Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[atomationage]

33 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

At 68, I think she's a little too old for the most demanding job in the world

I agree with this.  I think she'll only be a one term President, because of hatred and misogyny, but she will set a precedent in the drunken old boys club of politics that could change things forever.  I didn't notice her age that much until I saw an interview with Bill, and he looks REALLY old, and their ages aren't that different.  Of course, Drumpf is even older, and Bernie Sanders was even other than them.  So these are most likely going to be the last candidates of their generation. 

[ruby24]

6 minutes ago, candall said:

Wrt whether misogyny is a relevant factor:  I think nearly all Hillary haters would maintain they're not generally opposed to a female president, just to this specific woman.  And that they believe this to be the truth.  And that most likely they will find the next six qualified female candidates objectionable in exactly the same way.  No gender bias, perish the thought, but gads, not this one.

Yeah, people say this, but the problem that I have with this argument is that it's a total hypothetical and we don't have any proof about what would happen if another woman did get so close to being president. Hillary's the only one who's made it this far, she's our only example of a woman who's tried and gotten so close.

I like Elizabeth Warren too, but how do we know what would happen if she were subject to the full force of Republican attacks if she ran for president? From what I recall, even her Senate race was actually pretty brutal. And for that matter, Michelle Obama, if she ran and had to face these attacks, how would things change for her? Hillary's ability to withstand EVERYTHING thrown at her is part of what makes her admirable, imo. She's tough, tougher than anyone.

And the other thing is that Hillary was popular when she was a Senator and when she was Secretary of State. She left the State department with sky high approval ratings, but these numbers always plummet when she runs for president. I can't help but think there IS some degree of "we like her, but only in her place" going on there.

I really truly believe that her record of service, if this applied to any man who ran for president, would be ALL that would be required in his defense and people would readily accept it and trust him, without doubts. The most experienced person to ever run for office? Forced to run against the host of Celebrity Apprentice? If she was a man, this election would be over.

[TheGreenKnight]

4 hours ago, BoogieBurns said:

My dad and I, who literally could talk politics 24 hours a day, had so many VP arguments before Kaine was announced. More than ANYTHING I wanted Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar (who I want to adopt me), Cory Booker, Julian Castro, or a left-field surprise like Elijah Cummings. But Dad said, "it's Sherrod Brown or Tim Kaine, and Kaine speaks Spanish and goes to a black church."

I looked more into it once he was picked, and Hillary had a great reason for choosing Kaine. She saw how it was when Gore began to run for president during his final 2+ years as Bill Clinton's VP. Hillary didn't want a VP with Presidential dreams. It caused too much tension in the white house the last time she lived there (Also, watch the West Wing, it's very stressful when your VP is campaigning). Also, Kaine's views on abortion are helping with the suburban women vote. As a Christian liberal, I'm growing to like Kaine. I am still looking forward to the Warren/Booker ticket in the future.

I'm hoping Warren will run in 2024. I don't really know right off any other widely-known Democrat who might win. Maybe someone will appear, like Obama did in 2008. I like Kaine on a personal level, but would not want him to be a presidential nominee in the future (although if something happened to Hillary and he had to take over, I'm sure he'd do a decent job). I'm so glad Joe Biden never entered the 2016 race; never cared for him.

I'll be honest that I'd be very happy to have Hillary in office over Obama and I'm so glad Bernie lost. I thought we were going to have a repeat of 2008 when the less experienced, more charismatic candidate won over the one who could actually get something done. I feel like, besides the obstructionism, Obama was just too inexperienced and naïve to accomplish as much as he wanted. He had good intentions, at least. As for the charge of her being a "Republican" in principle, I think it's just a fact that moderates/centrists like Obama and Hillary are the closest to "liberal" we will be given among our presidential options while the Republican Party falls farther and farther off the deep end. At least I don't believe she'll strike down gay marriage, abortion, Planned Parenthood, put through racist voting regulations, ignore climate change, etc. like what currently goes by "Republican" these days certainly would. I'll admit that while Bernie was in many ways more liberal than Hillary, his comments about capitalism at one of their debates and his socialism is one of the main reasons I didn't want him to be the Democratic nominee. I have a feeling he would've caused huge debt and higher spending than Obama--and unlike Obama it wouldn't be caused by attempts to stem a recession, but because of poor policy/ideas--and that would pretty much destroy the Democratic Party's potential to win elections in future and their ability to prevent the Republican Party from rolling back women's rights, LGBT rights, progress in combating climate change, etc. on a massive scale.

[Princess Sparkle]

21 minutes ago, candall said:

OH!! me too, but then someone--the other Dem living within my 25 mile radius--said, "Forget it.  Two women would not win."

I knew I was just indulging in a Clinton-Warren fantasy though.  I've been around long enough to know I always get my hopes up that a second person I like will share the ticket, but instead, the VP announcement comes and I always say:   WTF . . . who??

 

I was hoping for Warren as a VP pick too, but then a friend of mine and I decided that we'd much prefer her to stick around in the senate and continue to do good work and let Hillary have a guaranteed ally, rather than side-lined a bit as VP.  But man, in my Warren fantasy, she eviscerates Pence during the VP debate : )

[pivot]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

I think it's hard to tell how Hillary will be in office. On the one hand, she'll have the usual die-hard Republican opposition that Obama had to face over everything.  On the other hand, she'll have the (now organized and extremely vocal) hatred of the Trumpettes who are not going to be prepared for her to win and will truly believe she "stole" it.  

She'll want to bring the country together so its not exactly time for big liberal moves.

However, she's...let's say "beholden" or "connected closely with" many liberals now, Warren and Sanders among the most prominent, vocal and powerful.  She's not going to be like Obama in ignoring her liberal "base", because she's much closer to them than he was.

Obama didn't ignore his liberal base. He has been the most liberal president since LBJ and got as much done as he could on the progressive front. This is the revisionism that pisses me off. Hillary is not and has never been closer to the liberal base than Obama was. Obama was hindered by how conservative the Dem caucus was in the Senate. He needed Lieberman and the Nelsons to get anything done. And the idea that Hillary is going to be more effective than Obama is no way backed up by history. Hillary has never led one piece of significant legislation through Congress to get passed. Obama had done that 3 times by the time he was elected president. He succeeded in getting healthcare passed while Hillary couldn't even get her bill out of committee in a much more liberal Congress led by Dems. And insiders place the failure of Hillarycare in Hillary's hands. She pissed off everyone with her crappy leadership.

The biggest difference between Hillary and Obama is that Hillary has an entire team of surrogates on cable giving her PR that she doesn't deserve while Obama concentrates on getting stuff done. Even now you see Hillary's people giving her credit for Obama and Kerry's work. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by pivot

[peacheslatour]

Just now, Princess Sparkle said:

I was hoping for Warren as a VP pick too, but then a friend of mine and I decided that we'd much prefer her to stick around in the senate and continue to do good work and let Hillary have a guaranteed ally, rather than side-lined a bit as VP.  But man, in my Warren fantasy, she eviscerates Pence during the VP debate : )

Yep, I like Warren right where she is. Same with Bernie. They're in unique positions to help push through her SCOTUS nominee for one thing. Jesus, it really seems like Trump is trying to throw the election. And before you say "peacheslatour, what are smoking?" Ask your self this: I he really was trying to lose, name one thing he would do differently?

[pivot]

29 minutes ago, candall said:

 

************

Wrt whether misogyny is a relevant factor:  I think nearly all Hillary haters would maintain they're not generally opposed to a female president, just to this specific woman.  And that they believe this to be the truth.  And that most likely they will find the next six qualified female candidates objectionable in exactly the same way.  No gender bias, perish the thought, but gads, not this one.

That's BS. Most complaints against Hillary are directed towards Hillary not all women. Most of Bernie supporters would have been backing Elizabeth Warren had she won. I would have taken just about any other Dem woman Senator and been thrilled about it. My problems with Hillary, like most detractors, are against Hillary. But, instead of addressing those facts it is easier to smear everyone who doesn't support Hillary. 

[ruby24]

2 minutes ago, pivot said:

That's BS. Most complaints against Hillary are directed towards Hillary not all women. Most of Bernie supporters would have been backing Elizabeth Warren had she won. I would have taken just about any other Dem woman Senator and been thrilled about it. My problems with Hillary, like most detractors, are against Hillary. But, instead of addressing those facts it is easier to smear everyone who doesn't support Hillary. 

How do we know how any other Dem woman senator would fare against relentless Republican attacks? We've never seen it on the national scale against anyone else. You think they'd be less because she wouldn't be Hillary, or do you think these attacks have been hurled like this towards Hillary all these years because she's an ambitious woman? At least consider that to be a factor, is all I'm saying.

[Darian]

13 minutes ago, Princess Sparkle said:

I was hoping for Warren as a VP pick too, but then a friend of mine and I decided that we'd much prefer her to stick around in the senate and continue to do good work and let Hillary have a guaranteed ally, rather than side-lined a bit as VP.  But man, in my Warren fantasy, she eviscerates Pence during the VP debate : )

I wanted Warren to stay in the Senate, too, and the best I ever felt about a vote was the one I cast for her as senator. I volunteered for her campaign and will again. 

[BoogieBurns]

2 hours ago, pivot said:

Kaine is going to run for president in 2024. No doubt about it.

I mean, I don't know him personally, although it sounds like you do. But Hillary was given the impression, whether fact or fiction, that he is there to be her VP, not to join a Presidential training program. Also, Kaine against Booker doesn't lead us to President Kaine. 

Warren won't be too old in 2020 if the other guy wins. Anything can happen, none of us could have predicted the way this year went, so we definitely don't know how well President Kanye West will do, either.

[Guest]

I just really love Elizabeth Warren. She has no fear and reading her tweets to Trump make my day. I was kind of hoping Hillary would pick her as VP, but I like Tim Kaine. He does flip flop on the abortion issue, I can forgive him for that though. I honestly didn't know who I was going to vote for in this election, but I've finally made up my mind that it's Hillary. I've been defending her online and I've had to unfollow a lot of FB friends because all they do is post dumb political memes about how much they hate her. I get it, you're a republican now go away.

[BoogieBurns]

3 minutes ago, heatherrrrz said:

He does flip flop on the abortion issue, I can forgive him for that though.

Technically it's no flip flop. He says morally (because of his religion) he is opposed, but his religion shouldn't dictate the laws. I feel mostly the same, for me I feel like my own baby's life would start at conception. However, I 100% understand why anyone would feel otherwise and take alternate avenues to do what is best for them. I'm very pro-choice. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, BoogieBurns said:

Technically it's no flip flop. He says morally (because of his religion) he is opposed, but his religion shouldn't dictate the laws. I feel mostly the same, for me I feel like my own baby's life would start at conception. However, I 100% understand why anyone would feel otherwise and take alternate avenues to do what is best for them. I'm very pro-choice. 

Yes, I'm not exactly sure I would have an abortion but a woman should always have that choice. It's why I can't stand the Duggars lol

[Padma]

35 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

Yep, I like Warren right where she is. Same with Bernie. They're in unique positions to help push through her SCOTUS nominee for one thing. Jesus, it really seems like Trump is trying to throw the election. And before you say "peacheslatour, what are smoking?" Ask your self this: I he really was trying to lose, name one thing he would do differently?

Be boring? 

ETA:  Not toward anyone in particular, but just a friendly reminder in general. I'm happy we have a place--an abundance of places now!--to discuss politics so hopefully we won't lose them. I think everything is allowed here, opinion-wise. But it will all disappear if comments get personal and antagonistic toward people with different viewpoints. (Just saying. And those of you who are old TWOPers will also remember how bad that feels!)

Edited October 12, 2016 by Padma

[BoogieBurns]

2 minutes ago, heatherrrrz said:

Yes, I'm not exactly sure I would have an abortion but a woman should always have that choice. It's why I can't stand the Duggars lol

Right, like I will drive my friend to go get one if she so chooses, and bring her ice cream afterwards. I'm not throwing Holy Water on her and praying for lightning to come strike her, lol! Those Duggars, I wonder who they are voting for...

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, BoogieBurns said:

Right, like I will drive my friend to go get one if she so chooses, and bring her ice cream afterwards. I'm not throwing Holy Water on her and praying for lightning to come strike her, lol! Those Duggars, I wonder who they are voting for...

I know, it's been on my mind lately. I feel like they'd just stick with the Republican party even if they couldn't stand him.

[ChiCricket]

From a private Facebook group I'm in:

"I'm officially done with that she's so flawed but she is the lesser of two evils rhetoric.

   Cause, you know, I'm flawed. And you are flawed. And Bernie Sanders is flawed and Barack Obama is flawed even Michelle Obama is flawed.

    But the difference between all of them and me--and probably you, is they have all given their flawed lives to public service.

