Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Foolmewunz]

I can't fathom how people can keep making such a tired and poor argument when it's been addressed on these forums 100 times.

And even if you want to pretend it's not a garbage argument, it certainly doesn't accomplish what you're intending it to, which is getting people to vote for her.

It's a valid argument that you disagree with. That does not make it a garbage argument. Do the math. Who else is going to stop the Trump/GOP from taking the White House. My hope is that people will actually get this through their pouty little heads and realize that Wise Old Mr. Owl isn't going to get the nomination, so it's time to move on and stop the childish tantrums and do something negative to the guy what deserves it - Trump.

It's not that difficult, really. People who pretend to be concerned about progressive and liberal issues who will vote as a gesture are shooting themselves in the foot. Trump is dangerous.

If progressives want to fight for progressive programs then get out there and rebuild the progressive wing of the party.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't fathom how people can keep making such a tired and poor argument when it's been addressed on these forums 100 times.

And even if you want to pretend it's not a garbage argument, it certainly doesn't accomplish what you're intending it to, which is getting people to vote for her.

A poor/garbage argument?

What planet do you live on?

 

[sunmaster14]

The argument, as you seem to be forgetting, is that throwing away your vote is essentially helping Trump.

I really cannot fathom how people cannot see that.

And I cannot fathom how people cannot see that any individual vote is utterly meaningless and that therefore it makes perfect sense to vote one's conscience.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And I cannot fathom how people cannot see that any individual vote is utterly meaningless and that therefore it makes perfect sense to vote one's conscience.

Good, you vote your conscience and the rest of us can elect Clinton.

 

[sunmaster14]

While I tend to agree, I must remind one that this is only truly true if the election is close. If it is not, then that individual vote has no particular effect except to register one's preference, and that might indeed be better spent voting for a third party loser than by lumping it in with the winner.

It's a gamble, and it depends a lot not only on the expected margin, but on how many other people make the same decision. It's one I don't expect to make, because, though I don't love Hillary, I don't hate her, and I think the stakes are too high. But for some it may be worth the gamble if the expected result is simply a shot across the Democratic party's bows without actually electing Trump.

It's hardly much of a gamble. The chances that the election turns on a single vote is, literally, millions to 1. Your probability of affecting the election is greatest if you live in a small swing state (Nevada comes to mind), but it's still going to be a million to one. If you live in California, New York, or Texas, it's going to be an order of magnitude longer odds, at least (this has to do with the fact that the bell curve tails off faster and faster if you're more than one standard deviation from the mean).

 

[acbytesla]

While I tend to agree, I must remind one that this is only truly true if the election is close. If it is not, then that individual vote has no particular effect except to register one's preference, and that might indeed be better spent voting for a third party loser than by lumping it in with the winner.

It's a gamble, and it depends a lot not only on the expected margin, but on how many other people make the same decision. It's one I don't expect to make, because, though I don't love Hillary, I don't hate her, and I think the stakes are too high. But for some it may be worth the gamble if the expected result is simply a shot across the Democratic party's bows without actually electing Trump.

I wonder if that's what those people who voted for Nader thought in 2000. Those votes gave us George W. Bush, the Iraq War, turned Surpluses into deficits and caused more than a million people to lose their homes.

You can make your statement voting that third party, but me personally, I don't do martyrdom. Too big a risk.

 

[DavidJames]

It's hardly much of a gamble. The chances that the election turns on a single vote is, literally, millions to 1. Your probability of affecting the election is greatest if you live in a small swing state (Nevada comes to mind), but it's still going to be a million to one. If you live in California, New York, or Texas, it's going to be an order of magnitude longer odds, at least (this has to do with the fact that the bell curve tails off faster and faster if you're more than one standard deviation from the mean).

I can't think of a better definition of myopic tunnel vision.

 

[The_Animus]

It's a valid argument that you disagree with. That does not make it a garbage argument. Do the math. Who else is going to stop the Trump/GOP from taking the White House. My hope is that people will actually get this through their pouty little heads and realize that Wise Old Mr. Owl isn't going to get the nomination, so it's time to move on and stop the childish tantrums and do something negative to the guy what deserves it - Trump.

It's not that difficult, really. People who pretend to be concerned about progressive and liberal issues who will vote as a gesture are shooting themselves in the foot. Trump is dangerous.

If progressives want to fight for progressive programs then get out there and rebuild the progressive wing of the party.

After going over this 100 times on this forum you still post as though you never read the counter arguments once. Or at the very least you obviously don't understand it.

When you can't even show you understand what the other side is saying you have zero hope of your garbage arguments convincing anyone.

But keep repeating this over and over. I'm sure it will get the people planning to vote 3rd party to change their minds and vote for Clinton.

 

[wareyin]

After going over this 100 times on this forum you still post as though you never read the counter arguments once. Or at the very least you obviously don't understand it.

When you can't even show you understand what the other side is saying you have zero hope of your garbage arguments convincing anyone.

But keep repeating this over and over. I'm sure it will get the people planning to vote 3rd party to change their minds and vote for Clinton.

What's that saying? You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at?

 

[The Big Dog]

I wonder if that's what those people who voted for Nader thought in 2000. Those votes gave us George W. Bush, the Iraq War, turned Surpluses into deficits and caused more than a million people to lose their homes.

You can make your statement voting that third party, but me personally, I don't do martyrdom. Too big a risk.

Damn straight!

And now is the time to send those clowns a clear message by not voting for anyone who voted for that war!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

After going over this 100 times on this forum you still post as though you never read the counter arguments once. Or at the very least you obviously don't understand it.

When you can't even show you understand what the other side is saying you have zero hope of your garbage arguments convincing anyone.

But keep repeating this over and over. I'm sure it will get the people planning to vote 3rd party to change their minds and vote for Clinton.

You might want to look in a mirror.

It's a simple argument, a vote for anyone but Clinton is a vote for Trump. No one cares why you or anyone would vote 3rd party. Hopefully you don't live in a swing state. Nadar lost his argument that we need to vote 3rd party. It cost this country a lot. You think Trump wouldn't be worse than GW?

How hard is it to recognize we just don't agree with you?

 

[sunmaster14]

start here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10903829&highlight=venafi#post10903829

Actually, start here instead. The debunking was actually debunked. Nobody knows for sure if clintonemail.com's communications were encrypted from January 13, 2009 to March 29, 2009 or not, but the way to bet is "not." Also, since there was no trusted certificate during this period, the domain could have been spoofed, and various credentials acquired by hackers. If that happened, then it wouldn't matter if the server communications were encrypted thereafter.

 

[acbytesla]

Damn straight!

And now is the time to send those clowns a clear message by not voting for anyone who voted for that war!

Really? When the President and the administration presented a false case to Congress and the Senate? Also you are wrong. Clinton didn't vote for the war. The authorization was to allow the President to make war under specific conditions. Conditions based on a fraud.

 

[sunmaster14]

Really? When the President and the administration presented a false case to Congress and the Senate? Also you are wrong. Clinton didn't vote for the war. The authorization was to allow the President to make war under specific conditions. Conditions based on a fraud.

Putting aside that there was no fraud, or even lying, Clinton's vote was completely consistent with her world view. She is, at heart, a hawk and a neocon, who would like to use US military power to free oppressed people and kick the crap out of repressive regimes.

It's one of her good traits, in my opinion. Progressives who deny that's who she is are simply delusional.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Who had the Worst Week in Washington? Bill and Hillary Clinton.

It all started Monday when Bill Clinton, for reasons only he will ever know or understand, decided to pop onto the plane of Attorney General Loretta Lynch as everyone cooled their heels on the tarmac at Phoenix's airport.

The coup de grace came Saturday when Hillary Clinton submitted to a more-than-three-hour interview with the FBI, a final step in that agency's long-running investigation into her emails.

And, as is often the case when the country is looking squarely at them, the Clintons had the Worst Week in Washington. Congrats, or something.

Read more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-week-in-washington-bill-and-hillary-clinton/ (July 4, 2016)

If they were a more traditional couple, Bill Clinton would have spent the next week sleeping on the couch for his outrageous impropriety. But as we all know, each night around bedtime Hillary usually finds a note pinned to her pillow: “Be back later. Don’t wait up. Bill.”

 

[Tony Stark]

Putting aside that there was no fraud, or even lying, Clinton's vote was completely consistent with her world view. She is, at heart, a hawk and a neocon, who would like to use US military power to free oppressed people and kick the crap out of repressive regimes.

It's one of her good traits, in my opinion. Progressives who deny that's who she is are simply delusional.

The entire thing was a sham top to bottom. The war wasn't even about WMDs like they claimed, it was about neocon ideology. They cherry picked evidence and lied about how strong it was in order to sell the war.

Hillary said clearly that she hoped that force would be used only as a last resort, if diplomacy failed. After the vote in Congress (and the UNSC), Saddam started cooperating! And the weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMDs. Dubya, probably because he was concerned that his excuse would evaporate, decided to invade anyway.

Hillary is more hawkish than say Obama but she isn't a neocon and the war wouldn't have happened if she was the President back then and not the war criminal moron you voted for.

 

[acbytesla]

Putting aside that there was no fraud, or even lying, Clinton's vote was completely consistent with her world view. She is, at heart, a hawk and a neocon, who would like to use US military power to free oppressed people and kick the crap out of repressive regimes.

It's one of her good traits, in my opinion. Progressives who deny that's who she is are simply delusional.

This is what I love about GOP apologists. Total cognitive dissonance.
1. They totally lied to Congess and the UN about WMD.
2. Clinton is NOT a hawk or a neocon. She is not an isolationist either. She wouldn't have never launched the war in Iraq.

This is one area where some of Trump's rhetoric actually strikes a chord with me. I'm a strong believer that the US does need to turn it's focus inward (somewhat) I'd like to see cuts in the military and divert that spending to infrastructure in the US. My problem with Trump is that he has no core values or beliefs. His views and positions change with the wind or what is expedient. I also can't stand any person that is as self centered and acts the way Trump does.I don't just dislike Trump as a politician, I despise him as a human being. And I like almost everyone. I've never seen ANYONE who thinks more highly about themselves and totally dismissive of every single other human being. Have you? Is it acceptable?

 

[acbytesla]

If they were a more traditional couple, Bill Clinton would have spent the next week sleeping on the couch for his outrageous impropriety. But as we all know, each night around bedtime Hillary usually finds a note pinned to her pillow: “Be back later. Don’t wait up. Bill.”

And you know that how? And who cares? You know another Presidential couple that were like Bill and Hillary was FDR and Eleanor. FDR certainly wasn't faithful to Eleanor, yet both were committed to serving the American people.

Trump hasn't exactly been a choirboy. What is this? His 3rd or 4th wife?

So tell me Slings and Arrows, do you really give a damn?

 

[Garrison]

The electorate is certainly not over it. Thanks to Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch's staggering incompetence, no matter what the FBI recommends, Trump will make this an issue from now to election day.

I argued with Tony Stark that only a fringe group would glom onto a conspiracy theory of "the fix being in". After watching the coverage this weekend, Tony is obviously right: there will be a significant chunk of voters who will believe that Clinton is above the law, and not all of these people will be die-hard Trump supporters. It will be even worse if the FBI is as harshly critical of her as the State Dept.'s Inspector General, which, barring an indictment, they will likely be.

For Trump to be beating Clinton on the issue of honesty and trustworthiness in multiple non-Right Wing major polls (CNN, Quinnipiac) is shocking, at this stage.

Why is it shocking? You've demonstrated that you're willing to nitpick everything Clinton does to death and dismiss every revelation about Trump with a metaphorical shrug. When so many in the media are willing to do the same it's hardly a surprise, but of course you already know that.

 

[Garrison]

And you know that how? And who cares? You know another Presidential couple that were like Bill and Hillary was FDR and Eleanor. FDR certainly wasn't faithful to Eleanor, yet both were committed to serving the American people.

Trump hasn't exactly been a choirboy. What is this? His 3rd or 4th wife?

So tell me Slings and Arrows, do you really give a damn?

Let's not forget Trumps morally dubious statements about his own daughter. it's the same double standard we've seen right through the candidate threads. Trump is on trial but Clinton's the 'crook'. Bill's philandering is unforgiveable, Trump's barely acknowledged.