Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 6 of 46
second
So, as I understand your argument (via Krugman), the defining difference between Hillary and Bernie, which is supposed to sway my vote, is their difference on the soda tax. And if I don't agree that it's a most valuable distinction it's because I'm stuck in a mistaken 'Hillary is evil' mindset. (Also, is quoting Krugman your 'appeal to authority'?)
Well, Hillary IS evil. I'd say bombing a previously stable Libya into a failed state full of despotic wannabes and jihadis, fomenting a coup against a democratically elected Ukrainian government, and running arms out of Libya and to ISIS in Syria count as evil. Wouldn't you?
And no, the soda tax distinction isn't enough of a reason for me to give Hillary my vote.
So, let me ask again: in light of her on-the-record evilness, which she's neither renounced nor modified, why should I vote FOR Hillary? What about my future with Hillary is so awesome that I should rethink my evaluation of her?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is no reason for you to vote for Hillary. There is an itty-bitty reason for the Democratic party (by that I mean everyone but you) to pick Hillary: Bernie can't win the general election.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
second
So, let me ask again: in light of her on-the-record evilness, which she's neither renounced nor modified, why should I vote FOR Hillary? What about my future with Hillary is so awesome that I should rethink my evaluation of her?
Two days from now, after five more states have voted on the Democratic nominee, and Bernie wins only 2 states, there will be further proof that Bernie can't win in November. If Bernie can't convince Democrats to vote for him as nominee, how will he possibly win votes in November from people who are not Democrats?
The more interesting question is why Lincoln Chafee (D), Lawrence Lessig (D), Martin O'Malley (D), Jim Webb (D) could not beat evil Hillary? https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2016
1,691 candidates had filed a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission. And yet it all boils down to Bernie vs Hillary. That those two are the last two left standing surely means the Democratic Party is seriously screwed up. It is contest between Mr Can't Win Bernie and Ms Evil Hillary.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is an itty-bitty reason for the Democratic party (by that I mean everyone but you) to pick Hillary: Bernie can't win the general election. meow! personal, much?
Here's the problem. Hillary can't win on the democratic vote alone even if every democrat voted for her.
Add to that her majority disapproval rating, generally running above 55%. (btw that was something she earned all by her lonesome, without Bernie, or Donald, or Teddy helping her along.) That disapproval is a large enough number to encompass every registered republican (23%) and still have another 22%+ left over to scatter between between independents (39%) and democrats (32%). http://www.people-press.org/topics/political-party-affiliation/
And scatter it has.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-result
s/2016/04/sanders-supporters-not-vote-clinton-221642
Poll: 1 in 4 Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/33-percent-of-bernie-sanders
-not-vote-hillary_b_9475626.html
33 Percent of Bernie Sanders Supporters Will Not Vote for Hillary Clinton. Here’s Why
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-supporters-wont-vot
e-hillary_us_56d7571ae4b0871f60edb9fe
Don’t Assume Bernie Sanders Supporters Will Back Hillary Clinton If She’s The Nominee
Among democrats, the Bernie/ Hillary split is about 7%, in other words, if that percentage of people changed their vote it would be an even draw. So while it may be an insurmountable percentage in electoral terms in the primaries, Bernie represents a HUGE percentage of democrats, roughly 43%. This is NOTHING like Nader's 3% 'spoiler' run as a Green Party candidate. This is the party split almost in half.
The end result is that - while you claim Bernie can't win - the fact is neither can Hillary. Her disapproval rating is biting her among independents and democrats, exactly where she needs support in order to win.
So the question remains - why should I, and the millions of people like me, vote FOR her?
ETA: This would be the time for Hillary to make some significant policy concessions, if not for the sake of the party, then for the sake of her political career. I predict she won't. And I think the reasons will have to do with some combination of her arrogance and the fact she's deeply beholden to powerful interests that she can't cross. Not if she wants to keep the dollars rolling in at least.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'd say you should not vote, during the primary, for Hillary. I did not vote for her in the Texas Democratic primary. I did not vote at all. During the general election, you and your millions might consider voting for Hillary so that the Republicans don't place another Scalia on the Supreme Court.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So the question remains - why should I, and the millions of people like me, vote FOR her?
