American Politics

[kkck]

 

[SharkBait]

See, it's shit like that that makes me feel you're trolling. Who the fuck are you to say that because we don't believe in god we don't have morals? That we don't feel bad? Pfft I've said it before and I'll say it again: you're a troll or a brainwashed fool. For a small lie, sure, most of us (religious people too) we can be like whatever but if it's something that endangers another then I won't do it. It's a matter of honor and respect. I don't need any deity to make me feel that way. Screw divine punishment. I am who I am regardless of a god. And if you want to point out something stupid like "oh but you just said you do what you feel like" or whichever way you wish to phrase that. You're the same. You do what you feel like, no? You clearly don't follow your crappy book to the letter and say that you choose what to think about your own homosexuality (which I don't think is a bad thing either in case you think I'm hating on you for that) you say it like we don't know right from wrong but YOU'RE wrong whereas you were told to believe in god to make you do right, those of us without the constant threat of divine retribution can choose for ourselves. Everyone is capable of good and bad. Atheists or religious. As for your point about only doing right because of god then you aren't a "good" person at all since by your own beliefs you would rape and kill without restraint were it not for "god" so hello to you, you would be rapist/killer-if-not-for-your-belief-in-a-god~

But what is the leading thought to what determines if something is good or bad to an atheist. A higher power offers stability and an established thought process for determing good and bad, that is, it is good because this being of greater almighty understanding says it is good. Meanwhile an atheist has nothing. What's good to one atheist isnt good to another atheist. How does the atheist organization sort out or determine what is good? What is there to ensure that an atheist does what is good and plays by the rules like a good atheist? Is there an atheits accountability subcommittee? What punishment is there for an out of line atheist? Without anything like this in place, one is just led to believe that an atheist would resort to a moral system thats is wholly self serving and toxic to others.

 

[Dragoon]

But what is the leading thought to what determines if something is good or bad to an atheist. A higher power offers stability and an established thought process for determing good and bad, that is, it is good because this being of greater almighty understanding says it is good. Meanwhile an atheist has nothing. What's good to one atheist isnt good to another atheist. How does the atheist organization sort out or determine what is good? What is there to ensure that an atheist does what is good and plays by the rules like a good atheist? Is there an atheits accountability subcommittee? What punishment is there for an out of line atheist? Without anything like this in place, one is just led to believe that an atheist would resort to a moral system thats is wholly self serving and toxic to others.

Then this is just a topic that goes in circles. You were led to believe that you can only be "good" because you fear a god and now that you've lived your life this way there is no longer any way for you to know what you would have been like without your deity worshipping ways embedded into you. I can't tell you what to believe but ultimately a religious person is just a human just like an atheist is. When it comes down to it, you all choose what to do based on what you believe personally even when you believe in god. One last point I'd like to make. Hitler was a Christian just like you. That didn't stop him from committing the atrocities that he did, did it?

 

[xi0]

Well Im not a fan of a big federal government. Im a fan of citizens choosing the rights to social issues in the state they live in. If the Supreme Court or whatever is circumventing states and citizens rights than I dont care for the results but the process. This is a democracy after all.

But why do the citizens of a state with predominantly discriminatory views hold sway over equal rights for ALL citizens? This sort of logic wouldn't fly when we talk about desegregating schools back in the 1950s and 1960s? So why should it apply to this?

I think people would react the same as they did in the bible. Its not like he was accepted by the religious leaders of the time or didnt face persecution.

Exactly, he would have been shunned for being a fool. Just like anyone else in modern times. We take the book as God's word, but none of us were alive to assume any of it is genuine. We know the history of monotheism itself and it directly contradicts what the book says.

I don't think its ignoring what the Bible says and your question is hard to answer. For someone who becomes a believer as they are taking their final breaths, what point did the text even matter for them? The basics of the religion teaches that Jesus saves, so I think man is just putting way more value on these sins and the text than even God himself does. The text is our moral compass here on Earth and gives us advice, it is up to a person to use that advice or not and to gauge how much stock they are putting into believing the advice. I see nothing wrong.

Hypothetically, does someone who supposedly becomes a believer in their final breaths...are they doing it out of enlightenment, or as they doing it out of fear? Even in my own thinking, I would wish for an afterlife to exist, but that doesn't mean I need to live my life assuming that there is. I think it'd be shitty if there isn't, and it's hard to fathom my own consciousness ceasing to exist. But it didn't exist until I existed.

I think this brings us back to the basic point, I would imagine that they, like me, clearly see the country as the city upon a hill built upon Christian values. As the country has swayed away from its calling, they believe they need to be in power to bring it back to where it needs to be.

This is because you'd rather see how some colonialists viewed this land 100 years before the concept of the USA even existed than what the actual founders said. And we know none of this is real or proclaimed by God, unless you're a Mormon I suppose. None of this land actually belonged to us, it belonged to Native Americans. We had no claim on it provided by a higher power.

Secularism is what protects religious freedom, and sure, the religious have been involved in politics, but nothing about our political system is based in religion. If it was, we wouldn't have deliberately avoided endorsing something as a state religion, unlike many other modern democracies.

i don't see anymore. If a non believer told a very bad lie to someone in the community they wouldnt feel guilt because there is moral guidebook to tell them that it is wrong to tell a very bad lie to someone.

Guilt isn't something that exists only because a higher power exists. Like any emotion, it is tied to the brain and neurology. I doubt lying was ever not looked down upon in the world that existed before monotheism. And the same goes for murder, theft, etc. This proves that people don't need the Bible or God's teachings to know what is acceptable or not and certainly not so in modern societies.

But what is the leading thought to what determines if something is good or bad to an atheist.

Philosophy? You'll find that a lot of what is described as good or bad in Christianity is not a unique or revolutionary thought. The works of Plato and Socrates predate Christianity and their thoughts on morality are so similar to the point that one could say they had a direct influence on monotheistic morality.

 

[SharkBait]

But why do the citizens of a state with predominantly discriminatory views hold sway over equal rights for ALL citizens? This sort of logic wouldn't fly when we talk about desegregating schools back in the 1950s and 1960s? So why should it apply to this?

Would it? I don't remember reading anything that suggests that Desegregating schools was a ballot issue in any state? But if it were maybe it would have caused places to integrate schools faster. Some places took long because citizens were fiercely opposed. Im not against any of this but I am a person who believes the rules should be followed and that power belongs in the hands of the people, so I would be opposed to the supreme court stepping in to decide yet another social issue. Why should people who dont live in a state decide what happens to people who do live in the state?

Hypothetically, does someone who supposedly becomes a believer in their final breaths...are they doing it out of enlightenment, or as they doing it out of fear?

Whats wrong if its out of fear? People follow the law out of fear. People dont just get out the car and shoot each other up when someone cuts them off because they fear breaking the law and going to jail. People fear reprimanding their children too badly because if they do they will lose their children. People dont tell sexual jokes to coworkers because they fear being called a pervert and being fired.

This proves that people don't need the Bible or God's teachings to know what is acceptable or not and certainly not so in modern societies.

How would they reach that conclusion though, I would imagine they received insight from God before the written system was established.

Philosophy? You'll find that a lot of what is described as good or bad in Christianity is not a unique or revolutionary thought. The works of Plato and Socrates predate Christianity and their thoughts on morality are so similar to the point that one could say they had a direct influence on monotheistic morality.

How would philosophy define "good" and "not good"? If philosophy was the answer then I don't think we would have needed to have religion.

 

[Dragoon]

@SharkBait those are some incredibly cynical thoughts you have xD we don't do things out of fear? Sure for some but the majority I'd like to believe are just up to our own sense of what is right.

@xi0 A fellow Berserk fan! Took a look at your pic, hope you don't mind.

 

[xi0]

Would it? I don't remember reading anything that suggests that Desegregating schools was a ballot issue in any state? But if it were maybe it would have caused places to integrate schools faster. Some places took long because citizens were fiercely opposed. Im not against any of this but I am a person who believes the rules should be followed and that power belongs in the hands of the people, so I would be opposed to the supreme court stepping in to decide yet another social issue. Why should people who dont live in a state decide what happens to people who do live in the state?

I'm not sure how long ballot initiatives have been as common of a thing, but why would it be up to that? States are members of a union. Laws like these being different between states is not a good thing.

Whats wrong if its out of fear? People follow the law out of fear. People dont just get out the car and shoot each other up when someone cuts them off because they fear breaking the law and going to jail. People fear reprimanding their children too badly because if they do they will lose their children. People dont tell sexual jokes to coworkers because they fear being called a pervert and being fired.

People follow the law to maintain their freedom. If you want to call it fear, you can...but the penalty is real and undeniable. That's not the case with supposed "sin".

How would they reach that conclusion though, I would imagine they received insight from God before the written system was established.

