2016 Presidential General Election Thread

[FoolofaTook]

So ur voting trump?

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

I can't think of a male member of Congress or presidential candidate who is blamed not only for exaggerations of their own record and career, but also that of their wife.

Clinton is held to those standards, blamed for the record of her husband, not just by conservatives, but also by Berne Bros and many so called feminists

There isn't a single male politician in Washington held to those standards

I don't know about separating her political campaign from Bill's, though. This is the first time in the history of your country that both members of a marriage union took turns being head of state, and I think that is highly unusual. Scrutinising that arrangement, and each of their careers, to assess whether or not she is a good candidate for head of state seems like a sensible thing to do, IMO. The cry of sexism in this case almost seems like smoke screening, or wilful distraction.

I think people judged George W. Bush based on Bush Snr, and Jeb Bush based on both of them, as well - and scrutinised their platforms, private relationships and business conduct, looking for inappropriate or self-interested transactions (of which, undoubtedly, there are plenty - I didn't bother looking myself, because they're unapologetic Republicans, so I just assumed).

I agree there is a lot of sexism directed towards her. But it does also seem to me that justifiable skepticism is being conflated with sexism.

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

This perception is close enough for me to nicely say vix, you don't have be on the fence anymore about it -- the Clintons have been career criminals for a very long time. The mainstream media has is in part been covering for them all these decades. They have little choice but to continue to ignore the reality of her crimes because en masse', the media have been complicit in the cover-up.

This could all be true, but it seems to me that we can't know for sure right now. In 100 years everything will have come out in the wash, and then we'll know one way or the other, but not knowing much about her, or her life, or her personality...and not knowing much in the way of U.S. modern history and current affairs, I feel I can't draw conclusions without irrefutable, hard evidence. But, having said that, if it came out - I mean, nothing would surprise me at this point. About any politician, I mean. They're all jerks.

Except Barnie Saunders, obviously.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

I can't think of a male member of Congress or presidential candidate who is blamed not only for exaggerations of their own record and career, but also that of their wife.

Clinton is held to those standards, blamed for the record of her husband, not just by conservatives, but also by Berne Bros and many so called feminists

There isn't a single male politician in Washington held to those standards

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

Obama ran for president twice saying he didn't support gay marriage. He changed his mind at nearly the same time that Clinton did. But Obama is cheered for it while Clinton is called an opportunist.


Sexist Hypocrisy

no argument here.

Originally Posted by vixnix

I don't know about separating her political campaign from Bill's, though. This is the first time in the history of your country that both members of a marriage union took turns being head of state, and I think that is highly unusual. Scrutinising that arrangement, and each of their careers, to assess whether or not she is a good candidate for head of state seems like a sensible thing to do, IMO. The cry of sexism in this case almost seems like smoke screening, or wilful distraction.

I agree there is a lot of sexism directed towards her. But it does also seem to me that justifiable skepticism is being conflated with sexism.

For a non-American it is probably difficult to get a fully contextualized idea of how evil conservatives have been to her because she has a vagina since the day she appeared on the national stage. It's basically impossible to separate the sexism from their other attacks on her because they have incubated every criticism of her over the last 3 decades in their hatred of her as a "bitch" or "cunt," essentially.

[vixnix]

Yeah that's groce. I can see how that would happen in the country that spawned mega-churches and the KKK.

Still, I do think it goes too far the other way, where any criticism of her or of her actions is labelled sexism. It isn't ALL sexism, is it?

[redbreegull]

No, there are a lot of legitimate criticisms of her. She's done bad things. But think about trying to take apart conservative America's hatred of Obama because he is black from their hatred of him because *insert any reason based on policy here*. It's really hard. And most of us are sick of giving racists and sexists "the benefit of the doubt" every time they learn they can veil something behind plausible deniability.

[Elphenor]

she has bad qualities policy wise but "she kept gov secrets on a private email" is for sure a I don't give a fuck situation

The same people who are certain every aspect of the gov is corrupt are really gonna single this thing out as so bad

[Elphenor]

Again

The same people who hate the gov

totally mad about government secrets not being protected

when it's Hillary Clinton "oh no government secrets, think of our safety"

when it's Trump "I hope he gets elected so everything gets nuked"

[MyOneAndOnly]

Private server that her agency knew of and approved. Previous Sec of State also used private emails (servers that they didn't even own) for classified and non classified emails.

Powell admitted to using his person laptop as well.

But no scandal why? Cause Powell and and rice are Republican

[MyOneAndOnly]

This is a non scandal. Just like fake Benghazi. This is part of the GOP hype machine to create controversy to punish their enemies.

And it continues because Republican voters reward their gerrymandered rulers for acting that way.

[redbreegull]

someone wake me up when george bush and dick cheney are investigated for destabilizing the middle east with an illegal war built on outright lies which killed hundreds of thousands of people

[redbreegull]

GOP is really fighting the good fight here

[fuzzyroes]

For anyone who would like to have an insiders perspective on Hilary Clinton I reccomend reading the new fantastic book "Crisis of Character" written by a guy named Gary J. Byrne who's an ex secret service officer, who was “posted directly outside President Clinton’s Oval Office'.

It talks about her odd erratic behavior and her general disdain for rules.

The elites are pissed and have made CNN and other news networks drop him from appearing on their shows... Meanwhile it was headline news for days when some hack journalist wrote an article interviewing Trumps old girlfriends.... Such a joke

But read the book for yourselves, it's pretty damning.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by Poots

Powell literally did a few emails, but not on his own server. Rice, according to the PBS article vix linked above, did nothing illegal. Hillary's shit is a lot more. Years of emails with state secrets on a private server with the equivalent security of a 1998 geocities website. You've got PBS hedging their bets here; that's not a good sign for the ol' gal.

Why would she wipe the hard drive clean before she turned it over to the FBI? Willful destruction of evidence of a felony is... wait for it... also a felony. Willfully ignoring requests (as the PBS article also said) to NOT endanger classified information by putting it on her private email/ server is approaching treason. There seems to be a whole boatload of shit that paints her as, at best, an ignorant dumbass, and at worst, a lying, traitorous bitch.

Powell and Rice used used personal email accounts for govt business. powell used his personal lap top. They both ran afoul of the same rules Clinton is accused of breaking. The most recent report makes it sound like Powell was actually the WORST abuser in that regard. He seems to have made no effort to avoid using his personal email account.


everything else is just bullshit and politics.

[buzzard]

I would be embarrassed if partisanship had tricked me into thinking that I care about procedural regulations attached to communications within government departments.

[buzzard]

It's totally your staunch belief in adherence to information security policies that has cost Hillary Clinton your vote in this election, too, right?

[MyOneAndOnly]

and there you have it

[Elphenor]

You don't have to say it though it's implied when you suddenly give a shit about protecting government secrets

The Anarchist

All about the gov securing secrets

how does this go over your head

[redbreegull]

what's going on is that you think you are trolling everyone but you actually are a real racist and sexist and you are probably unaware of it because your head is a compartmentalized mess

[redbreegull]

I mean you can say as many sexist things as you want and it's not sexist as long as you don't "mean" it, right?

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by buzzard

I would be embarrassed if partisanship had tricked me into thinking that I care about procedural regulations attached to communications within government departments.

Her other activities while Secretary of State were kinda dodgy though. She negotiated more arms deals than any SOS before her, and afterwards received donations to the Clinton Foundation from both sides.

I don't know if that's all easy to explain, or if she has turned full lizard person.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by vixnix

Her other activities while Secretary of State were kinda dodgy though. She negotiated more arms deals than any SOS before her, and afterwards received donations to the Clinton Foundation from both sides.

I don't know if that's all easy to explain, or if she has turned full lizard person.

the clinton foundation is not her campaign. she doesn't have access to those funds.

every single secretary of state negotiates arms deals. it's part of the job.

also, you have it backwards, most of the criticism is that Boeing, Saudi Arabia, etc donated to the Foundation before she was Sec of State.

while i wouldn't want my non profit taking saudi money, the implied moral standard here is that if your family starts a non profit you're somehow unable to serve in National Office because it's a conflict of interest? Many politicians, including every single former president, have non profit foundations in their Name. Obama has one that's currenltly taking donations from big name corporations too.

[MyOneAndOnly]

89% of the donations received by the Clinton Foundation go to charitable works and grants. While right wingers love to talk about it like some kind of evil organization they do things like provide education to rural African farmers or support Reforestation in the Carribean.

So Boeing gave money in the past to a charity (Clinton Foundation) that spends almost all of it on good works.

Boo hoo

http://www.factcheck.org/

[MyOneAndOnly]

I'm all for dialogue on politcal issues. But the Clinton Foundation is a pointless boogy-man for conspiracy freaks and Right Wing hate mongers. It has no connection to the OBAMA POLICIES she was part of when she WORKED FOR OBAMA.

If you don't like the agreements the US Secretary of State makes, your ire should be directed at the President.

[vixnix]

yeah I guess.

I don't really know what to think about it. What do you think about the information in this article?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ate-arms-deals

[redbreegull]

The Clinton Foundation has received a lot of positive feedback as well, despite receiving money from the Saudis and such. E.g. out of all the major organizations taking donations towards relief of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the Clinton Foundation forwarded the largest percentage of each donor dollar directly to relief efforts. It does a lot of good work.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by vixnix

yeah I guess.

I don't really know what to think about it. What do you think about the information in this article?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ate-arms-deals

I am interested to read more on this later... this is just some guy's analysis, but he thinks the MotherJones article cherry picks info as they fail to acknowledge Ireland for example, gave a similar donation as Qatar but saw its arms package decrease in value.

https://breakingtothink.com/2015/11/...se-arms-deals/

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by vixnix

This could all be true, but it seems to me that we can't know for sure right now. In 100 years everything will have come out in the wash, and then we'll know one way or the other, but not knowing much about her, or her life, or her personality...and not knowing much in the way of U.S. modern history and current affairs, I feel I can't draw conclusions without irrefutable, hard evidence. But, having said that, if it came out - I mean, nothing would surprise me at this point. About any politician, I mean. They're all jerks.

Except Barnie Saunders, obviously.

You don't have to wait 100 years. What's been public through official sources as well as leaks about her private server is sufficient enough evidence for several indictments (not that I expect any).

At the very least, Russia and China have all those emails which makes her an easy subject for blackmail as President.


Also more than enough evidence to show how that foundation skimmed at least 90% off the top of monies designated for Haitian earthquake relief. That's one where the Bushy's took part as well.

[Elphenor]

None of these things are important

Clintons policies are better for the country than Trumps

All that matters

[fuzzyroes]

You're a simple-minded young fellow