Also: Stocks Do SO Much Better Under Democrats
http://andrewtobias.com/column/stocks-do-so-much-better-under-democrat
s/
"Stock market performance seems to confirm that, over time, and in broad strokes, one governing philosophy serves most of us better than the other."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
What, if anything, is factually wrong with the article? I wouldn't put it past you, "G"ONEOFTHETHREESTOOGES, to have gone thru all of the points in Paul Craig Roberts'* article and to ignore all of the provable supportive facts that you found, and the additional muck that you dug up, simply to focus on the most trivial and least supported. Because ... Hillary! ... yanno? - SIGNY
Wrong as usual. You spend so much effort posting and quoting what is known or is old news or old speculation - do you have evidence apart from web articles? Most every one of those so called facts, is either well known or simply well repeated. Repeated enough for folks like you who dislike her (maybe hate?) to re-repeat them and feel like you're in-the-know. Sorry, John Paul Thomas is nothing special, just another amateur poli 'Net wonk wanna be. Your husband maybe?= ONEOFTHETREESTOOGES
Oh meow.
Quote:No, that's the point of YOUR post.
Wait ... wha ...? You're attacking a man because of HIS NAME???
How about ...
Martin Luther King? Gosh, with such a hyperbolic name, I guess he had nothing worthwhile to say!
James Earl Jones? Couldn't have been much of an actor!
George Walker Bush Sounds like some hick from Bumfuk Kentucky. Couldn't have gotten very far in his life!
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Gosh, with a name like that, I'll bet he was given to hyperbole too. He might have even said something exaggerated like We have nothing to fear but fear itself. What a twit [FDR must have been]!
You have plumbed the depths of "nothing rational to say", ONEOFTHETHREESTOOGES. You suck as a source of reasonable discussion, but you're sometimes a hoot! - SIGNY
Come on Beavis, it's right there in front of you. Right. There. You even point it out! PCR wants us to think of him as a great thinker, a great something, in the same league as the other famous people you mentioned. Wait, wasn't that the point of your post? His conceit?
Quote:
I love this:
ONEOFTHETRHEESTOOGES: Did Hillary not call President Vladimir Putin of Russia the “new Hitler”?
SIGNY: Well, not exactly! What she did was compare what Hitler did to what Putin did!
Yep, and doesn't that comparison ring true? Doesn't that shock you a little? Aren't you concerned that Dick Willy Johnson shows little regard for the facts, and prefers spin? Of course it doesn't! That's where you live! You don't care about the truth, just if you can use it and bend it and fake it. Swears, you should be in politics with these other lying frauds.
So, speaking of lying frauds, in a thread about Hillary, you've spent most of your time dissing Paul Craig Roberts.
First, you start with his name.
His NAME??? What makes you think he chose it? Triple-barreled names are common in the south, and PCR was born in Georgia. He's probably been called by three names as soon as they stopped calling him "sweetie-ums" and other baby-endearments. You ASSUME that his name says something about his self-importance and try to use it against him.
You call this information "old news". Well DUH! Yes, it is HILLARY'S RECORD, which goes back years, even decades.
You call these facts "well known".
Then you try to claim that these same facts are simply "well-repeated" by those sites which "hate" Hillary - you know, sites like Investopedia and CNN.
You think they we should reject the entire internet across the entire ideological spectrum because it's just the internet. You- who thumps Twitter as some sort of reliable source.
In addition, you say that PCR's description Hillary calling Putin "Hitler" is an exaggeration, and therefore it compromises his entire article . You've made that point over several posts: PCR exaggerated about that, and therefore everything he says about Hillary is false.
