Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trakar said:
As one who feels like an increasing number of progressives, I won't vote for a conservative, but I see no reason to vote conservative lite just to keep a conservative out of office. I'd rather support a true progressive, even if it means a conservative will win. The Democratic party needs to learn that nominating candidates who tack left in the primary but will tack right in the general and govern from a conservative lite position, is a sure way to lose elections, and that isn't going to happen as long as the left keeps falling for the "lessor of two evils" argument. Sure a Democratic candidate gets elected but if that Democratic representative mostly represents corporatist conservative lite positions what difference does the letter by their name make? It's like playing poker for matchsticks, wins and loses are part of a game with no real meaning or consequences. The only way to get people really involved in politics is to let them see that there are real consequences to choosing who you vote for in elections.
Click to expand...

This worries the heck out of me. If your approach is common enough, the GOP will be running its collective hands in glee safe in the knowledge that there will be a GOP President in office until there are enough progressives to carry the election - which may never happen.

As wareyin points out, the repercussions could last for decades if conservative Christians hold the majority on the supreme court.
 
Trakar said:
As one who feels like an increasing number of progressives, I won't vote for a conservative, but I see no reason to vote conservative lite just to keep a conservative out of office. I'd rather support a true progressive, even if it means a conservative will win. The Democratic party needs to learn that nominating candidates who tack left in the primary but will tack right in the general and govern from a conservative lite position, is a sure way to lose elections, and that isn't going to happen as long as the left keeps falling for the "lessor of two evils" argument. Sure a Democratic candidate gets elected but if that Democratic representative mostly represents corporatist conservative lite positions what difference does the letter by their name make? It's like playing poker for matchsticks, wins and loses are part of a game with no real meaning or consequences. The only way to get people really involved in politics is to let them see that there are real consequences to choosing who you vote for in elections.
Click to expand...
This is 180 degrees opposite of reality, for better and/or for worse.
 
Trakar said:
...The only way to get people really involved in politics is to let them see that there are real consequences to choosing who you vote for in elections.
Click to expand...
Oh for pity's sake!

Did you miss those 8 years Bush damaged this country? Can you imagine what 4 years of Trump will get us?

It's downright scary.
 
Much like the salon writer I live in a state that is nowhere near undecided. No matter who the GOP nominee is, they will carry my state. My vote for the democratic nominee is not intended to get them elected, it is intended to show that there is a growing democratic party in our state. We won't win this election, but I will vote so the numbers keep growing and others will vote and maybe in ten years we will have an impact. Sad, I know.

Also, it will be my daughter's first election to vote in. I can't tell her I didn't try to help her out.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Much like the salon writer I live in a state that is nowhere near undecided. No matter who the GOP nominee is, they will carry my state. My vote for the democratic nominee is not intended to get them elected, it is intended to show that there is a growing democratic party in our state. We won't win this election, but I will vote so the numbers keep growing and others will vote and maybe in ten years we will have an impact. Sad, I know.

Also, it will be my daughter's first election to vote in. I can't tell her I didn't try to help her out.
Click to expand...

While my oldest is only 16, I do completely understand your situation when it comes to your state. I live in North Dakota. The Republicans could march out a literal snake and my state would still go full blood red.

I vote to make myself feel better, and with the growing number of students in the bigger towns\cities of NoDak I'm hoping that something will change. It's funny, we have Heidi Heitkamp that runs as a democrat, which boggles my mind. She's about as Republican as they can come.
 
Hillary Doubles down on the 9/11 comments

Maybe you all thought old 16.5 was being hard on Hillary Clinton when I called her a 9/11 Attack Profiteer following the debate. But now Hillary just went ahead and made the same idiotic claim again!

“I have stood for a lot of regulation on big banks and on the financial services sector. I also represented New York and represented everybody from the dairy farmers to the fishermen...And so, yes, do I know people? And did I help rebuild after 9/11? Yes, I did,” Clinton said.
Click to expand...

What the hell? First of all not even Rudy 9/11 Guilliani is trying to pull that **** anymore. Second, the response still does not even make any freaking sense.

She is trying to avoid the question by appealing to the 9/11 Attacks? What a contemptible moron.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-invokes-911-2nd-time-defending-wall/story?id=35511652
 
16.5 said:
Maybe you all thought old 16.5 was being hard on Hillary Clinton when I called her a 9/11 Attack Profiteer following the debate. But now Hillary just went ahead and made the same idiotic claim again!



What the hell? First of all not even Rudy 9/11 Guilliani is trying to pull that **** anymore. Second, the response still does not even make any freaking sense.

She is trying to avoid the question by appealing to the 9/11 Attacks? What a contemptible moron.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-invokes-911-2nd-time-defending-wall/story?id=35511652
Click to expand...

A politician being a politician. It happens with all politicians and even those who aren't politicians, like Trump.

Also, if you think Guilliani wouldn't pull 9/11 out in an instant if he were running for President then I don't know what to tell you. I would be shocked if he didn't.
 
16.5 said:
Maybe you all thought old 16.5 was being hard on Hillary Clinton when I called her a 9/11 Attack Profiteer following the debate. But now Hillary just went ahead and made the same idiotic claim again!



What the hell? First of all not even Rudy 9/11 Guilliani is trying to pull that **** anymore. Second, the response still does not even make any freaking sense.

She is trying to avoid the question by appealing to the 9/11 Attacks? What a contemptible moron.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-invokes-911-2nd-time-defending-wall/story?id=35511652
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
here is a pretty spot on description of how ludicrous the 9/11 Profiteer is being:

http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-again-invokes-9-11-to-explain-her-wall-1745514917
Click to expand...

TheL8Elvis said:
The fact that you chose to link to gawker instead of CBS should tell people all they need to know...
Click to expand...

Can't imagine why I have to waste my time.....
 
Dr. Keith said:
Why? I often prefer Gawker for up to the minute news and gossip. It loads quicker and is less likely to have auto-play videos.
Click to expand...

I note that I posted a link to ABC then a separate post to Gawker for another view.

Our correspondent has completely ignored the substance of the links... including his own.

par for the course.
 
16.5 said:
I note that I posted a link to ABC then a separate post to Gawker for another view.

Our correspondent has completely ignored the substance of the links... including his own.

par for the course.
Click to expand...

Yeah, bit of a derail. Although, I skipped the substance because I'm not voting for Hills in the primary. And I'm not voting republican in the general. The substance is lost on the rocks of the electoral college at this point.
 
The argument to not support the establishment candidate in order to teach the DNC a lesson sounds shockingly like arguments I heard about supporting Nader over Gore in the 2000 election.

And, heck, that only gave us 8 years of W with two Supreme court appointments, a trillion dollar war, Katrina screwups, legalized torture, massive NSA infrastructure and a complete economy implosion.

But what are the odds that it would all happen again under president Trump?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom