Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

So as usual there was another email dump for Podesta, Clinton's campaign head. This time, he was caught in a sex cult and in general all kinds of sexual deviation from the Clinton camp.

Link

Not gonna go into the specifics of what happened in this post but Jesus christ you get the picture. A possible pedo ring happening right under Clinton's nose or sanctioned by her, who knows which is worse. And the head of her campaign going to Satanic sex meetings? Not a good image. And also recently Clinton's team was caught knowing Weiner was sexting kids like 5 years ago and kept it under wraps.

the list keeps growing. Remember when everyone suspected and sometimes made jokes Clinton was rigging the democratic primaries? At the DNC, big woops we figured out she actually did. All those close shave losses Sanders got look a lot more different now don't they? She was confirmed to have incited literal violence at Trump rallies to make him look bad. She tried rigging elections in Palestine while complaining Russia was doing it to us.

Why the hell aren't Clinton and a huge chunk of her staff in jail? Oh I know that, because politicians, particularly big ones, basically have full immunity to the law despite the fact that our system is supposed to hold government officials accountable and under the same standards of citizens. Big oopsie. Nixon got pardoned remember? And his situation was so bad he was actually charged at least. Here Clinton can't get enough attention to her crimes and the election's polarization creates an ignorant bliss where people actually just don't know or don't want to know. I don't blame people for it. Clinton has been shown in the past to doctor Google search results and pay out media in the past after all.

So the big picture is, why the hell does she have any support? Is it actually just the not knowing what she's done thing? The media is too busy talking about the most recent mean thing Trump just said. Don't get me wrong I actually don't like Trump as a candidate. I won't get into those reasons here but I don't like him I'm not a supporter of his. But I might as well be compared to Clinton is what I'm saying. Since the general election has been said to be the decision for the lesser evil (as politics always is in a sense but particularly more-so now) I feel Trump is that lesser evil by a lot.

People consistently feel Clinton is the lesser evil because of her "experience" (experience in screwing people over and being a supervillain) and because she's not "mean". This is what frustrates me the most. 1) Trump being worse according to media outlets and most of her supporters usually completely relies on the assumption he's racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. I disagree with these labels but let's not go there. 2) Even if you accept the assumption, there's the other rhetorical step that claims being racist or whatever is soooo much worse than being a sack of pure evil who is a stain on our system.

Speaking of, I think Clinton is a stain on our system as I mentioned above to an extent with the jail thing. She operates outside jurisdiction and the law being sanctioned by everyone and sanctioning everyone underneath. No checks, balances, or anything really with her. I don't see how this doesn't frustrate people. Maybe I'm just nuts but this actually kept me up last night just seething from my sense of justice being bothered so much. My moral compass won't allow me to ever in any situation support anyone like Hillary in any situation. It makes me sick she's winning in many polls.

Like every dystopian novel or anything covering dirty politics is present and proven in Hillary's campaign. Doesn't even matter honestly that a lot of her sins are just speculation because you disprove 1 speculative claim and there are 20 proven claims right behind it we know she's done no argument possible. Like I saw Luke Cage recently and like any crime drama or superhero thing it showed examples of a system so broken it was basically impossible to jail openly law breaking supervillains basically. Clinton to me is a supervillain despite everyone's claims that Trump is one because he's more flashy. Every fiber within me tells me I can't support Clinton so why is she supported?

How is such evil allowed? We can't allow it as a people. We can't reward this let alone tolerate it at all. I used to be kind of indifferent between the 2 but everything in me tells me to oppose Clinton and that's what I've decided I will do from now on. To me Assange is a hero he's doing the work we need. He's the only functioning check around here but alone he's not enough nothing is being done even with the evidence in plain sight.

Do any of you support Clinton? Believe me despite basically my vent I don't hate people for having different opinions I'm honestly curious though as to how you can support someone knowingly that they are eroding the values our country was founded on or at least keeping it in a broken state. I made this a thread instead of a vent post because while I needed to clear my head and get this out there, I want to know what you guys think and start a debate/discussion.

PLEASE READ: This is not an endorsement, or a defense for Clinton, this is just an explanation as to why some people see Trump as worst. Please keep this in mind before reading the first two sentences then skipping the rest to call me a Clinton Shill

"I feel Trump is that lesser evil by a lot."

There are a lot of people who would disagree, I've found a lot of people who rational their choice as "Straight Evil will never be as bad as Chaotic Evil". When it comes to the Presidential seat, where most of their power comes in the form of control over the military and foreign relations, someone who is self-serving, egotistical, politically incompetent, hot-headed and cannot, for the life of him, know when to shut up and keep a lid on his mouth cannot possibly be topped as "The worst possible choice for president" There are a lot of people who would at least want a competent evil in office instead of an asshole who would fuck things up out of arrogance.

