Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[starri]

8 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

I really dislike the longer jackets and the high collared ones. I wish she would have them altered a little bit better to show off her hour glass figure

I think some of that is due to the fact that she's undoubtedly wearing a bulletproof vest most of the time she's in public.

Edited October 16, 2016 by starri

[maraleia]

Check out Ellen's interview with Hillary this week...both of them were fabulous and funny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl0xKXulwtg

[starri]

So, apparently Hillary is a control-obsessed bitch who's only running so Bill can have a third term.

I imagine this is similar to the way that, as a frigid lesbian, she had Vince Foster killed when he refused to feed her voracious sexual appetite.

[needschocolate]

9 hours ago, Padma said:

I went to a Trump rally once (research). Now I get email from them all the time. This morning's was titled "I'll Get a Special Prosecutor".  Here's the email, fyi, from the man who would be our president.

<snipped for space>

I know I can get big things done for our country, because that’s my track record.

Big bankruptcies, big losses, big lies, big ego  

8 hours ago, Landsnark said:

Why wouldn't you want a career professional being productive in their field?

I have an aversion to "career politicians"  When I hear the term, I think of someone who (1) will say whatever people want them to say in order to get elected, (2) doesn't base votes on what their constiuents what but rather on what their party leaders want, (3) will vote for bills that have appealing sounding names even if they know that most of the money will be spent on something other than what the title says it will be spent on, (4) expects special treatment because they won the election, etc.... 

I don't want these types of politicians - they lie, they cheat, they will spread any rumor they can against their opponent, even if there is nothing to substantiate it, they have no real understanding of the average person, their egos are huge, they can't admit when they are wrong, and they are fake, and they think the law and rules of common decency don't apply to them...and ...I just described Trump, the guy running on the platform of of not being a career politician.

[Quilt Fairy]

45 minutes ago, starri said:

I imagine this is similar to the way that, as a frigid lesbian, she had Vince Foster killed when he refused to feed her voracious sexual appetite

You bet.  From the Washington Post: The hideous diabolical truth about Hillary Clinton. One of my favorite lines:

Quote

1992: Bill Clinton is elected president. The era of general prosperity that follows only serves to confirm the fact that Hillary Clinton is the Antichrist (in addition to being a witch, a robot and Satan. Yes, ladies, you can have it all.)

[pivot]

10 hours ago, Padma said:

You'd think our country is so perfect for a strong third party challenge, especially right now. It's amazing, with this excellent opportunity--and cable news really interested in giving them air time--how really BAD both Stein and Johnson are.

If Bloomberg would have run, I think he would have won in a heartbeat. The 3rd party candidate needs to be someone with high name recognition and ability to attract major money like Hillary/Trump. I still think those two only made it as nominees based on name recognition. 

That said, Stein and Johnson are somehow just as terrible as Hillary and Trump. What an awful election.

On a side note, I am not a fan of Hillary at all, but she looks dynamite in person. I saw her at two events and she looks younger, skinner and prettier than on TV. HDTV is a cruel invention for women over 35. You couldn't get to close to her as she made sure she didn't have to actually interact with any real voters at either event. But, I saw her from about 3 feet away and she looked dynamite. Sanders looks much older in person and is equally as standoffish. O'Malley and Chafee were both personable and went out of their way to interact with voters at both events. 

Edited October 16, 2016 by pivot

[biakbiak]

Given the crazy antisemitism that exits in America that Trump is unintentionally exposing I don't think Bloomberg would have had a chance. Even more moderate Republicans don't view him as a Republican and with policies like the soda tax that he is a huge proponent of he also wouldn't have attracted libertarians or fiscally conservative Republicans so he would have gotten most of his support from Hillary supporters which would mean a Trump presidency. Which is exactly what I imagine his people told him which is why he did not run.

Being a short, unmarried Jew is a longshot  even in 2016. 

I live in SF and even though he isn't running for anything Bloomberg is being used as a boogie man in the anti-soda tax ads.

Edited October 16, 2016 by biakbiak

[starri]

6 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Given the crazy antisemitism that exits in America that Trump is unintentionally exposing I don't think Bloomberg would have had a chance. Even more moderate Republicans don't view him as a Republican and with policies like the soda tax that he is a huge proponent of he also wouldn't have attracted libertarians or fiscally conservative Republicans so he would have gotten most of his support from Hillary supporters which would mean a Trump presidency.

Don't assume that Democrats would vote for him, Hillary supporters or otherwise.  He is ten times the corporatist she is, a plutocrat, blind to the problems of people who aren't rich and white, and probably would have demanded a constitutional amendment to allow him to stay in office an extra term.

Third parties in this country will never work so long at the Electoral College exists.

[Kromm]

18 hours ago, Landsnark said:

That's like using "liberal" as a pejorative.

Or these days they take the leap from using a label the other side often uses in a different way ("liberal") to INVENTING terms, which they then slather on layers of cray-cray meaning. Go to any forum with the hardest core Trump supporters (and they ripped this right from the Tea Party playbook, so all of the Palin supporters were doing it years earlier) you'll see the phrase "Neo-Con" tossed around as a curse, akin to "demonspawn", to try and portray Clinton, Obama and most of the Democrats as part of some Illuminati-controlled army out to strip the world of all of it's "freedoms" and enslave us all.

Seriously. That's how they portray "liberals" now.  As tools of shadow-like puppet masters out to enslave all of us (doubly ironic, since someone like Trump is feeding the rich far more, but it gets back to this illusion of populism they're all trying to project based on letting (white) people keep their guns, and blaming all of the factories shutting down on the Democrats.

[Kromm]

9 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

You bet.  From the Washington Post: The hideous diabolical truth about Hillary Clinton. One of my favorite lines:

The robot meme of that article was likely stolen from the net recently. I know I've been in a few forums where people joked about the conspiracy theory that became popular after Hillary's slip and fall by the car that she died that day and was replaced by a robot duplicate. I like the Washington Post version, where she's always been a robot too.   And a witch. And an Illuminati puppet, a murderer, and demon.

[HumblePi]

"Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke." Will Rogers

Politics is a dirty business, we all know that.  Men and women in politics lie or twist the truth in order to get elected. Whether they are successful in bringing themselves into the favor of large masses of people depends on their personality not the substance of their beliefs.  In this respect, Hillary Clinton has failed and Donald Trump has succeeded.  The most frequent statement we hear from a Trump supporter is "He tells it like it is and Hillary Clinton lies and belongs in jail." Okay well let's just take that simple statement and explore it further. People assume that by 'telling it like it is and not being politically correct' is being honest. Yes, it's a good thing if it's honest and not just something said in order to defame or denigrate someone else. There really has to be some genuine truth behind an accusatory statement.

When a President confronts the leader of an enemy country, they must still have the skills of a diplomat and the emotional stability to remain calm and cool-headed. What Donald Trump supporters love the most about him is possibly the most dangerous emotional trait any President can have. Donald Trump has every intention of leading this country as an authoritarian without anyone telling him how to behave and without any apologies. If the Republican party is resorting to releasing hacked emails in order to win this election then they're going down the wrong path. Mud-slinging is nothing new in politics and people look at this type of campaigning and wonder to what depths this politician will go in order to steal this election. Putting aside all of the screwy policies he has, and there are plenty if you examine them, you are left with a man that is an egomaniac, but more than that, he's a man that doesn't want to be President and live in the White House for four years. A Donald Trump presidency would be Donald Trump jetting between Palm Beach, Manhattan and once in a while a stopover in Washington. His children and other surrogates would be given cabinet posts and he would leave the job of running the country up to them. He would bark out the orders and expect them to get it done. He would threaten other countries and try to intimidate heads of State. He would threaten world devastation if his demands weren't met.

I just described a few men in history that had the same agenda and look where it got them, infamy. I want a president that will be famous instead of being infamous.

[HumblePi]

11 hours ago, starri said:

So, apparently Hillary is a control-obsessed bitch who's only running so Bill can have a third term.

I imagine this is similar to the way that, as a frigid lesbian, she had Vince Foster killed when he refused to feed her voracious sexual appetite.

I have known about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton for generations, long before Bill was elected as President. Bill Clinton was intelligent enough to receive a Rhodes Scholarship and studied law and politics at Oxford University. His IQ is said to be around 137. Hillary Clinton's IQ was tested even higher than Bill, around 140. She was the main reason he was re-elected as Governor of Arkansas in his second bid for that job after losing it for one term. People say things like "Hillary Clinton would only be Bill Clinton's third term" but in actuality it was Bill Clinton that served Hillary's first two terms as President. The country was still in the dark ages and not even close to being ready to accept a woman as President. Now, we are there and boy are we ever ready for it.

Whether Hillary Clinton is heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual or asexual should have nothing to do with what her qualifications for this job are. A misogynist would call her a 'control-obsessed bitch' when they feel threatened by an intelligent and emotionally secure woman. I see a 'person' that's far and away more qualified and prepared to be the head of this country and lead it with intelligence not emotion, with common sense not authoritarianism. She would represent our country in not only a dignified manner but an educated one.

[starri]

I think you misunderstand me.  I'm not saying I agree with those things, just giving examples of the cognitive dissonance that Trump supporters engage in to demonize her.

