Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[lockedout]

So more lies from his campaign?

Maybe I am wrong and he was talking about other politicians in NY and NJ but I thought he was specifically asked about her and he said sure that's how it works.

[Masark]

Why do you speak of gridlock like it's bad? Also that is what people asked for.

1. Yes, gridlock is generally bad. Blithering idiots playing games with default and fucking with the economy is generally a bad idea.

2. Why then is Congress's net approval rating sitting in the -60s?

[lockedout]

1. Yes, gridlock is generally bad. Blithering idiots playing games with default and fucking with the economy is generally a bad idea.

2. Why then is Congress's net approval rating sitting in the -60s?

Probably because congress is a joke nowadays regardless of what side of the aisle.

[BannedForViews]

1. Yes, gridlock is generally bad. Blithering idiots playing games with default and fucking with the economy is generally a bad idea.

2. Why then is Congress's net approval rating sitting in the -60s?

While the Constitution was still being debated, Jefferson proposed that no bill should be passable by Congress unless it had sat for 12 months in it's final version, for public viewing. And yet you think Gridlock is some bad thing...

By the way I full support this. People are so dependent on what they think government is they doesn't see that is precisely what it shouldn't be. They've had it for so long they are afraid of what was theirs all along.

[Masark]

While the Constitution was still being debated, Jefferson proposed that no bill should be passable by Congress unless it had sat for 12 months in it's final version, for public viewing. And yet you think Gridlock is some bad thing...

By the way I full support this. People are so dependent on what they think government is they doesn't see that is precisely what it shouldn't be.

1. Is "Jefferson proposed this" supposed to be a persuasive argument?

2. Functional? Capable of responding to problems? At all concerned with the well being of the people of the nation?

[Merkava]

Didn't know I was was a devout Clinton follower. You know me so well, babe.

Maybe you're not. Maybe my simple and straight forward analogy was merely too much for you to understand. It was a hypothetical situation used as an example. No different than what Grey_Matter offered above.

[BannedForViews]

1. Is "Jefferson proposed this" supposed to be a persuasive argument?

2. Functional? Capable of responding to problems? At all concerned with the well being of the people of the nation?

Seeing as how he wrote the damn thing, yes his opinion at the time should matter.

And government is none of those things in its current form, and hasnt been for nearly a century. Hell, the whole problem is that government is unbiquitous for federal, which is a modern phenomenon. How exactly can a bahemoth of millions of people administering to almost 350 million be any of the things you described?

[7-4]

1. Is "Jefferson proposed this" supposed to be a persuasive argument?

Are you arguing that what the founding fathers thought was irrelevant? Because that's just silly.

2. Functional? Capable of responding to problems? At all concerned with the well being of the people of the nation?

Oh, please. If the federal government cared about the well being of the people in this country they (Democrats) wouldn't have opened the borders in 1965 or sat back (Republicans) while the market was flooded with workers causing wages to stagnate and then go down. Neither party represents the people of this country and haven't for quite some time.

[Wells]

Are you arguing that what the founding fathers thought was irrelevant? Because that's just silly.

Unless its reflected in our law in some way....yeah. They were just guys. And they disagreed with each other on all kinds of stuff. What the Founding Fathers believed is only relevant for interpreting the Constitution, and only if you're an Originalist.

Oh, please. If the federal government cared about the well being of the people in this country they (Democrats) wouldn't have opened the borders in 1965 or sat back (Republicans) while the market was flooded with workers causing wages to stagnate and then go down. Neither party represents the people of this country and haven't for quite some time.

Not all "The People" in this country are protectionists, and you don't get to claim that the government doesn't represent people for failing to adhere to a specific ideology over all others.

[Gray_Matter]

Maybe you're not. Maybe my simple and straight forward analogy was merely too much for you to understand. It was a hypothetical situation used as an example. No different than what Grey_Matter offered above.

It was different. I didn't put any names to things. I merely gave an example of 2 people with one demonstratively worse than the other to indicate the futility of the third party option in that situation. You specifically tied names to the two situations. Lets say, for example, that I said something like Person A (Clinton) is a politician who has changed her policies a few times and person B (Trump) is a serial .... , you get the idea. By adding names I can imply that one or the other person is really bad and the other is not bad at all or I can imply that both are really bad but one is slightly better off.

I understand what you were saying but they are different.

[Ausr]

Maybe you're not. Maybe my simple and straight forward analogy was merely too much for you to understand. It was a hypothetical situation used as an example. No different than what Grey_Matter offered above.

No, I understood it easily enough. I'm just saying I saw through your shit and wanted to laugh.

[Orlong]

Yeah, the percentage of overseas AIDS patients who get drugs because of the Clinton Foundation is crazy.

She should be focused on Americans. Not people living in mud huts in Congo. Take care of others after you take care of your own.

[zenkai]

I wouldn't try too hard with Zenkai, he tries to project what he believes is what you believe or are saying into your posts and play forum gotcha trying to find some kind of mistake or hypocrisy on your part so he can go GOTCHA. But most of the time it does rely on him projecting his own interpretation on it.

I see you feel the need to comment on me, are you that tore up because I consistently prove you wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, let me turn that around for you.

Lets say that you have a choice between a convicted drug king pin and a person with a DUI for mayor of a small town. Your mothers friend is also running for the post and you know there is no way your mother friend will win.

Who do you vote for? If you vote for the DUI guy then I could say that you don't care about DUI's. If you and enough others vote for your mothers friend then there is a good chance that the drug king pin wins.

In this situation, it's a given that your mom's friend can't win which is the case in the general election.

The point is that often you vote because one person isn't as bad as the other. It doesn't mean that you like that person. It means that you logically weigh up what is worse for you and vote to minimize that. It's the only logical answer.

Of course, you can stick to your ideals and vote for your mothers friend but then you can't complain when you end up with the drug king pin in charge of your area.

Except there are more than 2 choices, and even though you feel there is only 2, and you think you're voting for the lesser of 2 evils doesn't mean you excuse or condone what that person does. Not to mention there was a pr-election that left you with that choice to begin with when there were other choices showing that, the majority of the party are not very bright.

TLDR you scenario doesn't fit what's going on.

[Merkava]

It was different. I didn't put any names to things. I merely gave an example of 2 people with one demonstratively worse than the other to indicate the futility of the third party option in that situation. You specifically tied names to the two situations. Lets say, for example, that I said something like Person A (Clinton) is a politician who has changed her policies a few times and person B (Trump) is a serial .... , you get the idea. By adding names I can imply that one or the other person is really bad and the other is not bad at all or I can imply that both are really bad but one is slightly better off.

I understand what you were saying but they are different.

It's exactly the same. It just depends what side your critics are on. The context is created by them. Clearly one of the candidates in your scenario is either a drug kingpin or drunk driver. Of course that's if one was to follow either Ausr's idiotic gorilla logic or have his complete inability to understand what a hypothetical comparison is. That's all I'm saying.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I understood it easily enough. I'm just saying I saw through your shit and wanted to laugh.

You should be laughing at yourself for not understanding a simple hypothetical scenario for what it's for. I never implied that Clinton had been convicted of anything, much less a DUI. It's a simple example to show how while two candidates are bad, for similar reasons, one is clearly worse. If you want to read more into that, then go ahead. I think you're alone, in that regard, though.

[TZucchini]

I don't understand this focus on the Clinton Foundation and "pay-to-play".

The Clinton's get nothing out of the Foundation. They don't draw a salary. It's an A-Rated charity organization.

I mean, even if true, this is basically how the pay-to-play works:

"If you donate large sums of money to charity, I'll have a meeting with you."

I guess I can't get all that worked up over it.

[Dystemper]

I don't understand this focus on the Clinton Foundation and "pay-to-play".

The Clinton's get nothing out of the Foundation. They don't draw a salary. It's an A-Rated charity organization.

I mean, even if true, this is basically how the pay-to-play works:

"If you donate large sums of money to charity, I'll have a meeting with you."

I guess I can't get all that worked up over it.

LAMo at the fact you think the Clinton's get nothing from the Foundation

[TZucchini]

LAMo at the fact you think the Clinton's get nothing from the Foundation

OK. Show me the facts them. What is she getting?

I mean, we have full access to her tax returns, and the tax returns of the Foundation.

[Orbitus]

LAMo at the fact you think the Clinton's get nothing from the Foundation

You know, if you are going to make a bullshit claim like this, you REALLY should try to back it up instead of posting 1 fucking sentence and then bitching out and not posting any support for the claim.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I see you feel the need to comment on me, are you that tore up because I consistently prove you wrong?

- - - Updated - - -



Except there are more than 2 choices, and even though you feel there is only 2, and you think you're voting for the lesser of 2 evils doesn't mean you excuse or condone what that person does. Not to mention there was a pr-election that left you with that choice to begin with when there were other choices showing that, the majority of the party are not very bright.

TLDR you scenario doesn't fit what's going on.

More like warning people not to waste time with you, cause you make a few moves, then knock over the pieces, shit on the board, then declare victory and fly away never to be seen in that discussion again, even though plenty of people proved you wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

You know, if you are going to make a bullshit claim like this, you REALLY should try to back it up instead of posting 1 fucking sentence and then bitching out and not posting any support for the claim.

Ecer notice how 97% of the people in this thread declaring clinton to be so terrible never have any comments on pagean posting 3-5 times daily the awful shit Trump does or has done in the Trump thread?

It's like... "Clinton is so much worse because I choose to ignore what Trump does/did/says/said."

[Masark]

Are you arguing that what the founding fathers thought was irrelevant? Because that's just silly.

Um, yes. Maybe it has to do with me living in a nation where many of the people who wrote our constitution are still alive, but I really don't give their opinions any particular weight.