People keep bringing up the scandals of Clinton while ignoring that Trump has his fair share himself, up to bragging about sexual assault to numerous lawsuits filed against him, to again, his inability to keep a lid on his ego and straight up insulting his opposition and entire groups of people. Also, for a lot of people, including myself, anybody who says there is even a .01% chance they would use Nuclear Weapons is unvotable for president. Trump supporters keep undermining a lot of these things, but a lot of this means a lot more to them then an email scandal or a pedo campaign manager.

I myself would not have hesitated to vote republican in light of everything that has come up regarding Clinton if we had someone halfway decent running. Trump is just too unpredictable and egotistical for me to, under any circumstances, vote in an office where tact, experience, and a willingness to cooperate and compromise is everything. I'm still debating whether to vote for my lesser evil or a third party myself, given where I am.

Tl:dr It's because the Clinton and Trump are two different kinds of evil and people have different concerns over what kind of evil is worst than the other. It's a simple as that. People are not weighing the two on the same scale to see which is worst, they are deciding which category of evil is worst. You decided that Clinton's brand of evil is worst, others feel Trump's brand of evil is worst. The election will go to the brand of evil Americans are less afraid of.

Coming from a third world country, we don't like Trump.
"You can fuck yorself Trump! And you are not welcome into Mexico, pendejo!"
-Former president of Mexico, some months ago.
Our media so far as I can recall, hasn't mentioned her e-mails or hasn't analised them properly.
We see Clinton as the lesser of two evils due to the fact that unlike Trump, hasn't expressed any "grudge" towards other races.
For a Latino voting for Trump, that would be the equivalent of saying "Jews for Hitler" and such.
Elections are to be held in some days, and regardless of the outcome, a shitstorm will follow. A big shitstorm.

Trump could be really bad, or not very bad, he is unpredictable.
Clinton is bad and is very predictable

The question is, do you want to gamble with Trump and possibly get a terrible president, or do you want to play it safe and only get a bad president with Clinton.

Wow thanks for the answer. I honestly love it I've heard all of this stuff before just never as eloquently and organized. However, I will still try to retort to your devil's advocate stuff or should I say bought and paid support (^:

First off, I honestly don't see Trump doing anything dangerous. Like in general I find fear of nuclear winter kind of irrational. Sure he says a lot of dumb shit like all the stuff you said is pretty much true. Like I made the disclaimer I don't like the guy. Who I legitimately like would be Johnson. But I don't feel like he'd start some deadly war. Hell from what I've seen Trump is pretty non-confrontational from what he's said about foreign policy. And it's not even one of the positions he's been flip floppy about (another thing I hate about him), he's been pretty adamant about being non-interventionist. It's one of the only things I like about him, mainly because he sticks to this one position. Sure he's not libertarian levels like I honestly prefer but he's not going to start ww3 to me.

Most people in fact seem to be arguing that Clinton is more likely to start something big with how lightly her and her associates take just sending troops willy nilly and openly antagonizing Russia. I don't have much of an opinion on this but yeah. Clinton is more consistent evil is part of what I believe. You know for sure she's going to be evil.

To me stuff like alleged sexual assault and suing news companies is shitty (if the first is proven, I think there's a decent chance it has happened) but that's all it is, shitty. Like to me the most important part of our country is obviously our country. I'm an almost objective to a fault value based person. Clinton spits on every value I have. Every single one. Like a circle of pedos operating under her consent I'd say exceeds alleged non-consensual grabbing. One doesn't justify the other they're both evil but as with all of us I have a tier-list for sins in a way. Also everything else Hillary has done this is one grain of salt in the barrel of misdeeds.

Also with Trump being a wildcard, it's entirely possible he could be completely reasonable in office. I mean he's said over time he's been trying to chill out and most of his shittiness has just been 4D chess and media manipulation. Not all though I know very well he's just naturally an ass. After all there's that one campaign slogan of "he's a businessman" and saying him being good with people would help him talk to congress and all. And it helps him with foreign policy too. And to me if Trump was terribly insane he would be checked as he already is being checked at every corner. People don't really like the guy especially in politics.

Hillary on the other hand can do whatever she wants whenever. And she has been throughout this campaign and her career. Like I said when people say she's experienced I see that more as her being an experienced con artist. In my head I'm willing to make the sacrifice of stability for my principles. You're right in that it's completely principle based I agree. But I can still think other people's priorities are wrong (I try to do it respectfully though at least)

@Henry

While I see where you're coming from I also don't think it's an accurate analysis. To me it's based on the image the media peddles. How I see Trump is he's an asshole but not towards anything specific. He's just a dick to everyone on tv. He's a dick to women, multiple races, gay people, disabled people, everyone. That's how I see it. He has no filter for his thoughts he just says whatever comes to mind and it's usually dickish. Not because he's prejudiced to certain groups, but because he's an ass to everyone, that's his thing. Not saying it's suddenly good, just saying there's a difference.

And sorry to spout this thing I do sound like a supporter sometimes when I'm being devil's advocate for Trump, but "he's only against illegals, not all latinos". My mom is a direct immigrant from Brazil and I have a family friend who is actually illegal. I've had many problems with the immigration system I understand. But the people Trump is saying are drug lords and rapists are exactly that, the drug lords and rapists. The people who treat it like he's talking about all Hispanics are the problem it's not his fault for drawing that crowd. Also for every big scandal for Trump saying something mean you can find at least one clip of him also saying something nice about that group or treating it well.