     And now, they are all working together in their inevitably flawed ways to save all of us and the whole world from a sociopathic narcissist".....(more at link)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs-O0DRVMAA5wOY.jpg:large

[BoogieBurns]

1 minute ago, heatherrrrz said:

I know, it's been on my mind lately. I feel like they'd just stick with the Republican party even if they couldn't stand him.

They are a family of fondlers themselves. 

[peacheslatour]

Just now, BoogieBurns said:

They are a family of fondlers themselves. 

True that.

[candall]

5 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Yeah, people say this, but the problem that I have with this argument is that it's a total hypothetical and we don't have any proof about what would happen if another woman did get so close to being president. Hillary's the only one who's made it this far, she's our only example of a woman who's tried and gotten so close.

[...]

I really truly believe that her record of service, if this applied to any man who ran for president, would be ALL that would be required in his defense and people would readily accept it and trust him, without doubts. The most experienced person to ever run for office? Forced to run against the host of Celebrity Apprentice? If she was a man, this election would be over.

Hi. 

: )

[b2H]

1 hour ago, atomationage said:

I didn't notice her age that much until I saw an interview with Bill, and he looks REALLY old, and their ages aren't that different. 

Bill took a pretty good health hit with that heart attack.  He's also lost a lot of weight, which is good for him health-wise, but makes him look drawn.

Quote

And the other thing is that Hillary was popular when she was a Senator and when she was Secretary of State.

Her approval ratings are actually quite high, once she wins an election or position, so there is that hope ahead.

[ClareWalks]

My husband can't stand Hillary. When I ask him why, it's always "she's a liar." I hated to have to point out to him that if he is waiting around for a totally honest politician to vote for, he will have to become immortal and move to a newer solar system. (Thankfully my husband will be voting for Gary Johnson because he hates Trump just as much.)

[atomationage]

5 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

(Thankfully my husband will be voting for Gary Johnson because he hates Trump just as much.)

I started a Gary Johnson topic in this same section, but no one else has posted yet,

[needschocolate]

18 hours ago, ExplainItAgain said:

I have plenty of Republican friends and in past elections it hasn't bothered me knowing they think so differently from me and would vote differently from me. I mean, what would the world be if we were all the same? But for some reason, I'm really struggling with this election and knowing that some of my friends are voting for Trump.

I find myself in the same position.  I think it is because Trump is not a typical republican.  I have friends that voted republican and I could understand why they thought the republican was a better choice or fit their viewpoints better.  Them voting republican just meant that their priorities, the things they based their votes on, were different than mine. However, to me,  voting for Trump says more about a person's character and intelligence - it is not just a difference in priorities.  Though I know a number of republicans, only one of them is voting for Trump - He absolutely hates Bill Clinton because "Bill  Clinton is a liar" yet he has no problem voting for Trump - It has made me realize that this friend is not as rational as I thought.  

18 hours ago, lordonia said:

On one of the unending "interview with Trump supporter" news pieces, a 60-ish woman in the Midwest said, "I'm voting the conservative ticket. In this case it's that asshole Trump." Okay. That I can at least understand.

I heard one woman say that she has always voted republican and always will, even though this time we have "a jackass leading the mule train."

3 hours ago, Hanahope said:

So are people against her being misogynist?  Maybe.  I do know that despite the fact that Obama was one of the most centrist democrats in our recent history, and was willing to practically bend over backwards to compromise with Republicans and yet they refused to meet him halfway on pretty much everything.  And to be honest, if Hillary is faced with a Republican majority, I fear she'll be met with the same.  So either the Republican party is the most racist and misogynistic party in our recent history, or they are so immature and childlike that they refuse to work in any way with any democrat and just throw tantrums and take their ball and go home.  IMO either way isn't good for the Republican party and why I cannot support them.

I tuned in at the tail end of an interview with a republican congressman who was voting for Hillary. He said that the parties used to try to work together but that all changed in the 1990's when the republicans gained control of congress.  Then the GOP became fixated on Bill Clinton and making him look bad.  They were automatically against anything he was for.  Eventually, the GOP started to split and that is why they are having the trouble they are having now.  

[BoogieBurns]

1 hour ago, candall said:

You are so lucky, BoogieBurns, that you and your father have a thing where you two can get all chewy over the meat and gristle of politics.

