Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Aggrophobic]

Being a pathologic liar is also a disorder....should we have Hillary evaluated?

But so is Trump so, you know.
Actually it seems he lies way more than Clinton.

[May90]

Most things with Hillary lying falls into two camps. Speculation, which includes legitimate claims in her email issues to the absurd of her being pretty much a serial killer. Adapting to popular opinion, which pretty much means that everyone whose opinion changed is a liar. Those not only are easily disputed, her actual issues as a candidate get ignored as well. The problem Trump supporters face in calling out Shillary, is the fact that she is a shill for people like Trump. Making legitimate claims against her, while also maintaining support for Trump, very hard to travers. This is pretty clear in the last few pages, with the argument of Clinton foundation receiving funds from gay hating countries. Completley ignoring what happens when you fuel up your car... Guess where that money is going... Guess how great the treatment of gays is, in some of the countries Trump has personal business with...

I haven't been following Clinton all that much, so I might not be getting the whole picture, but I don't remember her outright lying. Doing some dodgy remarks or unclear statements, sure, but we all do that, when we are faced with inconvenient questions, and politicians do that tenfold. And changing her opinions with time... That's actually something I like in her. I don't like people who stick to their beliefs their entire lives, never questioning them, never taking new developments into account. Whether she does it because her genuine opinion changes, or just to gain more votes, doesn't really matter: it is still her changing her narrative. Unlike, say, Sanders or McCain, who say the exact same things they used to say 20 years ago. As if their brains were frozen then, and recovered now.

And unlike Sanders and Trump, she actually knows what she is talking about. She is talking about precise issues, narrowing them down to explicit details. That's a welcome change from Sanders countering every question with "But look how well workers in Europe live!", or Trump who sometimes sounds like he was a dropout from an elementary school.

---

Overall, all these populist attacks on Clinton seem very similar to those that targeted Obama 8 years ago. "He is a filthy Muslim!", "Let me see his birth certificate!", "He is an Islamist agent that will establish Sharia law in the US". Come on, people, criticize the candidates' policies instead of all this irrelevant stuff. You can do it!

[Orbitus]

I lost it after "domestic terrorist group, BLM". Do some of you people spend 10 hours a day on 4chan or something?

More like /pol/ and Stormfront.

- - - Updated - - -

Being a pathologic liar is also a disorder....should we have Hillary evaluated?

That applies more to Trump than it does to Hillary.

[Felya]

I haven't been following Clinton all that much, so I might not be getting the whole picture, but I don't remember her outright lying. Doing some dodgy remarks or unclear statements, sure, but we all do that, when we are faced with inconvenient questions, and politicians do that tenfold. And changing her opinions with time... That's actually something I like in her. I don't like people who stick to their beliefs their entire lives, never questioning them, never taking new developments into account. Whether she does it because her genuine opinion changes, or just to gain more votes, doesn't really matter: it is still her changing her narrative. Unlike, say, Sanders or McCain, who say the exact same things they used to say 20 years ago. As if their brains were frozen then, and recovered now.

And unlike Sanders and Trump, she actually knows what she is talking about. She is talking about precise issues, narrowing them down to explicit details. That's a welcome change from Sanders countering every question with "But look how well workers in Europe live!", or Trump who sometimes sounds like he was a dropout from an elementary school.

I didn't mean to claim she isn't a liar or doesn't lie, but reading over what I said, I think I needed to emphasize speculation of her lying at times being legitimate. I am not a know everything about IT, my last network centered job involved working in twin towers. But, a friend of mine who will be voting Hillary now that Sanders is out, was an IT admin at a bankruptcy firm. He brought up a very good point, in that personal email servers are actually an issue in it self. The fact that she could have had something in emails isn't the only issue. A personal email server creates 2 problematic issues, as far as administrating a network is concerned:

1. The security does not need to meet requirement of the organization. Meaning, her email server did have to abide by government security standards.
2. It prevents it from being scrutinized by any party that would otherwise be able to. This is where the issues of missing email is a problem in it self, regardless what was in them.

I get it... People want the juicy scandal... They want government to be like 'House of cards', but the reality of her issues are far more boring. They are clerical in nature. Even the whole Benghazi scandal, wasn't about those who died or improvements to security of embassies, but as boring as the differance between an 'act of terror' versus a 'terrorist act'. Ofcource 'Hillary lied, people died' is a much more sensational or entertaining quip. But, the actual subject of the hearings was far more boring... I think the most entertaining part was her 'people died and we are holding hearings over this' (am paraphrasing)...

[May90]

I didn't mean to claim she isn't a liar or doesn't lie, but reading over what I said, I think I needed to emphasize speculation of her lying at times being legitimate. I am not a know everything about IT, my last network centered job involved working in twin towers. But, a friend of mine who will be voting Hillary now that Sanders is out, was an IT admin at a bankruptcy firm. He brought up a very good point, in that personal email servers are actually an issue in it self. The fact that she could have had something in emails isn't the only issue. A personal email server creates 2 problematic issues, as far as administrating a network is concerned:

1. The security does not need to meet requirement of the organization. Meaning, her email server did have to abide by government security standards.
2. It prevents it from being scrutinized by any party that would otherwise be able to. This is where the issues of missing email is a problem in it self, regardless what was in them.

I get it... People want the juicy scandal... They want government to be like 'House of cards', but the reality of her issues are far more boring. They are clerical in nature. Even the whole Benghazi scandal, wasn't about those who died or improvements to security of embassies, but as boring as the differance between an 'act of terror' versus a 'terrorist act'. Ofcource 'Hillary lied, people died' is a much more sensational or entertaining quip. But, the actual subject of the hearings was far more boring... I think the most entertaining part was her 'people died and we are holding hearings over this' (am paraphrasing)...

I think the only issue here really is that she used her personal servers to transfer private information. It would be somewhat akin to a company leaking its clients' private information to other companies for referral without their permission.

Having personal servers is fine, we all are entitled to our personal lives, even if we in our office time have access to a lot of top secret information. Mixing one's personal life with this secret information, however, is not fine.

Regardless, this issue, I think, just demonstrates that she hasn't adapted to new tech completely - which is a common problem among older people, who don't always catch up with times. It hardly makes her a worse presidential candidate, it just demonstrates her age and, possibly, a certain level of carelessness in some matters.

[Aggrophobic]

Never was a Trump supporter...nice try.

- - - Updated - - -



That's a negative, ghostrider.

What is? That he lies more?
Seems about 9% of everything he says is true so I guess it's not all lies.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

[Cthulhu 2020]

Wow. That was without a doubt the most meaningless post you have ever made. And looking at your history, it's hard to keep topping it. I don't think you quite understand the political landscape and the convoluted mindset of American voters. Media outlets like to condition us that it's "us vs. them". This is of course bullshit. How about taking off your blinders. Oh wait, Hillary is so "progressive" and "not Trump" so she is the only viable option. AFK puking.

Rofl, you didn't even address my post. Irony of YOU saying someone else's posts are useless. You've been posting nothing but trash and spam.

You don't understand how our voting process works, so you whine about it. You have two options: Stop being ignorant and teach yourself something, or keep whining. You seem to like the second option.

You have two options in the general election. All parties have their chances in primaries. If they don't win, oh well. If we throw 3 people into the general and none of them ever get 270 votes, we have no president for awhile until one of them finally withdraws from the race and one of them gets 270. Presidents aren't elected on a simple "who gets more electoral college votes". They HAVE to get 270 which is only slightly over half.

As I've said before, there's a REASON we have primaries, and it's not as shallow as you might think. It's to avoid the above scenario.

[Masark]

If we throw 3 people into the general and none of them ever get 270 votes, we have no president for awhile until one of them finally withdraws from the race and one of them gets 270.

No, you don't. You seem to be thinking the electoral college vote works like party conventions do and if no one gets a majority, they keep having more votes until someone does. It doesn't work like that. There is one single ballot. If no one gets a majority from that ballot, the entire thing is ignored and Congress, caucused as states (all the representatives from a given state count for one vote), chooses the President and Vice-President from the top 3.

See 1824 for the previous time this happened.

And due to the multitude of little red states, that means they will choose the Republican candidate for President. The Vice-President is less certain.

[Symphonic]

No, you didn't. All of it was feels over reals. Nothing was backed up by sources OR policies. But then again, all of the Conservatives on this forum are the same way.

- - - Updated - - -


His useless wall will never be built and solve nothing.

If he started calling it a barrier than Hillary and trump would have the same plan for our borders. Also for some reason she has a problem calling people who come to the USA illegally "illegals".

[Felya]

Never was a Trump supporter...nice try.

I'm infallible... Nice try...

[zenkai]

Rofl, you didn't even address my post. Irony of YOU saying someone else's posts are useless. You've been posting nothing but trash and spam.

You don't understand how our voting process works, so you whine about it. You have two options: Stop being ignorant and teach yourself something, or keep whining. You seem to like the second option.

You have two options in the general election. All parties have their chances in primaries. If they don't win, oh well. If we throw 3 people into the general and none of them ever get 270 votes, we have no president for awhile until one of them finally withdraws from the race and one of them gets 270. Presidents aren't elected on a simple "who gets more electoral college votes". They HAVE to get 270 which is only slightly over half.

As I've said before, there's a REASON we have primaries, and it's not as shallow as you might think. It's to avoid the above scenario.

You can't be serious..., this a perfect example how brain washed the 2 party system has on people, holy shit.

[Shalcker]

You can't be serious..., this a perfect example how brain washed the 2 party system has on people, holy shit.

"You can't vote Third Party because then Republicans (but no necessarily Trump in that case) will win, rather then Hillary!"

...that scenario doesn't even necessarily has "choice between two evils"; they can vote for someone completely sensible instead of Trump.

[Theodarzna]

Wow. That was without a doubt the most meaningless post you have ever made. And looking at your history, it's hard to keep topping it. I don't think you quite understand the political landscape and the convoluted mindset of American voters. Media outlets like to condition us that it's "us vs. them". This is of course bullshit. How about taking off your blinders. Oh wait, Hillary is so "progressive" and "not Trump" so she is the only viable option. AFK puking.

I think the best decision I have ever made was to not own a television and not have a cable tv package.

[Bollocks]

You can't be serious..., this a perfect example how brain washed the 2 party system has on people, holy shit.

"You can't vote Third Party because then Republicans (but no necessarily Trump in that case) will win, rather then Hillary!"

...that scenario doesn't even necessarily has "choice between two evils"; they can vote for someone completely sensible instead of Trump.

They can, but those other parties do not a have a shot to win the presidency. Just to put it in a simple game:
Suppose that we have three individuals: You, me and Bob. You are an ardid Trump supporter, Bob and me are nevertrump people. Bob liks jhonson more than Hillary. In an event of a three way tie, the decision goes to the house who is controlled by republicans. Their payoffs are as follows

A/B	Hillary	Trump	Jhonson
Hillay	0	-10	-1
Trump	-10	-10	-10
Jhonson	-10	-10	1

There is two nash equilibria here Hillary/Hillary and Jhonson/Jhonson. However because Bob and I have no way to coordinate we are going for the candidate that has the higher chance public presence; which is Hillary. Bob's decision to vote for Hillary is not the product of being brainswashed by the media its a choice of how much utility he can generate with his vote; given the circunstances.

Those other things include the bandwagon effect

[zenkai]

They can, but those other parties do not a have a shot to win the presidency. Just to put it in a simple game:
Suppose that we have three individuals: You, me and Bob. You are an ardid Trump supporter, Bob and me are nevertrump people. Bob liks jhonson more than Hillary. In an event of a three way tie, the decision goes to the house who is controlled by republicans. Their payoffs are as follows

A/B Hillary Trump Johnson
Hillary 0 -10 -10
Trump -10 -10 -10
Johnson -1 -10 1

There is two nash equilibria here Hillary/Hillary and Jhonson/Jhonson. However because Bob and I have no way to coordinate we are going for the candidate that has the higher chance public presence; which is Hillary. Bob's decision to vote for Hillary is not the product of being brainswashed by the media its a choice of how much utility he can generate with his vote.

Bobs a brainwashed idiot, if everyone who didn't vote last election voted 3rd party, a 3rd party person would win. But Bob is brainwashed and doesn't understand this.

http://www.fairvote.org/the_electora...ge_works_today

If no presidential candidate obtains a majority of the electoral votes, the decision is deferred to the U.S. Congress. The House of Representatives selects the president, choosing among the top three candidates, and the Senate selects the vice president, choosing between the top two candidates. In the House selection, each state delegation receives only one vote and an absolute majority of the states (26) is required to elect the president. (In this situation, Washington, D.C. would lose the voting power given to it by the 23rd Amendment since it does not have the same congressional representation given to the states).

However, a majority winner is not guaranteed in the Congress either. The states could feasibly split their votes equally between 2 candidates (25 state votes each) or the votes could be split between three candidates in such a way that no candidate receives a majority.

Also, since every state only gets one vote, the representatives from each state must come to a decision on which candidate to support in the House. A state with an equal number of representatives supporting the competing parties would not be able to cast its vote unless one representative agreed to vote for the opposing side.

Hell only 58% of voters turned out last year, if the other 42% had voted 3rd party we would be having a different conversation now.

[NYC17]

Bobs a brainwashed idiot, if everyone who didn't vote last election voted 3rd party, a 3rd party person would win. But Bob is brainwashed and doesn't understand this.

http://www.fairvote.org/the_electora...ge_works_today

If no presidential candidate obtains a majority of the electoral votes, the decision is deferred to the U.S. Congress. The House of Representatives selects the president, choosing among the top three candidates, and the Senate selects the vice president, choosing between the top two candidates. In the House selection, each state delegation receives only one vote and an absolute majority of the states (26) is required to elect the president. (In this situation, Washington, D.C. would lose the voting power given to it by the 23rd Amendment since it does not have the same congressional representation given to the states).

However, a majority winner is not guaranteed in the Congress either. The states could feasibly split their votes equally between 2 candidates (25 state votes each) or the votes could be split between three candidates in such a way that no candidate receives a majority.

Also, since every state only gets one vote, the representatives from each state must come to a decision on which candidate to support in the House. A state with an equal number of representatives supporting the competing parties would not be able to cast its vote unless one representative agreed to vote for the opposing side.

Hell only 58% of voters turned out last year, if the other 42% had voted 3rd party we would be having a different conversation now.

The flaw in this argument is the idea that this magical third party person is automatically palatable to everyone who didn't vote. They'd have to be a perfect amalgam of everything to everyone and that's just not realistic.

[Kujako]

The flaw in this argument is the idea that this magical third party person is automatically palatable to everyone who didn't vote. They'd have to be a perfect amalgam of everything to everyone and that's just not realistic.

Instead, they all seem kinda... crazy.

[May90]

They can, but those other parties do not a have a shot to win the presidency.

They only do not have a shot when people believe they do not have a shot. Yes, they do have a shot. But if you say, "They aren't going to win anyway, so I better vote for a major party", then, sure, they are unlikely to win - when even people supporting them refuse to vote for them!

[Bollocks]

Bobs a brainwashed idiot, if everyone who didn't vote last election voted 3rd party, a 3rd party person would win. But Bob is brainwashed and doesn't understand this.

http://www.fairvote.org/the_electora...ge_works_today

If no presidential candidate obtains a majority of the electoral votes, the decision is deferred to the U.S. Congress. The House of Representatives selects the president, choosing among the top three candidates, and the Senate selects the vice president, choosing between the top two candidates. In the House selection, each state delegation receives only one vote and an absolute majority of the states (26) is required to elect the president. (In this situation, Washington, D.C. would lose the voting power given to it by the 23rd Amendment since it does not have the same congressional representation given to the states).

However, a majority winner is not guaranteed in the Congress either. The states could feasibly split their votes equally between 2 candidates (25 state votes each) or the votes could be split between three candidates in such a way that no candidate receives a majority.

Also, since every state only gets one vote, the representatives from each state must come to a decision on which candidate to support in the House. A state with an equal number of representatives supporting the competing parties would not be able to cast its vote unless one representative agreed to vote for the opposing side.

Hell only 58% of voters turned out last year, if the other 42% had voted 3rd party we would be having a different conversation now.

That is a big IF. Because you cannot guarantee that the remaining 42% of the vote would go to the third party option. And as explained in the second part. Bob needs more people to accompany him to vote so he can generate utility out of his vote, instead of feeling he will vote for the looser and his vote go to waste. So Bob will look for focal points. This is known as the coordination problem. If Jhonson wants to have a chance at winning he needs to become that focal point.

[zenkai]

The flaw in this argument is the idea that this magical third party person is automatically palatable to everyone who didn't vote. They'd have to be a perfect amalgam of everything to everyone and that's just not realistic.

Not realistic is a fair argument, but it doesn't mean it's not possible as most keep stating. The main reason it's not realistic is that both parties have the nation brainwashed that they are the only options.