I actually think that her intellect and her ability on the job is not bad at all. She's incredibly intelligent, has an excellent grasp on pretty much all international affairs and every office she's held she's done a good job in. Her problem is that she's perceived as dishonest, calculating and soulless, for lack of a better word. Yes, she actively lied about the email thing. Every politician who has been a politician for +40 years will have skeletons in their closet. And if you think you can make it this far without dancing with big corporate money, you are naive about the political system. I tend to agree with Obama that there's probably never been anyone on Earth more prepared for the job, purely because of the time she's spent close to the head of the table. She will do fine as president, something that gets lost in the narrative. Unfortunately the media makes it seem like her transgressions are on par with Trump's. They are not. Not even close. I think she'd be like Germany's Merkel once she takes office, and that's not a bad thing. Contrary to what others think, I don't think Trump would actually treat the office badly, per se. What he would do is take every major position and duty and farm it off to someone else and say, "Handle it, don't bother me with the details." He'd be a public blustering loudmouth, but I suspect behind closed doors he'd want nothing to do with the daily operations of government.
Im not questioning Hillary's intellect or her experience, I think she would otherwise be a fair, moderate President. The problem is, those skeletons aren't in the closet. They are in the open and she still pretends they dont exist. Her transgressions arent on par with Trumps because they aren't comparable. His are childish and borders on narcissistic personality disorder. Its like if Eric Cartman ran for President. How can he, in his right mind, think referencing his feud with Rosie O'Donnell during a presidential debate is a good idea? The point is he doesnt. Its pure reptilian impulse on his part, and thats a dangerous quality to have in someone with so much power. As for Hillary, I think she truly believes shes too important for the rules and law that govern regular folk. How many pseudo-scandals have to occur for her to have some shred of humility or comeuppance? Thats another kind of dangerous quality to have in a leader; it breads pure corruption. Unless theres a major change in the next few weeks, I think she already lost the election when she shit on the voters for nominating Trump. The funny part is, shes 100% right. The voters are the ones that allowed these two buffoons become the candidates. When either one wins, it will be both parties' fault. Each will have 1 term and then be summarily be voted out if the voters can wake the fuck up.
I dislike Trump in many ways and for many reasons, but this is always the kicker for me. He doesn't actually want the job of president, just the title to feed his ego and narcissism. I don't think he would make it through a full term without a major controversy, or just quitting because the job's too hard. How can you elect someone who has no desire to do the job or insight/experience to do it competently? I get that our system is boned right now, but electing Trump would do nothing to fix that and create a huge mess for our country to clean up when he's gone.
Is she really? She's just "hiding" something like physically mocking a handicapped person? There's some sort of balance between his open, prideful misogyny and her...what, exactly? Again, I'm not comparing their policies (nothing really to compare, anyways) or political behavior, I'm comparing their basic sense of decency. Character matters. One is an obvious, active con-man, the other's name is on one of the highest rated charities in the world that helps eradicate disease and raise the poverty line in the third world. Along with everything else Dcc001 said... For anyone undecided, do you agree with this? Or does he strike you as the kind of guy who would actually want to do all the boring, mundane and frustrating parts of governing, the way Hilary has her entire adult life? If you agree, how the fuck are you undecided?
I dont know if the Clinton Foundation is the shining example you want to use, considering its donors were likely granted ambassador positions by her State Department. But evidence of her malfeasance was posted previously in this thread a bunch of times, so go forth an check it out. If you're just referring to her ability to act like an adult in public, then yes, shes clearly better. But if thats the yard stick we are now using to pick a president then we are deep trouble.
Have you followed the media? There's anti-Hillary stuff out there, but I have never seen such widespread and blatant support of one candidate over another. I would support Hillary in a heartbeat if I actually thought she had the conviction behind what she says. Trump's best part of the debate was when he asked if she so fervently believed in all this, where has she been the last 30 years? Unfortunately for him it was mostly downhill from there. Yes, Trump wants to be president for his ego. Like Hillary is any different. Give me a fucking break. I hear you guys on her being much more experienced, but she's no bleeding heart only out for the public good. If Trump wins he will no doubt embarrass the country several times. On the plus side he's the most liberal Republican nominee I've seen in my lifetime.