It's funny, because he never told me his political leanings or even hinted at them until I made up my own mind. Every time he took me with him to vote, he would tell me he wrote in his own name. I was 14 when Gore v. Bush happened, and I have been a bleeding heart lib ever since. He's "fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and evangelical" which basically means nothing. But I have turned my macho man dad into quite a feminist in the 16 years since 2000. He listens when I talk, because I know almost as much as he does. I do my homework before I sit down with Pops. I even got him to support marriage equality, why thank you. 

Back on topic, when people say Hillary only recently supported gay marriage because it was finally "cool" or whatever. Trust me, a natural evolution occurred in a lot of hearts and minds between 1988 and 2008. It is possible to grow into a more tolerant person as you get older, especially when the country is full of young people who live and breathe tolerance. Sometimes it's for votes, and sometimes, it's the truth. 

[ruby24]

Yeah, and you know, Obama didn't support marriage equality until 2012 either. When people come around to the right positions, I think we should accept it and say yes, welcome to the right side of history!

[peacheslatour]

Quote

Then the GOP became fixated on Bill Clinton and making him look bad.  They were automatically against anything he was for.  Eventually, the GOP started to split and that is why they are having the trouble they are having now.

I remember that. The Contract With America and fucking Newt Gingrich. People were saying at the time that the reason the right were so vicious to Bill Clinton was because they were still stinging from Watergate.

I have been very nostalgic today. Remember that old bumper sticker: A woman's place is in the house....and the Senate. *hums the Enjolie song*

[atomationage]

19 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

the reason the right were so vicious to Bill Clinton was because they were still stinging from Watergate.

They wanted to impeach a Democratic President to try and make it even between the parties, and would have impeached Bill Clinton on even flimsier charges.  What was he actually impeached for anyway?  Lying to a nosy parker who wanted to know more about his sex life?

[madmaverick]

Some of Trump's supporters on Hillary's "qualifications", or lack thereof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EHNPZXn_FU

Seriously, how do the interviewer's keep it together?!   I would either want to laugh my head off or scream at some of these people.

I never understand why people say such stupid things when they know they're being filmed.  Unless there really is zero self awareness.

[peacheslatour]

I wonder what Donald Trump's relationship with his mother was like? Because of my extensive scientific research of watching Criminal Minds, usually this kind of pathological hatred of women can be traced to the psychopath's own relationships with women in early childhood.

[Darian]

Sadly, even Bernie Sanders spoke against marriage equality as recently as 2006. Now, he and his campaign said he was "always there"  for LGBTQ people, but he opposed marriage equality for Vermont in 2006. I know, because I was there, working on the campaign to try to hold onto marriage equality in MA and getting another state would have been a big help as we stood alone. We were working on Vermont. And it did not help when a popular senator from a neighboring state, who also was touted as a civil rights champion took a position against marriage equality. Hillary admitted she was wrong and did quite a bit to make up for it. Bernie denied he was ever wrong. What mattered to me was that both were on the right side during the campaign and both would have been allies, not opponents.  

[Milk-Eyed Mender]

The only way I'm not voting for Hillary would be for her to unzip her skin suit and reveal that she's actually Donald Trump. 

[Padma]

19 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

I wonder what Donald Trump's relationship with his mother was like? Because of my extensive scientific research of watching Criminal Minds, usually this kind of pathological hatred of women can be traced to the psychopath's own relationships with women in early childhood.

It seemed fine, from what I've read. But his father ruled the roost and Donald was in military boarding school from 13 to 18 so, in a family of five in the old days (and with a live in housekeeper/nanny), I'm not sure they had that much interaction.

Barbara Res (the woman Trump put in charge of construction at Trump Tower, because "a woman works ten times as hard as a an if she's given an opportunity at something she wants") says she saw a big change in his attitude in Atlantic City. She felt (1) Ivana had kind of kept his worst impulses in check (including the arrogance and disregard for others), and (2) when he took up with 24 year old Marla Maples (he was 50)  he was already just too full of himself and his imagined kingdom. Even before that, his co-author on The Art of the Deal said Trump was "a sociopath"--pretty harsh, but he really means it.

I'm guessing those traits were there all along (the reason he was the only child sent away), just channeled in ways our society rewards. In another time and place he probably would have been a leading mobster instead, maybe in prison, maybe just getting the flunkies in instead.  I don't think he'd have much compunction against ordering a hit on someone--he's great at rationalizing "he wanted to get me first".

[zxy556575]

5 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Yeah, people say this, but the problem that I have with this argument is that it's a total hypothetical and we don't have any proof about what would happen if another woman did get so close to being president.

Remember the amount of shit Geraldine Ferraro got thrown at her in '84 when she was on the ticket as VP? She was pilloried.

3 hours ago, BoogieBurns said:

Back on topic, when people say Hillary only recently supported gay marriage because it was finally "cool" or whatever. Trust me, a natural evolution occurred in a lot of hearts and minds between 1988 and 2008.

I really dislike charges of flip-flopping directed at politicians in either party. People are allowed to change their minds! Being a politician is supposed to involve hearing all sides of an argument, widening one's horizons, and encouraging change. I wouldn't vote for anyone who remains entrenched in ideas they originally espoused 20+ years ago.

Edited October 13, 2016 by lordonia

[HunterHunted]

I agree. Both society and people can evolve and change their opinions. In 1998, Will & Grace had just premiered. Queer as Folk premiered in 2000. And Queer Eye for the Straight Guy premiered in 2003. In 1998 if you had asked me if we would have had same sex marriage in 20 years, I would have said nope no way. But here we are in 2016, same sex marriage is legal, queer individuals can serve openly in the military, and there are increasing depictions of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans characters in tv and movies. It's not perfect, but we're moving in the right direction.

My brother will straight up call someone out when someone says things were better in the 50s. He'll get in the face of the person saying that and ask them if they think that it would be better if he, my brother, would have to use a separate bathroom because he's black, that he would get paid less than others even though he had the same job, that a female engineer on their team would likely only be their secretary, or that my brother might be beaten or lynched because someone saw him talking too familiarly to the female member of their team. He'll conclude by saying that wishing that we go back to the 50s means one of two things: you really didn't think about what you were saying or you're a bigot.

Edited October 13, 2016 by HunterHunted

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, ClareWalks said:

My husband can't stand Hillary. When I ask him why, it's always "she's a liar." I hated to have to point out to him that if he is waiting around for a totally honest politician to vote for, he will have to become immortal and move to a newer solar system. (Thankfully my husband will be voting for Gary Johnson because he hates Trump just as much.)

Here's the crux of things.

If you go to most Politics forums and discussions, the hard-right defenses always come back to claims that people "blindly" defend Clinton.

It's hogwash. I've seen a certain percentage of people who act like that, but for the most part the feelings on Clinton are legitimately that she's crooked, sometimes a liar, and kind of slimy. But that even so, virtually all of the mud tossed at her is ridiculous inflated and creatively reinterpreted. That conspiracy theories like her having "brain damage" are given the power of fact and treated as such. That the fact that all of the emails on her account weren't handed over means something... when in fact ANY person with a web browser can find a PDF of the original subpoena and clearly see that the reason there are x-many thousands of emails that weren't handed over is because the subpoena specifically instructed Clinton to ONLY hand over emails on four specific subjects.  That she's somehow responsible for Bill's actions, and that reasonable explanations for her part of things are inherently not to be considered (like when she allegedly told Juanita Broaddrick "Thank you for all you did for my husband" that even if it WAS a veiled threat, which it might not have been, it could have just as easily been a woman angrily warning off a woman she thought was a mistress rather than one she "knew" was a rape victim).

Clinton lies about a lot of stuff. Like Trump, often she lies about what she did or didn't say at certain later points. She's certainly brokered her share of deals where she's had to get down in the muck. She's possibly been part of some cover-ups in her political life, although I personally think if she's been accused of dozens of those, the real number is more likely "one or two". 

Even so she's not CRAZY. Like the other candidate. Not unstable. Has impulse control (sometimes so much she seems cold--but it's the better alternative to having none, like Trump). Knows that consensus is the only viable way to govern (whereas Trump thinks a President is like a King). 

Heck, I will even go as far as saying she's was probably a better alternative than Sanders, just because there was far too much naivety to that campaign. Although NOT better necessarily than a Liz Warren, or on the others side, even one or two Republicans who might have been survivable as President (McCain, who didn't even run this time, or John Kasich, because he seemed the most willing to actually listen to other people). 

As for your husband's vote for Johnson?  I hope you informed him that it's essentially the same thing as voting FOR Trump in most cases, because Independents being voted for typically eats away at the totals of the favorite more than the er... underdog. 

[ClareWalks]

6 minutes ago, Kromm said:

As for your husband's vote for Johnson?  I hope you informed him that it's essentially the same thing as voting FOR Trump in most cases, because Independents being voted for typically eats away at the totals of the favorite more than the er... underdog. 