And as I tried to establish before in my eyes allowing deep seeded corruption to occur is worse than being a dick.

There are many, MANY reasons as to why Hillary is a worse option to Trump, but according to what Rational Wiki describes as "Skarka's Law" Wikileaks could release actual footage of her killing babies and some people will still support her because in their mind, Trump is 10x worse

I'm not going into everything, and by all means, keep in mind, while you (whoever is reading this, not directed at Sam) may disagree with various points I bring up this isn't a why the points I bring up are objectively right or wrong. This is about how people perceive these things.

EDIT: Many of these points were brought up in other posts when I was still writing mine, so yeah, feel free to ignore some of this.

First and foremost, you will always have people who vote straight ticket. They hate one side so much, or love one side so much, you could put just about anyone there and they would gain votes for the sole reason that they are representing the party. This occurs in almost any election. I'm not saying this is good, but unless the party as a whole collapses, these people will always exist.

Second, and this should be obvious, there are many people who, in general go straight ticket. These people are often more likely to turn a blind eye to whatever the candidate they support did or said, because they perceive it as not as bad as what the other may have did, due to biases they already have. While they can vote between party lines, a candidate that's not from the one they normally go with generally has to have a very clean record and good appeal. Obviously, neither candidate really has high nation wide approval ratings currently. [I'll be honest I'm guilty of this. While I'm more liberal than most people in my state, I would have hoped for Christie (before the bridge thing became more public) Kasich, or Romney, had he decided to run again, to ultimately win the election].

Obviously this does not explain Clinton's large support, but as long as she is the one running, it will be next to impossible to shake some of these people with a candidate that does't appeal to the majority of people. As The Daily Show once said, "They are both running against the one person they could actually win against."

Now, for more speculation:

I really think it's that many people really hate Trump, and, similar to you, and any alternative, no bad they actually are, is a better choice than the one they absolutely hate. It's likely not just for what he's done and said, but what they think he might do, and what he sort of represents. I don't really want to go too far in this because this thread is supposed to be about Hillary, not Trump. But yes, some think that even if the absolute worse rumors and ideas about Clinton are true, given that the alternative is Trump, they will still perceive her as the better choice.

Personally, while I wouldn't go so far to Assange is a hero, I do think people like him have an important role. While I get that many classified documents are potentially extremely dangerous (and not just to political careers) if they are released, given the record of the government (or some corporations for that matter) have of actually fixing themselves before something is leaked, just seems to show the importance of said groups.The only thing I really wished would have happened differently related to Wikileaks was that if this stuff could have been made public before the start of the primaries, when there actually was a chance of getting at least one nominee that was not completely gawd awful.

I've become so disillusioned with politics, that at this point i don't care who wins. I have no strong feelings one way or another. So i'm not really gonna vote or invest my time in voting. If im forced to choose between a Snake and Moron then i wont choose at all.

The usual response to that is the suggestion to vote third party. But that probably won't happen, as third parties don't get that much support, so them achieving a high ranking office is unlikely.

One thing I'd like to bring up is recently FBI sources stated that there's a 99% chance that Hillary's private email server was hacked by at least 5 foreign nationalities.

At this point I wouldn't trust her to properly feed my dog, let alone trust her with the Nuclear Football.

Whenever Hillary gets up to the mike I actually ask myself how she feels like she has any ground to stand on to talk shit about anyone. She's making Nixon look like a fucking boy scout at this point ffs.

I'm calling out Major Bummer and Adam DeLand to explain why do they support Clinton.

I'm surprised people are making a fuss about some dumb modern performance art instead of the Clintons' possible connections to child sex trafficking.

Yeah I agree YNG while I brought up the cult thing it's honestly not that bad. I'm of the opinion that people should be free to do things that don't hurt others and while disturbing this cult thing isn't harmful. But I did bring up the pedophile ring thing. Actually multiple instances. First is the woman stealing Haitian children with the Clintons covering it up. 2nd is Bill's alleged visits to pedo island (also said Trump has been there, it's the shakiest evidence of all the allegations though) and also the thing with them basically condoning Weiner sexting the teenager.

Later today I might compile some articles of it all just to shit on Hillary further but feel free to post if you've got it. Both evidence of her scumminess or against because like I said lots of the things she's been attacked for are speculative. But even with some of the speculative things there are an equal amount of things we know she's done. There's not really a way out that goes well for her.

Trump Rally

Compiled sources connecting Clinton to protecting Haitian kidnapper

DNC Rigging

Clinton wanting to rig Palestine

Well while others explain why she is winning: Because she simply is not Donald Trump

Trump supporters want to bring up the Podesta Emails to show corruption and incompetence, but you never see them showing that one email detailing clearly showing that the Clinton camp wanted Trump or other republican lunatics such as Carson or Cruz to be the frontrunner of the party in the first place even before they announced their candidacies. Clearly, using the media to show full 24 hour coverage of these candidates and propping them up as the leaders to the republican party is a sick, but smart tactic on their hand.

