Clinton Vs. Trump

What you read was Satanic propaganda. Normal people aren't just accused of being all the things you've mentioned. You might ask yourself, is there some reason she is constantly being accused of these things?

But I can see that you are hypnotized by the antichrist and there is no use in trying to open your eyes. I would have to burn you with a torch to wake you up, and I am not in proximity to do that.

 

This makes me glad I'm not american.

 

Ok, I could see, on some level, where you were coming from until right now.

 

No you couldn't. I would have to burn you too to wake you up. You all fear the fire.

 

You're a dolphin. You live in water.

 

Touche

 

I think I've made some very substantial criticisms of her that are relevant to the presidency.

I would say that HRC has been the subject of a lot of criticism, some fair, some not.

The article (and politico in general), is very pro-HRC. The article also appears to have been altered since I last accessed it.

The point that stood out for me was the passage "[Hillary Clinton] urged wealthy allies to bankroll independent organizations tasked with knee-capping reporters perceived as unfriendly"

This "knee-capping" activity apparently includes sending covert operatives to harass and intimidate journalists who criticize her.

Imho, a politician who takes revenge on critical journalists is a tyrant who has no place public office

Apparently not, but that any notion that she has not accepted bribes, whether in a legally laundered form or not, is beyond the limits of credulity.

Do you really think that HRC, with no experience whatsoever in futures trading, just so happened to open a brokerage account with $1000 dollars trading cattle futures, which just so happened to be managed by legal counsel to Tyson Foods, and which just so happened to be the Clinton's biggest campaign contributor? Is it just a stroke of luck that this $1000 dollar investment turned into $100,000 in just one year?

And do you really think that HRC has amassed a $100 million dollar personal fortune from so-called "speaking fees", collecting $650,000 dollars per speech from the likes of Goldman Sachs? When Obama gave a speech criticizing the excesses of wall street at cooper union, they didn't even show up, even though it was within walking distance, and they could have attended for free.

But they gave HRC $650,000 just to hear her speak. Totally not a bribe. Do you really believe that?

 

See, you lost me at empathy.

I actually think Clinton exhibits the signs of a classic sociopath. She knows exactly what to say to charm people. She consistently changes her position based not on her own principles but on popular opinion - I guess this isn't a bad quality for a politician to have, she does what she needs to represent her voters, but I don't believe for a second there is any strong moral fiber behind any of her positions.

In all honesty I probably would vote for her if I lived in a swing state, because she may represent typical establishment politics but at least she doesn't represent te idiocracy like Trump.

But my state will never ever go Democrat in a presidential election. A vote for a democrat literally doesn't count here, which gives me the freedom to vote third party.

 

Ok, so I did that but I'm not entirely sure I get what you are saying here by reffering to that post. So let me try: you switched back from supporting Sanders to Clinton again because the polls makes it seem he doesn't get the support from a lot of black americans? And therefor doesn't make a change? But... it is not even certain that Clinton gets the nomination. They're neck on neck, right? So I can understand people like you and Meagain would support Clinton if she would be the primary candidate/gets the nomination. But why side with her instead of Bernie already? Isn't that making the claim that 'a lot of bernie supporters started too late getting involved' a self fulfilling prophecy? It's still possible he gets the nomination right?

Hm, sorry for all the question marks but I guess it's really one big question: why switch back to supporting Clinton when Sanders still has a chance to get the nomination? Isn't it soon enough to side with her when she actually gets it. Seems like by doing it earlier progressive americans are actually diminishing Sanders actually very real chances on getting the nomination. If I minsinterpreted your reference to the post in the Clinton Sanders thread I apologize. Hope you will clarify then

To be sure, I only said this:

Because I noticed you switched from Clinton to Sanders a while ago. And it appears now you're going back to supporting Clinton (which imho would be unneccesarily soon)

 

^it is pretty typical of how most Americans vote, where your vote isn't a vote for someone but more like a wager on who you think can win.

 

Though I support Sanders, If it came down to Clinton or Trump we are doomed either way.... But I would have to go with Clinton because we can't have a republican president while they control the house and senate. Also at least she isn't a blatant racist like Trump is...

 

There are pragmatic voters here too of course I'm just wondering why not support Sanders until he loses the chance to get the nomination. Why quit before that and go back to Clinton? People can go back to her if they wanna perfectly fine after she gets this nomination right?
And is it really right in your opinion to put it like it's because the younger voters got involved too late that is a good reason to drop support for Sanders already? I'm not an expert on american politics but this stinks a little. If one is for Clinton, hey that's ok. But why put it like that at this point in the race? Am I sounding crazy or like a foreign noob here?

 

But... if she gets in office and does the right things for the wrong reasons, don't the people still get the benefit? This is at the heart of what I said about hiring somebody to do a job. I understand that politics is a dirty business, and always will be. It can still be used as a tool to accomplish good things.

Okay, so you do understand political pragmatism. You had previously said some things to make me wonder.

I don't have that same freedom, because NC goes both ways.

I make a living by understanding the meaning and significance of all kinds of numbers and statistics, and making good use of that information. I've looked at a ton of relevant numbers recently, and everything looks bad for Bernie. I'd love to be sentimental here and say he still has a very strong chance to win, but that would be a lie. His popularity among black voters would need to be rising significantly from week to week, but the curve is flat. He has a very small lead with white voters, leaving the outcome to black voters wherever the Hispanic numbers are not large. That's why when you check the news on Wednesday morning, they will be talking about what a deep hole he is in, in terms of convention delegates, and why only a miraculous comeback surge can save him.

I'll still vote for Bernie when my turn comes, unless he's officially dropped out of the race by then. NC doesn't come up right away.

The long term trend looks good to me, because there will be other candidates like Bernie with similar views, and eight years from now some older voters will have died off. Americans in their twenties want somebody like Bernie, something like 75 to 80% of the demographic. They will get their turn to dominate.

 

I'm not sure to be honest, Bernie came out of the blue for a lot of people. But I think voters both young and old who have supported his campaign have worked really hard. A lot of people didn't really catch on to him early enough to kick his campaign into high gear a few months earlier, but I'm sure it would have helped.

As I was reading the results of exit polls yesterday in my state I found myself growing REALLY frustrated - a lot of voters expressed that they really liked Sanders but they think Hillary is more "electable" - just more of the same bs people have been spouting for months. It isn't even a pragmatic vote because she ISNT more electable - if she wins the nomination Trunp has a very strong chance of being our next president. She loses pretty consistently to him in polls.

And I don't really see the point in voting for your second choice candidate in a primary.

 

I hate that. It's like a bragging rights thing.

A lot of black leaders publicly endorsed Clinton before they realized that Sanders was going to be a serious contender.

 

Bernie is still in this race. A lot can happen between now and the convention.