Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[TZucchini]

If you promote insanity and debauchery or no rule of law, no republican or sane person can't be open minded about it. Yet that's what DNC and Hillary promoted. They are just 2 steps away from tumblr SJW with their absurd views on reality and on facts. You can't be open minded against an insane person, you are compasionate and try to help him.

Are you even aware of what you're saying? You just claimed that Republicans have an open mind when it comes to insanity, debauchery, and lawlessness.

How do you fail this poorly when attempting to insult others?

[Deleted]

Are you even aware of what you're saying? You just claimed that Republicans have an open mind when it comes to insanity, debauchery, and lawlessness.

How do you fail this poorly when attempting to insult others?

Learn to read. Democrats are the one promoting that, conservative policies are ones based on reality and long term sustainability. It will be fun to watch USA fall again with Hillary at it's head, Obama the race baiter did wornders for the country!

[Alydael]

My general impression of her speech was too much Trump. Granted, I was watching it from a tv in a diner and it was all close captioned. But I think it kind of changes the perspective a lot. Without sound, you see the camera, when it pans to adoring tearful fans (or whatever you want to call them) and it's kind of funny.

But you read the prompter and you see her going after Trump. Really, I think for her to be legit and to make herself legit, she needs to tell people about herself, what she wants to do, not trying to rip Trump. That's what everyone else is doing and everyone knows who he is by now and what kind of person he is. And if this is Hillary's statement about who she is as a candidate, I think she failed. Basically, at least IMO, all she said was, "I am not Trump!" Pretty sad.

This was the same impression I had. Personally, I prefer a politician that just tells you their ideas- I can do without the little petty attacks. I feel it is beneath the office of the presidency when Obama attacks Trump. Also, for an acceptance speech that was supposed to be about Hillary and highlight her career, there was way too much Trump in it. Leave attacking Trump to the little media lap dogs, they are salivating to do it.

Also the slogans last night were just awful..... I am probably mixing it up a little but "How much will she light up the world?" really? If you ever doubted that she was just all about herself, the slogans made sure you know it now...

- - - Updated - - -

It was just one example. I can provide lots of examples if you'd like. But her record is public, we all have access to this stuff. Just throwing your hands in the air and saying "Hillary is incompetent" is to ignore a large body of work.

But specifically regarding 9/11, Hillary played a huge role in securing $21 billion in Federal aid, to help the city rebuild. She's also done quite a bit for the 9/11 responders. And lastly, her fingerprints were all over the Osama bin Laden mission. So when you say "basically absent", I really have no idea what you're talking about.

I lived in NYC when that fight was happening. The families and Peter King fought hard for that money. Hillary ran in after it started then tried to take credit for it all. That was actually kind of disgraceful, but if you consider taking credit for the hard work of families that were touched by tragedy laudable, then go ahead.

[DisposableHero]

People still haven't explained what Hillary stole.

The wealth she and her husband have amassed through their cozy relationship with the banking sector, a relationship fostered by the presence of political power and the Clinton's apparent willingness to sell it, would lead many Americans, especially those who were hit hard by the great recession, to believe the Clinton family has stolen from them.

As an aside, I keep hearing about Hillary's positive qualities and how they are ignored. I genuinely don't know what they are. Can someone inform me, without referencing Donald Trump or the Republican party, why Hillary is a good choice for POTUS?

[TZucchini]

I lived in NYC when that fight was happening. The families and Peter King fought hard for that money. Hillary ran in after it started then tried to take credit for it all. That was actually kind of disgraceful, but if you consider taking credit for the hard work of families that were touched by tragedy laudable, then go ahead.

This is just objectively not true. In fact, the non-political social welfare organization of 9/11 responders claims that Hillary Rodham Clinton was instrumental in obtaining $21 billion for New York City in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, working alongside New York’s Senior Senator Charles Schumer....Without Clinton’s early efforts on behalf of 9/11 Responders, the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act as we know it may not have been possible.

So again. I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Endus]

Learn to read. Democrats are the one promoting that, conservative policies are ones based on reality and long term sustainability. It will be fun to watch USA fall again with Hillary at it's head, Obama the race baiter did wornders for the country!

How has the USA "fallen" under Obama?

Economically? GDP growth is at an all-time high, under Obama, and has been steadily climbing since 2009; http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...gdp-per-capita

Unemployment has been steadily declining since 2009 as well; http://gdb.voanews.com/4A07856B-F880..._w640_r1_s.png


Crime? Violent crime's been on a steady decline for decades; the only real bump upwards was during Bush in the aughts, not under Obama; http://www.statista.com/statistics/1...sa-since-1990/


Yes, Obama's leadership has been good for the country, in just about any objective measure you could come up with.

[Daelak]

Learn to read. Democrats are the one promoting that, conservative policies are ones based on reality and long term sustainability. It will be fun to watch USA fall again with Hillary at it's head, Obama the race baiter did wornders for the country!

Cheering on the coal industry and denying climate change is based on long term stability? GTFO.

[Theodarzna]

People vote for Jill Stein precisely because they do not endorse Trump or Trump's policies. Otherwise, they'd probably just vote for Trump. It's not like the candidates have any real common ground. However, endorsement is a fundamentally different concept than responsibility. These voters, who clearly do not approve of Trump, know going into it that Stein has a 0% chance of winning. They are ultimately wasting their vote because a fundamental aspect of our winner-take-all system is that power will eventually consolidate into as few groups as possible while still allowing some choice (ie a second party) and the Green Party is not a part of that consolidation. Whatever anyone may want, short of some random happening that falls outside of the system, such as a meteor coming down and striking both candidates while they debate on stage, either Donald J. Trump or Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the president of the United States starting in 2017.

Under this system, where only two people stand a chance (and I'll point out yet again that even Theodore "I've been president twice already and am loved by the people" Roosevelt couldn't succeed in his third party bid for the presidency) they can choose to vote for the person who better supports their views. Despite what anyone thinks of Hillary as a person, she's still a Democrat and, both a strength and weakness, is rather malleable, updating her views in a way that is consistent with a population continuing to move forward on social issues. She won't appoint a Scalia; she has a hell of a lot more experience in government than Trump; and she has coherent positions on a wide variety of important topics. Whether she makes good on it or not, she has adopted most of the key points from Bernie Sanders' platform, which means there is some chance of those coming to fruition. Regardless, she should be the more appealing of the two to people who supported Bernie Sanders for reasons more complex and deeper than simple anger and frustration. That people would rather get hung up on how they feel about her as an individual, despite her being a pretty reliable actor in the government, is playing straight into Trump's hands. If they refuse to deal with the reality of the system, which is that whether they like it or not only two people stand a chance of becoming president and the only ability they have to influence that outcome is in voting for one of those two candidates, and choose instead to pretend third parties are a viable option, then they are acting unpragmatically against their own interests, and in doing so are blameworthy for their irrationality. However, that does not translate into an endorsement of Trump, even if they are responsible for a Trump presidency, but that's something you really need to take up with a dictionary.

I do agree, endorsement is not responsibility. I am aware of how our elections work. But it sounds like you are more or less agreeing with me that that is what it means. You even say, "even if they are responsible for a Trump presidency." Which is to agree with my assertion that the reason someone is called a "Spoiler," if they don't vote for Hillary, is to establish responsibility for whatever the other president does. If one is merely responsible for Hillary Clinton losing then sure, I would grant you that but its a bit disingenuous to say that is all someone is responsible for. Explaining how the system works is fine, but sounds like an attempt at rationalization.

If someone votes against Hillary, for whatever reason are they or are they not responsible for a Trump presidency? You did say yes but I would like a clarification.

[Wildtree]

Going to post this here..

Another hack took place

Democratic campaign group for Congress confirms computer hack

[Deleted]

Going to post this here..

Another hack took place

Democratic campaign group for Congress confirms computer hack

So, dem. can't be trusted with computers again? Shocking news!

[Theodarzna]

You sure are doing a great job of taking what someone has said and adding your own little twist to it, so you can knock it down all that much easier. Like a boxer putting up a dummy made of straw.

I hear it talked about on the radio all the time, and other political talk shows. Trump has a message. A bumper sticker message, but still a message, Hillary does not. And yes, this was talked about during the Obama elections. His message of "change and hope" and "yes we can" were easy for people to throw their own ideas into.

I don't suppose you've seen the anime Kiznaiver? Well there's a great quote about projection in it, "People don't like you because they can't see themselves in you."

This is not a "Well ur dum and I know what's best for you plebians," this is...

"Trump is going to shit out golden eggs and give ten to each person!"
"Uh, well on top of not being capable of doing such a thing, he never even mentioned that."
"Shut up, Trump is going to make everything great!"

And yes, people's ideas about Trump fixing things come from their discontent with whatever their current shitty situation is, despite most Americans being more well off than they were 4 or 8 years ago.

I personally haven't seen a whole lot of talking about Hillary like she's a goose going to lay a golden egg, like people do Trump. Hell, there was more talk of Bernie doing the impossible than of Hillary, and even without a succinct message, people were projecting what miracles they thought he could work onto him.

There's much less in the way of delusions about Hillary shitting gold bricks. And before someone replies and says "well that's cause she's a liar and a crook and a murderer and she eats babies!" have a look at Trump's past, even just a little bit of it. I dare you. Just do it.

Unfortunately, it seems there's little room for solidarity when you're going for practical and pragmatic. Tribalism is for those who are unwilling to critique their own, even with great fault.

First let me say, we coach things in terms of "Practical and Pragmatic," which is IMHO code-word for "Path of least resistance," and yes among the economic and politically powerful the current policy trajectory of the United States does seem grand. All the golden eggs laid for the banking and financier industry, the pursuit of Neo-Liberalism, ect, all are things Frank pointed out as things that people of that social class love and thus will pursue unless its impossible for them to do so. This is a complete waste of time this phrase "practical and pragmatic," because it is much like "inequality," which I remind you cannot be solved in a technocratic and allegedly meritocratic system.

The goal of taking about just slogan tactics is ignoring deeper economic hardships and distress IMHO. It's self serving and self-exculpating.

[storyline]

Again, this has no supporting evidence.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/...on-crimes.html

This is extremely disingenuous. You know full well, that just because there is no admittance of "Yes, i did this.", does not prove innocence. That's like saying because there was no indictment on her emails, she's innocent when everyone knows better. What the book lays out is a very obvious pattern of behavior, and very un-coincidental actions. She signed over 20% of Uranium to Russians, then days after millions were "donated" to the Clinton foundation from Russians. But because Hillary didn't say "Yep i sold it to russians for millions in private money", there's no evidence? Let's be real here.

[Orlong]

Yeah, especially the part where they want to imprison and execute the Democratic candidate.
That part was the most open minded of them all!

Nobody that Ive heard at the RNC said Crooked Hillary should be executed. They did say she belongs in jail and 56% of Americans agree. Its not just Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...erate-clinton/

Just because she wasnt charged doesnt mean she didnt break the law

[Theodarzna]

My disagreement was with your conflation of "endorsement" and "responsibility," not the spoiler effect, which is very real.

Regardless, I wouldn't say someone is responsible for everything a president does either, only the things that are predictable at the time of voting, and even that is mitigated to some degree by the lack of additional options. The point of what people keep saying is more about the necessity of acting rationally and pragmatically, even when you're upset with how things are going, as opposed to simply trying to guilt trip people into it. People who support someone like Sanders or would support Stein are better served by supporting Clinton at the election and working to change the system by working with their representatives. They do not have the ability to force the change they want to see by throwing away votes in November. They will walk away in a weaker position than they would be in if they vote for Clinton and get her elected.

I never said the word endorsement, as far as I can see, I never said such a word.

I am stating that the logic of the spoiler effect is that "If you don't do X, you are responsible for Y." Which you seem to agree with. Now if someone isn't responsible for EVERYTHING.... well that is a new one since I've never seen anyone say that "Well they aren't responsible for everything they do."

