Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

2016 Presidential Election Thread Archive


Recommended Posts

The shrill bleating of Kaine in this debate is really turning me off. Pence definitely seems to be for the most part trying to take the high road and attack Clinton's record instead of who she is.

For the most part.

I bet if Pence was the Republican presidential candidate, he would be beating Hillary easily.  She is a weak candidate.  Kasich would have killed her in a general election as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jeb Bush  

So DNC, sure was a good idea to back Clinton over Sanders, eh? Clinton is just so much more electable.

[get prepped for some ramblings]    I get more depressed than scared.    Her voting record as a senator isn't good at all(in my opinion) with votes for the Iraq War(and not apologizing for it till

Got some stats on that sort of thing.

 

Untitled.png

 

Those numbers for blacks and hispanics voting for Clinton should scare the crap out of any Democrat pollster since 93 percent of blacks voted for Obama over Romney in 2012 and 71 percent of Hispancs voted for Obama versus 27 percent for Romney.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand this sort of hyperbole.  For some reason, people can't seem to think rationally about Hillary.  She has a long political career, which has seen its share of things worth criticizing.  Pretty much the same as most politicians.  "The worst sort of feminist?"  Not sure what that means.  Actually, on issues relating to gender issues, she has generally been behind the curve.  She and Bill certainly did not stick their neck out for GLBT rights until it was fashionable to do so.  As to being a Baby Boomer, so is everyone else in this race.  Boomers have no specific political preference as far as I can tell.  In fact, I would suspect that Boomers are voting for Trump at a higher number than young people.  As to being a criminal, that's propaganda.  Every single supposed scandal has failed to result in a prosecution.  Considering the incredible amount of resources that the Republicans have put into investigating the Clintons, you would think they could get something to stick, but it hasn't.  Perhaps the answer is because most of the investigations have been politically motivated.  Just about everything that Hillary has been investigated for, the Bush Jr. administration was guilty of as well.  However, there was never a willingness in the congress to investigate it.  I'm not saying the Clinton's are perfect, far from it.  And yes, they certainly are willing to bend the rules and try to get away with as much as they can.  Guess what, so does every other politician.  Politics is a shit show and it's pretty hard not to get some on your shows when you are on the stage.  

 

I am no fan of Hillary and I will vote for her reluctantly.  I believe she has probably sacrificed a good deal of her personal integrity in the pursuit of power.  However, the Donald has never had an ounce of personal integrity to begin with.   I'll take the advice of every single living ex-president that the Donald is categorically unfit to hold the office.  

 

When I think rationally about Hillary, I get pretty scared.

Let's face it, her tenure as SecState was one of the worst stretches of American foreign policy in recent memory (including Powell and Condi's misadventures). It's easy to wipe her scandals under the rug, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. The email scandal? That should be concerning to people. The rigged DNC in her favor? That should also concern people. Ukraine? Benghazi? Iran? Etc. Saying that because she's avoided prosecution so far that these things shouldn't worry voters is like saying that about the local drug kingpin. Not very reassuring.

I see Clinton as a power-hungry megalomaniac, who can't resist meddling in things. I think she's in this for herself, and I think it will be more of the same rolling train of disaster if she is elected.

At least if Trump gets in, we'll all be smiling when the nukes drop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I think rationally about Hillary, I get pretty scared.

Let's face it, her tenure as SecState was one of the worst stretches of American foreign policy in recent memory (including Powell and Condi's misadventures). It's easy to wipe her scandals under the rug, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. The email scandal? That should be concerning to people. The rigged DNC in her favor? That should also concern people. Ukraine? Benghazi? Iran? Etc. Saying that because she's avoided prosecution so far that these things shouldn't worry voters is like saying that about the local drug kingpin. Not very reassuring.

I see Clinton as a power-hungry megalomaniac, who can't resist meddling in things. I think she's in this for herself, and I think it will be more of the same rolling train of disaster if she is elected.

At least if Trump gets in, we'll all be smiling when the nukes drop.

[get prepped for some ramblings] 

 

I get more depressed than scared. 

