Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[zEmini]

More than Trump, yes.

I am not voting for Trump either...

[Venant]

More than Trump, yes.

Just because you aren't voting for Trump doesn't mean you have to vote for Hillary.

[TZucchini]

Just because you aren't voting for Trump doesn't mean you have to vote for Hillary.

You can vote for anyone that you'd like to vote for. But that doesn't change the inevitable.

Either Hillary or Trump is going to be the next President. For me, I'd like to have a say in that process. I'm going to vote for the person who I feel is most likely to enact policies I agree with.

[Edge-]

Just because you aren't voting for Trump doesn't mean you have to vote for Hillary.

This is technically true, but the reality is that despite the existence of other candidates and parties, especially with regards to presidential elections, the US is still overwhelmingly a two party system.

And honestly, given the stakes in this election compared to those of years past (both parties could manage to field mostly competent candidates, at the very least), a lot of folks are viewing this as more of a two party election than usual.

[zenkai]

The request is to remove the to/from field, which wouldn't help Hillary. In context, removing the name from the TO field, on the recipients email is idiotic for what should be obvious reasons. It's a bit better on the sender, but even then, sending top secret info to an unknown reciepient seems worse.

Also, the only thing that IDs that guy as anyone remotely related to Hillary, is the words 'private email server' and the word 'delete', as in this case delete doesn't even refer to email being deleted, but reciepient/sender. This is a reaction to someone sendin out the I love you virus to all contacts, not deleting secret email so DOJ couldn't find them.

- - - Updated - - -



Then I don't understand the need to identify as that party. This is having your cake and eating too...

Because not everyone is a Zealot, unlike yourself? Are you saying all Democrats and Republicans agree with their parties on everything 100%? Because I would say bullshit, and can show you voting records to prove it.

[Edge-]

Because not everyone is a Zealot, unlike yourself? Are you saying all Democrats and Republicans agree with their parties on everything 100%? Because I would say bullshit, and can show you voting records to prove it.

True, but most agree with their parties on the majority of issues, or at least key issues.

But if you say you support candidate X and then move to candidate Y, and candidate Y holds completely opposite views to candidate X on many core issues, then it's not hard to wonder why you really supported candidate X.

Saying, "I support Bernie's revolution!" and then throwing behind a candidate that wants to remove the income tax and roll back regulations and oversight on large corporations doesn't really jive.

At all.

[zenkai]

True, but most agree with their parties on the majority of issues, or at least key issues.

But if you say you support candidate X and then move to candidate Y, and candidate Y holds completely opposite views to candidate X on many core issues, then it's not hard to wonder why you really supported candidate X.

Saying, "I support Bernie's revolution!" and then throwing behind a candidate that wants to remove the income tax and roll back regulations and oversight on large corporations doesn't really jive.

At all.

True, unless they are just hate Hillary that much.

[BrerBear]

True, unless they are just hate Hillary that much.

Yep, the right wing sock puppets and concern trolls who ginned up all the Clinton hate among Sanders supporters definitely accomplished something there.
Which is a sad statement on how politics works these days.

[Venant]

Yep, the right wing sock puppets and concern trolls who ginned up all the Clinton hate among Sanders supporters definitely accomplished something there.
Which is a sad statement on how politics works these days.

I'm pretty sure its the Clintons who generated most of that hate for themselves:



One of the biggest draws of Sanders was that he wasn't taking crazy amounts of special interest money, which at least lends credibility to the idea that such a candidate would be more likely to do what was in the interest of the public instead of what the donors want.

[Felya]

Because not everyone is a Zealot, unlike yourself? Are you saying all Democrats and Republicans agree with their parties on everything 100%? Because I would say bullshit, and can show you voting records to prove it.

Yeah, someone who thinks it's pointless to identify as a party that doesn't agree with them is zealot... I don't know, I think zealotry is desplaid more in those who would support a party by claiming elegance, when they don't even agree with it. You can even see it in your interpretation of what I said. Saying people shouldn't identify as a party they don't agree with 100%, is quite the opposite of your interpretation that they all agree.

