American Politics

[M3J]

What makes her qualified to be a president though? I mean, you love drugs, does that make it okay for drugs to run for president?

 

[kkck]

More aggressive obama.... =....Mao? Knew hillary was a commie.

I think it clinton's case it is totally legit. Clinton worked herself up as a politician and was politically active all her life, even before meeting bill. Clinton would have had a career even without him.
That's no GW Bush thing. And as we saw with jeb, it does not work out every time, too.

Dang, I suspected it all along. I knew there was some completely arbitrary cryptic message there that explained everything.

I didn't mean to say she was only there because of bill. Obviously she stands on her own as a politician given her track record after being first lady (whether you think it's good or bad is a nonissue with that). But it is a tad weird that you see this dynasties and whatnot. The whole thing can be "innocent" but generally it should be at least a bit cringe-worthy. I mean, you have a bush, then a clinton, then another bush, then obama and right back to clinton.... And then in your scenario another obama. This is not a positive scenario IMO. Not to mention that without trump the establishments candidate was Jeb (who is probably more presidential than his brother but still). You get 12 years worth of bush, 16 of clinton, 16 of obama....

 

[shionoro]

What makes her qualified to be a president though? I mean, you love drugs, does that make it okay for drugs to run for president?

Obviously because I have a very good judgement of character.

I didn't mean to say she was only there because of bill. Obviously she stands on her own as a politician given her track record after being first lady (whether you think it's good or bad is a nonissue with that). But it is a tad weird that you see this dynasties and whatnot. The whole thing can be "innocent" but generally it should be at least a bit cringe-worthy. I mean, you have a bush, then a clinton, then another bush, then obama and right back to clinton.... And then in your scenario another obama. This is not a positive scenario IMO. Not to mention that without trump the establishments candidate was Jeb (who is probably more presidential than his brother but still). You get 12 years worth of bush, 16 of clinton, 16 of obama....

But if we see the clinton thing as legit, because she had a career on her own and is one of the longest standing politicians, then that would leave us with just the bushes in the last few decades, and Jeb having failed horribly.
And let's be honest: Jeb was not even CLOSE to being their nominee. People thought he'd be because they thought that a Bush would do well due to the money. And people were wrong. If not trump, it woulda been cruz or Rubio. Which is horrible enough.

What i said about michelle obama was not really serious. I am well aware that she is no politician. But she is just so incredibly good in her role as representative. She would make a good Queen or president in countries where the president only has formal and representative purposes.

 

[SonOfDaws]

Clinton is still incredibly suspect

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 13, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 13, 2016 ---

At least, with Trump, you pretty much know what you're getting. What you're getting is pretty terrible, but all his cards are out and on the table. The only real unknown is Russia, but that's whole situation seems pretty questionable to me. Clinton on the other hand has been consistently shady. If it really is just 4 more years of Obama, then that's fine I guess, but that seems to be the one of the best case scenarios to me.

 

[kkck]

But if we see the clinton thing as legit, because she had a career on her own and is one of the longest standing politicians, then that would leave us with just the bushes in the last few decades, and Jeb having failed horribly.
And let's be honest: Jeb was not even CLOSE to being their nominee. People thought he'd be because they thought that a Bush would do well due to the money. And people were wrong. If not trump, it woulda been cruz or Rubio. Which is horrible enough.

What i said about michelle obama was not really serious. I am well aware that she is no politician. But she is just so incredibly good in her role as representative. She would make a good Queen or president in countries where the president only has formal and representative purposes.

Well, that would imply completely disassociating hillary from her time as first lady and her marriage to bill. Standing on her own as a politician does not mean that this has to be taken that far either. And jeb has been present in US politics for a while, it's not like the presidency was the start and/or the end of his career.

 

[M3J]

Obviously because I have a very good judgement of character.



But if we see the clinton thing as legit, because she had a career on her own and is one of the longest standing politicians, then that would leave us with just the bushes in the last few decades, and Jeb having failed horribly.
And let's be honest: Jeb was not even CLOSE to being their nominee. People thought he'd be because they thought that a Bush would do well due to the money. And people were wrong. If not trump, it woulda been cruz or Rubio. Which is horrible enough.

What i said about michelle obama was not really serious. I am well aware that she is no politician. But she is just so incredibly good in her role as representative. She would make a good Queen or president in countries where the president only has formal and representative purposes.

No you don't. You defend Russians, you commie bastard!

Michelle would be better as an ambassador, tbh

Clinton is still incredibly suspect

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 13, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 13, 2016 ---

At least, with Trump, you pretty much know what you're getting. What you're getting is pretty terrible, but all his cards are out and on the table. The only real unknown is Russia, but that's whole situation seems pretty questionable to me. Clinton on the other hand has been consistently shady. If it really is just 4 more years of Obama, then that's fine I guess, but that seems to be the one of the best case scenarios to me.

With Hillary, you're likely getting someone for the establishment who doesn't care and is untrustworthy... but slightly better than hateful Trumpy.

 

[shionoro]

With Hillary, you're likely getting someone for the establishment who doesn't care and is untrustworthy... but slightly better than hateful Trumpy.

i still don't get what would make anyone think clinton does not care.
She volunteered or protested for good causes her whole life, even as teen and the policies she actually did support as senator were speaking a clear language too.
Even if she would be as bad as people paint her to be, laughing at raped children, being at fault for the benghazi killings and having shady ties to wallstreet, then the actual policies she forwarded whenever she was in a position of power still speak for someone who cares a lot about the effects of her doing.

 

[SharkBait]

Whats wrong with her being an ally to Wall Street? Business leaders are vital participants in ensuring American independence and dominance. I see people made that she gave paid speeches to places but whats wrong with that.

 

[shionoro]

Whats wrong with her being an ally to Wall Street? Business leaders are vital participants in ensuring American independence and dominance. I see people made that she gave paid speeches to places but whats wrong with that.

NOthing really, it is just the usual idea of corporations being evil.

 

[xi0]

NOthing really, it is just the usual idea of corporations being evil.

What are you talking about? Clearly the only ethically sound thing is whatever increases profits.

 

[shionoro]

What are you talking about? Clearly the only ethically sound thing is whatever increases profits.

That's why I call myself the Robin hood of economics.
I steal from everyone, get super rich and then depend on the trickle down effect.

 

[M3J]

i still don't get what would make anyone think clinton does not care.
She volunteered or protested for good causes her whole life, even as teen and the policies she actually did support as senator were speaking a clear language too.
Even if she would be as bad as people paint her to be, laughing at raped children, being at fault for the benghazi killings and having shady ties to wallstreet, then the actual policies she forwarded whenever she was in a position of power still speak for someone who cares a lot about the effects of her doing.

I still don't get what makes anyone think she cares.

She went from being against homosexuality and accepting refugee kids to being for them. She seems to pander to whatever's popular, distancing herself from Obama months ago to defending him even though Bernie didn't really criticize him. The only thing positive about Hillary is that she's better than Trump as a politician. However, if Trump ever got a brain and was legitimately sorry about his bullshit and proved it, I'd either abstain from voting or vote for Trump. My only reason for voting Hillary is because I'm a staunch anti-Trump.

Whats wrong with her being an ally to Wall Street? Business leaders are vital participants in ensuring American independence and dominance. I see people made that she gave paid speeches to places but whats wrong with that.

She's an ally to a bunch of crooks who cheat people and commit frauds, and get away with it even though it affects people in horrible ways while marijuana smokers get jailed for a long time for no reason but a harmless drug (for the most part) being outlawed.