 

Her voting record as a senator isn't good at all(in my opinion) with votes for the Iraq War(and not apologizing for it till 2014), No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, 2008 bailouts, ineffective Border Fences, trying to outlaw certain video games, that time she tried to ban flag burning, etc. Then you have the whole Citizens United thing which I find scary as it was all about censoring a movie criticizing Clinton. 

 

Her time as Sec State wasn't as bad in my opinion, but failing to come to terms with Russia is a massive failure. I generally agree with the Iran Deal, but the scary part about it was that Clinton & Obama worked so hard to get the deal done that they overlooked Iran's meddling in Syria and didn't go along with the Annan peace deal in 2012. Libya is a mess thanks to Clinton, even if it isn't as bad as Syria. Her talks about the wonders of decapitation strategy is also dumbfounding to me. I'm also not going to talk about the things they didn't get done like reining in North Korea or Burma, but I doubt any American FP team could. 

 

Her foundation also accepting money from the Saudis and Qataris is actually more frightening to me than Trump's foundation just being a straight out scam too. 

 

Then you have that her current policy platform is filled with things I don't really agree with, but that's more icing on the cake than anything else. 

 

Though I still don't fear for my wellbeing under a Clinton presidency or a Trump one for that matter. I think different people will suffer under either one, but that has been the way America has been ran for a while so it doesn't matter. 

 

I'll probably write in "your mom bitches" at this point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Related to previous post: Trump's lack of political experience is seen as a positive by many. I don't. As a voter, I want to know how these MFers will act when elected. We know Clinton will be pretty bad, but Trump is an unknown commodity. For all we know he could be as great as he says he is or can lead us to a nuclear holocaust. Who knows? Although I'd go with the same grade of "pretty bad." 

Link to post
Share on other sites

[get prepped for some ramblings] 

 

I get more depressed than scared. 

 

Her voting record as a senator isn't good at all(in my opinion) with votes for the Iraq War(and not apologizing for it till 2014), No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, 2008 bailouts, ineffective Border Fences, trying to outlaw certain video games, that time she tried to ban flag burning, etc. Then you have the whole Citizens United thing which I find scary as it was all about censoring a movie criticizing Clinton. 

 

Her time as Sec State wasn't as bad in my opinion, but failing to come to terms with Russia is a massive failure. I generally agree with the Iran Deal, but the scary part about it was that Clinton & Obama worked so hard to get the deal done that they overlooked Iran's meddling in Syria and didn't go along with the Annan peace deal in 2012. Libya is a mess thanks to Clinton, even if it isn't as bad as Syria. Her talks about the wonders of decapitation strategy is also dumbfounding to me. I'm also not going to talk about the things they didn't get done like reining in North Korea or Burma, but I doubt any American FP team could. 

 

Her foundation also accepting money from the Saudis and Qataris is actually more frightening to me than Trump's foundation just being a straight out scam too. 

 

Then you have that her current policy platform is filled with things I don't really agree with, but that's more icing on the cake than anything else. 

 

Though I still don't fear for my wellbeing under a Clinton presidency or a Trump one for that matter. I think different people will suffer under either one, but that has been the way America has been ran for a while so it doesn't matter. 

 

I'll probably write in "your mom bitches" at this point. 

 

Yes, "depressed" is a better way to put it. I've been resigned to the fact that we're doomy-doom-doom-doomed for about five years now. Still, we have a very good idea of what Clinton looks like in power, and I don't like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I think rationally about Hillary, I get pretty scared.

Let's face it, her tenure as SecState was one of the worst stretches of American foreign policy in recent memory (including Powell and Condi's misadventures). It's easy to wipe her scandals under the rug, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. The email scandal? That should be concerning to people. The rigged DNC in her favor? That should also concern people. Ukraine? Benghazi? Iran? Etc. Saying that because she's avoided prosecution so far that these things shouldn't worry voters is like saying that about the local drug kingpin. Not very reassuring.

I see Clinton as a power-hungry megalomaniac, who can't resist meddling in things. I think she's in this for herself, and I think it will be more of the same rolling train of disaster if she is elected.

