Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Endus]

The point is about being consistent across the board.

There's no inconsistency. There's just you being willfully obstuse as to what people's actual arguments and policy positions are.

You strike me as a person who would go out of your way to draw a peachy establishment picture as a Republican is making an appeal to change, yet would add to the gloomy or "we need change" ra ra when its a leftist saying how the economic system is bad and needs big change.

I can't even tell what you're trying to say, here.

If you mean I wouldn't champion what I thought was a good idea because it came from a Republican, you're dead wrong. I just disagree vehemently with the current Republican platform, so I don't see that as likely to happen. It has nothing to do with them being Republican, and has to do with my opposition to the ideals for which they stand.

Doesn't mean there couldn't be an outlier Republican who breaks ranks and pushes for something I think is smart. Just unlikely. I don't attack people over their political affiliations, but their policy views. And I've freely attacked left-wing candidates, including Clinton, on those same grounds. I was pro-Sanders in the lead-up to the convention. I still wish he'd won the nomination. I'm just not going to throw a childish tantrum about it, and Clinton's a tried-and-tested alternative. If the Republicans had put up a reasonable, moderate, unifying Republican as their candidate, rather than basically any of the clown car of candidates who ran this year, I might have preferred them to Clinton, but they didn't.

Your entire post there is either projection of your own biases onto me, or the creation of an imaginary boogeyman that you want to pretend represents me. Either way, it's just blatantly incorrect, and says more about you than about me.

[PC2]

There's no inconsistency. There's just you being willfully obstuse as to what people's actual arguments and policy positions are.



I can't even tell what you're trying to say, here.

If you mean I wouldn't champion what I thought was a good idea because it came from a Republican, you're dead wrong. I just disagree vehemently with the current Republican platform, so I don't see that as likely to happen. It has nothing to do with them being Republican, and has to do with my opposition to the ideals for which they stand.

Doesn't mean there couldn't be an outlier Republican who breaks ranks and pushes for something I think is smart. Just unlikely. I don't attack people over their political affiliations, but their policy views. And I've freely attacked left-wing candidates, including Clinton, on those same grounds. I was pro-Sanders in the lead-up to the convention. I still wish he'd won the nomination. I'm just not going to throw a childish tantrum about it, and Clinton's a tried-and-tested alternative. If the Republicans had put up a reasonable, moderate, unifying Republican as their candidate, rather than basically any of the clown car of candidates who ran this year, I might have preferred them to Clinton, but they didn't.

Your entire post there is either projection of your own biases onto me, or the creation of an imaginary boogeyman that you want to pretend represents me. Either way, it's just blatantly incorrect, and says more about you than about me.

If you are saying the economy is strong yet supported Sanders who very clearly wants to shake up the economy from higher taxes, strict regulation, free university, single payer health care(etc) then you are either a hypocrite or don't understand that big policy change disrupts positive economic trends.

[Endus]

If you are saying the economy is strong yet supported Sanders who very clearly wants to shake up the economy from higher taxes, strict regulation, free university, single payer health care(etc) then you are either a hypocrite or don't understand that big change disrupts positive economic trends.

Or that I think the strength of the economy is such that it could easily withstand that shake-up without any real risk.
Or that I think the long-term gains of such a shift are worth the short-term issues we may face in making the necessary adjustments.
Or any of a host of other things.

You've taken a statement of objective fact today, and declared that I must be either ignorant or a hypocrite for suggesting we might change things. That doesn't even make rational sense as an argument, in the first place. It's like saying "you can't say that crime is down and also want to legalize marijuana!" The two things are just flat-out not connected.

[PC2]

Or that I think the strength of the economy is such that it could easily withstand that shake-up without any real risk.
Or that I think the long-term gains of such a shift are worth the short-term issues we may face in making the necessary adjustments.
Or any of a host of other things.

Which is literally the exact same argument by people claiming big changes are needed in the opposite economic policy direction. I don't think you understand that suggesting the economy is strong and healthy is inherently a conservative position.

[Endus]

Which is literally the exact same argument by people claiming big changes are needed in the opposite economic policy direction.

You're being so generic I have literally no idea what you mean. What "opposite economic policy direction"? Economic policy isn't a single axis system.

And don't say "to the right", because that's not an economic policy direction.

I don't think you understand that claiming the economy is strong and healthy is inherently a conservative position.

This is just blatantly, obviously incorrect. I have no idea where you got this. It's ridiculously partisan. The economy can only be strong if you're a conservative saying it? That's just patent nonsense.

Statements of fact aren't political.

[Deleted]

You can't do anything about the system before November, but you can do something about your own decision making to ensure your own agenda is advanced as best as possible.

Hillary could be lying to Bernie supporters just to get their votes.

Are you sure you can stand 4-8 years of more outsourcing and higher taxation? And being excluded from real opportunities because you are white and vote Republican?

I'm really tempted to let you have Hillary.

Also, the 50%+ of the country that Hillary won't represent properly need someone to reflect their values (it's actually higher but let's pretend the country really is that divided). We don't have to live in Hillary's world.

The point is about being consistent across the board. You strike me as a person who would go out of your way to draw a peachy establishment picture as a Republican is making an appeal to change, yet would add to the gloomy or "we need change" ra ra when its a leftist saying how the economic system is bad and needs big change.

Frustrating isn't it?

[PC2]

You're being so generic I have literally no idea what you mean. What "opposite economic policy direction"? Economic policy isn't a single axis system.

And don't say "to the right", because that's not an economic policy direction.

This is just blatantly, obviously incorrect. I have no idea where you got this. It's ridiculously partisan. The economy can only be strong if you're a conservative saying it? That's just patent nonsense.

I'll give you an example. Bernie wants to significantly increase taxes, Trump wants to significantly reduce taxes. If you think the economy is strong as is, you would've been against significant economic policy changes. Instead, you suggest the economy is strong when the Republican makes an appeal, then switch back over to economic policy needing significant change when it comes to the Democrat primaries. It is hypocritical.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Remember that one time I was told Hillary was some terrible warmonger which is why you should vote for Trump and I was like nah dawg, Trump is too, and then I was assured I was just a crazy person who is out of touch with reality?

One time? That's like every other post dawg.

[Noxx79]

I'll give you an example. Bernie wants to significantly increase taxes, Trump wants to significantly reduce taxes. If you think the economy is strong as is, you would've been against significant economic policy changes. Instead, you suggest the economy is strong when the Republican makes an appeal, then switch back over to economic policy needing significant change when it comes to the Democrat primaries. It is hypocritical.

That's a complete misrepresentation of policy and what is being debated in terms of a governmental philosophy. You don't seem to understand what you're talking about.

In fact, it is an extremely conservative view to say "Hey things are OK, lets not change anything (or change BACK to the way things used to be)", and an extremely progressive view to say "Things are OK now, but we can make them even better".

[Fahrenheit]

The waxing Endus dropped on Primarycolor over the last several exchanges has to be one of the worst I've seen on here. I can only equate it to some of the beat downs Skore has thrown on some of the pro Russia folk in that thread.
Just throw in the towel man.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So anyway, @Theodarzna, after this lengthy discussion spanning across multiple threads, I'll wrap it up this way.

You vote for who you want to vote for. Vote for the person who perfectly aligns with your conscience (aside from Title IX I guess).

I will vote for the person who I think stands the best chance of winning that most closely aligns with what I think will lead our country closer to a direction I want it to be. You can make fun of it, call it settling, or whatever you want, as is your right to do so. I see it as silly and childish, but whatever. I like to be pragmatic.

This whole election process is a result of how our system was originally designed. Requiring 270 votes to become president, rather than a simple majority, has necessitated that we pick two candidates to put forward and vote between. More candidates than that and we stand no one candidate getting 270 votes, and having run off elections until the world ends. This is why and how the two party system in our country evolved. We select from a pool of candidates the two people most popular among our diverse party system. While there are numerous factions among left and right, our system has aggregated them into two parties.

While various European countries with parliamentary systems have the communist party, socialist party, moderate left, moderate right, white nationalists, nazis, fascists, etc., the fringe ones with a couple of seats each and the most popular ones with more, we have to settle for two parties that broadly encompass "left" and "right".

And it's somewhat unfortunate. I accept that communists vote Democrat, but I do find it funny to see how many Republicans straight up deny there are racist white nationalist fascists, and even neo-nazis supporting and voting Republican. Sorry guys, they're a part of your party, that's just the way it works.

I just cannot abide and let Trump become president. As little as my presidential vote matters in my state, I'm voting for what most closely aligns with me. The Trump supporters, as we've seen, have been nothing but dishonest and hypocritical this whole time. Their lack of logic is just mind boggling. And the Trump movement is basically the white nationalist section of the Republican party coming to the forefront and taking a run at taking the country. There are numerous reasons, but I simply can't respect those people in the least.

