This topic has been locked by a moderator.
Sure.
Quit crying and find a better candidate next time.
I’m not crying for me. I’m a old(ish) straight male white millionaire US citizen, my life is good. It’s the people that don’t fall into that category that I cry for.
Anyone who thinks Clinton and Trump would have been equally bad is deluded.
You’re a millionaire‽
Maybe.
Monopoly money doesn’t count, Frink. I keep telling you.
All you have to do is find one sucker to buy it…
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
You said extremely qualified.
I still don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I wanted to vote for Clinton. She was extremely qualified and would have been a good president.
Ok, well you don’t have any excuse then. Many others voted for her simply because they were voting against Trump.
That is exactly why I voted for her.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.
As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.
As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.
Fair enough.
This notion that Trump and Hillary are equally bad is, in my opinion, purely a product of an extraordinarily successful smear campaign. Before she was a candidate, Hillary was one of the most respected democrats among republicans:
https://nondoc.com/2016/08/09/25-times-gop-praised-hillary-clinton/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/remember-when-republicans-loved-hillary-clinton.html
That republicans were so desperate to win that they were willing to throw the Clinton Foundation under the bus along the way, dissolved any respect I might have had for them.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
You said extremely qualified.
Ok, how was she not extremely qualified?
See CatBus’ response.
JEDIT: And Puggo’s.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.
As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.
So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?
This notion that Trump and Hillary are equally bad is, in my opinion, purely a product of an extraordinarily successful smear campaign. Before she was a candidate, Hillary was one of the most respected democrats among republicans:
https://nondoc.com/2016/08/09/25-times-gop-praised-hillary-clinton/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/remember-when-republicans-loved-hillary-clinton.html
That republicans were so desperate to win that they were willing to throw the Clinton Foundation under the bus along the way, dissolved any respect I might have had for them.
Hell, she even got endorsements and praise from mainstream (excuse me, those who used to be mainstream before the party went insane) Republicans all over the place during the campaign. But people wanted change. Even if that change was shit.
This notion that Trump and Hillary are equally bad is, in my opinion, purely a product of an extraordinarily successful smear campaign. Before she was a candidate, Hillary was one of the most respected democrats among republicans:
That’s exactly the problem.
This notion that Trump and Hillary are equally bad is, in my opinion, purely a product of an extraordinarily successful smear campaign. Before she was a candidate, Hillary was one of the most respected democrats among republicans:
That’s exactly the problem.
Sheesh.
Well I sure hope you’re enjoying Trump.
This notion that Trump and Hillary are equally bad is, in my opinion, purely a product of an extraordinarily successful smear campaign. Before she was a candidate, Hillary was one of the most respected democrats among republicans:
That’s exactly the problem.
Sheesh.
Well I sure hope you’re enjoying Trump.
Why would I be?
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.
As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.
So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?
“People you don’t like”? We’re talking about an active domestic terrorist group!
Yeah, that Khmer Rouge. They were real downers. I totally wouldn’t want to hang with them.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.
As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.
So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?
I think “war criminal” is a bit hyperbole. It was a vote to use force against terrorists days after 9/11. I think people were pretty much unanimous in agreeing that needed to happen (at the time, at least). The conduct with which the force was used could certainly constitute a “war crime” but the vote? That’s a bit much.
This notion that Trump and Hillary are equally bad is, in my opinion, purely a product of an extraordinarily successful smear campaign. Before she was a candidate, Hillary was one of the most respected democrats among republicans:
That’s because she’s basically a pro-choice, pro-diversity Republican. She is further right than the first George Bush. She is not a liberal in any way, shape, or form.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.
As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.
So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?
“People you don’t like”? Were talking about an active domestic terrorist group!
The KKK is an active domestic terrorist group? They’re the most inactive active terrorists I’ve ever seen.
EDIT: To be clear, I was being hyperbolic when I said it was simply “people you don’t like.” I just don’t think being endorsed by a hate group is comparable to voting in favor of a war crime.
Hey, Trump used to be right about something!
http://ijr.com/2016/02/537107-5-times-donald-trump-praised-socialized-healthcare/
TV’s Frink said:
But people wanted change. Even if that change was shit.
Precisely the point. The people will always gamble on the change candidate when they are not happy with the status quo. Doomsaying and identity politics is not going to deter them.
The solution is for the political establishment to root out corruption and get in better touch with the common man. If they don’t, they will be swept from power, sometimes by violent and evil forces.
This notion that Trump and Hillary are equally bad is, in my opinion, purely a product of an extraordinarily successful smear campaign. Before she was a candidate, Hillary was one of the most respected democrats among republicans:
That’s because she’s basically a pro-choice, pro-diversity Republican. She is further right than the first George Bush. She is not a liberal in any way, shape, or form.
Which is one reason the smear campaign the right built against her was so disingenuous.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
You said extremely qualified.
Ok, how was she not extremely qualified?
See CatBus’ response.
JEDIT: And Puggo’s.
So you seriously think she was extremely qualified? ok.
Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:
Which is one reason the smear campaign the right built against her was so disingenuous.
Well I certainly roll my eyes when right-wingers use her name and the word liberal in the same sentence.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.
As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.
So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?
I think “war criminal” is a bit hyperbole. It was a vote to use force against terrorists days after 9/11.
There are lots of opinions on that matter, but I’m using the Nuremburg standard. The AUMF was a blank check to someone who’d already made it very clear he planned to attack the Iraqis on any dreamed up pretext. If Bush had been a little more guarded about his plans, or if there was ever any credible link between Iraq and Sept 11, there’d be more room for argument. As it was, Hillary knew the Iraqis posed no threat, and she knew she was authorizing an attack on them. The only thing she didn’t know is that we weren’t just planning to attack, we were planning to occupy–and that there would be political fallout because of that. Had she known that, she may have calculated differently.
She was fortunate that Trump was also in the “I supported the invasion until it started losing popularity” club, or he may have gotten more votes than her.
There has never been a war that Hillary wasn’t in favor of. She’s a self-proclaimed advocate of American exceptionalism and global interventionism. She would have been perhaps the most belligerent president in history.
I just don’t think being endorsed by a hate group is comparable to voting in favor of a war crime.
Like your understatement about “don’t like”, the “endorsement” was also an understatement. Sure, the Klan was a free agent. But then Trump actually goes and works with unapologetic white supremacists. Multiple times. The endorsement goes both ways. So yeah, he’s worse in my book. And he supported the war too, he just (thankfully) didn’t have a Senate seat then. And then there’s the other reasons I gave that you didn’t quote, such as her being qualified for the job, and the fact that it was already obvious with publicly available information in July '16 that Trump was the Kremlin’s man.
Would I have liked there to have been a better candidate? Definitely. Was it a hard choice? Not remotely.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
You said extremely qualified.
Ok, how was she not extremely qualified?
See CatBus’ response.
JEDIT: And Puggo’s.
So you seriously think she was extremely qualified? ok.
Yes.