I detest this idea that my ideology can be painted in red or blue. Fuck that noise. I also think the Republican party needs to become the labor party, touting unionization and economic change for the rural areas they dominate. No one is funding that platform...I wonder why?
I can respect this as a reason not to vote for Hillary or even to vote for Trump. I don't necessarily agree with it (I'm pro gun control, but that's a debate for another day), but I one hundred percent get it and respect it. You are right, Hillary would more likely enact gun control and she is certainly not for a smaller government, so voting against her for that reason makes complete sense. It's the conspiracy theory/media bias/they're picking on poor Donald/Hillary is the devil stuff that is just a silly, unproven, conspiracy theory, tin-hat-wearing reason to vote for Donald Trump.
Because telling people they have to give something up for these platforms isn't what they want to hear. I know what you were saying about the taxation problems, wasn't trying to paint it as a liberal stab. Given the narratives politicians are pushing, I'm really concerned that we aren't going to start moving the debt in the right direction until it's something like $50 trillion. One would think it would have been refuted by now. And I don't know about all of it - like the voter fraud, but the wikileaks, senate voting record, CNN editing out slogans, flip flops, donor speeches, and Clinton foundation is just right there in front of you. It might not affect you because it is common shit among politicians, there's just more of it and it's what's pushing people towards anti-establishment. That turned out to be the majority of the electorate this cycle. Food for thought.
Hillary had a similar statement in South America that fox news has been rambling about. I don't think it means anything either. The argument is about China manipulating currency and the global market while we have essentially done nothing about it. They even hoard US dollars and then dump them to cause inflation at the opportune moments. They set their own currency based on exports; taxing Chinese imports is needed for revenue and to help boost US manufacturing, as we are over-invested in the service sector. China has no realistic way to pull out of the US market in the meantime, and through the WTO the west can hit back on their currency manipulation through sanctions, and/or increased taxation. Devalue your currency to sell? Taxes go up. My problem with Clinton is she called the TPP the gold standard and supported it right up until the last minute, when the media (for once) did their due diligence. She's been a long time supporter of NAFTA as well, which is forgivable as a lot of people thought it was a good idea, but she took way too long to adjust when data had long since been confirming its' failures. No one is arguing against trade in general, they're arguing against bad trade deals. No shit, it's a global market. What's your opinion on how we should approach trade? Quick, before you read someone else's article for their opinion.
Trump, you are so fucking crazy. http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/polit...bate-guests-mark-cuban-meg-whitman/index.html Nobody who isn't already voting for you cares, you stupid fuck. That's nice, but you have to know how this is going to look. No Trump, maybe you don't. Oh my fucking God. You aren't going to rattle her. Even if she hadn't been doing this for 30 years you can't rattle a reptilian sociopath. This didn't work in the first two debates, why are you doing this again? Do you think politicizing the most pointless of Hillary scandals is going to make Hillary look bad or you look like a jackass? Get ready for the train wreck, round 3.
...That's been read by thousands of people and has come back "oh, she's a politician trying to win a presidency, by the means that have been used by every politician since the 1980s," and, more importantly, have proven nothing criminal or even indictment worthy... ...That proves she is a reasonable person who changes her opinion as new facts come to light and to reflect America's mood as a whole... (you know, like elected officials who represent the people are supposed to do) ...Which is an example of one particularly shitty low rated news network maybe pandering to democrats, as opposed to the one high rated network that panders to the other party (ask Hannity), so as far as I can see, a wash... See above for senate voting quote. More importantly, why is this always a criticism? "She looks at information and sometimes changes her mind or position when new information comes to light! Crucify her!" Isn't this what politicians should do? "Oh, the majority of Americans and my constituents are now in favor of gay marriage? Cool, that's what my people want, I'll vote for that." "FLIP FLOPPER! DEVIL!" Or, you know, representative of the people in a republic... She tells an audience of voters and doners what they want to hear? Well fuck me, no other politician has ever done that! You changed my mind! Where again nothing criminal has been found and, worst case scenario, puts her on par with the Trump foundation, so again, a wash... Not the majority of electorate. If it was, Trump would be winning.
It's that she flip flops so often [more than any politician I can remember in recent history, and if you flop back and forth so often on polls it suggests a lack of principles compared to someone like Bernie who has held a consistent record for decades], and frequently shortly after a donation. You can see that in the senate voting record (ie bankruptcy example mentioned numerous times). I meant this between Bernie, and Trump, so yes it was the majority. Trump has been too polarizing and too rapey to win the generals. You have a lot of dismissive comments in your post, but I don't think we even disagree that much other than on the Clinton foundation, but you can't possibly think prominent politicians with foundations flooded by money from middle eastern governments is a good thing, especially in light of the podesta e-mails that highlight governments who are funding ISIS. No action has been taken against these governments yet, nor was that information made public after the government gathered the intelligence. On the media you probably think it's fine because you find Trump repulsive whereas I think it's been disingenuous. I think she's corrupt as hell, you think she's about an average level of corrupt. Telling one thing to the general electorate and then going to a private speech and telling donors the opposite is shady as fuck, although I'm sure they all do this to varying degrees. You're saying lying about your platform so blatantly is acceptable, but I promise you there are politicians in this country that aren't quite that shameless.
Yes, but not as nearly as successful. There's probably a reason for that. A lack of shame is kind of a requirement of the job of President. Look at how badly any President is treated. Obama has been called every racial slur in the book, compared to monkeys and cavemen, and those are just by the racists. Conservatives have also called him everything from "liar" to "traitor" and worse. Bush? Fuck, we know how bad he was raked over the coals, from "dumbest President ever" (which, for the record, I don't believe for a minute. He was a terrible public speaker, but not a stupid man at all) to coke addicted redneck and more. Slick Willy spent nearly his entire 2 terms under one kind of investigation or another, and I don't know anyone over the age of 30 who doesn't think of George HW Bush without picturing Dana Carvey's SNL impression of him or "read my lips, no new taxes." Do I even need to go further back? Presidents get utterly distroyed on a daily basis. If any of them had shame, they'd kill themselves before they reached office. Now picture all that negativity towards Hillary. She's faced it for two decades and has shrugged it off. It's like white noise to her now, and to her credit she doesn't let it affect her. Now look at how Trump has handled just a few months of that kind of negativity. I can't even imagine what he'd do if he won, considering how bad he would get made fun of from every direction, and how poorly he handles that kind of abuse.
Hillary is a career politician in a time where that can be an indictment. That's all of the sense I can make of the hate. We all detest our government, and she is a lifelong member of it. Trump is a career businessman, that bankrupted a casino. He can't run shit. He simply can't. He fits the text book definition of fascism for fucks sakes. So, really this election is between a competent, rational choice for a job we all kind of hate, and a bully who doesn't respect the rules of democracy. Since we are talking about the nuclear launch codes as part of the job description, yeah I am going with the person serious enough with their career to never appear on professional wrestling or reality tv. I think Hillary will get elected (I fucking voted for her) and do alarmingly well. Why? Because she doesn't take this shit personally. If she did, she would have lost her shit at the Ken Starr report, which I think is important. That, for me, was the beginning of Republican witch hunting and creating scandals for Hillary that ultimately didn't stick. So a lot of the scandals and fuckery that the right are dredging up reek of the old presidential blow job debacle, where a nation of people collectively went: "ew, but who fucking cares?". That, I think, had a dramatic impact on her and I think as a First Lady, she was still very much an idealist. It certainly had an effect on how seriously I take the next "blow the lid off the campaign scandal". A Republican asshole is trying to make a name for himself (Gowdy is from my district, or was), by skewering one of the few women in politics at that level, and inevitably fails. So, idealist policy wonk that doesn't get worked up over political machinations? Sure, sounds good. Racist, bullying moron and self-proclaimed billionaire that loses his shit at John Oliver? Nope. Not it. As an idealist, I think it's real optimism that's needed. She can be what Kissinger was: someone that's a convener, someone that no one really wants to antagonize, because they'll be left out in the cold. I think she will be effective, and considering our gridlocked do-nothing Congress, it's a skill that's in fucking demand. The only chance the Republicans have is to adopt an anti-corporate stance, but there is no chance they'll get funded and they aren't currently built for grass roots campaigning.
Kind of funny watching all this from a distance. It's like there is a queue of people lining up to bend over and take it for entertainment value. Then you take stock of it all when you remember that it isn't another episode of the West Wing and the non-loser of the election gets to hang onto the reigns until the next election. Youse guys are fukd whatever way you go. Just try to keep it contained within your borders and not take everyone else with you.
Trump sank himself right there trying to pander to the Evangelical vote. I couldn't even believe I was hearing those words in this day and age. Wow. He's floundering so bad there is no way he can pull a win out of his ass.
Dear The Internet; PLEASE, with a cherry on top, someone dig up proof that a member of his immediate family has had an abortion. I don't ask for much.