I have, which means I know that none of Foundation-related accusations have been proven, and that as a charity, it's exemplary, doing some of the greatest humanitarian work (along with Bill and Melinda Gates, Buffet and Jimmy Carter) that is demonstrably changing the world for the better. I'd also bet my house that she's never mocked a handicapped person, even in private. I am, it is, and you are -- especially if enough of you find it that difficult to vote against a blatant con-man. She's been in the trenches, doing the dreadful parts of public service and plenty of good along the way. If she had any wit she would've pointed out that what she hasn't been doing for 30 years is leveraging bankruptcy, slum lording, hawking shit products and actively scamming poor and stupid people. You're not hearing me -- he doesn't want to be president for his ego (or any other reason), he wanted to run for president for his ego. Of course everyone who wants to be president has a big ego -- that's not inherently a bad thing, but it's a world of fucking difference from someone who views the presidential election only as a way to further his brand. Look, I'd be legit inspired if it was an Elizabeth Warren/Cory Booker ticket, but people like them are few and far between. From all I've seen, many of Hilary's criticisms are both legit and completely on par with almost every politician of her stature. So far, none of you disagree that Donald doesn't even want the job. It's like you're saying, yeah, we know he's a complete piece of shit in every imaginable way, but she's less than pristine, so fuck her! You're playing chicken with your country's immediate future, and there's no one in the other car.
Actually she did leverage bankruptcy legislation that fucked people over. That was many of the marks against her. Look, maybe this would be more convincing if it wasn't just you reiterating why you think Trump is running with an opinion you've pulled out of your ass. I don't particularly like Trump, but if the whole thing was only about furthering a brand and nothing else I don't think he would have run past primaries.
With all of these ^ ^ things + - chance to be first woman president - has actual experience in the actual White House (even if it wasn't as President) - has much more actual political experience than Trump - CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and most of the major newspaper people all would vote for Clinton over Trump how is she not 15-20 points ahead in the polls? Either candidate could show up drunk at the next debate, puke on the moderators shoes, flip off the camera and punch a baby and they're still going to get 40% of the voters.
I gotta stamp on the woman thing. I'm female (last I checked). The two degrees I have are Civil Engineering and Business Management. I work as a residential structural estimator. When I was in school, I worked in hardware stores, and then up north in the oil fields. I have spent my entire adult life working almost exclusively with men, in traditionally "male professions." And I do not care about the gender of the president or prime minister. I have never once had someone think less of me or respect me any less when I showed up on site to give an expert opinion because I was a girl. It's literally never been a factor. And if I interact with any of my supervisors, I never think, "Oh, he said that because he's a man and..." I really don't think gender plays any difference in anything except the ability to bear a child. It bothers me when the media - or anyone, really - makes any kind of a big deal about it. The job should go to the most qualified. If that's a disabled black woman who's 1/4 native American? Great. If it's a 70-year-old white male who's been wealthy his whole life? Fine. The best person should get the job and who even cares if it's a man or a woman.
As much as mocking a handicapped person is something we shouldn't do I'm not sure why this is a reason to eliminate someone from running for office. As easily as I could be misinterpreting what you are trying to say (I get that it does show that he pops off at the mouth without thinking and that is a legit concern in many situations) I think you're making more of this than is warranted. Part of his popularity is certainly the backlash against PC culture and even though he says dumb shit he just doesn't seem as fake as she is. Also the Clinton Foundation. No charges have been brought but I honestly believe "where there is smoke, there's fire". It took tax evasion to take down Capone so I wouldn't say she's skated free of worry.
I'm not sure what you mean about "stamp on the woman thing," but I don't have any qualms with what you posted. That's great for you, and I also vote for the most qualified candidate who most closely aligns with my political beliefs. Like, I wouldn't vote for an opponent just so I didn't have to vote for a woman. But, if you don't think people voted for Obama 8 years ago simply because he's Black, and you don't recognize that there will be people who vote for Clinton only because she's a woman, then you're living in a special fantasy world.
Ive had multiple people tell me in the last 2 weeks that because Hillary is "an intelligent and motivated woman", people don't like her. That sort of bullshit is so infuriating to me. But I wasn't going to post that... Then I just saw this article... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html This to me makes me believe Hillary's supporters aren't feeling too comfortable. Cause now all sorts of character defense and "if she loses its just cause she's a woman" bullshit has started to pop up. Ive been vocal about hating both candidates and I won't vote for either. And maybe despite my dislike, I can reconcile that Hillary is likely a safer choice than Trump, that being said, don't fucking try to shove the goddess, tireless public servant, "she came from nothing" bullshit down my throat. I can dislike her for being shady, fake, and pandering without being labeled sexist.
Yup (though I'm not sure of your use of "leverage"). She, along with 83 senators (36 democrats), voted to overhaul the bankruptcy system, and there's a good chance it was influenced by Wall Street and credit card companies. Pretty shady (some argue it wouldn't have the affect Warren claimed it would, I'm inclined to disagree). Not really the same as Donald failing at business so hard he needed to beg the banks to bail him out, but not a point in her favour. Worth noting that she also said that she regrets that vote and is glad it did not become law. Now quick, find me one example of Trump expressing regret for a single horrible thing he did, ever. Or, I don't know, propose a valid, non-shady reason why he won't release his tax returns. You've grown up in western culture, I assume? You've seen this asshole your entire life as well, correct? Does anything about him strike you as someone who cares about anything other than himself and money? Does the fact he doesn't read books not matter to you? Or just take his "campaign". Beyond the wall and deportation claims he knows are impossible, what's more likely, in your mind: this is the campaign of a man who's thought deeply about the job, and what it entails, or it's the campaign of a crooked used car salesman who knows reality TV taking advantage of a political party that for over a decade has been riling up people who only watch reality TV and are easily duped by crooked used car salesmen? Be honest. You guys talk about how the 'smoke' around Hilary means there must be fire. Ok, so beyond the ways Donald is making money off his campaign, what do you think of the smoke around Trump almost explicitly stating that he doesn't take the job seriously, and that he views it only as a game to win? I mean...there are almost no words. Regardless of how well traveled any of you may be, does your country's global reputation mean nothing to you? Did all the easy jokes made daily about Bush not leave any kind of lasting impression? It wasn't that long ago. I agree with everyone that this election is the most fucked up, at least in modern times. And if Hilary were running against any past republican president or nominee, even the ones who had a legit shot this year (minus Cruz), you wouldn't hear a peep from me. But character matters. I'll take one more swing: I'd bet none of us would be eager to spend time with either of them, but imagine you're a child and they were your aunt and uncle, exactly who they are now (character-wise), minus their power and celebrity. You know they're both going to be at a family function. Would your reaction not be night and day different from one to the other (perhaps an eye roll versus complete revulsion, especially if you're a girl)? Or imagine you're a parent, and you have to choose aunty Hil or uncle Don to babysit your kid. Is it even a choice? Will also mention that I agree with John Oliver that Donald actually has the opportunity to drop out and do something truly ground breaking and amazing for the country, and if he did, I would applaud him. But he won't, because the country isn't his concern.
