Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[zenkai]

Again, he's never been in the position to be good or bad at national security. It's like saying I've never lost in the Olympics. Well obviously I haven't because I've never been in it. You think it's impressive he hasn't failed at something he's never attempted.

LOL That's exactly my point, someone who is saying he is bad at national security is laughable because he hasn't had the opportunity too!

[DocSavageFan]

Can you not read?

He literally asked for them.

Open your fucking eyes.

You called the line of reasoning I posted 'retarded' (see Post #8189) when I was clearly calling the reasoning stupid as well by specifically citing that it was based on opinions and was a crap argument. I think we actually agree on this point, but you wouldn't know it by your rhetoric. It's a good thing you're liberal...insults like "Can you not read?" and "Open your fucking eyes." are generally not tolerated...for some.

[I Push Buttons]

LOL That's exactly my point, someone who is saying he is bad at national security is laughable because he hasn't had the opportunity too!

So you doubt the opinion of quite literally the most senior national security experts that exist (on the Republican side)? You completely ignored the letter I mentioned previously.

The undersigned individuals have all served in senior national security and/or foreign policy positions in Republican Administrations, from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. We have worked directly on national security issues with these Republican Presidents and/or their principal advisers during wartime and other periods of crisis, through successes and failures. We know the personal qualities required of a President of the United States.

None of us will vote for Donald Trump.

From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.

Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.

In addition, Mr. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding of America’s vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and the democratic values on which U.S. foreign policy must be based. At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends. Unlike previous Presidents who had limited experience in foreign affairs, Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself. He continues to display an alarming ignorance of basic facts of contemporary international politics. Despite his lack of knowledge, Mr. Trump claims that he understands foreign affairs and “knows more about ISIS than the generals do.”

Mr. Trump lacks the temperament to be President. In our experience, a President must be willing to listen to his advisers and department heads; must encourage consideration of conflicting views; and must acknowledge errors and learn from them. A President must be disciplined, control emotions, and act only after reflection and careful deliberation. A President must maintain cordial relationships with leaders of countries of different backgrounds and must have their respect and trust.

In our judgment, Mr. Trump has none of these critical qualities. He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. We understand that many Americans are profoundly frustrated with the federal government and its inability to solve pressing domestic and international problems. We also know that many have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us. But Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.

Link to letter.

The undersigned being the former Director of the CIA, most of George W. Bush's National Security Advisers, several members of the National Security Council under Bush, several Secretaries/Assistant Secretaries/Deputy Secretaries of Defense, National Security, etc...

[TrumpIsPresident]

I saw Clinton giving a speech and she said something like "I'm going to be the President of everybody, for Democrats and Republicans".

So I wonder if that means she'd replace a Right leaning SCOUTS with another Right leaning one?

[Mafic]

I saw Clinton giving a speech and she said something like "I'm going to be the President of everybody, for Democrats and Republicans".

So I wonder if that means she'd replace a Right leaning SCOUTS with another Right leaning one?

She is very similar to Obama as she is center left, so a moderate is highly likely. Most progressives would categorize a moderate as centrist or right leaning though.

[I Push Buttons]

You called the line of reasoning I posted 'retarded' (see Post #8189) when I was clearly calling the reasoning stupid as well by specifically citing that it was based on opinions and was a crap argument. I think we actually agree on this point, but you wouldn't know it by your rhetoric. It's a good thing you're liberal...insults like "Can you not read?" and "Open your fucking eyes." are generally not tolerated...for some.

Using the opinions of the most senior people of a given field as evidence of an argument in relation to said field makes the argument crap?

If their opinion is irrelevant then what is relevant?

[Nfinitii]

LOL That's exactly my point, someone who is saying he is bad at national security is laughable because he hasn't had the opportunity too!

That's a fun little argument ur having there. These political forums have digressed into nothing but herp derp trump while ignoring everything about Hillary.

[Captain N]

That's a fun little argument ur having there. These political forums have digressed into nothing but herp derp trump while ignoring everything about Hillary.

And this claim is getting tiresome. We've nearly all admitted that Clinton has her flaws, but the issue is that those flaws are not addressed. What we have is people quoting wikileaks without understanding what they're quoting, claiming she's a criminal without any actual evidence to support their accusation, or outright fabricating stories out of thin air that have zero merit. If you want to target things Hillary is actually weak at by all means you'd be the first to pull it off.....

[DocSavageFan]

Using the opinions of the most senior people of a given field as evidence of an argument in relation to said field makes the argument crap?

If their opinion is irrelevant then what is relevant?

Conversely, are the opinions or 88 generals and admirals somehow irrelevant? If their opinions are irrelevant then what is relevant? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Do you see my point? If not, please specifically answer my questions and we'll quickly get to the root of this.

[I Push Buttons]

Conversely, are the opinions or 88 generals and admirals somehow irrelevant? If their opinions are irrelevant then what is relevant? You can't have you're cake and eat it too.

Do you see my point? If not, please specifically answer my questions and we'll quickly get to the root of this.

Only they gave no opinion, simply their partisan endorsement, the same as the Democrat generals for Hillary.

