or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Hillary will be the next POTUS - Page 97

post #1441 of 3334

Ok. So we know Hillary is a crook. I'm voting for the D. Who is with me? 

post #1442 of 3334
how exactly is she a crook? cheryl mills? sidney blumenthal? possibility that the clinton foundation influenced state department policies? the speeches to wall street she got paid for? debbie wasserman trying to get hillary nominated? using personal email servers? not hiring enough security at Benghazi and then initially talking about how they thought a video might have caused protests that lead to the attack?

did i miss anything?

most of these accusations went through years of investigations by the opposing party who didnt find enough substantial evidence to indict her. and in the end investigations dont matter because she's already seen as guilty to people who dont like her to begin with. if she's found guilty, then she should get indicted. if she's found innocent then it's a vast corrupt conspiracy from the powers that be. how exactly is your hypothesis ever falsifiable then? seems like to you it doesn't matter if there's evidence or facts or not. she's just guilty no matter what.

just calling her crooked doesnt make her crooked. never attribute to malice when stupidity would suffice
post #1443 of 3334
Hey this is exactly the same logic large corporations are using, as long as profit from breaking the law exceeds repercussions we r going to break the law and collect the proceeds.
Hillary fully embraced this model.
We are talking about a person who breaks the law knowingly and calculates risk/reward ratio each time. This election will tell if her calculations were accurate enough for her to slither through the process and get herself elected.

Let's assume for a second that Clinton is ignorant of laws and regulations and (according to FBI) was doing everything unintentionally and without premeditation (if one can believe that), then she is unfit to be in the office by virtue of her incompetence.

Besides her obvious inclinations to take money from anyone who offers we can conclude from her recent dealings that in her 30+ years in political sphere she remained completely ignorant and incompetent in the most basic things like national security, taking appropriate action or risk assessment.

If anyone is unfit for public office it is a person who occupied public office and demonstrated complete lack of forethought, ethics, honesty or accomplishments.
post #1444 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post
 

 

Isn't that how the world works?  Big donations always buy influence. 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Medwed View Post


No the "World" does not work like this, American politics do.

 

It's amusing when children pretend to be adults

post #1445 of 3334
Watch your "life experience "privilege
post #1446 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post


Did you read his comment? He says the Wakefield paper wasn't retracted until later. He didn't say there wasnt conclusive evidence that it was wrong before then

 

Did YOU read MY comment?  I said the Wakefield paper was REFUTED in 1999.  HE is the one who played word games.  Why not go after him, when I am the one who spoke truthfully?

post #1447 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post

Did YOU read MY comment?  I said the Wakefield paper was REFUTED in 1999.  HE is the one who played word games.  Why not go after him, when I am the one who spoke truthfully?

I read your comment. You're trying to make the point that the Wakefield paper was refuted extremely early and thus that when Clinton and Obama have vague answers as to their position on autism and vaccines they're simply pandering to the masses which is the same thing Trump is being accused of and therefore they're lying crooked politicians (as an aside disregarding the hypocrisy doesn't that make Trump also a lying crooked politician?)

But he didn't say anything about Wakefield being refuted only about when it was retracted. We all know Wakefield was disputed since the beginning. He was trying to make the point that there was still enough out there to have people not in the scientific community have lingering doubts. As an example he talked about how the Wakefield paper wasn't refuted until much much later.

Does the conversation make much sense to you now? Or do I have to explain in a much simpler manner
post #1448 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post

Did YOU read MY comment?  I said the Wakefield paper was REFUTED in 1999.  HE is the one who played word games.  Why not go after him, when I am the one who spoke truthfully?

It's not a word game. It's the difference between a disagreement within the scientific literature, and a paper being declared fraudulent.

There's a huge difference in public perception. The non-expert community could look at the subject prior to 2009 and think there was still some discussion, not being experts and all. After it was officially withdrawn, that wasn't a plausible conclusion any longer. It was a major turning point in the public discussion, even if it was simply tracking the conclusions the experts had made years earlier.
post #1449 of 3334
Thread Starter 
Sorry, Obama and Hillary were pandering re: vaccines. Just like gay marriage. It's okay, they all do it, it just hurts more when some people do it.
post #1450 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

Hey this is exactly the same logic large corporations are using, as long as profit from breaking the law exceeds repercussions we r going to break the law and collect the proceeds.
Hillary fully embraced this model.
We are talking about a person who breaks the law knowingly and calculates risk/reward ratio each time. This election will tell if her calculations were accurate enough for her to slither through the process and get herself elected.

Let's assume for a second that Clinton is ignorant of laws and regulations and (according to FBI) was doing everything unintentionally and without premeditation (if one can believe that), then she is unfit to be in the office by virtue of her incompetence.

Besides her obvious inclinations to take money from anyone who offers we can conclude from her recent dealings that in her 30+ years in political sphere she remained completely ignorant and incompetent in the most basic things like national security, taking appropriate action or risk assessment.

If anyone is unfit for public office it is a person who occupied public office and demonstrated complete lack of forethought, ethics, honesty or accomplishments.

I dunno. To me if you're in charge of a very large organization with conflicting inputs of information and a severely limited budget you're going to have to make decisions that turn out to be wrong. This to me isn't sign of incompetence. In my view the level of mistakes Trump is going to make are on a whole nother playing field. We've "invested" enough in Clinton to have her see her mistakes and what she could improve on in the future. Bringing in an inexperienced antagonistic idealistic new candidate seems like a terrible move to me. Complete lack of foresight seems harsh to me. If out of the thousands of executive decisions you have to make in a day you have six or seven incidents that the opposing party is going to hit you with I feel like you've done a decent job

Trump would be the new guy at work with all these half baked ideas about how he's going to make things better and how he's going to change things only he has no clue about anything. Those tend to be the worse hires

The law is what it is. If you think the letter of the law doesn't follow the spirit elect some better people and help them write new legislature.

To me trump is a much bigger national security risk with greater proven incompetence

Basically one of the concerns you have is that Clinton is willing to whore her self out for money and you think once she's president it'll be the same beholdenness to outside interests. If you think that's true is Trump really any different? Dude whores his name out on anything that remotely smells like money. What exactly has he done that's so genuine and pure in intention? Dude has spend a few hundred thousand on his campaign and loaned several million to his campaign all the while hiring his own companies to take care of affairs.

My point is that if even if everything you've said turns somehow out to be true Trump is still worse and even less capable of doing a job because he's completely out of his field. How is he going to rally the senate or house or rally his core constituency to vote for representatives that support him in order to pass these legislation that are already impossible to implement? How is he going to handle foreign affairs that need the tact and awareness he has never displayed? How is he going to lead a country when he's only pandering to one specific part of the population (the "True Americans") and alienating the vast majority of the US? He's already alienated a huge portion of his own constituency. How much worse is it going to get? If Putin invades another country what is Trump going to do? Call him names? If Mexico and China don't do what he wants what's his first plan? Tweeting about it?

This is ludicrous to me that half my country supports this guy.

Have you even read anything substantive that isn't a talking point or sound bite by the Relpublicans?
post #1451 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

We all know Wakefield was disputed since the beginning. He was trying to make the point that there was still enough out there to have people not in the scientific community have lingering doubts. As an example he talked about how the Wakefield paper wasn't refuted until much much later.

Well, we can look it up. How many people outside the public health and immunology communities knew anything at all about Wakefield before 2007 or so? There was no public conversation about it, nor any reason for the non-expert community to know.

There wasn't any body of public knowledge, and it's not like people can just look this stuff up (I just checked, and I can't access the Lancet). You can Google all this stuff now, find a thousand articles about it. But when it first came up? You had to be an expert, or know which actual experts to trust.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Sorry, Obama and Hillary were pandering re: vaccines. Just like gay marriage. It's okay, they all do it, it just hurts more when some people do it.

So they were pandering. And? I don't see any reason to decry them as hypocrites or whatever Nick's point by bringing those quotes up just because they changed their stance over the course of a rapidly evolving public discussion. I'd have liked to see them have better knowledge or take a leading voice in the conversation in the early days (again, of discussion in the non-expert community), but I don't know that it's really reasonable to expect or demand that from a politician.
post #1452 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Lotus View Post

Ok. So we know Hillary is a crook. I'm voting for the D. Who is with me? 

Nobody is surprised you are voting for the D. You might end up splitting your vote with Greenfrog, though.
/Hroi
post #1453 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

To me trump is a much bigger national security risk with greater proven incompetence

This is ludicrous to me that half my country supports this guy.

There's the symbolic value of being the face of the country too. We really want Donald Trump representing the country? It's ludicrous enough seeing him represent Republicans, but I just cannot imagine watching the guy who is the face of my country go on a rant on Twitter because someone said something mean about him. Obama's one of the most respected world leaders (regardless of the supposed "humiliations" Trump seems to think we've been inflicted with), and that's something we'd lose immediately if Trump got elected.



Half the people who support him are seemingly doing it for the lulz or because they like the idea of a country where you can act like an asshole bully and not face scrutiny for it. Both of those are worrying. At least the Rust Belt people who have felt ignored by politics for 30 years have a legitimate beef with "the system," even if Trump doesn't really have any answers for them.
post #1454 of 3334
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

There wasn't any body of public knowledge, and it's not like people can just look this stuff up (I just checked, and I can't access the Lancet). You can Google all this stuff now, find a thousand articles about it. But when it first came up? You had to be an expert, or know which actual experts to trust.
So they were pandering. And? I don't see any reason to decry them as hypocrites or whatever Nick's point by bringing those quotes up just because they changed their stance over the course of a rapidly evolving public discussion. I'd have liked to see them have better knowledge or take a leading voice in the conversation in the early days (again, of discussion in the non-expert community), but I don't know that it's really reasonable to expect or demand that from a politician.

And nothing. It seems some folks here didn't want to believe this. That's fine. Just like gay marriage. Do we really think Obama was against it in 08? I don't.

So why are we arguing whether or not they're pandering? No idea.
post #1455 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Lotus View Post

Ok. So we know Hillary is a crook. I'm voting for the D. Who is with me? 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Nobody is surprised you are voting for the D. You might end up splitting your vote with Greenfrog, though.
/Hroi

Personally, if I can't find a way to rationalize tapping the C just to avoid the D, I'm probably (somewhat reluctantly) taking the Johnson.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS