Amiright?"
To the guys who are in support of Hillary on this thread. Are you supporting her just because Trump is a worse candidate and he cant be allowed to be president?
Is there anyone that actually believes shes a good human being? One that wants to do good things in office to help benefit and make life better for so many americans on hard times right now.
To the guys who are in support of Hillary on this thread. Are you supporting her just because Trump is a worse candidate and he cant be allowed to be president?
Is there anyone that actually believes shes a good human being? One that wants to do good things in office to help benefit and make life better for so many americans on hard times right now.
You mean like cutting taxes on the 1 percent to help those under hard times? Like that?
The Following User Says Thank You to Drak For This Useful Post:
To the guys who are in support of Hillary on this thread. Are you supporting her just because Trump is a worse candidate and he cant be allowed to be president?
Is there anyone that actually believes shes a good human being? One that wants to do good things in office to help benefit and make life better for so many americans on hard times right now.
I believe she is wanting to do good things for people generally. Yes, she does some things that are iffy. However, put yourself in her shoes for a minute. You have a group of people that have made crap up about you for decades that is largely or wholly unfounded bs just to slander you for being a democrat. Wouldn't you want to have a higher degree of privacy so that you don't give any ammo for that group to make up additional bs about you?
Look at Bengazi. That was a scandal targeted at the wrong people. Congress was the one responsible for cutting the security that caused the ambassador to die. Did they lay any blame on themselves? Of course not. Instead they dumped it on Hillary because she's as good of a scapegoat as anyone and frankly made up a load of BS to paint her as being a heartless person, which she was not.
Look at how much republicans have attempted to marginalize Obama over the past 8 years. If he wasn't basically as close to perfect as a politician and scandal free as a person, he would have been destroyed by the republicans. Hell, they make up that he's a muslim terrorist just because he has a middle eastern name, even though he's done more to destroy terrorists than anyone has.
Republicans are throwing a hissy fit because of the fact that the country is going in a different direction, one that is more inclusive and tolerant and that is scaring them. Hence the turn to a white nationalist that looks like he will become more of a dictator than any previous presidential candidate in US history.
If it wasn't for the obstructionism of the Republican congress, there would have already been a jobs plan that would have addressed the whole infrastructure issues thing. However, because Obama wanted to raise some taxes to actually pay for it, that's a non starter.
So yeah, if Hillary wins, I firmly believe she will do things to help people and will only be hindered if the Republicans continue to be obstructionist.
__________________ Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
Last edited by Caged Great; 09-24-2016 at 06:33 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Caged Great For This Useful Post:
To the guys who are in support of Hillary on this thread. Are you supporting her just because Trump is a worse candidate and he cant be allowed to be president?
Is there anyone that actually believes shes a good human being? One that wants to do good things in office to help benefit and make life better for so many americans on hard times right now.
To the bolded, yeah pretty much. It's not that Hillary is a great candidate, it's that the other guy is just literally the worst conceivable option for President of the United States. Possibly in history. Not just because he doesn't know what he's doing, but also the hard divide(s) he continues to promt purely for his own... enjoyment? I really have no idea what would cause someone to act in this way outside of severe narcissism and possibly psychopathy.
I think Hillary is someone who has and would do terrible things to be President, but who I believe wants to be in that office for good reasons. She's abandoned some principals, I think, largely because you just straight up have to in order to run for office with the way their system currently works. I think that's why people like Elizabeth Warren don't get involved in it. I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans too that would do great wonders for the nation, but just can't bring themselves to suckle at the teet in order to get it done. Look how many people who so obviously find Trump despicable fall in line to support purely because of their future political motives. Those are the people this system is breeding to be Presidential candidates.
There are concerns with both, I think the ones of Hillary are largely overblown to be honest. Maybe I'm just jaded, but deleting emails seems like a pretty 'meh' thing to do when you really start to think about what other politicians/regimes officially have (and presumably must have) done in their time. And I also don't understand the extremely long leash the country, media, and even the democratic party, has given Trump to do and say what he has been. If Hillary refused to release her tax returns it would be blown up into some mega scandal, with Trump it seems like barely a blip. Isn't it something he called for her to do, and now won't do himself? Like, do people really not notice this stuff?
TL;DR
Yes, it's largely voting against Trump because he's a tire-fire. But I also don't think Hillary is as "crooked" as she seems hyped to be by so many.
__________________
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
I will say, if Donald Trump gets elected and pulls the "kid who ran for president" thing, I would do a complete 180 and he would instantly become my favorite person of all time. He may deserve a Nobel Peace Prize if he did that. And, as an obvious narcissist, wouldn't that be even greater? That seems like something, that even if he did it purely to get more attention and to stroke his own ego, would still make sense within his current persona.