This includes media networks like CNN and others live broadcasting full, non fact checked speeches from Trump, causing them to intentionally drowning coverage of republicans that didn't call Mexicans rapists or banning Muslims from the country. This extends to even drowning coverage to her main democratic opposition too, cutting victory and policy speeches from Sanders to Empty Podiums from Trump aswell. With Trump becoming the nominee, it just made her warpath to the white house much easier, since to be honest, any other candidate that became the nominee would've beaten her……. bigly.

Trump talks about a "rigged media" but if they really were against him, he would've never been the nominee. That leak of the heinous Trump tape(which apparently the WSJ had for months but released it now for no reason whatsever lol) capsized his campaign for good, like a "pied piper" candidate in the email that I linked, that is also implied by Wikileaks in a tweet. He was only built up to simply be destroyed, and the base clearly took the bait, hard.

Clinton has support and is up in because she has campaign infrastructure that mirrors Obama compared to a candidate who has none, a democratic firewall that still guarantees her the presidency if states like North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, and Iowa fall blue. Plus don't forget universally loved surrogates such as Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders. Trump may have more enthusiasm, but that, bumper stickers, or yard signs doesn't win elections, Votes do. Which is consistent with Early voting data in states such as Florida and Nevada, states he needs to win hugely.

I have a similar set of thoughts – Trump violates many of my principles, but Clinton somehow violates more of them. I'm not exceptionally wordy, but the "no-fly zone" issue and the entire email scandal are major factors in my thought processes.

My question is, why do you care? Why do you care about the candidates? Ignore them. The policies are what's important. Hillary is a piece of shit but at least under her people won't suffer nearly as much. Look at the party policies. If the Republicans get in, a lot of people will lose rights, including LGBT people (looking at you, Sam..)

So yeah, ignore the fucking candidates for god's sake, and do your damn research on what their PARTIES want to do. So sick of people caring only about the idiots running for president. President has little to no power. Focus on the people who actually do, which is the other members of party. That's why I would support Clinton if I lived in America. Not because I like her, but because I like her policies.

EDIT: No, seriously, I am sick of people ignoring a party's policies because "But muh emails" or "Muh rayceesum". Fuck that. Hillary is a disgusting human being who has done a lot of dark shit, Trump is a racist piece of shit who is completely incompetent. Who cares? Policies are what matters. And if you don't wanna get shit on, you better fucking read up on them and vote based on that. Common sense.

Well I'm glad you don't live in America, because one of Hillary's policies is a no-fly zone over Syria, which would very likely lead to a war with them and Russia their allies.

Why is Calkarot being downvoted? His answer to the OP's question is probably the best in this thread so far.

The Executive branch is the least powerful in the American government. But if your party's nominee loses badly on election day, chances are very high that the lack of down-ballot votes will also wipe out your standing in Congress. The President also gets to nominate Justices, which is arguably the office's most consequential power. Ted Cruz came around to supporting Trump primarily because he liked Trump's proposed list of Justices and was worried about Clinton pushing through a liberal Supreme Court if she became President.

I don't know how many people are voting based on this logic, but the answer is probably "not enough". Not enough voters appreciate the significance of the other two branches of government, hence why midterm elections have dismal turnout despite being just as, if not more, consequential than Presidential elections.

Also, the whole "Satanic sex cult" thing is an overblown fabrication. Podesta did not attend the dinner, there was no sex, and Abramović is just a 2edgy4u performance artist. Satanic moral panic is so 90s. Don't fall for tabloid sensationalism. For shame.

Like Russia's going to nuke us over a fucking no-fly zone. That's got to be the most retarded lie the Trump camp has come up with yet.

Putin's not an idiot. He knows no one wants Cold War II, and he knows even if it happened it'd be another series of proxy wars with no way for him to decisively win without risking nuclear retaliation. He might get pissed off, but he won't outright declare war. Putin has shown in the past that when he comes to a decision, it's careful and calculated – not "REEEEEEEE NO-FLY KILL KILL KILL"

@Calkarot That would work if the candidates didn't constantly lie about what their stances and policies are, and didn't just say what they believe to be the most popular stance is.

First, take most outrageous claims with a big grain of dead sea salt. They're always going to either be exaggerated well beyond the point of hyperbole or downright false. In the case of Cooking with the Occult, it appears the "artist" decided to name her dinner party after her batshit insane post-modern art exhibit. Of course, she could be lying and they all really do have a semen and blood garnish fetish, but I find it much more believable she was just making a stupid joke (I was the person that did that creepy Spirit Cooking thing, now here's a dinner party named after it!) she never thought Wikileaks would leak to the world.

…why the hell does she have any support?

It's due to the election system we have here. First Past the Post, meaning the first candidate to achieve a certain percentage (in our case 50% + one vote) wins, has a tendency to narrow choices down to two, resulting in the Two Party System nearly everyone but the politicians hate. If only two major candidates run, the likelihood that 50% of the votes are "split" between several similar ideological choices is much less, ensuring at least someone with a similar ideology to yours has a shot at winning.

The keyword there is "similar." Many times, the candidate your party chooses has or does many things you oppose--sometimes in order to draw in more votes and increase the chances of getting to the 50% + one vote threshold, sometimes for more corrupt reasons (quid pro quo, corporate backing, etc.). Thus, you become disgruntled toward the choice and start thinking about third party, or if it's the primaries, a party candidate that's more appealing to you.

Enter the Republican and Democratic Parties favorite weapon: fear. For if you don't vote for their candidate--or the one that's "most likely" to win in the primary--the other party's will hit the magic threshold and win. Then they'll enact [policy you hate] or appoint SCOTUS judges that'll [overturn a previous ruling you liked]. So vote for the lesser of two evils. You may hate the person. They may be corrupt and have a list of scandals or flubs a mile long, they may be rude or grating to hear, they may merrily march us to war or economic ruin.

But at least it isn't the other party in power.

Except that there is already a de-facto no-fly zone in Syria… Created by Russia.
Let's be honest – US strategically lost in Syria, not through military actions but rather by letting it fall under Russia's sphere of influence. Everything that either of the candidates says about doing military actions in the region (be it Trump or Hillary) is purely political – you may destroy ISIS, but overthrowing pro-Putin Assad (or "taking their oil") would mean an escalation of conflict with already present Russian forces, regardless if the Donald "I make the best deals, believe me" Trump or Hillary "Trump is Putin's puppet" Clinton does that.

Always get rid of a traitor before an enemy

I'm voting for Hillary. I voted for Bernie in the primary. This is about policy to me. Hillary is a snake, but as long as she's in the public eye, she's beholden to the base at least somewhat. Even if it's just lipservice, she supports the policies I support, and I know she won't veto progressive bills and won't be an obstacle to much needed social reform. Also, her economic plan isn't completely absurd like Trump's is.

I'm voting for the party platform, not the candidate. Justices are now a bigger deal than ever, and I can't accommodate anti-abortion, anti-gun control, religious conservative justices. Hillary will last 4, maybe 8 years, but what she passes in office will affect me for likely my whole life. Forgive me if an /r/The_Donald tier conspiracy theory about a sex cult doesn't change my mind.

Holy shit look guys a puppet.

Look, man, politics is full of corruption. Trump is no different. He's fucking telling you what you want to hear. If he gets in, if the REPUBLICANS get in, people will get hurt. Innocent people. Go read up on both party's policies and then come back and say that.

{ but as long as she’s in the public eye, she’s beholden to the base at least somewhat }

idk how you people can still claim that after the speech transcripts exposed her saying the exact opposite of what she says to the public to big corporate wall st donors. She literally said the words "you need both a public and a private position".

{ Hillary will last 4, maybe 8 years, but what she passes in office will affect me for likely my whole life. }

If Donald Trump can get elected and "reverse social progress" (an ignorantly misinformed impression to begin with) then the President who follows him can reverse his reversal of social progress. Your alarmist logic isn't holding up here bud.

Russia has already started a war, we're appeasing Putin like we did Hitler as we (the first world's leaders) all pretend not to notice. China has all but openly declared war on the rest of Asia as well. It doesn't matter who gets elected as far as the issue of starting a war is concerned because it's happening regardless. Hillary will pull everybody out and attempt to minimize the US's role in any actual conflict that rises, a la what Obama's decimated military and troop withdrawal has done to the Middle East, leaving us personally way more vulnerable than if Trump acts on our current military general's advice, which Obama has already rejected more than any other President in US history.

>idk how you people can still claim that after the speech transcripts exposed her saying the exact opposite of what she says to the public to big corporate wall st donors. She literally said the words “you need both a public and a private position”.

That line has been taken hilariously out of context. Hillary herself has clarified herself on it if you care at all to look, in the second debate I believe. But it's much more convenient to the narrative as a standalone quote so let's keep it that way.

>If Donald Trump can get elected and “reverse social progress” (an ignorantly misinformed impression to begin with) then the President who follows him can reverse his reversal of social progress. Your alarmist logic isn’t holding up here bud.

Measures against abortion, gun control, and environmentalism are going to be yet another step back in an already uphill battle. Climate change and damage to ecosystem services is already costing us millions. It boggles my mind that conservatives are still convinced we can afford to do nothing about it.

IDK what Russia has to do with anything I said. Putin isn't stupid enough to engage in direct combat with any formal developed nation (read; everywhere but the middle east). I agree with the no-fly zone based on what I know of the situation. Also, I don't know how you can say our military is decimated when we spend over %50 of our budget on it, well over the next few nations combined. If anything we need to slash our defense budget.

I won't defend Obama here. The middle east situation could have absolutely been handled better, but I don't believe Trump's solution of "Bomb the hell out of ISIS" is much better.

Vote down-ballot. Your local reps will affect your personal life a lot more than the president.

{ it’s much more convenient to the narrative as a standalone quote }

It's better for her to keep it as a standalone quote wtf have you read it?

“Politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”

She is assuring a convention center full of private donors that she and her administration know what's best for the little people like you much better than you do, they'll handle it behind the scenes while completely lying to your face so you don't have to worry about complicated things like politics, mama Hills will take care of her bbys~

are you serious? This is why the term sheep is used.

{ Climate change and damage to ecosystem services is already costing us millions. }

oh come at me on conservation, I have a degree. Empty environmentalist policy has cost us BILLIONS and absolutely nothing has been done to solve any of our problems. China and India put out more CO2 every year than the rest of the first world has literally just agreed in writing to start cutting by 2020, do you understand that? Meanwhile millions of acres of land that could otherwise be productive are being cleared in the name of solar and wind farms that we don't have the capability to use efficiently because the government would rather subsidize half a billion dollars for one now-bankrupt solar farm run by a bunch of corporate hippies than invest in competitive battery innovation which is much more rapidly developing on the other end of the globe atm. & top that off with the most mindless environmentalist protest to date taking place over a state of the art pipeline in ND meant to replace the out of date transportation infrastructure responsible for every single leak and spill that for some reason everybody is fighting to keep instead.

Conservative economic policy will allow the kind of private innovation that has been invigorating sustainable industry advancement across the world, more liberal economic policy will give us another long list of taxpayer funded failures.

{ Putin isn’t stupid enough t engage in direct combat with any formal developed nation }

right the entire European continent has mobilized its naval forces as Russia's entire fleet of warships casually strolls through because Putin "WW3 is inevitable" poses no threat. & Hillary is the one threatening war with Russia in all these leaked emails, it's the Democrats who have been blaming them for bs like interfering our elections. Didn't Obama say we "reset" with Russia???

We spend so much on our military because we're a military power. We have government contracts with countries in dicey regions that we'll be there to help them when shit starts happening (see: China) and that's where Obama has reduced our military force the most. Also cut our missile defense programs in what was supposed to be part that Russian reset that allowed Russia to expand their nuclear arsenal, and he's supposed to announce cuts to our arsenal literally any day now, all displays of weakness which led to their increased aggression.

The amount of crazy ass accusations and speculations about both candidates prove one thing conclusively, that everyone of the public has an overactive imagination and an axe to grind this election.

Hillary Clinton, from my paroozing the internet, has been guilty of trying to start WWIII, trying to back down from a WWIII, appeasing ISIS, provoking a war with ISIS, Trying to kill putin and all russians, trying to appease putin and all russians, and being both a slave and slaver of china.

Donald Trump has been called a racist, but lying about being racist, while also being super conservative, but actually being a secret liberal, but actually being a secret corporatitst, but actually being an opportunist, to him being a shill for hillary, to him being a plant from russia, to him being after the nuke codes to bomb russia, etc, etc.

About the only things consistent in this race, is that hillary clinton has abused her office, and donald trump is a rich asshole.

That's the only thing actually proveable throughout this entire quagmire of bs and political bias on display in every thread concenring this accursed election. It can't end soon enough so we can move on from this retarded ass shit.

Tbh, this whole things seems like tabloid gossip. I'm gonna have to look more into before i really pass judgement. But i think it is known that she fucked over bernie sanders (whom would have had my vote no question)

Rational Wiki sums it up best.

"While there is quite a bit of nonsense in circulation regarding Clinton, there do exist serious issues which cause many to distrust her. Even as politicians go, Clinton's apparent willingness to act out of political expediency alone is stunning. She is suspiciously close to a few financial industry bigwigs; Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, for instance, hired Clinton for at least one private speaking appearance.[6] Even among Democrats, there exists serious tension over her presidential bid. Many in anti-establishment, grassroots, or otherwise left-leaning company within the party have expressed serious dissatisfaction with the grasp she and other oligarchs have on its reigns."

She just doesn't seem like she has the people's best interests at heart.

KaijuSundae|Calkarot said:

Holy shit look guys a puppet.

Can we please not turn the forum into the fucking Huffpost/Breitbart comment section?

I would appreciate that. I'd also appreciate if people didn't say what he was responding to in the first place.

Even if Boshy is right, claiming that gets us nowhere. It just makes tensions even higher and runs the risk of things getting worse.

If you feel the need to speak like Boshy or Calkarot did, please follow the instructions in this guided meditation video.

Contributing to the topic at hand…

I feel like everyone could do to understand how humans handle politics.

Spoiler: They handle it irrationally.

Take a moment to consider the people you've talked to about politics on a level more than viewing it as a horse race, or wholly agreeing. Think about the disagreements. Most of the time, they don't change their mind, do they?

Partisanship is almost modern day tribalism, if you will. "Mine is the best, yours is stupid and dumb and you're stupid and dumb!" That's really how it seems. It can seem like people are absolute morons for not seeing the obvious truth, or heartless for not caring about [insert people group you care about here] or [insert personal pet political issue you care a lot about].