At least if Trump gets in, we'll all be smiling when the nukes drop.

But that's the problem, a lot of these scandals are pretty weak sauce that the Republicans have tried to turn into major affairs.  Take Benghazi for example.  Is it really a scandal in the classic sense?  Yes, the administration tried to spin the thing in their initial response.  Governments do that all the time.  The subsequent investigations became such an obviously partisan affair that the notion that there was a scandal lost all credibility with anyone that is not a diehard conservative. 

 

Ironically, the far more egregious example of the Executive branch spinning something to do with foreign policy was the Bin Laden raid.  Investigations by reporter Seymour Hersh have claimed that the entire narrative as  put forward by the POTUS and documented in Zero Dark Thirty was total BS.  Pakistan knew BIn Ladin was there because they were keeping him there.  A Pakistani General finally told the US where he was, the information did not come from US intel tracking couriers.  The Pakistani's knew our team was on the way and had given tacit approval of the raid. There was no shoot-out, the SEAL Team simply blew Bin Laden to pieces and then dumped his body parts out of a helicopter over the mountains.  Given all the other big stories that Seymour Hirsh has uncovered in his career, I trust him more than I do official government accounts of events.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's the problem, a lot of these scandals are pretty weak sauce that the Republicans have tried to turn into major affairs.  Take Benghazi for example.  Is it really a scandal in the classic sense?  Yes, the administration tried to spin the thing in their initial response.  Governments do that all the time.  The subsequent investigations became such an obviously partisan affair that the notion that there was a scandal lost all credibility with anyone that is not a diehard conservative. 

 

Ironically, the far more egregious example of the Executive branch spinning something to do with foreign policy was the Bin Laden raid.  Investigations by reporter Seymour Hersh have claimed that the entire narrative as  put forward by the POTUS and documented in Zero Dark Thirty was total BS.  Pakistan knew BIn Ladin was there because they were keeping him there.  A Pakistani General finally told the US where he was, the information did not come from US intel tracking couriers.  The Pakistani's knew our team was on the way and had given tacit approval of the raid. There was no shoot-out, the SEAL Team simply blew Bin Laden to pieces and then dumped his body parts out of a helicopter over the mountains.  Given all the other big stories that Seymour Hirsh has uncovered in his career, I trust him more than I do official government accounts of events.  

 

I don't know man. The pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation seems a lot more egregious than Donald Trump calling Rosie O'Donnell a fat slob. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's the problem, a lot of these scandals are pretty weak sauce that the Republicans have tried to turn into major affairs.  Take Benghazi for example.  Is it really a scandal in the classic sense?  Yes, the administration tried to spin the thing in their initial response.  Governments do that all the time.  The subsequent investigations became such an obviously partisan affair that the notion that there was a scandal lost all credibility with anyone that is not a diehard conservative. 

 

Ironically, the far more egregious example of the Executive branch spinning something to do with foreign policy was the Bin Laden raid.  Investigations by reporter Seymour Hersh have claimed that the entire narrative as  put forward by the POTUS and documented in Zero Dark Thirty was total BS.  Pakistan knew BIn Ladin was there because they were keeping him there.  A Pakistani General finally told the US where he was, the information did not come from US intel tracking couriers.  The Pakistani's knew our team was on the way and had given tacit approval of the raid. There was no shoot-out, the SEAL Team simply blew Bin Laden to pieces and then dumped his body parts out of a helicopter over the mountains.  Given all the other big stories that Seymour Hirsh has uncovered in his career, I trust him more than I do official government accounts of events.  

 

Well, I disagree. I think her foreign policy record in particular is downright shameful (if anyone in this country had any shame left, that is).

 

The Seymour Hersh thing is another black mark on Clinton, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know man. The pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation seems a lot more egregious than Donald Trump calling Rosie O'Donnell a fat slob. 