Business leaders are in no way important in ensuring independence and dominance. They hurt our economy and dominance with their dishonest, deceitful ways, and if they're left unchecked, they'll continue to do more and more damage. At least most people in fast food industry, restaurant industry, janitors, and etc actually work hard for their money.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

If I recall, Business Leaders cooperating with Politicians can be a bad thing, especially when it results in a lot of nasty corruption and undemocratic manipulations (not that the U.S. was ever a Democracy to begin with).
When a Business Leader helps funding a politician (or politicians), they come with an exchange of demand. A good example would be the NRA and Gun Control: If I were the CEO of the NRA and I help fund a lot of politicians, I would expect them to be Pro-Gun because being a Pro-Gun means my Business will help my company grow. However, if they're not Pro-Gun, then I would tell them that you can change your mind to be a Pro-Gun or you won't get anymore funding from me.
Things like Reaganomics have an effect on Business Leaders; it doesn't result in a better economic condition. All what Reaganomics does is give Business Leaders more money from Tax Breaks to keep for themselves, or they'll be able to use that money to heavily increase fundings for politicians (More Tax Breaks = More Money Leaders have = More Money Politicians gain).

 

[shionoro]

She went from being against homosexuality and accepting refugee kids to being for them. She seems to pander to whatever's popular, distancing herself from Obama months ago to defending him even though Bernie didn't really criticize him. The only thing positive about Hillary is that she's better than Trump as a politician. However, if Trump ever got a brain and was legitimately sorry about his bullshit and proved it, I'd either abstain from voting or vote for Trump. My only reason for voting Hillary is because I'm a staunch anti-Trump.

She was NEVER against homosexuality. The opposite is true. She was always fighting for homosexual rights.
So.......what in hell for example makes you claim she is against homosexuality?

Most of accusations against clinton are pure fabrication or taken out of context. This is the best example.
The only remotely 'anti homo' thing she ever did was not embracing gay marriage but wanting a legal equivalent of a union for it instead of calling it marriage.
And she began wanting that in a time where this was a far left stance. She didn't even say she wanted to shun homosexual marriage, she wanted to leave it in the responsibility of states.
And she has revoked that position by now.

You can claim that is flip flopping, but i would claim that that is nonsense. If someone flip flops depending on public opinion, she would not have fought for homosexual rights in times where she got flac for that to begin with. But she did.

 

[Josef]

She was NEVER against homosexuality. The opposite is true. She was always fighting for homosexual rights.
So.......what in hell for example makes you claim she is against homosexuality?

Most of accusations against clinton are pure fabrication or taken out of context. This is the best example.
The only remotely 'anti homo' thing she ever did was not embracing gay marriage but wanting a legal equivalent of a union for it instead of calling it marriage.
And she began wanting that in a time where this was a far left stance. She didn't even say she wanted to shun homosexual marriage, she wanted to leave it in the responsibility of states.
And she has revoked that position by now.

You can claim that is flip flopping, but i would claim that that is nonsense. If someone flip flops depending on public opinion, she would not have fought for homosexual rights in times where she got flac for that to begin with. But she did.

This seems very PRO-traditional marriage to me, nothing out of context (clearly stated by her), she is even defending the standard right-wing position of the "Sanctity of Life".


But now we know she has "public" and "private" positions on things so who knows what she thinks:

http://www.inquisitr.com/3590120/hillary-clinton-lgbtq-rights-gay-marriage-wikileaks/

Here is a history on her and Bill's stances and "actions" on it. If she was such a fighter she would be "fighting" for it in a Bill administration.

 

[kkck]

Well politifact made a more detailed account of her stance on the issue:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ry-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

She did flop on her stance over time. But to be fair she has been supporting it since 2006. Before that her stance seemed to be as shionoro said, she supported civil unions and whatnot (which seems to have been standard for the democratic party at the time).

 

[shionoro]

This seems very PRO-traditional marriage to me, nothing out of context (clearly stated by her), she is even defending the standard right-wing position of the "Sanctity of Life".


But now we know she has "public" and "private" positions on things so who knows what she thinks:

http://www.inquisitr.com/3590120/hillary-clinton-lgbtq-rights-gay-marriage-wikileaks/

Here is a history on her and Bill's stances and "actions" on it. If she was such a fighter she would be "fighting" for it in a Bill administration.

Yes she did say that and was into 'sanctity' stuff. However, even at that point, she was for a legal equivalent of marriage since 1999.
That was even before civil unions got officially installed in vermont.
She also was for those unions being exactly the same in front of law as marriage is, just with another name (which often didn't happen).

That is a stance we might find outdated today because homosexual marriage went a long way, but to claim clinton is 'against homosexuality' is really absurd.
It's not only marriage too, she was always, relative to the time, supportative of homosexuals.

It is hardly flip flopping to change your stance from 'homosexuals should be able to have a civil union which is the same as marriage and just called differently' to 'homosexuals should be able to form a civil union which is the same as marriage and in fact is called marriage'.
The only thing that changed her is a naming of things, and nothing else.

And i could understand the underlying thought why a christian would have a problem with calling homosexual marriage a marriage.

 

[M3J]

She was NEVER against homosexuality. The opposite is true. She was always fighting for homosexual rights.
So.......what in hell for example makes you claim she is against homosexuality?

Most of accusations against clinton are pure fabrication or taken out of context. This is the best example.
The only remotely 'anti homo' thing she ever did was not embracing gay marriage but wanting a legal equivalent of a union for it instead of calling it marriage.
And she began wanting that in a time where this was a far left stance. She didn't even say she wanted to shun homosexual marriage, she wanted to leave it in the responsibility of states.
And she has revoked that position by now.

You can claim that is flip flopping, but i would claim that that is nonsense. If someone flip flops depending on public opinion, she would not have fought for homosexual rights in times where she got flac for that to begin with. But she did.

Few sources, the ones biased against Trump/for democrats, say she had chances to make history with homosexual rights and all, but chose not to. Her private thoughts also seem to be anti-homosexual, but tbh I couldn't care less as long as she actually does positive stuff for them. Would be hypocritical as I thought Gary Johnson was good for supporting pro choice despite being against abortion. Doesn't seem like she fought as much as she should have.

I mean, while Obama allegedly flip flopped as well, he at least made it clear that his current stance was pro-homosexual rights.

 

[shionoro]

Few sources, the ones biased against Trump/for democrats, say she had chances to make history with homosexual rights and all, but chose not to. Her private thoughts also seem to be anti-homosexual, but tbh I couldn't care less as long as she actually does positive stuff for them. Would be hypocritical as I thought Gary Johnson was good for supporting pro choice despite being against abortion. Doesn't seem like she fought as much as she should have.

I mean, while Obama allegedly flip flopped as well, he at least made it clear that his current stance was pro-homosexual rights.

Obama held EXTACTLY the same view as clinton before and then changed to EXACTLY THE SAME view she has now.

Obama said:

“I’ve been going through an evolution on this issue. I’ve always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. At a certain point I’ve just concluded that, for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. I had hesitated on gay marriage, in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient… And I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word ‘marriage’ was something that invokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth.”

With him, that was not a big deal, but hillary is suddenly anti gay when in fact a big chunk of the feminist and homosexual movement held very favourable views on bill and hillary when they were in office? Makes no sense at all.
Which 'hidden anti gay thoughts' would she even have, and where could she have fought 'harder'?
I mean, is that the best to muster up the claim that she is anti gay, by saying 'well she could have done even more'?

 

[kkck]

Few sources, the ones biased against Trump/for democrats, say she had chances to make history with homosexual rights and all, but chose not to. Her private thoughts also seem to be anti-homosexual, but tbh I couldn't care less as long as she actually does positive stuff for them. Would be hypocritical as I thought Gary Johnson was good for supporting pro choice despite being against abortion. Doesn't seem like she fought as much as she should have.

I mean, while Obama allegedly flip flopped as well, he at least made it clear that his current stance was pro-homosexual rights.

We can't really know her private thoughts though. It's not like mind reading has been invented yet.

Abortion and same sex marriage aren't related though. Him having one position does not mean he has to have another. Or being for one and against the other does not make him hypocritical.

Hillary's stance, from what I can tell anyways, has never been anti same sex marriage (let alone anti homosexual). Her position back in the 90s was for turning civil unions into the exact same thing as marriage but with a different name. And today she has made it as clear as obama that she supports gay marriage.