Any number of sources. Writing systems existed well before the Bible of monotheism ever did... Philosophy also existed in an oral tradition. That is why we know of Socrates in the first place. You keep with this insistence of people not having a sense of morality without religion, and it's been proven false many times over.

How would philosophy define "good" and "not good"? If philosophy was the answer then I don't think we would have needed to have religion.

Philosophy is very much a discussion of just that. It's up to the person who studies it to decide what is good and what isn't. This is very much what the Ageof Enlightment was about, which gave birth to our nation.

With that logic one could say that if science was the answer than we wouldn't have needed religion. Religion has filled both of those niches in the past. Surely you don't believe that the Earth was created in 7 days and that the Earth is only 6000 years old, deny evolution, the nature of the cosmos, etc. do you?

 

[SharkBait]

I'm not sure how long ballot initiatives have been as common of a thing, but why would it be up to that? States are members of a union. Laws like these being different between states is not a good thing.

Why? Theres different laws for healthcare, drinking, gun rights, a whole onslaught of other issues. How is it not good. If we all were under one law then we might as well get rid of individually run states and US territories.

With that logic one could say that if science was the answer than we wouldn't have needed religion. Religion has filled both of those niches in the past. Surely you don't believe that the Earth was created in 7 days and that the Earth is only 6000 years old, deny evolution, the nature of the cosmos, etc. do you?

But science doesnt hold all the answers, why else is it still being studied today or even basic questions still remaining unanswered.

@SharkBait those are some incredibly cynical thoughts you have xD we don't do things out of fear? Sure for some but the majority I'd like to believe are just up to our own sense of what is right.

Well I guess a ton of people have an odd system of what is right, all the people in jail, all the mass shooting events, all the home grown terrorists, fraud and swindlers, corrupt leaders of American business, people with moving tracking violations, parking tickets, we could go on and on.

 

[Dragoon]

But science doesnt hold all the answers, why else is it still being studied today or even basic questions still remaining unanswered.



Well I guess a ton of people have an odd system of what is right, all the people in jail, all the mass shooting events, all the home grown terrorists, fraud and swindlers, corrupt leaders of American business, people with moving tracking violations, parking tickets, we could go on and on.

You really believe that the world is so simple that in the short time humanity has been here, they'd have answered everything already? To be fair that isn't possible to being with afterall, the more you know the more you realize you don't know... usually

You realize that environment/education plays a big role, yes? Many of these criminals you speak of tend to be ones who didn't receive a decent education and lived in bad areas if not straight up ghettos? These homegrown terrorists are fanatics, duh? Not the type of people expected to behave correctly since, you know, they're brainwashed/religious fanatics. Also, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of these corrupt american businessmen you mention vote republican ... the very ones that claim to be believers of god so... nice try.

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

At this point I think I'll shut up, I do know some things that can certainly counter some of the things you say but I tend to respond angrily or incredulously so I respond with poor examples and in some things you do leave me a bit stumped so to best leave this ignorant circle we keep going in I'll stop responding.

 

[M3J]

This speaks volumes of you as a person, and they're really bad volumes. You obviously have no clue how the first amendment and freedom of speech works, which is sad if you're actually an american. There's also limits to protesting rights in America. You can protest, but disrupting a private event inside a private, rented area is going against the law. Please go inform yourself what free speech and protesting entail before spouting such nonsense.

I couldn't care less what it says about me, at least I know I'm better than Trump or any of his racist supporters. I know how the First Amendment and freedom of speech work, even if you don't. Trump and his supporters have no right crying First Amendment or freedom of speech when Trump has had protesters thrown out of his rallies, and when he threatens people who vote or speak against him.

Yet Bernie didn't threaten violence against the BLM like Trump did. He even hired one to help him.

I know what free speech is and protesting are. But you don't live in US, why should I give a shit what you have to say about the election and candidates?

Then what is an atheists reason for doing good? A religious person does good things because their god has defined what is good and what is not good, but what about an atheist? What motivates an atheist to do good, and what is their punishment for doing not good? I just picture it as they just have free reign to do whatever because they arent guiding by anything but just what makes them feel good.

Atheists' reason for doing good is to help out others and because they want to feel good or do good. And if they don't do good, then they get ostracized by the community or get in trouble with the law. When they do good, it's less likely due to selfish reasons whereas a religious person would be good for selfish reasons.

