Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[derpkitteh]

Donald Trump saying he'll bomb oil fields in the Middle East.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/07...-donald-trump/

Trump saying he'd kill the families of terrorists.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...amily-members/

Trump confirming that he'd kill the families of terrorists.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6912496.html

He also very clearly alluded to military action in the Middle East in his convention speech, as well as saying he wants to abandon nation building, which I am fairly certain is an all around terrible idea that undermines any attempt to stabilize the region and end terrorism.

Edit: Do you want more?

Trump advocating we "fight fire with fire" in reference to groups like ISIS, specifically mentioning torture and beheadings.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...e-fire-n600771

Trump advocating nuclear unpredictability
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-t...ussels-attack/

The thing is, I could keep pulling out more references to it, but I have no fucking idea, not one iota of a fucking clue, where you got the idea that Trump hasn't been selling his followers on some sort of slobber knocker of a brawl in the Middle East. Two pillars of his campaign are going apeshit in the Middle East and the boogeyman of Middle Eastern immigrants who are apparently all secretly terrorists.

Like have you just never once listened to the guy actually talk? Have you never even begun to investigate this guy? This is something that has been common knowledge this entire campaign season. Trump, as part of his tough on terror stance, has been openly endorsing ludicrously hostile and indiscriminate policies against terrorists and the Middle East in general since pretty much day 1 of the campaign. It's one of the number one things he gets blasted for, and rightfully so. How the fuck you get off calling anyone ignorant when you think Trump is promoting a dedicated stance to not getting directly involved is beyond me. It's probably the one consist element of his entire campaign, along with building a wall along the Mexican border.

Edit edit:

Like jfc, the shit this guy says is literally used to recruit terrorists. When the shit you're saying is actually driving people go blow more people up, you are an unequivocal fucking failure at combating terrorism.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-propaganda-v/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/02/middle...b-video-trump/

all of the things he's said has been about killing terrorists. he's backed off the families thing, but other than that one thing, everything else was about fighting terrorists.

i don't have a problem with us finishing off ISIS. but that is ALL i want to happen. no nation building, no regime change, none of that wasteful and pointless shit. just leaving it all to rot once ISIS is dead.

[Orbitus]

Snopes is an extremely unreliable source, known for publishing pro-democrat 'fact checks' (and later sneakily editing the articles as needed) as they have shown e.g. during obamacare-related controversies. Dig deeper instead of cha-chinging at the first link that comes up.

No, Snopes just destroyed your argument so of course you are going to say that it is biased. So until you get information to back it up, don't use memes that have been thoroughly debunked

- - - Updated - - -

DNC IS IMPLODING: Craigslist Ad for Actors Needed Is Live

You really shouldn't take random posts as proof that it is imploding. Especially when ANYONE can post a Craigslist ad and not put any names and claim they need something.

- - - Updated - - -

Have people seen this?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5673884/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash

You mean the Clinton Cash that even the author doesn't have any evidence to support it?
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/...on-crimes.html

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM

Again, this has no supporting evidence.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/...on-crimes.html

[Deleted]

You mean the Clinton Cash that even the author doesn't have any evidence to support it?

Lack of evidence doesn't always mean absence of wrongdoing. Sometimes, when it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it might just be a duck.

[W1sp]

Imho citizens of the united states of America have a very simple choice. Either vote for some1 who has proven to be a warmongering corrupt leader in the past and will obviously continue being one in the future. Or vote for some1 that might be a corrupt warmongering leader but has yet to be one. I know what i would choose if i were American and even though it pains me to say it, we need to full TRUMP

[Moon-Man]

Hillary is running for her life, if she does not get in, it is very likely she will go to prison for treason. Literally, the Government is chasing her.

And when they find a connection about US Buying Oil from ISIS (which is also, likely Hillary is connected). She will auto drop out, and Trump will be cleaning house.

Hillary has no chance on winning. US citizens have to awfully retarded to vote for her at this point.

[Orbitus]

Lack of evidence doesn't always mean absence of wrongdoing. Sometimes, when it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it might just be a duck.

No, without evidence to support your argument, your argument can be dismissed without need of evidence.

[Ausr]

Hillary is running for her life, if she does not get in, it is very likely she will go to prison for treason. Literally, the Government is chasing her.

And when they find a connection about US Buying Oil from ISIS (which is also, likely Hillary is connected). She will auto drop out, and Trump will be cleaning house.

Hillary has no chance on winning. US citizens have to awfully retarded to vote for her at this point.

Them conspiracy theories!

[Cthulhu 2020]

Then excuse me while I exercise the same liberty of being skeptical.

As said, you've only ever exhibited cynicism. You seem to (want to) believe Trump when his actions have clearly pointed in the opposite direction of his words, but one guy gets up on stage and makes a jide about Clinton's decision and it's all you need to toss her to the side. I said I don't 100% believe their words, and while Hillary has done a lot for Wall Street, she's also gone out of her way for the working class in the past where Trump hasn't.

You've already made up your mind on Hillary though, as I've pointed out before. Nothing is really going to change that. You're going to make up excuses and look for anything to critique her on to justify that decision you've already made so... *shrug*

- - - Updated - - -

Like have you just never once listened to the guy actually talk?

Most people's perception of the candidates at this point seem to be almost pure projection, putting beliefs, policy positions, and qualities onto a candidate at their leisure/whim and ignoring reality.

[Deleted]

Aaah, don't we all love the Trump-crowd.
"Who needs evidence?"

I'm not in the "Trump-crowd" though. I just don't worship at the altar of the Clintons.

[Deleted]

But "Lack of evidence doesn't always mean absence of wrongdoing." is a dangerous statement.

No more dangerous than saying that without evidence nothing bad has been done.

[Deleted]

Neither do I.
But "Lack of evidence doesn't always mean absence of wrongdoing." is a dangerous statement.

Said the guy that is bias towards refugee welcome and insults eastern-european "EU citizens" just because of his bigoted views. You don't know how to draw conclusion even if you found evidence, unless it confirmes your bias and prejudice!

[TZucchini]

Here's what this election has come down to for me:

Hillary: She's certainly qualified, but I don't like her. Don't really trust her, and don't like the overall feel of having Bush Bush, Clinton Clinton, Bush Bush, Obama Obama.....now back to Clinton Clinton.

Trump: Literally a threat to the stability of our country.


Yeah. I know which one I'm voting for.

[Jump17]

Here's what this election has come down to for me:

Hillary: She's certainly qualified, but I don't like her. Don't really trust her, and don't like the overall feel of having Bush Bush, Clinton Clinton, Bush Bush, Obama Obama.....now back to Clinton Clinton.

Trump: Literally a threat to the stability of our country.


Yeah. I know which one I'm voting for.

This is how I've seen this all to. However, from the speeches at the DNC, they have certainly convinced me Trump cannot win. How much I've been told about Hillary's corruption, Bill Clinton's speech about everything she's done has convinced me she is rational, caring and is just focused on too much. I still don't fully trust her but I've come to realise this focus on corruption for Hillary is nothing compared to Trump. I trust him far less than Hillary based on what he's done running his business. I cannot vote for a man that throws the working class under the bus for his greed. He doesn't know what he's doing and I pray that he doesn't manage to sell this to enough people.

[zenkai]

Here's what this election has come down to for me:

Hillary: She's certainly qualified, but I don't like her. Don't really trust her, and don't like the overall feel of having Bush Bush, Clinton Clinton, Bush Bush, Obama Obama.....now back to Clinton Clinton.

Trump: Literally a threat to the stability of our country.


Yeah. I know which one I'm voting for.

Clinton is incompetent, a liar, a thief, but yeah she will be stable...lol


Yay Bernie is an independent again, I have more respect for him now - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/0...n-independent/

[TZucchini]

Clinton is incompetent, a liar, a thief, but yeah she will be stable...lol

Incompetent? Not as a personality trait. She's been quite competent through her career in the Senate and as the SoS. There have been instances of incompetence, sure. The way she handled classified information, I believe, was incompetent.

A lair? Yeah, she's certainly told some some lies throughout her career.

A thief? You'll have to fill me in on that one.

[Alydael]

For me the choice is:

Hillary: decades in government- basically no meaningful legislation to show for it (what has she even done except hold positions?). If there was a world record for the most scandals ever she would hold it (come on even the biggest Hillary nut can't blame it all on "republican hit jobs"). Here handling of the e-mails was describe as irresponsible, her bombing of Libya (without Congressional approval) was reckless and destabilizing and she signed on to Bush's Iraq war (her signature is on the paper so she owns her part in it).

Trump: Says a lot of dumb things, but also has a few ideas. Has a record of getting things done. Has some questionable things in his past but is basically an unknown and is mostly criticized for the things he says.

To me, neither is really "qualified" to be president and neither is an ideal choice. I am currently trending towards trump because the Dems: do not seem to really understand the terrorist situation (they didn't even mention ISIS the first night while terrorist attacks are going on all over the world) and they are very pro globalization.

My feelings on globalization:

1) politicians are rushing into it in typical fashion without thinking of the millions of lives that will be negatively affected.

2) We don't need politicians to globalize us. Technology has already done so. I can open a business from in front of my computer and sell all over the world. Without even getting out of my pj's. I can read articles and posts from all over the world. I don't really need politicians mucking it up so they can skim profits off the top with their corruption.

- - - Updated - - -

Incompetent? Not as a personality trait. She's been quite competent through her career in the Senate and as the SoS. There have been instances of incompetence, sure. The way she handled classified information, I believe, was incompetent.

A lair? Yeah, she's certainly told some some lies throughout her career.

A thief? You'll have to fill me in on that one.

In which was has she been competent? What situation did she handle competently?

[Orlong]

Clinton is incompetent, a liar, a thief, but yeah she will be stable...lol


Yay Bernie is an independent again, I have more respect for him now - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/0...n-independent/

You still respect him even though a month ago he said Hillary was unfit to be president and this week he says there couldnt be a more qualified candidate for president than Hillary???? I cant respect a man like that. Im not a fan of Ted Cruz, but at least I respect him for standing firm and not selling out like Bernie did when Cruz refused to endorse Donald Trump even in the face of boos, and even knowing that it could cause Hillary to win, and he hates Clinton even more than he hates Trump

[TZucchini]

In which was has she been competent? What situation did she handle competently?

Off the top of my head, she handled the Iran sanctions very competently. Was even able to get Russia and China to participate, which was a pretty huge deal.

[Orlong]

DNC IS IMPLODING: Craigslist Ad for Actors Needed Is Live

At first I thought this was a bullshit fake ad someone put up to be silly, but now Im not so sure. Here is an actual Bernie delegate explaining how he was removed and a paid seat filler was put in his seat in an effort to show fake unity in the party, and remove dissenters.

[Alydael]

Off the top of my head, she handled the Iran sanctions very competently. Was even able to get Russia and China to participate, which was a pretty huge deal.

I'll agree with that one, shame that Obama ruined it with his terrible Iran deal. Still, that is not a lot to show for decades in office. She was even the senator in NYC during 9/11. That was an incredible opportunity to show some real leadership and really show what you are made of. She was basically absent. So she has had a lot of opportunity to really put her leadership on display, but we haven't really seen it.

- - - Updated - - -

At first I thought this was a bullshit fake ad someone put up to be silly, but now Im not so sure. Here is an actual Bernie delegate explaining how he was removed and a paid seat filler was put in his seat in an effort to show fake unity in the party, and remove dissenters.

Not surprising though. The dissension was making the party look really bad. The worst part was having the hollywood elites come out and lecture the Bernie supporters on how to vote..... It is just demeaning really. Then to have Hillary take on Wasseverhenameis- schultz as part of the campaign (just in case you doubted the level of collusion between those two) is just the ultimate "smack in the face."