[DeLurker]

1 hour ago, Kromm said:

The robot meme of that article was likely stolen from the net recently. I know I've been in a few forums where people joked about the conspiracy theory that became popular after Hillary's slip and fall by the car that she died that day and was replaced by a robot duplicate. I like the Washington Post version, where she's always been a robot too.   And a witch. And an Illuminati puppet, a murderer, and demon.

And here I was thinking the movie Dave was a work of fiction...

[maraleia]

56 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

I have known about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton for generations, long before Bill was elected as President. Bill Clinton was intelligent enough to receive a Rhodes Scholarship and studied law and politics at Oxford University. His IQ is said to be around 137. Hillary Clinton's IQ was tested even higher than Bill, around 140. She was the main reason he was re-elected as Governor of Arkansas in his second bid for that job after losing it for one term. People say things like "Hillary Clinton would only be Bill Clinton's third term" but in actuality it was Bill Clinton that served Hillary's first two terms as President. The country was still in the dark ages and not even close to being ready to accept a woman as President. Now, we are there and boy are we ever ready for it.

Whether Hillary Clinton is heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual or asexual should have nothing to do with what her qualifications for this job are. A misogynist would call her a 'control-obsessed bitch' when they feel threatened by an intelligent and emotionally secure woman. I see a 'person' that's far and away more qualified and prepared to be the head of this country and lead it with intelligence not emotion, with common sense not authoritarianism. She would represent our country in not only a dignified manner but an educated one.

It's transgender and I agree with you on all your points here. Weak men have always been threatened by smart, accomplished women that's why Emma Watson started HeForShe to combat this nonsense.

One more thing in reference to the video I posted of Hillary and Ellen. Ellen is 58 years old but she doesn't look a day over 48.

Edited October 16, 2016 by maraleia

[partofme]

12 hours ago, pivot said:

If Bloomberg would have run, I think he would have won in a heartbeat. The 3rd party candidate needs to be someone with high name recognition and ability to attract major money like Hillary/Trump. I still think those two only made it as nominees based on name recognition. 

 

I live in NYC, I hate Bloomberg, he was a horrible mayor, never voted for him.   He'd be as bad as Trump.  I don't know any Democrat that doesn't hate Bloomberg.

Edited October 16, 2016 by partofme

[doodlebug]

11 hours ago, pivot said:

If Bloomberg would have run, I think he would have won in a heartbeat. The 3rd party candidate needs to be someone with high name recognition and ability to attract major money like Hillary/Trump. I still think those two only made it as nominees based on name recognition. 

That said, Stein and Johnson are somehow just as terrible as Hillary and Trump. What an awful election.

On a side note, I am not a fan of Hillary at all, but she looks dynamite in person. I saw her at two events and she looks younger, skinner and prettier than on TV. HDTV is a cruel invention for women over 35. You couldn't get to close to her as she made sure she didn't have to actually interact with any real voters at either event. But, I saw her from about 3 feet away and she looked dynamite. Sanders looks much older in person and is equally as standoffish. O'Malley and Chafee were both personable and went out of their way to interact with voters at both events. 

I've met her a couple times over the years and she is far more attractive in person than she is on TV.  She's taller and thinner, for starters (remember, she's spent years standing next to Bill, a very tall guy, which tends to leave the impression she is shorter than she is)  Her eyes are a lovely shade of blue, although possibly enhanced by contacts.  Whoever is doing her hair these days is doing an awesome job.  She could have her suits tailored a little better, the long jackets she favors would look better nipped in at the waist a smidge and some need shortened a little, too.  Overall, though, for a woman who started out not very interested in her appearance by all accounts; she's gotten some good advice and followed it unlike her opponent (I find it hard to believe anyone attempting to manage his public physical image signed off on the bad combover, blond shade not found in nature, the reverse raccoon tanning booth face).

[Padma]

I also think Hillary's very pretty. But here's a catty remark--When Trump brought out the "Clinton accusers" last weekend, I thought Hillary not only looked so much younger and prettier, but also seemed much more intelligent. (I usually wouldn't rip on a woman's appearance or apparent intelligence except I feel that group showed up for the wrong reasons, I don't believe them anyway though I'm not sure if they are intentionally lying and I don't respect them for letting themselves be used as props for Trump--i.e. being willing to be brought out for the "embarrassing handshake/snub of Bill".)  So I don't mind saying that, imo, they all came across badly esp. compared with Hillary who did not let the "Trump surprise" rattle her at all.

If more video or credible accusers come out this week, I could see Trump cancelling the debate. Not sure how I feel about it--probably relieved as Hillary's ahead and he's so off the rails now that he could say or do anything in the hope it would get him the votes he needs.

By the way, where is Nancy O'Dell in all this? She issued a general statement, no denial, no confirmation.  Of all people, she'd be the one who could back up what Trump described to Billy. No one even seems to be asking her about it. She probably doesn't want to take him on and impact her career, but no one's mentioning that she HASN'T defended it as "just talk".

[starri]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

If more video or credible accusers come out this week, I could see Trump cancelling the debate. Not sure how I feel about it--probably relieved as Hillary's ahead and he's so off the rails now that he could say or do anything in the hope it would get him the votes he needs.

The other thing that would probably happen if he canceled the debate would be to give Hillary a free 90 minutes to make her case to the American people without the sideshow.  Obama threatened to do the same thing if McCain pulled out of one of the 2008.  And it was and is a great idea.

[HumblePi]

2 hours ago, partofme said:

I live in NYC, I hate Bloomberg, he was a horrible mayor, never voted for him.   He'd be as bad as Trump.  I don't know any Democrat that doesn't hate Bloomberg.

He was elected for two terms as a Republican. He was a Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for Mayor as a Republican. Bloomberg defeated opponent Mark Green in a close election held just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Bloomberg won a second term in 2005, and left the Republican Party two years later. Bloomberg campaigned to change the city's term limits law, and was elected to his third term in 2009 as an Independent candidate on the Republican ballot line.

One 'good' thing, if there can be, that comes out of this election is a somber lesson for politicians that have aspirations to run for public office in the future. Looking ahead to the 2020 Presidential elections, Hillary will be too old if she survives four years, and Donald Trump will be no more than a distant memory marked by funny memes and gifs. That leaves a whole new entourage of Senatorial, Congressional and Presidential candidates. Hopefully they've learned that they'd better get their history set right now because in four years it will come back to haunt them in some way.  This has given people a little wake-up call that you can't do crap to others without it coming back to bite you in the ass if you're going to run for public office. Email, tweets, and all words matter.

Edited October 16, 2016 by HumblePi

[pivot]

Bloomberg would appeal nationally to Dems and Dem leaning independents quite easily. He's pro-gun control, pro-immigration and speaks fluent Spanish. I think he'd peel away white voters who are with Trump because they are solely anti-Hillary and a lot of Hillary's lukewarm younger supporters and Latino voters.  I think Bloomberg would have won with at most forty percent, but he would have won. 

1 hour ago, HumblePi said:

 

One 'good' thing, if there can be, that comes out of this election is a somber lesson for politicians that have aspirations to run for public office in the future. Looking ahead to the 2020 Presidential elections, Hillary will be too old if she survives four years, and Donald Trump will be no more than a distant memory marked by funny memes and gifs. That leaves a whole new entourage of Senatorial, Congressional and Presidential candidates. Hopefully they've learned that they'd better get their history set right now because in four years it will come back to haunt them in some way.  This has given people a little wake-up call that you can't do crap to others without it coming back to bite you in the ass if you're going to run for public office. Email, tweets, and all words matter.

No way Hillary doesn't run for re-election. They may have to prop her up like they did with Reagan, but she'll never give up running for a 2nd term and no matter how unpopular she is, there is no way a Dem will dare to primary the first female president.

[Padma]

13 minutes ago, pivot said:

Bloomberg would appeal nationally to Dems and Dem leaning independents quite easily. He's pro-gun control, pro-immigration and speaks fluent Spanish. I think he'd peel away white voters who are with Trump because they are solely anti-Hillary and a lot of Hillary's lukewarm younger supporters and Latino voters.  I think Bloomberg would have won with at most forty percent, but he would have won. 

I'm not sure. Trump's big advantage was he had near-100% name recognition. I don't think most of the country has any idea who Bloomberg is.

As for his Spanish, maybe he's fluent, doesn't seem so, but I really don't know. But wow does he have a horrible accent! 

[partofme]

I'm well aware that Bloomberg ran as a Republican, I'm just saying that I live in nyc and Democrats here hate him, I have no idea how he was elected 3 times, I never voted for him and no Democrat that I know ever would.  He would never get Dem votes nationally and New Yorkers hate him.  

[ruby24]

Oh yeah, Hillary's running for re-election. And if age wasn't an issue for Reagan (at least not that anyone knew), it shouldn't have to be for her either, unless of course she becomes genuinely ill or something, but hopefully everything will be fine in that area.

Plus, I really want her to do a good job to prove all the assholes wrong. They'll never stop hating her, but Obama faced a lot of hate too, and it's a similar thing where I don't want the first female president to be perceived as a failure. I hope she can make the most of these first two years where she'll at least likely have the Senate, and is able to get some good things done.

[ariel]

22 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

 

Probably the only thing I like about Hillary, actually envious of this thing, is her hair. She has the best hair, she can do any style. And her colorist is worth whatever the Clinton Foundation pays her.

Is it a know fact that the Clinton Foundation pays for Hillary's hair color?  If so, please provide some links to back this claim up.

[Macbeth]

I can't vote for Hillary as I don't vote Republican.  She holds Henry Kissinger in high esteem.  Really didn't we learn anything from Vietnam, Iraq or Libya?

When she was young she campaigned for Barry Goldwater.  Really.  The politician that was against the New Deal and very aggressive in his hatred towards communism  - even joking about throwing a nuke into the Kremlin to see what happened.  With everything going on in the early 60s this is what she fought for?

And I can see it - she is a child of Goldwater. The Clinton administration did more to take down the New Deal than Republicans could ever hoped to have accomplished.  Given that  she's very tight with Wall Street and as Bill is heading her economic division - I wouldn't be surprised to see them try to privatize social security.

And what is the deal with the Democrats campaigning on Putin being the boogie man.  I am 50 - I lived through the Cold War - I don't want to live through it again.  I was listening to NPR when it did a live broadcast letting Americans talk to the Brits about the election.  It was surreal.  There was a guy from Texas terrified about Trump becoming President and a guy from Britain terrified about Hillary becoming president.  The Brit was worried a bout WWIII starting between the US and Russia over Syria.  I can't say that I blame him. 

Hillary a/k/a Ms. Kissinger is very hawkish.  She will start a war.  I have been very worried that she will try to take on Iran - but really - I wouldn't be surprised if she took on Putin.

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/08/hillary-clintons-national-security-advisors-are-a-whos-who-of-the-warfare-state/

I don't vote Republican.

[Darian]

Just now, Macbeth said:

When she was young she campaigned for Barry Goldwater. 

 

I'll just address this one. Yeah, younger. When she wasn't even old enough to vote for him. A couple of more links, but if you want to hold her high school views against her, you will. But I can provide some context to your statement. 

http://www.snopes.com/goldwater-girl/

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/26/471958017/-goldwater-girl-putting-context-to-a-resurfaced-hillary-clinton-interview

But, hey, a single British guy and an opinion piece in The Intercept called her a hawk. Meanwhile,

Let's hear a little more from England and beyond:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35702584

http://www.politico.eu/article/why-britain-loves-to-hate-donald-trump-presidential-candidate-petition-to-ban/

That one talks about efforts to ban Trump from the country (signed by 573,000 Brits at the time that piece was published). It was debated in Parliament and you can read a transcript or watch the debate. It's enlightening. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/28/donald-trump-president-world-leaders-foreign-relations

Yeah, Hillary Clinton isn't scaring world leaders. Trump is. You're getting one or the other, no matter who you vote for of if you don't vote at all. And I'm 55, btw.  

[33kaitykaity]

44 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

I can't vote for Hillary as I don't vote Republican.  She holds Henry Kissinger in high esteem.  Really didn't we learn anything from Vietnam, Iraq or Libya?

When she was young she campaigned for Barry Goldwater.  Really.  The politician that was against the New Deal and very aggressive in his hatred towards communism  - even joking about throwing a nuke into the Kremlin to see what happened.  With everything going on in the early 60s this is what she fought for?

And I can see it - she is a child of Goldwater. The Clinton administration did more to take down the New Deal than Republicans could ever hoped to have accomplished.  Given that  she's very tight with Wall Street and as Bill is heading her economic division - I wouldn't be surprised to see them try to privatize social security.

And what is the deal with the Democrats campaigning on Putin being the boogie man.  I am 50 - I lived through the Cold War - I don't want to live through it again.  I was listening to NPR when it did a live broadcast letting Americans talk to the Brits about the election.  It was surreal.  There was a guy from Texas terrified about Trump becoming President and a guy from Britain terrified about Hillary becoming president.  The Brit was worried a bout WWIII starting between the US and Russia over Syria.  I can't say that I blame him. 

Hillary a/k/a Ms. Kissinger is very hawkish.  She will start a war.  I have been very worried that she will try to take on Iran - but really - I wouldn't be surprised if she took on Putin.

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/08/hillary-clintons-national-security-advisors-are-a-whos-who-of-the-warfare-state/

I don't vote Republican.

Hillary has a big D after her name.  That D really, really, really does mean Democrat.  

Yes, I agree that the Democratic Party has moved to the right.  Problem is they've been following a Republican Party that is now in Cray-Cray alt-right country where racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, the list goes on, are no longer dog whistles, but are wolf howls.  

As long as the Electoral College is the way we elect our president, we will only have two parties.  This cycle the parties are represented by a hardworking sane person and a narcissistic, handsy megalomaniac who will govern by snit (thank you, Bill Maher) respectively 

Labels aside, those two people are our only two choices.  One of those two people will be in the White House come January 2017.  

Edited October 17, 2016 by 33kaitykaity

[ariel]

35 minutes ago, 33kaitykaity said:

 

Labels aside, those are our only two choices.  One of those people will be in the White House.  

If your first choice didn't make it to the final ballot (mine didn't), these are the choices that will be the person in the WH.

Edited October 17, 2016 by ariel
I agree with 33kaitykaity

[Macbeth]

5 minutes ago, 33kaitykaity said:

Hillary has a big D after her name.  That D really, really, really does mean Democrat.

I understand that she is running on the Democratic ticket.  The Republican party has morphed into the Know Nothing Party of last century and the Democrats have basically morphed into the Republican Party.  Nixon's administration created the EPA. 

It's just my opinion.  Of course Trump is scaring the crap out of world leaders  - he's a reality star, narcissist who couldn't run a gold mine without going bankrupt.

But there will be war with Hillary - and in my opinion as the lesser of 2 evils is a war monger - I can't vote for her either.

Hillary as a Hawk is not far-out conspiracy theory  - see attached articles - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/hillary-clinton-necono-republican-endorsements-donald-trump-policy-issues

[Padma]

51 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

I can't vote for Hillary as I don't vote Republican.  She holds Henry Kissinger in high esteem.  Really didn't we learn anything from Vietnam, Iraq or Libya?

When she was young she campaigned for Barry Goldwater.  Really.  The politician that was against the New Deal and very aggressive in his hatred towards communism  - even joking about throwing a nuke into the Kremlin to see what happened.  With everything going on in the early 60s this is what she fought for?

And I can see it - she is a child of Goldwater. The Clinton administration did more to take down the New Deal than Republicans could ever hoped to have accomplished.  Given that  she's very tight with Wall Street and as Bill is heading her economic division - I wouldn't be surprised to see them try to privatize social security.

And what is the deal with the Democrats campaigning on Putin being the boogie man.  I am 50 - I lived through the Cold War - I don't want to live through it again.  I was listening to NPR when it did a live broadcast letting Americans talk to the Brits about the election.  It was surreal.  There was a guy from Texas terrified about Trump becoming President and a guy from Britain terrified about Hillary becoming president.  The Brit was worried a bout WWIII starting between the US and Russia over Syria.  I can't say that I blame him. 

Hillary a/k/a Ms. Kissinger is very hawkish.  She will start a war.  I have been very worried that she will try to take on Iran - but really - I wouldn't be surprised if she took on Putin.

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/08/hillary-clintons-national-security-advisors-are-a-whos-who-of-the-warfare-state/

I don't vote Republican.

She's a center-right Democrat. Find the candidate who supports environmental regulation to slow global climate change (rather than calling it a Chinese hoax), who supports 100% a woman's right to choose, and who understands and embraces the Constitution, esp. the first and fifth amendments. (And, yes, she supports the 2nd amendment but will work for gun regulation, inc. assault weapons. Where's the GOP on standing up to the NRA?)

Hillary's about where Obama is on foreign policy which is to the right of me, but left of Trump (and since I'm not running, that's all that counts). She's not a saber rattler, or a lackey of Russia like Trump, General Flynn (a REAL hawk), and all the rightwingers he's going to bring in and empower to do whatever they want.

Don't want Hillary and the Democrats--many very liberal--that she will necessarily bring into office with her? Then enjoy Trump and Christie at Justice, Giuliani at the FBI, all Trump's economic advisers (bankers and hedge fund managers, inc. Carl Icahn), his crazy General Flynn, and a lot of fringe people we've never seen heard of.

Also enjoy having a government run by the alt.right--with Bannon and Bossie and Roger Stone front and center and a policy that let's Russia do what they want in Europe and the Middle East, while starting trade wars, escalating to recession, and picking fights in Asia (esp with China) and with Mexico.

Between a moderate and an extremist government (and a really, really stupid group of hateful people at that), the choice doesn't really seem that hard.

[33kaitykaity]

12 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

I understand that she is running on the Democratic ticket.  The Republican party has morphed into the Know Nothing Party of last century and the Democrats have basically morphed into the Republican Party.  Nixon's administration created the EPA. 

It's just my opinion.  Of course Trump is scaring the crap out of world leaders  - he's a reality star, narcissist who couldn't run a gold mine without going bankrupt.

But there will be war with Hillary - and in my opinion as the lesser of 2 evils is a war monger - I can't vote for her either.

Hillary as a Hawk is not far-out conspiracy theory  - see attached articles - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/hillary-clinton-necono-republican-endorsements-donald-trump-policy-issues

I am under no illusions about her foreign policy.  But when I do a pro/con list and compare the potential "harm" from her reputed hawkishness to the nearly certain economic, social, and international devastation caused by Drumpf, a temperamental buffoon, honestly, it is no contest.  

[BoogieBurns]

12 hours ago, HumblePi said:

Bill Clinton was intelligent enough to receive a Rhodes Scholarship and studied law and politics at Oxford University. His IQ is said to be around 137. Hillary Clinton's IQ was tested even higher than Bill, around 140.

Is it weird that my ego just grew ten times the size knowing I have a higher IQ than both of them, at 141? I guess I'll run for President in 2024, seems like the logical next step.

Man I wonder what Trump's IQ is... like 11?

[biakbiak]

4 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

Ha, it's out there somewhere. Let me check and get back to you.

Please do. There are several independent organizations that rate charity's based on the required documents give the Clinton Foundation great reviews This is only one the others are easily googable.

If you want to dive in to either the Clintons private tax returns or the Clinton Foundations money trail you don't have to rely on leaked documents you can read them for your self on their websites.

[Padma]

Why don't Democratic surrogates hit back harder on this hack of a private citizen's email by Russian intelligence and Julian Assange in order to influence the outcome of our election?  It's outrageous, and the press continues to take the bait, even though this isn't about government, or a government official. Podesta's a private citizen who should, one would think, have a right to privacy and to not being used by RUSSIA to sway the election for TRUMP!

I wonder if its Bannon's playbook to have Trump put up the smokescreen with his charge of "rigged election" --foreign banks, the Washington "elite", the Clintons, the "media" (who indulged him for a year--and still ARE so easily baited) and ... Carlos Slim (!!!)  It's the perfect distraction to accuse Clinton/OBama/the U.S. government of rigging an election when, in reality, Russian intelligence is hacking emails and Julian Assange is releasing them all in an effort to rig the election for ...... Donald J. Trump!

Irony. And if the situation were reversed he and his followers would be calling their political rivals "traitors" and "collaborationists" (and imo, rightly so!)  Clinton's political enemies abroad--Assange and Putin--are conspiring or collaborating with her domestic political opponent to UNDERMINE our democracy!  Where's the outrage?

[ebk57]

Here's a good column from today's WaPo about the leaked transcripts of the speeches. (And yes, I am outraged about these leaks from a foreign government and that asshole Assange)

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/17/i-read-hillary-clintons-speeches-to-goldman-sachs-heres-what-surprised-me-the-most/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ea76ce1a5da7

[starri]

20 hours ago, pivot said:

Bloomberg would appeal nationally to Dems and Dem leaning independents quite easily. He's pro-gun control, pro-immigration and speaks fluent Spanish. I think he'd peel away white voters who are with Trump because they are solely anti-Hillary and a lot of Hillary's lukewarm younger supporters and Latino voters.  I think Bloomberg would have won with at most forty percent, but he would have won. 

I think you're overestimating the appeal that Mayor Stop and Frisk would have with minority voters.  And a lot of those lukewarm younger voters supported Occupy Wall Street and I would imagine his heavy-handed use of the NYPD there might not make them particularly receptive.

And while the ultimate results have been disappointing, we elected his polar opposite as a replacement, with a margin of victory that was an absolute blow-out.

And even the city's white, middle-class voters were ignored in favor of tourists and the ultra-rich.  Somehow his neighborhood and the tourist areas were always plowed during heavy snow, while the less ritzy zipcodes, especially in the outer boroughs were completely ignored.

[Landsnark]

I find it odd that nobody is making a bigger deal of Wikileaks and Trump's ties to Russian espionage during a Presidential election.  Or that he won't show his taxes.  Or that this could be an elaborate presentation to investors to begin a hard right wing media empire.
Is it just me, or is one side of the race to be President relying upon exposing stolen private communications via the intelligence arm of an enemy of the state?  "This election's rigged."  Indeed.

[Kromm]

10 minutes ago, Landsnark said:

I find it odd that nobody is making a bigger deal of Wikileaks and Trump's ties to Russian espionage during a Presidential election.  Or that he won't show his taxes.  Or that this could be an elaborate presentation to investors to begin a hard right wing media empire.

Plenty of people are making a big deal of it. It's just that they've gotten tired of repeating themselves.

And Trump himself regularly distracts people from hammering more on those things, because something new and outrageous gets the headlines every day, rather than anyone being able to revisit those issues and explore them more.

58 minutes ago, ebk57 said:

that asshole Assange)

Remember when people tried to pose Assange as some kind of freedom fighter?  Ugh.

[ChromaKelly]

16 minutes ago, Landsnark said:

I find it odd that nobody is making a bigger deal of Wikileaks and Trump's ties to Russian espionage during a Presidential election.  Or that he won't show his taxes.  Or that this could be an elaborate presentation to investors to begin a hard right wing media empire.
Is it just me, or is one side of the race to be President relying upon exposing stolen private communications via the intelligence arm of an enemy of the state?  "This election's rigged."  Indeed.