- - - Updated - - -

True, unless they are just hate Hillary that much.

No, that just makes them superficial...

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure its the Clintons who generated most of that hate for themselves:

One of the biggest draws of Sanders was that he wasn't taking crazy amounts of special interest money, which at least lends credibility to the idea that such a candidate would be more likely to do what was in the interest of the public instead of what the donors want.

Trump is special interest... Voting for Trump, because Hillary gets more money from special interest, only makes sense if your hate of Hillary is superficial. If Hillary is more likely to do what is best for her donors, what do you think Trump organization will do? Superficial...

[Breccia]

One of the biggest draws of Sanders was that he wasn't taking crazy amounts of special interest money, which at least lends credibility to the idea that such a candidate would be more likely to do what was in the interest of the public instead of what the donors want.

It's a hypothetical, but I'm sure some PAC/Super PAC would have started, because the opponent would still have been Trump and people would still want him defeated. His opponents would point at this PAC and blame Sanders for it. Incorrectly, but loud enough to gather attention anyhow. We've seen evidence of that on these very forums, recently.

Sanders did have a lot of credibility. That's why I'm glad he both endorsed Clinton, and is actively working to help her campaign. He still sees Trump as by far the worst choice.

[Felya]

Bernie supporters voting Trump, need a good slogan. How is this one:

"99% for Trump. Take the power out wealth!"

Or...

"Money shouldn't keep you from going to school, getting medical care or drive you into destitute, but it's the only thing you should need to be president."

Last one might need two shirts...

[Venant]

Bernie supporters voting Trump, need a good slogan.

We won't get fooled again would be a pretty good slogan.

[infinitemeridian]

We won't get fooled again would be a pretty good slogan.

Or "We don't actually care about Sanders and his policies, we just want to watch the world burn"

[Orbitus]

Sounds like you don't understand people don't always 100% agree with their party.

Sounds more like you are trying to sidestep and ignore what Endus said.

[Tijuana]

Or "We don't actually care about Sanders and his policies, we just want to watch the world burn"

If Sanders' fans want to see how his ideas work, I present to you the 1970s. Every idea he had was tired, been tried, and failed previously. He ran the biggest no idea campaign in history, as far as I can tell. But, I'm sure we all care how the six millennials who will show up on election day feel about things...

[Venant]

Trump is special interest... Voting for Trump, because Hillary gets more money from special interest, only makes sense if your hate of Hillary is superficial. If Hillary is more likely to do what is best for her donors, what do you think Trump organization will do? Superficial...

Hillary Clinton is a neocon warmonger who brags about overthrowing governments and will most certainly invade another country in the name of 'regime change'. It doesn't matter what she says now on the subject, I'll trust her actual record over anything she says since she is incapable of telling the truth.

[DocSavageFan]

Hillary Clinton is a neocon warmonger who brags about overthrowing governments and will most certainly invade another country in the name of 'regime change'. It doesn't matter what she says now on the subject, I'll trust her actual record over anything she says since she is incapable of telling the truth.

I found this short video to be quite disturbing....this woman is fn pathological imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxIp8YBww3Q

[Edge-]

I found this short video to be quite disturbing....this woman is fn pathological imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxIp8YBww3Q

How is it disturbing?

[Beazy]

Right, deleting the e-mails and rewriting the drive would be easy, compared to doing a mass purge of just the to/from headers. Which are the least damning part of anything, particularly when context often tells you who the sender/receiver is anyway.

Pretty much the only reason to bother with this is to make the e-mails easier to release to the public en masse without causing people issues with being spammed by e-mails; it's like asking how to delete credit card info so you don't accidentally release people's credit card numbers.

The issue isnt about scrubbing data for FOA requests..... Its about the IT staffer changing things/anything in the emails after they have been federally formally subpoenaed. Its not about breaking the law, its about showing the ineptitude of Hillary and her staff.