[TZucchini]

Just because she wasnt charged doesnt mean she didnt break the law

This statement epitomizes Conservative thinking. So much for "innocent until proven guilty".

By that same standard, Orlong, you haven't been charged with domestic violence, but that doesn't mean you aren't a wife beater. So let's all just keep that in mind. Orlong might be a wife beater. We simply don't know.

[Tragedia]

Going to post this here..

Another hack took place

Democratic campaign group for Congress confirms computer hack

Maybe Democrats will turn around on that encryption thingy.

[Pangean]

Also the slogans last night were just awful.....

Uhuh here's some words that you might like better:

“Donald Trump, you’re asking Americans to trust you with their future, let me ask you, have you even read the United States Constitution?. I will gladly lend you my copy,”

“Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending United States of America, you will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.”

"A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons."

"Donald Trump, I didn't put my life on the line to defend our democracy so you could invite Russia to interfere in it."

"Donald you're so vain. You probably think this speech is about you, don't you?"

"Hello everyone. I'm Michael Jordan and I'm here with Hillary. I said that because I know that Donald Trump couldn't tell the difference."

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody that Ive heard at the RNC said Crooked Hillary should be executed. They did say she belongs in jail and 56% of Americans agree. Its not just Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...erate-clinton/

Just because she wasnt charged doesnt mean she didnt break the law

It is not enough to simply beat Hillary Clinton, an adviser to Donald Trump’s campaign said. She must be killed.

The theme of the last two nights has been less “Make America Safe Again” or “Make America Work Again” and more “Lock Her Up.” But some of Trump’s most diehard supporters want to go further—they want her to be executed.

“Anyone that commits treason should be shot,” Al Baldasaro, an adviser to the Trump campaign for veterans issues, told The Daily Beast. “I believe Hillary Clinton committed treason. She put people in danger. When people take confidential material off a server, you’re sharing information with the enemy. That’s treason.”
Baldasaro was expanding on a violent call he made Tuesday, when he called for Clinton to be “put in the firing line” over her mishandling of classified emails. He made these remarks on the Jeff Kuhner Show, Buzzfeed reported.

But Trump’s adviser, who is also a state representative in New Hampshire, is not the only one at the convention who believes that Clinton should be executed for treasonous acts.

West Virginia lawmaker Michael Folk said earlier this week that Hillary Clinton should be “hung on the mall in Washington, DC” for treason. And on the campaign trail, reports show that Trump supporters have repeatedly called for her death.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...r-treason.html

[PC2]

How has the USA "fallen" under Obama?

Economically? GDP growth is at an all-time high, under Obama, and has been steadily climbing since 2009; http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...gdp-per-capita

Unemployment has been steadily declining since 2009 as well; http://gdb.voanews.com/4A07856B-F880..._w640_r1_s.png


Crime? Violent crime's been on a steady decline for decades; the only real bump upwards was during Bush in the aughts, not under Obama; http://www.statista.com/statistics/1...sa-since-1990/


Yes, Obama's leadership has been good for the country, in just about any objective measure you could come up with.

Yeah that's great, now mention this when the Bernie Sanders types are doing their revolution rants and economic doomsaying.

[Endus]

Yeah that's great, now mention this when the Bernie Sanders types are doing their revolution rants and economic doomsaying.

That the economy's doing fairly well overall is not an argument that certain sectors, like the working and middle classes, have seen less of those gains than they equitably should have, which is what Sanders was arguing.

If you're claiming "the economy is tanking under Obama!", you're just factually wrong. It isn't. That doesn't mean it couldn't be even better, and more equitably distributed.

This really shouldn't be a difficult distinction to draw.

[PC2]

That the economy's doing fairly well overall is not an argument that certain sectors, like the working and middle classes, have seen less of those gains than they equitably should have, which is what Sanders was arguing.

If you're claiming "the economy is tanking under Obama!", you're just factually wrong. It isn't. That doesn't mean it couldn't be even better, and more equitably distributed.

This really shouldn't be a difficult distinction to draw.

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.