Not really in this case, because  if he didn't vote Johnson he just would not vote at all.

[candall]

2 hours ago, BoogieBurns said:

It's funny, because he never told me his political leanings or even hinted at them until I made up my own mind. Every time he took me with him to vote, he would tell me he wrote in his own name. I was 14 when Gore v. Bush happened, and I have been a bleeding heart lib ever since. He's "fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and evangelical" which basically means nothing. But I have turned my macho man dad into quite a feminist in the 16 years since 2000. He listens when I talk, because I know almost as much as he does. I do my homework before I sit down with Pops. I even got him to support marriage equality, why thank you. 

This is just so incredibly awesome--on both your parts--I can't stop reading it.

My father asked me to promise I'd never have anything to do with the ACLU.

LOL!!! 

[BoogieBurns]

6 minutes ago, candall said:

This is just so incredibly awesome--on both your parts--I can't stop reading it.

My father asked me to promise I'd never have anything to do with the ACLU.

LOL!!! 

Oh, Dad! ACLU seems like a thing lots of people support. It shouldn't be a party line thing, sucks if it is though. 

[ebk57]

7 minutes ago, candall said:

This is just so incredibly awesome--on both your parts--I can't stop reading it.

My father asked me to promise I'd never have anything to do with the ACLU.

LOL!!! 

I joined the ACLU when Dukakis (?) was running and being a "card carrying member of the ACLU" was supposed to be bad.  I carry that card proudly with me everywhere.

[bilgistic]

1 hour ago, Milk-Eyed Mender said:

The only way I'm not voting for Hillary would be for her to unzip her skin suit and reveal that she's actually Donald Trump. 

That reminded me of this comic:

[peacheslatour]

Lulz!

[Lisin]

This is a reminder to be civil to each other; this forum exists for respectful conversation. We will be implementing sanctions for bad behavior, up to, and including banning.

You do not have to agree; you DO have to be civil to one another.

[HunterHunted]

Heading into the debates, there were reports that Clinton was having a hard time finding people who could emulate Donald Trump in her debate prep. I joked with friends that if she couldn't find a Real Housewife to practice with, at the very least she should watch the reunions. If you want to get a sense of how a ignorant grandiose narcissist argues there is no better place than Bravo.

[Kromm]

1 minute ago, HunterHunted said:

Heading into the debates, there were reports that Clinton was having a hard time finding people who could emulate Donald Trump in her debate prep. I joked with friends that if she couldn't find a Real Housewife to practice with, at the very least she should watch the reunions. If you want to get a sense of how a ignorant grandiose narcissist argues there is no better place than Bravo.

She should have called up Alec Baldwin and had him literally emulate Trump (not just stylistically). 

[partofme]

On October 11, 2016 at 9:39 PM, bilgistic said:

We must be very close in age. My birthday is this month. As a senior in high school, I registered to vote early in 1992 so I could vote for Bill Clinton in the November election. I did so proudly. My folks were horrified.

My birthday is also this month and I voted for the first time in 92!   I was registered by my high school even though I was 17 when I graduated.   Voted absentee ballot from college.   I am proud to have voted twice for Bill Clinton and I can't wait to vote for Hillary.  I come from a long line of Democrats.

Edited October 13, 2016 by partofme

[choclatechip45]

Quote

Heading into the debates, there were reports that Clinton was having a hard time finding people who could emulate Donald Trump in her debate prep. I joked with friends that if she couldn't find a Real Housewife to practice with, at the very least she should watch the reunions. If you want to get a sense of how a ignorant grandiose narcissist argues there is no better place than Bravo.

James Carville would have been a good stand in. I can't imagine he ever lost a debate.

[pivot]

Carville got his ass handed to him by Jon Stewart and it killed Crossfire for years. That was a great day. Now, that slime and all the other slime surrounding the Clintons have crawled back into the spotlight.

[biakbiak]

1 minute ago, pivot said:

Carville got his ass handed to him by Jon Stewart and it killed Crossfire for years. That was a great day. Now, that slime and all the other slime surrounding the Clintons have crawled back into the spotlight.

Jon Stewart handed Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson their asses because they were the hosts of Crossfire not Carville.

[Darian]

Hillary's campaign put up a page where you can see what she was doing vs. what Trump doing at different times: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tools/way-back-when/