There are Republicans I know who are ashamed of the kind of behavior exhibited by the more extreme Trumpites. They know it's cancerous for our country in so many ways. I know several of these people in real life, and on here I know of at least @Skroe as a respectable conservative. Even if I may disagree with him on many many policies, at least we know that hopping into bed with Putin to get at our political enemies may as well be treason, and certainly isn't healthy for this country. I've actually had to distance myself from some real life friends because they went off the deep end with the Trump support and hating anyone who doesn't agree with them.

We may be political RIVALS, but we are not ENEMIES. Anyone who would make an enemy of a fellow countryman is the enemy of the United States.

[Skroe]

Here! Here!

[Berengil]

So anyway, @Theodarzna, after this lengthy discussion spanning across multiple threads, I'll wrap it up this way.

You vote for who you want to vote for. Vote for the person who perfectly aligns with your conscience (aside from Title IX I guess).

I will vote for the person who I think stands the best chance of winning that most closely aligns with what I think will lead our country closer to a direction I want it to be. You can make fun of it, call it settling, or whatever you want, as is your right to do so. I see it as silly and childish, but whatever. I like to be pragmatic.

This whole election process is a result of how our system was originally designed. Requiring 270 votes to become president, rather than a simple majority, has necessitated that we pick two candidates to put forward and vote between. More than that and we stand no one candidate getting 270 votes and having run off elections until the world ends. This is why and how the two party system in our country evolved. We select from a pool of candidates, the two people most popular among our diverse party system. While there are numerous factions among left and right, our system has aggregated them into two parties.

While various European countries with parliamentary systems have the communist party, socialist party, moderate left, moderate right, white nationalists, nazis, fascists, etc., the fringe ones with a couple of seats each and the most popular ones with more, we have to settle for two parties that broadly encompass "left" and "right".

And it's somewhat unfortunate. I accept that communists vote Democrat, but I do find it funny to see how many Republicans straight up deny there are racist white nationalist fascists, and even neo-nazis supporting and voting Republican. Sorry guys, they're a part of your party, that's just the way it works.

I just cannot abide and let Trump become president. As little as my presidential vote matters in my state, I'm voting for what most closely aligns. The Trump supporters, as we've seen, have been nothing but dishonest and hypocritical this whole time. Their lack of logic is just mind boggling. And the Trump movement is basically the white nationalist section of the Republican party coming to the forefront and taking a run at taking the country. There are numerous reasons, but I simply can't respect those people in the least.

There are Republicans I know who are ashamed of the kind of behavior exhibited by the more extreme Trumpites. They know it's cancerous for our country in so many ways. I know several of these people in real life, and on here I know of at least @Skroe as a respectable conservative. Even if I may disagree with him on many many policies, at least we know that hopping into bed with Putin to get at our political enemies may as well be treason, and certainly isn't healthy for this country.

We may be political RIVALS, but we are not ENEMIES. Anyone who would make an enemy of a fellow countryman is the enemy of the United States.

The mike.

It just got dropped.

+10,000 interwebz to you sir

[Felya]

I'll give you an example. Bernie wants to significantly increase taxes, Trump wants to significantly reduce taxes. If you think the economy is strong as is, you would've been against significant economic policy changes. Instead, you suggest the economy is strong when the Republican makes an appeal, then switch back over to economic policy needing significant change when it comes to the Democrat primaries. It is hypocritical.

You are creating a false equivalency. Increasing taxes on people that are doing better as a result of a booming economy versus cutting taxes because the economy is shit, are not the same thing. You are focusing on a change, instead of what changes are and the rational.

Here is an example of RNC platform in 2000, where they say the economy is booming, while still talking about policy change:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25849

[Theodarzna]

So anyway, @Theodarzna, after this lengthy discussion spanning across multiple threads, I'll wrap it up this way.

You vote for who you want to vote for. Vote for the person who perfectly aligns with your conscience (aside from Title IX I guess).

I will vote for the person who I think stands the best chance of winning that most closely aligns with what I think will lead our country closer to a direction I want it to be. You can make fun of it, call it settling, or whatever you want, as is your right to do so. I see it as silly and childish, but whatever. I like to be pragmatic.

This whole election process is a result of how our system was originally designed. Requiring 270 votes to become president, rather than a simple majority, has necessitated that we pick two candidates to put forward and vote between. More than that and we stand no one candidate getting 270 votes and having run off elections until the world ends. This is why and how the two party system in our country evolved. We select from a pool of candidates, the two people most popular among our diverse party system. While there are numerous factions among left and right, our system has aggregated them into two parties.

While various European countries with parliamentary systems have the communist party, socialist party, moderate left, moderate right, white nationalists, nazis, fascists, etc., the fringe ones with a couple of seats each and the most popular ones with more, we have to settle for two parties that broadly encompass "left" and "right".

And it's somewhat unfortunate. I accept that communists vote Democrat, but I do find it funny to see how many Republicans straight up deny there are racist white nationalist fascists, and even neo-nazis supporting and voting Republican. Sorry guys, they're a part of your party, that's just the way it works.

I just cannot abide and let Trump become president. As little as my presidential vote matters in my state, I'm voting for what most closely aligns. The Trump supporters, as we've seen, have been nothing but dishonest and hypocritical this whole time. Their lack of logic is just mind boggling. And the Trump movement is basically the white nationalist section of the Republican party coming to the forefront and taking a run at taking the country. There are numerous reasons, but I simply can't respect those people in the least.

There are Republicans I know who are ashamed of the kind of behavior exhibited by the more extreme Trumpites. They know it's cancerous for our country in so many ways. I know several of these people in real life, and on here I know of at least @Skroe as a respectable conservative. Even if I may disagree with him on many many policies, at least we know that hopping into bed with Putin to get at our political enemies may as well be treason, and certainly isn't healthy for this country.

We may be political RIVALS, but we are not ENEMIES. Anyone who would make an enemy of a fellow countryman is the enemy of the United States.

Eh, I have decided, and it will probably annoy my Finnish friend on here that I....

Dwi'n pleidleisio dros y fenyw...... so for now, if Hillary Clinton sticks to her promises I will cast a ballot to her. I WILL however remain skeptical and critical of her and be watching for missteps and her straying too far from the policy she articulated last night.

For now, I have said I will vote for, in my own language no less. You can expect not much else from me.

[Deleted]

Go ahead and let me have Hillary though.

Maybe in a quarantined zone. You sure you want to go there?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Eh, I have decided, and it will probably annoy my Finnish friend on here that I....

Dwi'n pleidleisio dros y fenyw...... so for now, if Hillary Clinton sticks to her promises I will cast a ballot to her. I WILL however remain skeptical and critical of her and be watching for missteps and her straying too far from the policy she articulated last night.

For now, I have said I will vote for, in my own language no less. You can expect not much else from me.

Good to have you on board, komrade. Official Hillary Goddess worship services are every other day at 6 AM and 8 PM. Here's your pin and pamphlet. If you ever feel the world is ending under Glorious Leader Hillary, @Garian is our counselor for such things.

[Tradewind]

Greatest thing I've seen in a long time lol. He's so happy!

[Theodarzna]

Good to have you on board, komrade. Official Hillary Goddess worship services are every other day at 6 AM and 8 PM. Here's your pin and pamphlet. If you ever feel the world is ending under Glorious Leader Hillary, @Garian is our counselor for such things.

.... I'll be watching, if she slips from her opposition from TPP/TTIP, or abandons her words for much as a second, its rescinded.

She had best stay true.

As a fun aside, apparently Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump share the same ancestry to a degree and are both descended of John of Gaunt (Badass, though cursedly an Anglo-Norman) and Katherine Swynford. In a sense this election is a very distant family struggle.

Presidential candidate Donald Trump may criticize rival Hillary Clinton regularly, but the Republican and Democratic front-runners are actually distant relatives.

Both the real estate tycoon and former Secretary of State are the direct descendants of 14th century 1st Duke of Lancaster John of Gaunt and his third wife Katherine Swynford, according to the ancestry site MyHeritage.com.

Clinton claims the lineage to her 18th great-grandparents through the Rodham family of her father's side while Trump is related to her through his mother Mary Anne Macleod, who was born in Scotland.

The common relative means that the Democrat and Republican are 19th cousins.

(Source)

[Skroe]

Greatest thing I've seen in a long time lol. He's so happy!

So what you're saying is that the best way for Hillary Clinton to keep Bill Clinton occupied the next 4 years is to build a Chuck-E-Cheeses annex to the West Wing?