But then, you turn around and support that same statement as not onl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bernie Sanders campaign put out a statement tonight that, for the first time, implicitly admits what delegate-counters have been saying for a few weeks now — he's not going to be the nominee.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There is an itty-bitty reason for the Democratic party (by that I mean everyone but you) to pick Hillary: Bernie can't win the general election. meow! personal, much?
Quote:
"I congratulate Secretary Clinton on her victories tonight, and I look forward to issue-oriented campaigns in the 14 contests to come.
I am proud that we were able to win a resounding victory tonight in Rhode Island, the one state with an open primary where independents had a say in the outcome. Democrats should recognize that the ticket with the best chance of winning this November must attract support from independents as well as Democrats. I am proud of my campaign’s record in that regard.
The people in every state in this country should have the right to determine who they want as president and what the agenda of the Democratic Party should be. That’s why we are in this race until the last vote is cast. That is why this campaign is going to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform that calls for a $15 an hour minimum wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies, a Medicare-for-all health care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities tuition free and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the planetary crisis of climate change."
This amounts to a savvy, classy way to begin winding down a campaign that was much more successful than anyone expected it to be but still quite far from actually winning. Sanders is staying in the race and giving his supporters something to vote for, thus giving his operation something to continue organizing around.
The reality, however, is that while the text of the platform is a good focal point it's not especially important in the grand scheme of things. The real test for the political revolution's lasting impact will be whether Bernie and Bernie's supporters can help Bernie-style candidates win downballot races and influence the composition of Democratic caucuses in congress and state legislatures.
www.vox.com/2016/4/26/11515050/bernie-sanders-admits-its-over
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"During the general election, you and your millions might consider voting for Hillary so that the Republicans don't place another Scalia on the Supreme Court."
So it comes down to voting against Donald, rather than FOR Hillary. I don't think I need to do that. Hillary has one superb weapon - people are running away from Donald faster than they are from her. Besides California is reliably democrat-voting. So my expectation is that Hillary will get enough California votes to beat Trump in California. My hope is that she doesn't get more.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting. Hillary's negatives among Bernie supporters get more negative:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-seeking-votes-party-unity-
in-five-northeastern-states-1461713498
Polling suggests the party is becoming less unified, not more. In March, 78% of Democratic primary voters said they would be satisfied if Mrs. Clinton were the nominee. In April, that fell to 73%, according to Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling. Asked if they could see themselves supporting Mrs. Clinton for president, just 58% of Sanders primary voters said yes, with 40% saying no, according to the April poll.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I look forward to many more Republican Presidents being elected in the 21st Century because Democrats can't remember how terrible all previous Republicans were while they can remember how terrible the Democratic candidate is.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Polling suggests the party is becoming less unified, not more. In March, 78% of Democratic primary voters said they would be satisfied if Mrs. Clinton were the nominee. In April, that fell to 73%, according to Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling. Asked if they could see themselves supporting Mrs. Clinton for president, just 58% of Sanders primary voters said yes, with 40% saying no, according to the April poll.
And that is why Republicans eventually bounce back even after disastrous Presidents such as Nixon or Reagan or Bush 2 and Democrats do NOT bounce back even after adequate Presidents like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or maybe Obama. There is a very real possibility Obama will not be replaced by another Democrat because Democrats disappointed with Obama want Bernie and won’t take less. The Democrats are always looking for the "best" candidate (a Nader or a Bernie) and Republicans will vote for any damn Republican. That is why the country keeps getting Republican presidents with their disastrous policies.
www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/disaster-of-richard-nixon/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
G-STOOGE, you just lied through an entire post. Too bad you can't quote yourself to demonstrate your points. Wow. A poster who can't even quote itself about what it said. That's quite a novelty. In fact, I think it's the first time I've ever seen that here, and that's saying something.
Well done!
Oh, and just as an aside... I'm not about to get into an extended argument about the various ways that you lied about what you yourself said. Since you can't be bothered to stand behind your own words, what's the point?
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME