In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 03 2016 07:13 LegalLord wrote: It is perhaps telling to look at Nixon's actual legacy. Severely damaged the credibility of the Republican Party and US politics as a whole, led to a need for the Republican party to rebuild its image - which it did with Reagan and became the "party of corporate shilling."
How about "redefined the geopolitical climate of the Cold War through detente with China"?
Though I'll admit that I'm a bit biased on that one since in an alternate universe where Richard Nixon was never president, I probably wouldn't exist.
Nixon had his strengths. If you read one of my slightly earlier posts, I did note that there are reasons to argue that Nixon was alright - but I don't think it would be the same people who are arguing for Hillary being good because of all her backroom dealings.
Ironic, considering starting the EPA, ending the draft, signing title IX, reducing the voting age to 18, rejecting termination, SALT, and the Paris Peace Accords is a list of accomplishments they would wish Hillary could come close to competing with even if she had 8 years.
On September 03 2016 07:27 Plansix wrote: You seem to forget that I supported the Iraq war, same as her. I don't now and I'm still angry about it. It would be truly hypocritical to for me to hold it against her.
And I just don't see her history as that shitty.
Do you hold this against her?
What the fuck is that? Delete you account kid.
When then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war against Iraq in 2002, she justified her support of the invasion as a way to protect America’s national security. But less than a decade later, as secretary of state, Clinton promoted the war-torn country as a place where American corporations could make big money.
“It's time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity," she said in a 2011 speech.
The quote was included in an email released by the State Department on Wednesday that specifically mentioned JPMorgan and Exxon Mobil. JPMorgan was selected by the U.S. government to run a key import-export bank in Iraq and in 2013 announced plans to expand its operations in the country. Exxon Mobil signed a deal to redevelop Iraqi oil fields. JPMorgan has collectively paid the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation at least $450,000 for speeches, and Exxon Mobil has donated over $1 million to the family’s foundation.
In the aftermath of the Iraq War, the Bush administration pushed to privatize wide swaths of the Iraqi economy. Many prominent political voices charged that the conflict was not about national security or a humanitarian mission against a dictator but was instead an attempt to use military force to open up Iraq’s closed economy to foreign corporations -- including oil giants like Exxon Mobil.
In 2007, for example, then-Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said: “People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.” That same year, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Former General General John Abizaid said of the war: ‘‘Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil -- and we can’t really deny that.”
On September 03 2016 07:13 LegalLord wrote: It is perhaps telling to look at Nixon's actual legacy. Severely damaged the credibility of the Republican Party and US politics as a whole, led to a need for the Republican party to rebuild its image - which it did with Reagan and became the "party of corporate shilling."
How about "redefined the geopolitical climate of the Cold War through detente with China"?
Though I'll admit that I'm a bit biased on that one since in an alternate universe where Richard Nixon was never president, I probably wouldn't exist.
Nixon had his strengths. If you read one of my slightly earlier posts, I did note that there are reasons to argue that Nixon was alright - but I don't think it would be the same people who are arguing for Hillary being good because of all her backroom dealings.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
Long winded diatribe on why people shouldnt settle for less. I bet your parents told you, you could touch the moon if you tried hard enough.
As usual, you throw away any form of nuance in exchange for the chance to toss out some snark. Good job.
There isnt much nuance to discuss. So I responded to that like it deserved. I have no qualms with agreeing to the low quality my post. You created and reaffirmed the entire scenario based on your exclusive POV and then made a conclusion. Im not sure why you felt people would just agree with your assumptions toward clinton = bad and then everything else will just make sense.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
But when you apparently consider Hillary a shitty candidate, what possible reasoning is it you have for rather voting Hillary than Trump other than him being a shittier candidate? This is not the primary anymore, we're not arguing about whether Clinton or Sanders is more electable. There are now two possible candidates that might be president, one is Clinton, the other is Trump. You think Clinton is a shitty candidate, yet you state that you might vote for her over Trump. Why?
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls.
Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice.
What challengers? The only challenger was Bernie and I (and many others) prefer Hillary because she has a plan on how to implement her policies while Bernie was hoping America would stop being partisan in a giant revolution.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls.
Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice.
What challengers? The only challenger was Bernie and I (and many others) prefer Hillary because she has a plan on how to implement her policies while Bernie was hoping America would stop being partisan in a giant revolution.
What policies do you think she's actually going to implement as a result of that plan?
On September 03 2016 07:13 LegalLord wrote: It is perhaps telling to look at Nixon's actual legacy. Severely damaged the credibility of the Republican Party and US politics as a whole, led to a need for the Republican party to rebuild its image - which it did with Reagan and became the "party of corporate shilling."
How about "redefined the geopolitical climate of the Cold War through detente with China"?
Though I'll admit that I'm a bit biased on that one since in an alternate universe where Richard Nixon was never president, I probably wouldn't exist.
Nixon had his strengths. If you read one of my slightly earlier posts, I did note that there are reasons to argue that Nixon was alright - but I don't think it would be the same people who are arguing for Hillary being good because of all her backroom dealings.
Ironic, considering starting the EPA, ending the draft, signing title IX, reducing the voting age to 18, rejecting termination, SALT, and the Paris Peace Accords is a list of accomplishments they would wish Hillary could come close to competing with even if she had 8 years.
On September 03 2016 07:27 Plansix wrote: You seem to forget that I supported the Iraq war, same as her. I don't now and I'm still angry about it. It would be truly hypocritical to for me to hold it against her.
When then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war against Iraq in 2002, she justified her support of the invasion as a way to protect America’s national security. But less than a decade later, as secretary of state, Clinton promoted the war-torn country as a place where American corporations could make big money.
“It's time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity," she said in a 2011 speech.
The quote was included in an email released by the State Department on Wednesday that specifically mentioned JPMorgan and Exxon Mobil. JPMorgan was selected by the U.S. government to run a key import-export bank in Iraq and in 2013 announced plans to expand its operations in the country. Exxon Mobil signed a deal to redevelop Iraqi oil fields. JPMorgan has collectively paid the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation at least $450,000 for speeches, and Exxon Mobil has donated over $1 million to the family’s foundation.
In the aftermath of the Iraq War, the Bush administration pushed to privatize wide swaths of the Iraqi economy. Many prominent political voices charged that the conflict was not about national security or a humanitarian mission against a dictator but was instead an attempt to use military force to open up Iraq’s closed economy to foreign corporations -- including oil giants like Exxon Mobil.
In 2007, for example, then-Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said: “People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.” That same year, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Former General General John Abizaid said of the war: ‘‘Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil -- and we can’t really deny that.”
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls.
Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice.
What challengers? The only challenger was Bernie and I (and many others) prefer Hillary because she has a plan on how to implement her policies while Bernie was hoping America would stop being partisan in a giant revolution.
What policies do you think she's actually going to implement as a result of that plan?
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls.
Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice.
I should have quoted this
maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc.
The reason the lesser of two evils is not 'BS' is because one of them will 100% win and for most people there's a significant enough difference in "evil" between the two to be compelled to vote anti instead of not voting or protest voting. And this goes both ways, when you exclude voting for positive reasons, Trump doesn't have less anti-Clinton voters than Clinton has anti-Trump voters.
Donald Trump has openly boasted about buying politicians in the past and called that a “broken system” moments later. Now, as part of a revamp of his campaign for the general election, he has hired...David Bossie, the president of Citizens United.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
But when you apparently consider Hillary a shitty candidate, what possible reasoning is it you have for rather voting Hillary than Trump other than him being a shittier candidate? This is not the primary anymore, we're not arguing about whether Clinton or Sanders is more electable. There are now two possible candidates that might be president, one is Clinton, the other is Trump. You think Clinton is a shitty candidate, yet you state that you might vote for her over Trump. Why?
Because there is a difference between explicitly supporting someone, and reluctantly casting a vote for one of two candidates who has a feasible chance of winning. Because the "lesser of two evils" argument is put forth as if it was always between Hillary and the Republicans when it was really just a bunch of BS to say that it is so. Because you're looking at it from a very narrow perspective- we are in this situation so we have to make the best of it - without realizing that such an attitude is precisely what leads to that situation in the first place.
Incidentally, if the Republican Party weren't everything I don't like about Hillary on steroids, I would vote for their candidate on principle even if I agreed with them less on the issues. As it is, that's not the case.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls.
Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice.
What challengers? The only challenger was Bernie and I (and many others) prefer Hillary because she has a plan on how to implement her policies while Bernie was hoping America would stop being partisan in a giant revolution.
What policies do you think she's actually going to implement as a result of that plan?
I know even you are not foolish enough to think she's going to actually implement all of that? I'm asking specifically, let's say 3 major policies she will implement, that Bernie couldn't/wouldn't have gotten done.
Donald Trump has openly boasted about buying politicians in the past and called that a “broken system” moments later. Now, as part of a revamp of his campaign for the general election, he has hired...David Bossie, the president of Citizens United.
CU was and is an independent anti-hillary group. The FEC pulling thier Moore-style documentary off of pay per view cable is why that case went to SCOTUS
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls.
Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice.
What challengers? The only challenger was Bernie and I (and many others) prefer Hillary because she has a plan on how to implement her policies while Bernie was hoping America would stop being partisan in a giant revolution.
What policies do you think she's actually going to implement as a result of that plan?
I know even you are not foolish enough to think she's going to actually implement all of that? I'm asking specifically, let's say 3 major policies she will implement, that Bernie couldn't/wouldn't have gotten done.
Look, I like Bernie more than Clinton. But I think Clinton is much more capable of implementing her policies. That may partially be because her policies are less liberal. Regardless of whether those policies are good or not though she's far more likely to be able to get opponents to compromise than Bernie was, and possibly than Obama has.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls.
Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice.
What challengers? The only challenger was Bernie and I (and many others) prefer Hillary because she has a plan on how to implement her policies while Bernie was hoping America would stop being partisan in a giant revolution.
What policies do you think she's actually going to implement as a result of that plan?
I know even you are not foolish enough to think she's going to actually implement all of that? I'm asking specifically, let's say 3 major policies she will implement, that Bernie couldn't/wouldn't have gotten done.
Biggest one? Banking regulations. Remember the interview where Bernie was asked what he would do (since fighting Wall street was a major part of his campaign) and he had nothing, heck he even mentioned something that could not legally be done if I remember correctly.
When a candidate has 0 clue how to deal with one of their biggest campaign points I think they are just fumbling in the dark.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
But when you apparently consider Hillary a shitty candidate, what possible reasoning is it you have for rather voting Hillary than Trump other than him being a shittier candidate? This is not the primary anymore, we're not arguing about whether Clinton or Sanders is more electable. There are now two possible candidates that might be president, one is Clinton, the other is Trump. You think Clinton is a shitty candidate, yet you state that you might vote for her over Trump. Why?
Because there is a difference between explicitly supporting someone, and reluctantly casting a vote for one of two candidates who has a feasible chance of winning. Because the "lesser of two evils" argument is put forth as if it was always between Hillary and the Republicans when it was really just a bunch of BS to say that it is so. Because you're looking at it from a very narrow perspective- we are in this situation so we have to make the best of it - without realizing that such an attitude is precisely what leads to that situation in the first place.
Incidentally, if the Republican Party weren't everything I don't like about Hillary on steroids, I would vote for their candidate on principle even if I agreed with them less on the issues. As it is, that's not the case.
So you're basically going to vote for Hillary because in this particular instance, seeing the republicans elected an even worse candidate, she is the lesser of two evils? I just think it's weird how you make a long post about how the lesser of two evils argument is BS yet you also basically state that you find yourself compelled to act based on it.
To be clear, I don't have any problems with you or someone else voting third party because you find the principle of voting for your ideal candidate really important and that you think this current situation is going to be the eternal situation if stuff isn't 'shaken up' by a third party candidate looking like a legitimate contender. I don't have any problems with you thinking that Hillary was not the best candidate the democrats could muster and if you think that other candidates never really had a chance because of Hillary's cronyism, that's also fair enough. But I also think 'is not Donald Trump' is a really good argument for voting for someone when the only other candidate with a legitimate shot at winning 'is Donald Trump', even if this is essentially the very definition of 'lesser of two evils' kind of thinking.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls.
Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice.
What challengers? The only challenger was Bernie and I (and many others) prefer Hillary because she has a plan on how to implement her policies while Bernie was hoping America would stop being partisan in a giant revolution.
What policies do you think she's actually going to implement as a result of that plan?
I know even you are not foolish enough to think she's going to actually implement all of that? I'm asking specifically, let's say 3 major policies she will implement, that Bernie couldn't/wouldn't have gotten done.
Biggest one? Banking regulations. Remember the interview where Bernie was asked what he would do (since fighting Wall street was a major part of his campaign) and he had nothing, heck he even mentioned something that could not legally be done if I remember correctly.
When a candidate has 0 clue how to deal with one of their biggest campaign points I think they are just fumbling in the dark.
Well I guess 1 is more than none, are there particular regulations that you think will be effective or is it just the general idea of her passing something? And I presume you dismiss the idea that regulations are often used as a gatekeeper to allow only those with connections to avoid significant consequences, or find the loopholes?
On September 03 2016 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote: I know even you are not foolish enough to think she's going to actually implement all of that? I'm asking specifically, let's say 3 major policies she will implement, that Bernie couldn't/wouldn't have gotten done.
Isn't this the crux of the disagreement? People on the HRC side feel Bernie wouldn't be able to get anything done because he's not willing to give anything up (though him using his supporters as leverage to shift the Democratic Party Platform to the left is decent evidence to the contrary).
Lets return to the graphic you posted earlier:
On September 03 2016 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote: + Show Spoiler +
The difference of opinion is that you see those things as HRC selling out for her own political gain, while her supporters see those as bargaining chips in order to compromise in exchange for progressive gains elsewhere. They're inherently cynical about the Republican party's willingness (or unwillingness, rather) to work with any remotely progressive-looking agenda and therefore see compromise as the only way past a party that has demonstrated it's willingness to shut down the government entirely if they don't like the president's ideas.
Antibacterial soaps were banned from the US market on Friday in a final ruling by the Food and Drug Administration, which said that manufacturers had failed to prove the cleansers were safe or more effective than normal products.
Dr Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s center for evaluation and research, said that certain antimicrobial soaps may not actually serve any health benefits at all.
“Consumers may think antibacterial washes are more effective at preventing the spread of germs, but we have no scientific evidence that they are any better than plain soap and water,” she said in a statement. “In fact, some data suggests that antibacterial ingredients may do more harm than good over the long term.”
Manufacturers had failed to show either the safety of “long-term daily use” or that the products were “more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness and the spread of certain infections”.
The new federal rule applies to any soap or antiseptic product that has one or more of 19 chemical compounds, including triclocarbon, which is often found in bar soaps, and triclosan, often in liquid soaps. It does not affect alcohol-based hand sanitizers and wipes, which the FDA is still investigating, or certain healthcare products meant specifically for clinical settings. The FDA has given manufacturers a year to change their products or pull them off shelves.
The FDA first proposed a rule about the chemicals in 2013, following research that they might affect human hormones or change natural resistance to bacteria. The agency requested research from the producers to back up their health claims, but in the three years since has found that data lacking or their requests ignored.
Triclosan has been proven effective at killing bacteria if used at sustained length – far longer than the few seconds most people spend washing their hands – and was once only found in healthcare settings.
Recent studies have linked triclosan to a series of disruptions in human and animal health. A University of Chicago study released in July found that triclosan changed the microbiome inside human guts, and its researchers suggested that exposure could damage developing fetuses. A study from earlier this year found that overuse could also be contributing to antibiotic resistance, and a 2015 study found that antibacterial formulas were not more effective than soap and water.
On September 03 2016 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote: I know even you are not foolish enough to think she's going to actually implement all of that? I'm asking specifically, let's say 3 major policies she will implement, that Bernie couldn't/wouldn't have gotten done.
Isn't this the crux of the disagreement? People on the HRC side feel Bernie wouldn't be able to get anything done because he's not willing to give anything up (though him using his supporters as leverage to shift the Democratic Party Platform to the left is decent evidence to the contrary).
On September 03 2016 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote: + Show Spoiler +
The difference of opinion is that you see those things as HRC selling out for her own political gain, while her supporters see those as bargaining chips in order to compromise exchange for progressive gains elsewhere. They're inherently cynical about the Republican party's willingness (or unwillingness, rather) to work with any remotely progressive agenda and therefore see compromise as the only way past a party that is clearly willing to shut down the government if they don't like the president's ideas.
Except they aren't bargaining chips with Republicans, those are things she supports but only as much as she can without losing the democratic party.
I also strongly reject the idea that there's some progressive gains (of even the significance of Nixon's accomplishments) waiting to get passed on the mythical goodwill that would be generated with said "bargaining chips".
We've seen Obama spend 8 years making concessions to Republicans in hopes of some reciprocity, it only comes on the stuff they want (and sometimes not even that). That's not going to change under Hillary. She just has a lot more in common with moderate Republicans, so more of that stuff will get done.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
But when you apparently consider Hillary a shitty candidate, what possible reasoning is it you have for rather voting Hillary than Trump other than him being a shittier candidate? This is not the primary anymore, we're not arguing about whether Clinton or Sanders is more electable. There are now two possible candidates that might be president, one is Clinton, the other is Trump. You think Clinton is a shitty candidate, yet you state that you might vote for her over Trump. Why?
Because there is a difference between explicitly supporting someone, and reluctantly casting a vote for one of two candidates who has a feasible chance of winning. Because the "lesser of two evils" argument is put forth as if it was always between Hillary and the Republicans when it was really just a bunch of BS to say that it is so. Because you're looking at it from a very narrow perspective- we are in this situation so we have to make the best of it - without realizing that such an attitude is precisely what leads to that situation in the first place.
Incidentally, if the Republican Party weren't everything I don't like about Hillary on steroids, I would vote for their candidate on principle even if I agreed with them less on the issues. As it is, that's not the case.
So you're basically going to vote for Hillary because in this particular instance, seeing the republicans elected an even worse candidate, she is the lesser of two evils? I just think it's weird how you make a long post about how the lesser of two evils argument is BS yet you also basically state that you find yourself compelled to act based on it.
To be clear, I don't have any problems with you or someone else voting third party because you find the principle of voting for your ideal candidate really important and that you think this current situation is going to be the eternal situation if stuff isn't 'shaken up' by a third party candidate looking like a legitimate contender. I don't have any problems with you thinking that Hillary was not the best candidate the democrats could muster and if you think that other candidates never really had a chance because of Hillary's cronyism, that's also fair enough. But I also think 'is not Donald Trump' is a really good argument for voting for someone when the only other candidate with a legitimate shot at winning 'is Donald Trump', even if this is essentially the very definition of 'lesser of two evils' kind of thinking.
Again, the point is that it's a short-sighted approach. I see this argument applied every single election cycle in a way that just leads to increasingly terrible "lesser of two evils" candidates being put forward. It's true on its face but only if you look at it in isolation. If you look at why this situation arose it is very clear that the choice is coerced and the lesser of two evils argument is applied abusively - our candidate did some terrible shit to get to this situation but it's all good cuz lesser of two evils, yo.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i4zX8k0.jpg)