 

Yeah, I think "Hillary Clinton's scandals aren't a big deal" is probably the result of Stockholm-syndrome-induced confirmation bias. I know many liberals really don't like her as a candidate, but what is their alternative? So they have to reframe it, or go completely nutters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand this sort of hyperbole. For some reason, people can't seem to think rationally about Hillary. She has a long political career, which has seen its share of things worth criticizing. Pretty much the same as most politicians. "The worst sort of feminist?" Not sure what that means. Actually, on issues relating to gender issues, she has generally been behind the curve. She and Bill certainly did not stick their neck out for GLBT rights until it was fashionable to do so. As to being a Baby Boomer, so is everyone else in this race. Boomers have no specific political preference as far as I can tell. In fact, I would suspect that Boomers are voting for Trump at a higher number than young people. As to being a criminal, that's propaganda. Every single supposed scandal has failed to result in a prosecution. Considering the incredible amount of resources that the Republicans have put into investigating the Clintons, you would think they could get something to stick, but it hasn't. Perhaps the answer is because most of the investigations have been politically motivated. Just about everything that Hillary has been investigated for, the Bush Jr. administration was guilty of as well. However, there was never a willingness in the congress to investigate it. I'm not saying the Clinton's are perfect, far from it. And yes, they certainly are willing to bend the rules and try to get away with as much as they can. Guess what, so does every other politician. Politics is a shit show and it's pretty hard not to get some on your shows when you are on the stage.

I am no fan of Hillary and I will vote for her reluctantly. I believe she has probably sacrificed a good deal of her personal integrity in the pursuit of power. However, the Donald has never had an ounce of personal integrity to begin with. I'll take the advice of every single living ex-president that the Donald is categorically unfit to hold the office.

Here is some hyperbole.

I am 33. Hillary has embodied everything I consider cancerous in politics my entire adult life. Back in 08 Obama got my vote in my states primary for the same reason.

Calling her a criminal isn't propaganda when the head of the FBI explains she has done things that I would go to jail for.

Of course the Bush's disapprove of Trump after he took Jeb's candidacy off the $100 million silver platter he was being handed. Bill will disapprove because his wife is running. And Obama will disapprove because a Trump election means the public rejects his of so important legacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think "Hillary Clinton's scandals aren't a big deal" is probably the result of Stockholm-syndrome-induced confirmation bias. I know many liberals really don't like her as a candidate, but what is their alternative? So they have to reframe it, or go completely nutters.

Liberal here, I literally can't bring myself to vote for any of the candidates. Probably going to have to write in a joke candidate for President and just fill in the rest of the ballot normally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand this sort of hyperbole.  For some reason, people can't seem to think rationally about Hillary.  She has a long political career, which has seen its share of things worth criticizing.  Pretty much the same as most politicians.  "The worst sort of feminist?"  Not sure what that means.  Actually, on issues relating to gender issues, she has generally been behind the curve.  She and Bill certainly did not stick their neck out for GLBT rights until it was fashionable to do so.  As to being a Baby Boomer, so is everyone else in this race.  Boomers have no specific political preference as far as I can tell.  In fact, I would suspect that Boomers are voting for Trump at a higher number than young people.  As to being a criminal, that's propaganda.  Every single supposed scandal has failed to result in a prosecution.  Considering the incredible amount of resources that the Republicans have put into investigating the Clintons, you would think they could get something to stick, but it hasn't.  Perhaps the answer is because most of the investigations have been politically motivated.  Just about everything that Hillary has been investigated for, the Bush Jr. administration was guilty of as well.  However, there was never a willingness in the congress to investigate it.  I'm not saying the Clinton's are perfect, far from it.  And yes, they certainly are willing to bend the rules and try to get away with as much as they can.  Guess what, so does every other politician.  Politics is a shit show and it's pretty hard not to get some on your shows when you are on the stage.  

 

I am no fan of Hillary and I will vote for her reluctantly.  I believe she has probably sacrificed a good deal of her personal integrity in the pursuit of power.  However, the Donald has never had an ounce of personal integrity to begin with.   I'll take the advice of every single living ex-president that the Donald is categorically unfit to hold the office.  

 

She has had a long political career sure,  and that long career has resulted in her being maybe the most disliked politician in history. Granted, the Donald is less well liked, but after over a year of the media spinning everything the guy says and does as evil, the only surprise is how close Hillary is in the same category, and that's with the media in her pocket. The Donald will only be a politician when he wins. 

 

She's the worst sort of feminist, because she is pushing bullshit feminism in this country as if there is some kind of serious gender issue, while taking money from some of the most disgusting anti women nations around (namely Saudi Arabia ), just to try and get someone to vote for her.  And you stated her being behind the curve on LGBT rights as if that's something I should like, when in fact, I'm pro gay marriage and don't have issues with transgenders and have been that way longer than she has, far longer. That she couldn't figure out it would not have hurt her to openly support this stuff much earlier is just another sigh of her poor judgement.  That she just didn't stand up for it because it's the right thing to do is sign of her poor character. 

 

I think I covered the baby boomers and how they think they did so much, when they really didn't, and the anti war movement of the 60s was as disgusting as the war they were protesting, plus who doesn't resent their parents generation for being a bunch of rock heads? :D

 

Now, onto Clinton the criminal, I'll give you there was a lot of republican witch hunting, but not all of it resulted in nothing. Bill was disbarred after all. The scandals that matter are all the recent ones.

 

Her private server in her own basement is nutty, it's not like Powell using a private email, she had a server, (he used AOL lol) the government didn't have access too, that she later had destroyed, but still gets away with it makes it seem like the fix is in. I'm not a conspiracy kinda guy, but she did things that if my dad had done while in the navy, he'd been in federal prison. It's clear her shit got hacked, since it's not being released by various hackers and wiki leaks, and these releases prove she lied to the public about the whole thing. Her sloppy handling of classified documents is damning, peoples lives can depend on that stuff, and it's damn clear she gives no shits about that.  

 

I'm not sure why Bush came up, he was a shitshow too, and I wasn't a fan, but I bet he'd be more pleasant to have a few beers with.  I thought the general consensus on politicians is they were all lying scumbags, with a few being better or worse than others, but I have to say, a politician that takes kickbacks through her charitable foundation for favors from the state department is going to have to top the scumbag scale. 

 

As others have pointed out, her political career is pretty humdrum if not bad. She has accomplished little, but fucked up much, and the United States international image is worse now than under Bush. At least Bush knew how to counter Putin.

 

I want to revisit the corruption thing, I do not want to believe the fix was in on the FBI not prosecuting her, but it can be seen that way, and people I've  never heard make any conspiracy theory noises before thing Clinton bought off the FBI, or he decided Trump couldn't be handed the presidency.

 

Personally, if I were a democrat, and I'm not, I'm no party preference, I would be livid with the party, and not want to vote for Hillary either.  It's a strait up fact the DNC and Hillary worked together to sabotage Bernie Sanders.  The DNC chose Hillary for the party, their primary system was a fixed joke. Now regular American democrats are stuck with a horrible candidate that no one likes, and if Trump gets his shit together, will lose to him. If that doesn't cause as many problems for the DNC as the Tangerine Tornado does for the RNC, then I guess the dems are getting what they wanted.  

 

Now, I'll prolly write in something on my ballot, being in california any vote not for Clinton doesn't count. 

 

The only upside to any of this, is millennials seem to have as little interest in political parties as they do in organized religion, so maybe both with die out in the next few decades.

 

I think Trump getting into office will be bad, funny, but bad, but not nation ending, nuclear war with Russia, because Hillary has to prove she has the biggest nuts on the street, when she doesn't, and Putin will fuck her/us up.

 

I think she will restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners pushing laws that will make no difference in crime rates, and she will appoint judges who will hammer away at the second amendment every chance they get. Plus she was making noises about reversing the decision on not being able to sue gun makers because the products work. In the present climate of cops shooting people for no good reason, and guns, drugs, being black, etc are scapegoated, she'll probably get the job done, since she is an experienced politician.

 

It's amazing in a pretty sad way that these are the choices we ended up with. Both political parties failed, and failed big, and so did the we I guess.      

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...