But the fact of the matter is, the average person is actually not really that bad a person. Given the amount of idiots and heartless people we see in our own "groups", whether they be Democratic, or Republican, or Libertarian, or any other political group, it only follows that there must be good people you disagree with politically.

There are also interesting, logical thought traditions in many different, exclusive ideologies. The more I read actual intellectual work from diverse beliefs, the more understanding I have for "the other guy", even while I strongly hold to my own beliefs. Conservatism, communism, (American) liberalism, libertarianism, anarchism, authoritarianism… there are smart people who believe in all of these, and defend them intelligently.

Now, on to the exact topic at hand. The thing about U.S. politics is that is it amazingly partisan. Indeed, I recall hearing about a study that showed that whether an idea was labeled "Democrat" or "Republican" had an effect on how likely someone was to accept it (it correlated with what their ideology was). Now, if you think about it, that probably doesn't surprise you if you know much about U.S. politics, and that's exactly my point.

The Clintons are long-standing Democratic politicians. Bill and Hillary have collectively served as president, senator, first lady, and secretary of state, over two decades, give or take. Meanwhile, Republicans have been fighting them for a really long time. Tell me, if you were a Republican, and Democrats spent two decades trying to dig up dirt on the Bush family and you never bought any of it, do you think you're going to bat an eye when you see the words "Bush" and "scandal" in the headlines again? Probably not, even if it's legitimate. It'd, at the very least, make you highly cautious, and if the title was about occult cooking or child sex trafficking, you're probably gonna go "yeah no that's BS".

It goes in reverse, also. You're probably more open to scandals on "the other team's" side than on your own. You see the Trump Tapes, and you get outraged. You see the Trump Foundation, and wonder how anyone can support him. But you're likely to give a pass to your own guys.

It's hypocritical, yes. But it's really hard to avoid. Everyone does it.

If you want to discuss politics with someone who disagrees – and this is cliche, but it's true – seek common ground first. Work from there. You want to find the ideals of the other side and spin that how you can. You want to learn where you can agree and try to push from there. Taking an aggressive approach just makes the other side think that you are the uninformed, idiotic, hypocritical one.

That's how it works in my experience, at least.

She is getting votes because people fear her a trump presidency more than they fear Hillary. They see Trump as a danger to international relations, the economy, social equality, and more. Honestly all you need to know is that Trump Aids had to take his twitter account away from him.

Really you could argue all day about policy and stuff but it is clear that Trump doesn't have the temperament to be president. Look at how quickly he is to anger, how he will interrupt people just because he feels like it. He was up at 3am Tweeting about SNL after they made fun of him.

Now don't get me wrong I hate Trump and Hillary Equally. They are both liars and scum of the earth and it is horrible that these are the two choices we have. But at the end of the day I think Hillary's supporters are only supporting her because they fear Trump more. It isn't that they don't believe all the controversy surrounding Hillary it is that they are willing to ignore it because they see Trump's as an even worse monster.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C.S. Lewis

Trump, an appetitive buffon, is less dangerous than Hillary Clinton, a deluded interloper. He wants to be satisfied with honors, money, food, and other pleasures, while she wants to effect change towards a worldview radically opposed to the interests of the country. She is, in this way, more dangerous than she is.

You do know Presidents can't become tyrants right?

According to the constitution that Trump and Clinton so clearly and obviously respect? HRC has proven herself to be above the law multiple times. Let's not even talk about Obama's precedent in extra-judicial killings and expansion of the Patriot Act.. Of course tyranny is possible in the USA. The constitution is a lot like religious texts: once someone stops believing in it, it becomes easy for them to violate it.

Until congress impeaches you. You realize the power of government is held between 500 people right? Most of which are against one another, and half of which would jump at the opportunity to impeach the other sides candidate. Passing executive orders you don't like or find morally bankrupt a tyranny does not make. A tyranny is, by definition, a king (i.e. sole person who holds all power of the state) that rules by fear and has unlimited power, not a mean ruler. The president has not nearly enough power to become one, even if they wanted to, even if they have illegal connections.

What you are doing is projecting a demonized scenario concocted by your irrational fear unto the candidates. Both are bad, but neither are tyrant-level bad.

I feel like this election is much more about the values of the people who vote for them than the ability for them to carry out those values.

May I get a clear summary what has Clinton done wrong? I mean, she said stupid shit in the past, but what's the ultimate reason that she's a bad president?

She said that she's going to help with getting higher wages for jobs by making big companies pay. That doesn't seem too bad.

I hope clinton wins because with republicans in power I am afraid of losing my right to be a woman or to marry the one I love.

{ She said that she’s going to help with getting higher wages for jobs by making big companies pay. }

Our corporate income tax (that rate big business is taxed at) is already the highest in the world at 39%. We also already have an exit tax of 30%. Hillary Clinton is going to generate better wages by raising taxes on the people who create the jobs? This is why American manufacturing is fleeing. They'll pay their one time 30% exit tax to avoid being fucked in the ass yearly at 39% when they can go to China and pay 25% while taking advantage of extreme minimum wages in dangerous working conditions. Or Canada, where they can pay fair labor wages in good working conditions and only be taxed 15% by the government at the end of the year, which is why anyone bothers opening corporate business in Canada.

The ultimate reason, though, has to be the (USA owned) uranium she sold to Russia after they donated millions to the Clinton Foundation while she was negotiating those sales as Secretary of State. & the millions she's taken from radical Islamic terrorist supporting governments while doing the same.

Christ's sake people we've gone over the LGBT thing already too. Even if Trump picks the most conservative of conservative justices and they reconvened on gay marriage, it would still end up tied and the court would change nothing. ASSUMING they agree to even hear the case, they don't have to vote on it just because the new President thinks they should, regardless of who that new President is. They ruled Obama's executive order amnesty illegal and already refused to rehear it for the liberals, no reason to think they'd rehear gay marriage for the conservatives.

Regarding this thread, her negligence regarding her personal email server handling classified information is concerning. It may not have been criminal, but being that careless at the highest levels of government is dumbfounding.

She's also been connected to a lot of the unsavory networking and under-the-table dealings regarding The Clinton Foundation and some of her own. Some of those are more direct than others, but it's more suspect and prevalent than what I world expect from your standard politician.

I still voted for her though, because it works against a Trump presidency. I have little reason to vote for Clinton. I just hope a better candidate is somewhere on the ticket in 4 years.

Christ’s sake people we’ve gone over the LGBT thing already too. Even if Trump picks the most conservative of conservative justices and they reconvened on gay marriage, it would still end up tied and the court would change nothing. ASSUMING they agree to even hear the case, they don’t have to vote on it just because the new President thinks they should, regardless of who that new President is. They ruled Obama’s executive order amnesty illegal and already refused to rehear it for the liberals, no reason to think they’d rehear gay marriage for the conservatives.

Celestia Ludenburg (also known as Maddoc) is a transgender woman. While Trump has been clearly better than traditional republicans on LGBT issues, and especially the T, he's no Clinton on the topic.

With the emergence of transgender issues into the mainstream, who is put on the bench can make a big difference. The SC hasn't touched the topic nearly as much. They are taking a major one though here soon – the Gavin Grimm case. It's not necessarily the end of it, though, no matter how they rule.

So, I do find her fear of "losing my right to be a woman" at least somewhat well founded. Her fear of losing her right to marry a woman is less of an issue, yes, but the former is an issue.

Regarding this thread, her negligence regarding her personal email server handling classified information is concerning. It may not have been criminal, but being that careless at the highest levels of government is dumbfounding.

No matter how I look at it, her usage of an email server is a major hit against her. If it was her versus a Republican I could respect, despite my liberal leanings, I would probably prefer the republican.

{ I do find her fear of “losing my right to be a woman” at least somewhat well founded }

There is no right to be or not be a gender. Whether or not you can change your gender on your birth certificate is a state administrative issue and the SC has no say regardless who gets elected (you can already change it on federal ID docs). A more prudent trans rights issue is whether surgical transition should be required to change the birth certificate but that's still an issue for the state courts. If it was escalated to federal courts it would be The State of X vs. Whoever, not Supreme Court vs USA (which is also why so many people took issue with the gay marriage ruling, SC doesn't technically have jurisdiction).

The Supreme Court is unlikely to give the T community the answer they want on public school bathrooms anyway, which is the only ruling on the matter they have scheduled. They're going to hear two arguments, pre-op 12 year olds need to use the bathroom their current genitals match because non-trans 12 year olds are uncomfortable enough changing and peeing in public without seeing someone who physically appears to be the opposite sex with them, or 12 year olds need to use the bathroom their current outfit matches because no one cares that non-trans 12 year olds are uncomfortable around the opposite sex and compromise single bathroom stalls are basically Hitler.

Plus it was a current liberal Justice who allowed the Gavin Grimm case to go to court so they could hear arguments, it would have tied and the lower court ruling stood if he hadn't. It still has a strong chance to tie even if a conservative is picked, though an older aged liberal alternative is no more guaranteed to be on board with the T of LGBT. One thing we've been hammering home this election is that ya'll NEED to vote in local elections if you want things to change in your state.

To go back to the first question:

How is she getting votes?

The same can be said about Trump, depending on what you focus on: How is he getting votes?

Both have big reasons to not deserve a vote. The fact that, to the majority of Americans, this election had run down to a "who do I dislike less" instead of a "who do I like more" is quite sad.

Any other Democrat would've beaten Trump hands down, and any other Republican would've beaten Clinton hands down. Neither is going to survive to a second term: Clinton has the gauntlet of regaining trust, while Trump just has a gauntlet of ideas he can never push through in 4 years.

Their support will only drop once they're in office, and whoever wins this round is handing the other side an easy victory in 4 years.