I would LOVE to see the RNC's emails. If they think Democrats are going to get all outraged about the latest bombshell "Hillary doesn't care about poor people!!!!", let's see what the RNC leadership has to say about their voters and their candidate.

[starri]

2 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Remember when people tried to pose Assange as some kind of freedom fighter?  Ugh.

It also bothers me how often people confuse Wikileaks with Snowden.  I don't like Snowden either, and I'm sure that he didn't release every scrap of information he had, because he had to hold some back for Russia.  But at least he leaked to actual journalists, and didn't just dump everything onto the internet, getting people killed.

And that's not even touching the Chelsea Manning issue.  I think the way she's being treated in prison is deplorable, but she's still where she should be.

[NewDigs]

5 hours ago, Padma said:

Why don't Democratic surrogates hit back harder on this hack of a private citizen's email by Russian intelligence and Julian Assange in order to influence the outcome of our election? 

I have asked this same type question for many many years and the only thing I can come up with is that Dems are wusses. (I are one) 

And then I say it's 'cuz we're too polite or too nice or we don't want to fight dirty like "them" or something ridiculous I dunnowhat.

But I usually end up yelling, FIGHT!!!, quite often during elections. Isn't anything new, imho.

[Spartan Girl]

I'm getting sick of people say "I want a woman as president, just not Hillary." Maybe she isn't ideal, but we can't afford to be picky this year.

My two cents. While Hillary isn't a saint, she isn't Satan either. If she's our first woman President, so be it.

[atomationage]

I had my lunch at an outdoor cafe.  There's a Chase Bank next door.  A very large vehicle pulls up at the bank, parks on top of the curb, in a no parking zone, and a man in some kind of uniform shirt walks into the bank.  I thought that was pretty weird.  (He wasn't from Brinks or anything.)   I thought about calling the local police department after a while.  He was in the bank for at least ten minutes, while his vehicle was parked blocking the sidewalk and entrance, and then came out and left.   A while later another man with the same uniform shirt walked into the bank from where his vehicle was parked legally,  spent two minutes in the bank, and went back to where his vehicle was parked, and left, all in less time than the other man spent parked over the curb.  There are people who think they're entitled somehow to more, are less considerate of others, and don't care at all what anyone thinks of them.  To me, this is the difference between a Drumpf voter and a Hillary voter.  When this bombing occurred in North Carolina, I thought, that's deplorable.  Who would do something like that?  Someone who thinks they're entitled to do whatever they want, doesn't care about others, and doesn't care what others think of them.   People who care, care, and people who don't care, don't care. 

[HumblePi]

If you've ever wondered why Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks who sought asylum from prosecution in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and still lives in a small room there is trying to influence our election by trying to destroy Hillary Clinton, this article might shed some light on all of it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-11/how-julian-assange-turned-wikileaks-into-trump-s-best-friend

Second article, the Ecuadorian Embassy cut Assange's internet access today.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37680411

I had to edit because I just saw a clip of Donald Trump raging at his rally about this election being rigged. Now he sounds like a man out of control and out of touch with reality. I'll go out on a limb to say that there is absolutely nothing that this man will not do to get himself elected or disrupt and destroy the entire election process. He's gone off the rails completely and he's simply a really a dangerous man.

Edited October 17, 2016 by HumblePi

[BoogieBurns]

I put this in the Drumpf thread, but if we discuss the Hillary portion of it here, I think it's worth putting in both places without being redundant. 

[backformore]

Anyone feeling the urge to go shopping for pantsuits?   As an older woman, I am liking Hillary's fashion choices.  

[Kitty Redstone]

Seriously, you can't beat a fashionable pair of pants.  In the nearly two decades since I left soul-crushing office work behind (hallelujah!) to work for myself, I've worn a skirt or dress exactly two times. 

[starri]

Oh, what the hell:

For 25 years, an entire industry has sprung up around bashing Hillary Clinton, often taking contradictory positions.  She's a weak woman, she's a ball buster.  We don't like her hair, her clothing.  She's too liberal, she's too conservative.  She apparently has to be held to standards no one else has.  Ann Richards said it best "Backwards in heels."  Twice the work for half the credit.

All that, and she still came out on top.  I may not agree with 100% of her positions, but I find that incredibly admirable.

[BoogieBurns]

6 hours ago, starri said:

often taking contradictory positions

Yeah they did. Seeing as "No stamina" and "never gives up" were both ways her opponent described her within about 10 days. Women have to be everything to everyone.

Edited October 18, 2016 by BoogieBurns