__________________
Last edited by Coach; 09-24-2016 at 06:50 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
To the guys who are in support of Hillary on this thread. Are you supporting her just because Trump is a worse candidate and he cant be allowed to be president?
Is there anyone that actually believes shes a good human being? One that wants to do good things in office to help benefit and make life better for so many americans on hard times right now.
You mean like her push for universal healthcare (while it ultimately failed, it's likely helped push more reform)? Or her insistence on getting first responders to 9/11 covered for respiratory problems when their insurers wouldn't cover? Or when she introduced a bill to increase the Military Survivor Benefit from $12,000 to $100,000. Or maybe the Millions of lives the Clinton Foundation has saved? Most of her initiatives and political involvements may not be agreeable to you, but it's hard to question their intent.
What are Trump's accomplishments that would make anyone believe his literally ever cared for even one other person on earth?
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
I tend to approach politics from a utilitarian perspective. If you look at both candidates through skeptical, cynical eyes, you'd probably conclude that 'legacy' is a big part of the personal motives for each. Yes Hillary Clinton might be totally self-serving in her motives for everything she's done with the Clinton foundation (I don't know, I'm not a mind reader unlike a lot of people who claim to know her motives). But the indisputable fact is that her foundation has done tremendous good for millions of people already. She's defined her legacy so far on this.
Clinton's legacy as president would involve being seen as a pragmatic humanitarian*. So of course she'd want to improve the lives of americans, particularly the poorest and most disadvantaged.
Then compare what legacy-building would be for Donald Trump. His legacy would be about increasing his personal wealth, increasing his fame, claiming the most prestigious circles of friends and acquaintances, building some huge structures. His legacy as he sees it doesn't benefit from being a consensus-builder, or a humanitarian, or a visionary, or any of the other attributes that we attribute to great leaders. His potential legacy, as he sees it, is similar to what the most narcissistic dictators in other nations would claim as their legacies.
So in the end, I have little interest in whether Hillary Clinton is a good person. I have little interest in how many lies she's told, or how cold and off-putting she might be on a personal level, or whether she's doing things out of genuine sympathy, or simply a desire to increase her legacy. I'm only interested in what she would do as president, compared with what her opponent would do as president. And that's such a ridiculously one-sided argument that I have to conclude that a lot of people have very different measurements on how they're making their decision.
*I'm aware that the phrase pragmatic humanitarian has a very specific meaning in foreign policy discussions, particularly in the phrase 'pragmatic humanitarian intervention'. That's not the specific meaning that I'm using here, I'm using it in a more general sense of balancing of priorities and ideals.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
I have followed Hillary Clintons career and find her to be a good person who worked, right out of college for children and women. The Clinton Foundation, founded by President Clinton, after he served, has helped lots of people around the world. I'm not American, so have no real say in this election. I find Trump to be repugnant.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to justafan For This Useful Post:
To the guys who are in support of Hillary on this thread. Are you supporting her just because Trump is a worse candidate and he cant be allowed to be president?
Is there anyone that actually believes shes a good human being? One that wants to do good things in office to help benefit and make life better for so many americans on hard times right now.
So you've received some pretty thoughtful answers to your question, so I think it's only fair to ask:
To you and other guys who are in support of Trump on this thread: are you supporting him just because Hillary is a worse candidate who can't be allowed to be president?
Is there anyone that actually believes he's a good human being? One that wants to do good things in office to help benefit and make life better for so many americans on hard times right now?
Is there anyone that actually believes shes a good human being? One that wants to do good things in office to help benefit and make life better for so many americans on hard times right now.
There's already been sevel good answers, so I'll shorten mine to this:
If I could replace the current prime minister of Finland with Hillary Clinton, I'd do that in an instant. I probably wouldn't have voted for her party in the election here (thank the Makers for a multiparty system) but IMO she's far from a terrible candidate.
To you and other guys who are in support of Trump on this thread: are you supporting him just because Hillary is a worse candidate who can't be allowed to be president
I do not consider myself a Trump supporter, but I think this question targets me as an ambivilent 'voter.'
My biggest complaint of the American political system is inertia. Every incumbent gets re-elected, every expenditure is protected, and every subsidy becomes a right.
The Founders feared this type of cancer; feared that monied interests could calcify their largesse, feared a substantial standing army would prove irresistible to a Commander-In-Chief, feared corporations would be considered before principle or law.
Between two families, the Executive branch of the US government has been dominated for three decades. I'm counting Obama as part of their reign because when Obama defeated Hillary in '08, he appointed her to his senior cabinet and brought the gaggle of Clinton staffers into his administration - these people aren't inherently bad - they were likely all excellent hires (individually) but the cumulative effect was governmental authority has been dominated by a handful of people for decades. Even JEB! this cycle had to hire 99% of his family's staff. Again, not evil, but pernicious.
There are accusations against the Clinton Foundation for being a influence-peddling scam. I don't want to comment on those accusatins beyond this: it's totally possible. They had the means and opportunity. That appearance of impropriety is sufficient to require turnover.
In the NHL, coaches and GMs don't turn stupid/evil/incompetent and then get fired - they get fired because organizations are well-served to have turn-over for numerous reasons, many of which also apply to POTUS; faĺling in love with a failed prospect (department), rivalry with another franchise (country), protecting their legacy (buyouts), and stubborn refusal to adapt to the evolutions of the game.
Trump is, symbolically, a rejection of the recalcitrant system - and is attractive (if only) as a rejection of this juggernaut.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
I do not consider myself a Trump supporter, but I think this question targets me as an ambivilent 'voter.'
My biggest complaint of the American political system is inertia. Every incumbent gets re-elected, every expenditure is protected, and every subsidy becomes a right.
The Founders feared this type of cancer; feared that monied interests could calcify their largesse, feared a substantial standing army would prove irresistible to a Commander-In-Chief, feared corporations would be considered before principle or law.
Between two families, the Executive branch of the US government has been dominated for three decades. I'm counting Obama as part of their reign because when Obama defeated Hillary in '08, he appointed her to his senior cabinet and brought the gaggle of Clinton staffers into his administration - these people aren't inherently bad - they were likely all excellent hires (individually) but the cumulative effect was governmental authority has been dominated by a handful of people for decades. Even JEB! this cycle had to hire 99% of his family's staff. Again, not evil, but pernicious.
There are accusations against the Clinton Foundation for being a influence-peddling scam. I don't want to comment on those accusatins beyond this: it's totally possible. They had the means and opportunity. That appearance of impropriety is sufficient to require turnover.
In the NHL, coaches and GMs don't turn stupid/evil/incompetent and then get fired - they get fired because organizations are well-served to have turn-over for numerous reasons, many of which also apply to POTUS; faĺling in love with a failed prospect (department), rivalry with another franchise (country), protecting their legacy (buyouts), and stubborn refusal to adapt to the evolutions of the game.
Trump is, symbolically, a rejection of the recalcitrant system - and is attractive (if only) as a rejection of this juggernaut.
I get the whole rejection of the status quo, it's one of the reasons I liked Nader back in the day, supported Harper after the Chretien/Martin run, and most recently Trudeau over Harper. But change for the sake of change isn't good when the alternative is much worse. If Trump was at least a decent human being then that would be a great protest vote. But to vote for someone so transparently self-serving, fascist and bigoted is needlessly self-destructive and a huge over-reaction to something that has pretty much existed with every administration since at least Kennedy. Picking this battle now is odd now that Trump in the alternative, but I guess some people just want to watch the world burn. I also suspect that a lot of closet racists and misogynists are using the protest angle to justify their support. The thought of a female president following a black president must be eating them up inside.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 09-25-2016 at 08:19 AM.
To the guys who are in support of Hillary on this thread. Are you supporting her just because Drumpf is a worse candidate and he cant be allowed to be president?
Can't be said much better than this.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Picking this battle now is odd now that Trump in the alternative, but I guess some people just want to watch the world burn.
I agree 100% that is a factor for a lot of his supporters.
There is also an element of trolling to test the limits of their power.
Why did Johe Scott get voted into the NHL all star game?
Why is an English science vessel named Boat McBoatface?
It's the same reason a toddler throws his bowl of porridge across the room - to see if they can, to see what happens, and to see if the decision is theirs to make.
Clinton is the oligarch that represents the electorate's powerlessness. Ultimately, that perveption is the weakness she can never overcome.
I do not consider myself a Trump supporter, but I think this question targets me as an ambivilent 'voter.'
My biggest complaint of the American political system is inertia. Every incumbent gets re-elected, every expenditure is protected, and every subsidy becomes a right.
The Founders feared this type of cancer; feared that monied interests could calcify their largesse, feared a substantial standing army would prove irresistible to a Commander-In-Chief, feared corporations would be considered before principle or law.
Between two families, the Executive branch of the US government has been dominated for three decades. I'm counting Obama as part of their reign because when Obama defeated Hillary in '08, he appointed her to his senior cabinet and brought the gaggle of Clinton staffers into his administration - these people aren't inherently bad - they were likely all excellent hires (individually) but the cumulative effect was governmental authority has been dominated by a handful of people for decades. Even JEB! this cycle had to hire 99% of his family's staff. Again, not evil, but pernicious. There are accusations against the Clinton Foundation for being a influence-peddling scam. I don't want to comment on those accusatins beyond this: it's totally possible. They had the means and opportunity. That appearance of impropriety is sufficient to require turnover.
