2016 Election - Clinton: The Hillary Clinton Thread

[Bamaro]

The EC tends to be a roadblock to 3 party candidates.

 

[Bodhisattva]

i primarily vote for democrats because for most of my adult life they most closely represent what i think is a good way to govern our country. i have yet to see any indication of a third/alternative party that i think has a better approach.

I vote neither D nor R because out-of-control spending, high taxes, progressive taxes, wealth redistribution, crony capitalism, etc. are not good governance.

 

[92tide]

I vote neither D nor R because out-of-control spending, high taxes, progressive taxes, wealth redistribution, crony capitalism, etc. are not good governance.

based on reading your posts over the years, i don't think you think any governance is good governance

 

[crimsonaudio]

The EC tends to be a roadblock to 3 party candidates.

And it needs to be gone. There should be zero instances where one can win an election while losing the popular vote.

 

[Bamaro]

And it needs to be gone. There should be zero instances where one can win an election while losing the popular vote.

IMO, it should be a majority also.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

IMO, it should be a majority also.

50.01%?

 

[jthomas666]

I don't doubt that at all. As I said earlier (the part of my post you ignored), if Hillary had a R beside her name all of you libs would be bashing her. It is typical and what I have come to expect from either side. It doesn't matter what type of person is running, the only thing that matters is that D or R.

Let's avoid the broad strokes, shall we? If Hillary had an R by her name and Trump had a D, I'd still vote for her. So, I suspect, would many of her current supporters.

The number of Republican leaders who have endorsed Hillary--or have simply said that they will not vote for Trump--indicates that this is not the simple RvD issue that you suggest.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

if if's and but's were candy and nuts.

i primarily vote for democrats because for most of my adult life they most closely represent what i think is a good way to govern our country. i have yet to see any indication of a third/alternative party that i think has a better approach.

if that causes you to reactively think of me as a sheep, i hope you can find some comfort in that, but keep your distance

it doesn't give me any comfort, it saddens me.

 

[92tide]

it doesn't give me any comfort, it saddens me.

well, as the cooler weather approaches, i should have some extra wool you can use to wipe up your tears :tongue:

 

[AV8N]

50.01%?

That would be interesting, as it might require a runoff between the top two. Voters could select third party candidates in the general election to protest or whatever, but would be limited in the runoff (or just stay home). And of course, no guarantee that a 3rd party candidate isn't in the top two. Just improbable.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Let's avoid the broad strokes, shall we? If Hillary had an R by her name and Trump had a D, I'd still vote for her. So, I suspect, would many of her current supporters.

The number of Republican leaders who have endorsed Hillary--or have simply said that they will not vote for Trump--indicates that this is not the simple RvD issue that you suggest.

most of the so-called republican "leaders" have been what is common;y referred to as RINOs. I still think that every liberal/democrat here will vote democrat no matter how terrible that candidate might be and the republicans/conservatives as well. just go back and read all the political post and there is my proof.

I am personally for neither of these 2 idiots that are running. I am for none of the above. This will be the first election in my lifetime that I will not be disgusted with myself after voting.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

That would be interesting, as it might require a runoff between the top two. Voters could select third party candidates in the general election to protest or whatever, but would be limited in the runoff (or just stay home). And of course, no guarantee that a 3rd party candidate isn't in the top two. Just improbable.

50.01% should have been in blue. Although that is technically a "majority", I seriously doubt Hillary or Trump gets that much of the popular vote. She will get maybe 42% and that will win the EC because she will get the right states to win.

 

[jthomas666]

most of the so-called republican "leaders" have been what is common;y referred to as RINOs. I still think that every liberal/democrat here will vote democrat no matter how terrible that candidate might be and the republicans/conservatives as well. just go back and read all the political post and there is my proof.

A major problem with both parties right now is the demand for ideological purity. And while I certainly respect the truthiness of your claim, the truth of it is another matter.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I wasn't trying to, sorry if it came across that way.

This point might be more appropriate in Trump's thread, but it bridges both. I think Trump's most used defense mechanism is projection, and for some reason he is never called on it. He slams Clinton for being dishonest, but repeated investigations have not corroborated that view, while he's on record saying he cheated contractors out of money. Trump calls her a criminal, but he is the one on trial for fraud. He questions her health despite a clean bill of health from her doctor, while Trump's medical note has every indication of being either fake or so hyperbolic and devoid of medical detail that's it's useless. I just find it strange that no one calls him on this.

You must not be seeing the same news (mostly CNN lately) that I've been seeing. She's as dishonest as they come and it's glaringly obvious. You don't even have to be looking for it, just paying attention. Legal decision not to prosecute is a far cry from a conscious and deliberate examination of the facts readily available to the general public in deciding her level of honesty. The guy who decided not to prosecute contradicted every pertinent public statement Clinton made on the email matter alone. She is about as far from honest as one can get.

 

[CharminTide]

You must not be seeing the same news (mostly CNN lately) that I've been seeing. She's as dishonest as they come and it's glaringly obvious. You don't even have to be looking for it, just paying attention. Legal decision not to prosecute is a far cry from a conscious and deliberate examination of the facts readily available to the general public in deciding her level of honesty. The guy who decided not to prosecute contradicted every pertinent public statement Clinton made on the email matter alone. She is about as far from honest as one can get.

Fine, I'll be more specific. Trump has accused Clinton of being dishonest while under oath and suggested that she be put on trial for perjury. Meanwhile, the only candidate with a confirmed court date is Trump himself.

 

[Tide1986]

Fine, I'll be more specific. Trump has accused Clinton of being dishonest while under oath and suggested that she be put on trial for perjury. Meanwhile, the only candidate with a confirmed court date is Trump himself.

I assume you know that nearly 100% of businesses of any significance have been subject to litigation of one kind or another. Unfortunately, it's the nature of things these days.

 

[jthomas666]

I assume you know that nearly 100% of businesses of any significance have been subject to litigation of one kind or another. Unfortunately, it's the nature of things these days.

I assume you know that nearly 100% of politicians of any significance have been accused of being dishonest in one form or another. Unfortunately, it's the nature of things these days.

At the same time, 100% of businesses of significance don't brag about not paying bills.

 

[Tide1986]

I assume you know that nearly 100% of politicians of any significance have been accused of being dishonest in one form or another. Unfortunately, it's the nature of things these days.

At the same time, 100% of businesses of significance don't brag about not paying bills.

I assume you know that most businesses do not pay for substandard work or work that does not conform to contractual requirements.

 

[jthomas666]

I assume you know that most businesses do not pay for substandard work or work that does not conform to contractual requirements.

Or if they can drag out the lawsuit until the contractor goes bankrupt.

 

[CharminTide]

I assume you know that most businesses do not pay for substandard work or work that does not conform to contractual requirements.

If so, he seems to hire far fewer competent contractors than most in his business. I thought he had a good mind for these kinds of decisions?