[Stommped]

Man Brazile is a fucking train wreck. The DNC can't find one non-corrupt slimeball to head their party?

[Endus]

I saw Clinton giving a speech and she said something like "I'm going to be the President of everybody, for Democrats and Republicans".

So I wonder if that means she'd replace a Right leaning SCOUTS with another Right leaning one?

What you're talking about is trying to politically engineer the SCOTUS, which goes against everything the SCOTUS is meant to be and to represent. The goal should be to hire the best candidates, not to "balance" the Supreme Court according to some subjective, arbitrary, and moving non-standard.

[cubby]

I think you need to go back and read whatever I posted carefully. I never once, nor did I expect, someone to account for all her emails. My question was not even remotely close to that.

Do you work with Merkava a lot? I responded to your post - "all of them" - if you weren't clear, then clarify yourself. I'm waiting for you to answer me, not go back and read everything you've written.

Unless we're having a colossal misunderstanding.

I asked you which emails Hillary needs to answer for, you said "all of them". And here we are. If you disagree, please don't just direct me to read something past - tell me what you mean, specifically.

[Macaquerie]

Conversely, are the opinions or 88 generals and admirals somehow irrelevant? If their opinions are irrelevant then what is relevant? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Do you see my point? If not, please specifically answer my questions and we'll quickly get to the root of this.

They are irrelevant, and we should stop treating them as if they somehow matter. Nobody actually cares what retired generals and admirals think, their endorsements only matter to the degree that the proxy support by active duty officers, who are barred from partisan politics for a reason.

[TITAN308]

Do you work with Merkava a lot? I responded to your post - "all of them" - if you weren't clear, then clarify yourself. I'm waiting for you to answer me, not go back and read everything you've written.

Unless we're having a colossal misunderstanding.

I asked you which emails Hillary needs to answer for, you said "all of them". And here we are. If you disagree, please don't just direct me to read something past - tell me what you mean, specifically.

Do you often get words mixed up?



I asked if any of the e-mails people have been reviewing had merit. I never asked for an explanation on all of them. Not to mention you cherry picked part of my quote to completely take my question out of context.

Slow down, read what is posted. Words mean things. Rest assured, I'm not a Trump voter. Its all good broskie.

[Damajin]

Man Brazile is a fucking train wreck. The DNC can't find one non-corrupt slimeball to head their party?

No, they certainly can't. Pretty much mandatory in Democrat leadership to be totally corrupt, sleazy or a douchebag. If you're all of those you become a leader of the leaders.

[cubby]

This election being a choice between:

a person with 30-ish years of experience, who is moderate to liberal on social issues, centrist on the economy, and hawkish on defense

OR

a person who is a blatant racist, mysogynist, xenophobe with no political experience


There is no choice. Clinton/Kaine 2016

#NeverTrump

Entirely correct. Well said.

#NeverTrump

[TrumpIsPresident]

What you're talking about is trying to politically engineer the SCOTUS, which goes against everything the SCOTUS is meant to be and to represent. The goal should be to hire the best candidates, not to "balance" the Supreme Court according to some subjective, arbitrary, and moving non-standard.

Well in that case we're doomed because shes already proven that "hiring the best candidate" is simply something she is not interested in doing.

We've see multiple instances have been persons without qualifications ended up in important positions simply because of personal or financial connection to Clinton.

In her practice it goes well beyond normal political favor trading and you don't you dare cry conspiracy or try to explain this one away because its irrefutable.

But aside from that our country is half R and half D, it makes perfect sense that our courts should be as well for the sole purpose of balance.

Besides there's an even scarier thing to consider here and that is the recent precedents being set by the players in our current Administration and their ability to have judges bypass Congress and legislate from the bench.

A stacked Left bench?

Fuck no.

Fuck no for so many reasons the least of which being that the sort of one sided "everybody else is wrong" and "everybody who disagrees with us is racist" mentality is exactly what leads to things like Trump and Brexit.

America isn't a dictatorship, some people need to remember that or they might wake up one day with shit stacked against them.

[I Push Buttons]

Well in that case we're doomed because shes already proven that "hiring the best candidate" is simply something she is not interested in doing.

We've see multiple instances have been persons without qualifications ended up in important positions simply because of personal or financial connection to Clinton.

In her practice it goes well beyond normal political favor trading and you don't you dare cry conspiracy or try to explain this one away because its irrefutable.

But aside from that our country is half R and half D, it makes perfect sense that our courts should be as well for the sole purpose of balance.

Besides there's an even scarier thing to consider here and that is the recent precedents being set by the players in our current Administration and their ability to have judges bypass Congress and legislate from the bench.

A stacked Left bench?

Fuck no.

Fuck no for so many reasons the least of which being that the sort of one sided "everybody else is wrong" and "everybody who disagrees with us is racist" mentality is exactly what leads to things like Trump and Brexit.

America isn't a dictatorship, some people need to remember that or they might wake up one day with shit stacked against them.

That's rich coming from someone supporting a person with no qualifications whatsoever for the most important position in government.

[Kujako]

It's really setting in that Trump has no chance huh?

Sure he does! According to five thirty eight he has around a 14% chance currently.