In the NHL, coaches and GMs don't turn stupid/evil/incompetent and then get fired - they get fired because organizations are well-served to have turn-over for numerous reasons, many of which also apply to POTUS; faĺling in love with a failed prospect (department), rivalry with another franchise (country), protecting their legacy (buyouts), and stubborn refusal to adapt to the evolutions of the game.
Trump is, symbolically, a rejection of the recalcitrant system - and is attractive (if only) as a rejection of this juggernaut.
The bolder is such a foxnews comment.
And realize what you are suggesting is that the Clintins are accepting influence in exchange for donations to charity to help 3rd world countries fight AIDS and Maleria and all these donations have to be public. These are the most altruistic super villains I have heard of. It's like the bad idea around Dr Evils table that gets a henchmen killed.
Then the better idea of secretly donating to a superpac comes up.
It's also odd that you put Obama as an extension of Hillary. This seems like an arguememt of convenience. You'd need to demonstrate from a policy basis that this were true. Also why not toss Ragan in there to add eight more years of Bush
The second falsehood is that Trump is somehow a rejection of these values. if a main plank was appointing judges who would reject Citizens United you might have a case. But Trump is just the business side of this relationship. He openly has stated he donates to gain influence and he is a master of the type of graft famous in politics. Using someone else's money to further your agenda.
I do not consider myself a Trump supporter, but I think this question targets me as an ambivilent 'voter.'
Are you a voter? Seriously? Do you get to cast a vote in this election?
Quote:
My biggest complaint of the American political system is inertia. Every incumbent gets re-elected, every expenditure is protected, and every subsidy becomes a right.
The Founders feared this type of cancer; feared that monied interests could calcify their largesse, feared a substantial standing army would prove irresistible to a Commander-In-Chief, feared corporations would be considered before principle or law.
Interesting comments, but history does not support any of this.
Quote:
two families, the Executive branch of the US government has been dominated for three decades. I'm counting Obama as part of their reign because when Obama defeated Hillary in '08, he appointed her to his senior cabinet and brought the gaggle of Clinton staffers into his administration - these people aren't inherently bad - they were likely all excellent hires (individually) but the cumulative effect was governmental authority has been dominated by a handful of people for decades. Even JEB! this cycle had to hire 99% of his family's staff. Again, not evil, but pernicious.
There are accusations against the Clinton Foundation for being a influence-peddling scam. I don't want to comment on those accusatins beyond this: it's totally possible. They had the means and opportunity. That appearance of impropriety is sufficient to require turnover.
In the NHL, coaches and GMs don't turn stupid/evil/incompetent and then get fired - they get fired because organizations are well-served to have turn-over for numerous reasons, many of which also apply to POTUS; faĺling in love with a failed prospect (department), rivalry with another franchise (country), protecting their legacy (buyouts), and stubborn refusal to adapt to the evolutions of the game.
A very simplistic view of American government. Just in case you were not aware, the President elect does not get to come into office and change policy over night. They seldom get to drive their own vision of policy forward and are told what the current state of policy is and how they are going to maintain that policy position. This is why Obama can campaign on a platform of hope and change, but the result is more of the same. The decisions on policy do not come from our elected representatives. Those long term goals are entrenched within the system itself to protect against massive policy swings as a result of ideological change. The real seat of power is in the established departments and the special interests that have so much influence in Washington. Washington is run by K Street. Policy is driven by K Street. Nothing changes until this changes.
You want the best example of this power? Take a look at Ronald Reagan's cabinet, and I mean a deep look, and then see how many of them were around when the second Bush was in office. Some of them even go as far back as Nixon! Then look at where those same guys found work when they were on the sidelines while Clinton was in office. The true power is not in our elected officials, its in those who make policy in those special interest organs in Washington.
Quote:
Trump is, symbolically, a rejection of the recalcitrant system - and is attractive (if only) as a rejection of this juggernaut.
Trump is a symbol alright. He's a symbol of the stupidity of the American people. He's a symbol of their deep seeded fears and hatred of things they don't understand. He's a symbol of the greed and the inequity in the system that exists in this country. Trump is far from the rejection of the political system, a system he brags to be able to work so well and easily to his advantage. Trump is a rejection of the fundamental beliefs and values that the vast majority of the world thinks the United States is all about. Trump is a rejection of the ideas and spirit that spurned Lazarus to pen The New Colossus, a spirit that established the backbone of the country. Trump is an embarrassment to this country and a rejection of all it once stood for.