You're bad at picturing stuff. And you do realize science is about discovering new stuff and learning, right? It's not supposed to hold all answers, it's supposed to help us answer questions or provide some sort of answers. I have more faith in science than I do in religion or God, anyway. Science is about proving things, while religion is usually about blind faith.

 

[xi0]

Why? Theres different laws for healthcare, drinking, gun rights, a whole onslaught of other issues. How is it not good. If we all were under one law then we might as well get rid of individually run states and US territories.

Because those things are lower on the priority list as far as human well-being is concerned? What's more important, your ability to buy alcohol on Sundays or your ability to marry the person you love? Your ability to own machine gun or your ability to seek the same sort of education someone of a different race does? Ballot initiatives are done for local and "lesser" issues. Things that are obvious human rights issues SHOULD NOT be left up to such a system ultimately. They may at first, but this is when the judicial system steps in and uses their power to determine the constitutionality of such referendums.

But science doesnt hold all the answers, why else is it still being studied today or even basic questions still remaining unanswered.

Actually it does. Just because we don't have the answer now, doesn't mean it'll never exist. And uh...that's kind of the nature of science? If we knew everything there wouldn't be a need for scientific pursuits. But it surely is better than reinforced ignorance and illogical explanations.

Well I guess a ton of people have an odd system of what is right, all the people in jail, all the mass shooting events

Yeah, and .10% of people who do such things aren't religious. The religious surely do have an odd system of what is right.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 14, 2016, Original Post Date: Mar 14, 2016 ---

I couldn't care less what it says about me, at least I know I'm better than Trump or any of his racist supporters. I know how the First Amendment and freedom of speech work, even if you don't. Trump and his supporters have no right crying First Amendment or freedom of speech when Trump has had protesters thrown out of his rallies, and when he threatens people who vote or speak against him.

That's not how this works. Anyone would have protesters removed from their rallies. If people are being disruptive, they get removed. Clinton has been on tape doing it, and Sanders probably has as well. Granted, they haven't created an environment where people feel cajoled to commit violence against them either.

The problem with him or his supporters crying about their rights being violated is simply that he was the one who cancelled it. It wasn't the protesters themselves or even the police. No rights were violated there. At his point I think it's easy to see it more of a publicity stunt than anything.

I know what free speech is and protesting are. But you don't live in US, why should I give a shit what you have to say about the election and candidates?

That's not fair either. Of the regular posters in this thread, most aren't living here.

 

[M3J]

What about silent protesters who were being disruptive? I've also praised BLM supporters for protesting at my candidate's rallies too, and it led to a good outcome. It also made the difference obvious when Trump promised to beat up the BLM supporters if they disrupted his rallies. My main issue with Trump is how he encourages violence against protesters and minorities at his rallies, and then complains when he chooses to cancel his rally. Though they're different, I don't see how he can handle ISIS if he can't handle few protesters.


I don't know anyone else other than kkck not living here, but I'm just being a rude republican, like Trump! No talking or debating about America and its elections if you don't live here!

 

[xi0]

What about silent protesters who were being disruptive? I've also praised BLM supporters for protesting at my candidate's rallies too, and it led to a good outcome. It also made the difference obvious when Trump promised to beat up the BLM supporters if they disrupted his rallies. My main issue with Trump is how he encourages violence against protesters and minorities at his rallies, and then complains when he chooses to cancel his rally. Though they're different, I don't see how he can handle ISIS if he can't handle few protesters.

I don't know why the incident with Bernie should be praised honestly. The positive outcome is due to how he handled it, but those people were barking up the wrong tree honestly.

Because he's a professional bullshit artist? Every "successful" businessman has this to a degree.

 

[M3J]

How were they? Isn't that how protests gain attention? It's why I'm baffled minorities choose to support Hillary Clinton over Bernie when he's been with the minorities since in college, at latest.

I don't think even a bullshit artist can handle ISIS.

 

[xi0]

How were they? Isn't that how protests gain attention? It's why I'm baffled minorities choose to support Hillary Clinton over Bernie when he's been with the minorities since in college, at latest.

I don't think even a bullshit artist can handle ISIS.

Because popularity trumps a lot of things. Maybe it'll change as the primaries go down, but so far in the south it hasn't happened yet. Her husband was immensely popular with black voters, so there's a lot of carryover.

No, I don't think I was suggesting that though..

 

[SharkBait]

a religious person would be good for selfish reasons.

Atheists want to feel good or do good

So atheists are still self serving and do whatever they want to feel good. That seems very selfish to me. A religious person would still do good even if they dont necessarily do it to feel good. Id give the point for being more charitable to the religious, at least in our guidebook on life we're told that it is good to be charitable, that it is better to give than to receive, and that we wont be rewarded here on Earth but rather in heaven.

You're bad at picturing stuff. And you do realize science is about discovering new stuff and learning, right? It's not supposed to hold all answers, it's supposed to help us answer questions or provide some sort of answers. I have more faith in science than I do in religion or God, anyway. Science is about proving things, while religion is usually about blind faith.

Unfortunately, I always do bad in the theory and conceptualizing type of classes so I can't picture stuff well.

I have faith in god and in mathematics, unlike science mathematics always stays the same. Science can say one thing one day (sun revolves around the Earth) then say something else the next day (Earth revolves around the sun). Or a more relevant and current thing... [insert item] doesnt cause cancer, next year [insert item] causes cancer, next year [insert item] actually doesn't cause cancer, and so on. Even in my field of allergy research stuff changes all the time. God is always the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

What's more important, your ability to buy alcohol on Sundays or your ability to marry the person you love? Your ability to own machine gun or your ability to seek the same sort of education someone of a different race does?

This questions answers depends on the person which is why they should all be ballot issues. To someone who doesn't want to get married to anyone but enjoys alcohol then they would say alcohol. To someone that doesnt enjoy hitting the books, hitting the range is more important to them. For people that enjoy outdoor recreational activities more than answering philosophical high level questions, then having the better gun is more important to them. The glory of America is that people are free to pursue what they want so we should respect that and leave these things up to the populace. I wouldn't ding these people if they didnt vote for such issues that don't interest or affect them.

But it surely is better than reinforced ignorance and illogical explanations.

Do you really tell people who have religious beliefs that their beliefs are illogical?

 

[Dragoon]

@SharkBait so even if it's potentially a lie you choose to believe in god because the belief is constant? That's... you seem smart yet some of your answers leave me baffled but not in an intelligent way... You're basically saying since the research sometimes gives faulty info, you won't trust in it and prefer the only thing that has been constant to you which is god? That doesn't even seem like it's actual faith but more like not wanting to give other things a chance.

 

[xi0]

This questions answers depends on the person which is why they should all be ballot issues. To someone who doesn't want to get married to anyone but enjoys alcohol then they would say alcohol. To someone that doesnt enjoy hitting the books, hitting the range is more important to them. For people that enjoy outdoor recreational activities more than answering philosophical high level questions, then having the better gun is more important to them. The glory of America is that people are free to pursue what they want so we should respect that and leave these things up to the populace. I wouldn't ding these people if they didnt vote for such issues that don't interest or affect them.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by education. I'm referring specifically to the segregation of schools and the rights of blacks to attend college. Such things were left up to states as well up until a certain point, but should they have been? Of course not. It's the same with marriage equality. If you concern yourself primarily with the well-being of your citizens, then you have a moral obligation to make these things law across the country, no exceptions. These cannot be left up to the states and denied just because the people who live there are "religious" or "conservative". These aren't states-rights issues, they are human rights issues. The former can never supersede the latter.

Do you really tell people who have religious beliefs that their beliefs are illogical?

Do I actively tell people this? Well, no. It would depend on the person and the circumstance. I'm not someone who would be described as a "militant atheist" or even an atheist for that matter. But having such discussions with people is pretty fascinating and interesting to me (depending on the partner, that is).

But to answer this directly, I think that a large portion of it is illogical. And of course, you'll probably list a lot of "beliefs" that you would even have in common with me. But the philosophical nature of these beliefs do not make them particularly religious or even Christian. Like I mentioned before, half of the decalogue is perfectly fine, except for trying to put adultery on the same level as murder and theft. The other half is either rubbish to me, or potentially evil, since you are rendered sinful for merely thinking something. I wouldn't tolerate that sort of judgment from any person or organization. That is tantamount to Orwellian thought crime. The Golden Rule as a maxim isn't Christian either, as it features in many religions and philosophies. But without getting into too much nuance, at the very least, if they knew nothing about what I believed or didn't, a religious person wouldn't know that I had such criticisms. And this is precisely why you're wrong when you suggest that a non-believer must be immoral or evil. I don't think anyone in my life would think of me like that.

 

[M3J]

Because popularity trumps a lot of things. Maybe it'll change as the primaries go down, but so far in the south it hasn't happened yet. Her husband was immensely popular with black voters, so there's a lot of carryover.

No, I don't think I was suggesting that though..

But has Hillary proven that she cares as much about their community as Bernie did? Twitter also seems to be bringing up some old, negative stuff where Hillary looks like a bad liar, I think. I forgot the specifics. Then again, I don't know if Bill was painted as any type of shady when he was a candidate.

I likely misunderstood.

So atheists are still self serving and do whatever they want to feel good. That seems very selfish to me. A religious person would still do good even if they dont necessarily do it to feel good. Id give the point for being more charitable to the religious, at least in our guidebook on life we're told that it is good to be charitable, that it is better to give than to receive, and that we wont be rewarded here on Earth but rather in heaven.

Or, they do it because being selfless is good for the world. You can't really claim that's selfish but a religious person doing good just to get in Heaven isn't selfish because that person is doing it for personal gain, not just for personal feeling or satisfaction. Your guidebook on life backs up the fact that religious people are/tend to be more selfish and begs the question whether they would abandon morals and values if they ever realized God does not exist.

Interestingly, how many theists believe in being charitable and in giving? Seems like you definitely don't.

Unfortunately, I always do bad in the theory and conceptualizing type of classes so I can't picture stuff well.

I figured as much, especially with how you keep calling people who don't have "respectable" jobs lazy or accuse impoverished people or people who want to use Planned Parenthood's services as making bad lifestyle choices. Maybe this explains a lot, and why you shouldn't talk about real world stuff like what I mentioned in the previous sentence.

I have faith in god and in mathematics, unlike science mathematics always stays the same. Science can say one thing one day (sun revolves around the Earth) then say something else the next day (Earth revolves around the sun). Or a more relevant and current thing... [insert item] doesnt cause cancer, next year [insert item] causes cancer, next year [insert item] actually doesn't cause cancer, and so on. Even in my field of allergy research stuff changes all the time. God is always the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Blind faith in God. Mathematics and science are different, but with mathematics you can introduce new things like new formulas or a new higher number or something. Science is a process of learning information and making conclusions. It is by no means infallible, but lot of established things are due to bein researched and experimented continuously. If a group of biologists conclude oxygen is necessary for humans to survive, then you know that's most likely true because of the experiments carried out and the amount of researches done. with God, there is no proof other than books written by men, and some books that have been changed at least twice (Old Testament and New Testament). God seems to have changed, but then I'm not sure what the difference is between the New and Old Testament other than violence and existence of Jesus.

Oh, not to mention how different religions have different gods, and the different ways of practicing their religions. If God is real, would he not be offended and get rid of these religions that don't make him the central god? I find it fishy, given he's anal about wanting people to pray to him.

Interestingly, different groups do studies so they'll get different answers due to different results in their experiments, which might be different because they made a mistake or did something differently. I'm not sure how often that happens with reputable scientists, but I wouldn't be shocked if a brand like Splenda insists its artificial sweetener isn't dangerous even when there is proof from researchers and scientists that Splenda is in fact cancer-forming.

And science says and changes based on evidence and technology of the time. People centuries ago did not have the evolved tools to study the outer space, and since the sun moved around while Earth didn't feel like it moved, they concluded that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Amusingly, two links I got Googlin this says religious people were against the idea of planets spinning around the sun because it went against the Scripture

 

[xi0]

But has Hillary proven that she cares as much about their community as Bernie did? Twitter also seems to be bringing up some old, negative stuff where Hillary looks like a bad liar, I think. I forgot the specifics. Then again, I don't know if Bill was painted as any type of shady when he was a candidate.

These are all words Milly. No one in the race is going to say they don't care about inner-city communities and the like. You can only go off of someone's record. Clinton definitely has a record of such things, but she has a history of being a liar as well. Just look at what she claimed about Nancy Reagan at her funeral regarding AIDs awareness. It was complete nonsense and she had to apologize for it. You can also refer to her lying during the 2008 election cycle about coming under fire during her trip to Bosnia when she was the First Lady. I'm not going to condemn her for what her husband did, but the way in which she is painted as a ally of women seems bizarre when there were a ton of allegations regarding her siccing private investigators and trying to smear his mistresses in a variety of ways. But any suggestion of such a thing is only painted as a "vast right-wing conspiracy" by her. But to be fair, I guess this was a policy decided and carried out by the entire administration itself, but she definitely seemed to have no qualms about such a thing and stood right by him through it all.