Clinton Vs. Trump

a sociopath isn't necessarily a murderer; most sociopaths aren't. "sociopath" is the term used to describe people who have antisocial personality disorder, which is a condition where basically, the person doesn't have a conscience. some of the major symptoms are being very charming and changing their positions and personalities depending on who they are talking to.

 

I'm skimming the DSM-V diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder, and I don't think she would fit. She is way too calculated and can hold herself together way more than a real sociopath. They aren't all charming, either. The reason it's considered a disorder is because it seriously impairs people's functioning. Hillary seems to function very well. She has none of the hallmark recklessness, poor decision making, aggressive tendencies, criminal record, or failure to conform to social norms that you would expect. I think Richard Ramirez is a perfect example of a sociopath.

She certainly does seem very calculating and somewhat ruthless, but those traits can be present without a personality disorder.

 

Hillary is essentially a female politician who behaves a lot of stereotypical male politician. I don't think she has a much different personality than, say, Rubio or Cruz, but since people aren't used to seeing those traits displayed by a woman, they have a lot of negative things to say about her.

 

Possibly your most insightful post of the week.

That describes about 99% of the successful people in the business world, which is a significant portion of the US population.

 

You nailed it. I am not a Hillary fan, but once again I am forced to vote for the lesser of two evils
A trump presidency would set this country back fifty years, a total disaster.

 

"2016: a choice between Donald Trump and Goldman Sachs"

-Edward Snowden

 

yeah, i'm not saying she is a sociopath. i really don't follow politics closely enough to have an opinion on that. i was just pointing out that meliai's post did make sense, whereas meagain seemed to be disputing her based on a misunderstanding of what sociopaths actually are.

it does seem to get harder and harder to find successful business people...

 

Im only 33 so I ever personally had the chance but, there used to be a selection "no confidence" if you wanted to vote but didn't like either candidate. Can't imagin why they did away with that lol

 

I don't think either is a lesser of two evils. They're both evil. I can't vote for either of them. I don't see how anybody can pay attention to the corporate media, see how slanted it is towards Clinton, and think the whole thing isn't rigged. Trump's got his own megalomaniac agenda; Clinton's part of the establishment's megalomaniac agenda. Which do you choose and what's the point? With Clinton you can have the illusion that you matter as an individual in this "democracy"? On the one hand with Clinton, you're cattle being led into the slaughter house. On the other hand, with Trump, the butcher is running through the pastures with a cleaver slashing at the cattle. Either way YOU ARE SCREWED. So go ahead and pretend you're doing the morally upstanding thing by voting for Clinton if that helps you sleep at night. All I hear are a bunch of moos.

 

Try re-reading the politico article that I cited. The one that you claim to have read. "urged wealthy allies to bankroll independent organizations tasked with knee-capping reporters perceived as unfriendly" is quoted verbatim.

That she has been accepting bribes since 1978 is only further evidence of her corruption.

There are two separate questions: "could HRC be convicted of bribery" and "did she accept bribes". The answer to the first question is apparently "no". The answer to the second question is unequivocally "yes". Her ability to avoid prosecution for bribery, while clearly accepting bribes, is a more damning condemnation of her character than if she had been convicted.

Don't presume to condescend to me.

I'm all too aware of the influence that campaign donations and special interest groups have on election outcomes.

One can make the case that there are truly devoted public servants who court special interest money because some worse candidate will win office if they don't. There is, however, no electability argument for why a candidate has to accept personal bribes.

HRC has amassed a $100 million dollar personal fortune by accepting bribes thinly disguised as "speaking fees". There is no argument of electability that excuses her corruption.

 

As I recall, the white house and congress were under republican control not too long ago, during the 108th and and 109th congresses
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

The worst that came out of it was the invasion of Iraq and tax breaks for the rich.

HRC was totally in favor of the invasion of Iraq. She has also advocated explicitly for a "muscular" and "beligerent" foreign policy. I see no reason to think that HRC is going to be any more pro-war or pro-torture than Trump. Her policy on war is essentially "bomb the shit out of them" articulated with a few more brain cells.

HRC has taken so much money from wall street and wealthy donors, the notion that she is going to be a defender of regulation is not credible. We hardly have any regulation of wall street as it is, with the exception of Dodd-Frank, which is fairly slim. The derivatives market, at the heart of the 2007 financial crisis, remains essentially unregulated.

Trump is actually to the left of HRC on healthcare, so that argument doesn't hold up.

Creationist rhetoric is a pony that is trotted out for elections and put back in the stable when they are through. I see no real impact from this issue, nor does it seem to be a central plank in any viable republican presidency.

I believe HRC was a supporter of the keystone pipeline. She is not credible as being substantially more environmentalist than republicans.

The difference between HRC and any republican is razor thin on any issue that I care about.

It's either Bernie or Bloomberg, unless some other third-party candidate steps in.

 

Indeed. Here's the long list of all of those 6-figure speeches

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/08/Hillary%20Clinton%20Speeches%202013-2015_1.jpg

 

An excellent example is her position on gay marriage. In 2008, when opposing gay marriage helped her electability, she was opposed to gay marriage. In 2016, when opposing gay marriage would hurt her electability, surprise, surprise, her position has now "evolved"!

And if the political tide changed again and she could win by opposing gay marriage, guess what? More evolution of her position!

 

Thank you. That saved me some keystrokes.

Exactly. Sociopaths (or people with no conscience or sense of empathy, who learn to manipulate people based on calculated observation of how normal people process emotions - who nevertheless do not become mass murderers...if meagain prefers that lengthy description over the word itself) often choose business or politics as a career path.

 

my bachelor's degree is in psychology, so i've always gone by the medical definition. it seems kind of wrong to me that these dictionary websites are publishing stereotype-based common usage mis-definitions like that. it's like if they defined "introvert" as "someone who is too shy to talk to people."

but we're way off topic here and it's really not that important anyway.

 

Then you were in error when you made this claim

...since there is an explicit reference to the knee-capping of reporters in the politico article

By this standard, Richard Nixon did not orchestrate the break-in of the Watergate Hotel, and did not commit any crime, because he was never convicted of it. The law did not prove that he did it, therefor he did not commit a crime. In the United States we have something called "innocent until proven guilty".

End of debate? I don't think so. Nixon was caught red handed orchestrating a breaking-and-entering plan to seize documents that would turn elections in his favor. He may have evaded conviction by receiving a pardon prior to prosecution, but he was nonetheless a criminal.

So are HRC and Nixon both not criminals?

As I said earlier,

You are conflating two distinct questions.

It is your right to refuse to debate a question, but it is not your right to unilaterally declare a debate resolved.

I think I would see her in a far more charitable light were there not ample evidence that she is a corrupt tyrant

As I made clear earlier, the principle issue is not that she has received campaign donations. The "speaking fees" she has received are personal income, not campaign donations

Is it illegal for her to accept millions of dollars in "speaking fees" from Goldman Sachs and other interest groups? Apparently not. There is however no distinction between her accepting a bribe and accepting a "speaking fee" aside from the fact that she can not be prosecuted for accepting a "speaking fee".

When a public official, or a person seeking public office receives a huge sum of money from a party with a vested interest in the actions or potential actions of that official/office-seeker, the corruption is inherent in the transaction itself

Do you really think the $100 million dollar personal fortune that she has amassed, and the $650,000 she got from Goldman Sachs were not bribes? Seriously?