Damn dude. - Based off Fortune's own tally Trump has spent astronomically more on the election than he's taken in. - The proof he 'doesn't read' was the author saying he doesn't think he does (deeply researched clearly) and then quoting him being skeptical of expert opinions in business. I can't access the Washington post link. - Given the number of business ventures he's taken it's virtually impossible he wouldn't have failures. He had major successes as well. He wouldn't have made billions if he was anywhere near as bad as people want to paint him. I do agree he's had some silly ideas though. - He made a joke. Look, if you're really going to argue he's been running this whole time so he can resign on the day of the inauguration, or he only wants to promote a brand, or whatever have at it. It's stupid and almost as senseless as the birther nonsense from the last two elections. He doesn't read. He reads Mein Kampf every night. He wants to run so he can sell more steaks. He has no interest in the presidency. He wants the presidency so he can create an authoritarian state. He doesn't want the presidency. He wants the presidency and more. He wants unlimited power. Yes, the media has kept me well informed. Look, the guy is a shitty candidate. I think he's running a smart and completely unconventional campaign. I doubt he actually knows how to effectively run the country so I won't vote for him. With Clinton and the bankruptcy bill - she was adamantly against it. Then some people gave her money. She supported it. Supporting it became unpopular. She 'changed her mind'. It's the story of her fucking career. That's why I won't vote for her either.
Have you never been to the U.S.? Do you not watch American movies and TV? Are you completely unfamiliar with American culture? Regardless of how well-traveled each of us might be, we pretty much don't give a shit about what other countries think of us. How have you not recognized that yet? The people who voted for Bush don't care what the rest of the world thought of him; they liked him, and that's all that mattered. The same thing goes for Obama. Those who voted for him think he's a great leader. Republican voters think he's weak and a disgrace. The only thing each person bases their opinion on is which way they voted though. Ignore the faults of my guy while exaggerating those of his opponent. It all goes back to one of the points I've been making in this thread. You cannot fathom how in the world anyone could vote for Trump, while Trump supporters cannot understand how anyone could vote for Clinton, and both sides predict unholy hell if the other candidate wins. In the end, it will all be okay no matter who gets elected. That is the beauty of the checks and balances system and of holding elections every four years.
I hear exactly what you are saying. America's reputation is mud around the world. It is mud not because we elected W. It is mud because of our foreign policy. It hasn't improved because Obama's foreign policy is nothing more than an extension of Bush's foreign policy as well. With that said, there is nothing, NOTHING to indicate that Hillary Clinton would provide a change in direction in terms of foreign policy. She was the goddamn Secretary of State during this time frame, unless everyone somehow forgot. She also was a Senator for the State of New York that pushed along with everyone else for "Nation Building" and "Regime Change" boondoggles the world over. We all know who she is beholden to in D.C., she is not about to go into office and yank the rice bowl out of the military and military contractors hands by stopping current American foreign policy and if you believe that she will then I have to believe you are lying to yourselves. Will Trump do anything different? I have no idea but at least with him there is an indication that he will, with Clinton there is no doubt that nothing will change. I hate to say this but I have been waiting for the day when we play chicken with our Government because it really needs to happen. I realize that putting one figurehead in office over the other without addressing the Legislative body won't do all that it needs to but at some point it needs to be communicated to the Government, in a manner they can understand, that enough is enough. I won't be voting for either of these two people because then I would feel complicit in the further destruction of our society. Though, if electing Trump brings change, then I say let's do it. Right now I see both parties pushing emotional arguments for why their candidate should be President. There is no appeal to reason or rational thought and I can't get behind that.
It will all be okay in what sense? Will our country cease to exist? Probably not. But can a lot of shit get fucked up in the meantime? Absolutely. Think about the impact the next president is going to have on the Supreme Court. These aren't things to trifle with. You're basically saying, "Why even bother to vote? It won't do any good." Who we elect matters a great deal, full stop. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Hillary definitely has more experience yet people forget that when Obama was elected he was a first term Senator / ex community organizer (whatever the fuck that is.) Hell he spent alot of his time in the Senate campaigning for President. I honestly think this entire election cycle is a complete shit show but I am a conservative and honestly cannot stand Hillary. I actually liked Clinton 1 and think he did a wonderful job but I cannot vote for her. I'm no Trump fan yet he will receive my vote simply because he is the Republican candidate. But I do live in Mississippi so it doesn't really matter. The state will vote Republican but we only have 7 electoral votes so it is almost a non issue.