Hillary Clinton is the worst
Pages: 12
So 4 years ago I was blown away at how terrible of a candidate Mitt Romney was. He was basically like a cartoon caricature of every single negative Republican stereotype.
Now I look at Hillary Clinton and all I can see is another cartoon caricature. This time, of political corruption.
Let me clear this up... I am a far-left liberal nutjob. I want public funded healthcare, I think we should cut back on military, I think we need to increase taxes on corporate America, same-sex marriage should be legal in all 50 states, I'm pro-choice, I think we should raise minimum wage, etc. If you can think of a political topic, I am probably leaning left on it.
That said... if Clinton wins the primary, I'm probably going to vote Republican.
Why? Because SHE'S THE WORST.
The single biggest problem in the country right now is political corruption. It's bigger than healthcare, bigger than the economy, and bigger than education. The reason why it's bigger is because it's the main hindrance in our ability to address any of those problems in an efficient and practical manner.... or even at all, in some cases.
We need to take money out of the political process. Or at least reduce it greatly. Especially from special interest lobbies, and power grubbing billionaires like the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson. Clinton will do nothing to address this problem. In fact, she will increase it many times over.
She says she wants to take money out of politics, but at the same time she is raising staggering amounts of money for her campaign. I read somewhere that she is coming close to raising more than any candidate in history ever (though I did not confirm that, so take it for what it's worth).
Worse, she shafts transparency efforts. When confronted about her own campaign funding, she routinely dodges the question.
Even this semi-recent scandal with her using the wrong email when acting as the secretary of state. It's just another example of her being weasely and avoiding public scrutiny. She's done this kind of thing throughout her entire career. It's why her attempt at health care reform (when she was first lady) didn't go anywhere -- she tried to do everything behind closed doors.
So in contrast... when I look at a candidate like Rick Santorum... yeah he's kind of a douche. Yeah he's completely socially regressive... yeah he's a bigot... and yeah he's a religious zealot. But despite all of that, he's relatively harmless. Any damage he could do as president would not only be plainly visible to everyone, but would be very easily undone.
I'll use same-sex marriage as an example. That's a thing. It's happening no matter how hard people like Santorum fight it. It's just natural social progression. So if Santorum gets elected... yeah he'll be able to slow it's progress... but as soon as his term ends, so will all of his resistance.
Clinton, on the other hand, could (and I'm thoroughly convinced would) do tremendous amounts of damage. Worse, it'd be damage that we never see or hear about. Things that would persist long after her term has ended, and would be tremendously difficult to undo.
So yeah. Clinton is the worst.
If you're blue -- vote for Sanders in the primary. He's the most reasonable candidate around right now. But really at this point it's "anyone but Clinton".
Now I look at Hillary Clinton and all I can see is another cartoon caricature. This time, of political corruption.
Let me clear this up... I am a far-left liberal nutjob. I want public funded healthcare, I think we should cut back on military, I think we need to increase taxes on corporate America, same-sex marriage should be legal in all 50 states, I'm pro-choice, I think we should raise minimum wage, etc. If you can think of a political topic, I am probably leaning left on it.
That said... if Clinton wins the primary, I'm probably going to vote Republican.
Why? Because SHE'S THE WORST.
The single biggest problem in the country right now is political corruption. It's bigger than healthcare, bigger than the economy, and bigger than education. The reason why it's bigger is because it's the main hindrance in our ability to address any of those problems in an efficient and practical manner.... or even at all, in some cases.
We need to take money out of the political process. Or at least reduce it greatly. Especially from special interest lobbies, and power grubbing billionaires like the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson. Clinton will do nothing to address this problem. In fact, she will increase it many times over.
She says she wants to take money out of politics, but at the same time she is raising staggering amounts of money for her campaign. I read somewhere that she is coming close to raising more than any candidate in history ever (though I did not confirm that, so take it for what it's worth).
Worse, she shafts transparency efforts. When confronted about her own campaign funding, she routinely dodges the question.
Even this semi-recent scandal with her using the wrong email when acting as the secretary of state. It's just another example of her being weasely and avoiding public scrutiny. She's done this kind of thing throughout her entire career. It's why her attempt at health care reform (when she was first lady) didn't go anywhere -- she tried to do everything behind closed doors.
So in contrast... when I look at a candidate like Rick Santorum... yeah he's kind of a douche. Yeah he's completely socially regressive... yeah he's a bigot... and yeah he's a religious zealot. But despite all of that, he's relatively harmless. Any damage he could do as president would not only be plainly visible to everyone, but would be very easily undone.
I'll use same-sex marriage as an example. That's a thing. It's happening no matter how hard people like Santorum fight it. It's just natural social progression. So if Santorum gets elected... yeah he'll be able to slow it's progress... but as soon as his term ends, so will all of his resistance.
Clinton, on the other hand, could (and I'm thoroughly convinced would) do tremendous amounts of damage. Worse, it'd be damage that we never see or hear about. Things that would persist long after her term has ended, and would be tremendously difficult to undo.
So yeah. Clinton is the worst.
If you're blue -- vote for Sanders in the primary. He's the most reasonable candidate around right now. But really at this point it's "anyone but Clinton".
| Unfortunately I highly doubt that Hillary will not win the primary. |
voooooooooote
The primary vote is the most important vote.
Bernie Sanders 2016!
The primary is the only time that your president-related vote means nothing more than bragging rights. So Disch is right when he says it's the most important.
That being said, I Stand With Rand!
That being said, I Stand With Rand!
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
I vote for whichever candidate is most likely to leave me the &$#% alone. Obviously, against our current socialist in office that forced me (peak health, against all forms of medication, will not go to hospital unless they carry me in unconscious), to purchase outrageous health insurance. Seriously...I could think of massively better ways to invest that $9,000 that I was forced to give away over the past two years.
Vote self sufficient, 2016.
Vote self sufficient, 2016.
| Luke Leber wrote: |
|---|
| I vote for whichever candidate is most likely to leave me the &$#% alone. |
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/05/31/rand-paul-patriot-act-deadline.cnn
| Obviously, against our current socialist in office that forced me (peak health, against all forms of medication, will not go to hospital unless they carry me in unconscious), to purchase outrageous health insurance. Seriously...I could think of massively better ways to invest that $9,000 that I was forced to give away over the past two years. |
What state do you live in?
A lot of states refused federal funding for the ACA which passed costs to the consumer. If that was the case in your state, then the blame lies more with your governer than it does with Obama.
That said I agree that the ACA is terrible legislation and take the exact wrong approach to the healthcare problem.
Also, I'm not sure you know what a socialist is. If you did, you wouldn't sling it like an insult, nor would you refer to Obama as one (he clearly isn't)
I will vote, but I highly doubt it will make any sort of difference.
I'm almost willing to bet that Hillary will win the election. It is because she is something we never had in office before- a woman. Regardless of what she does she probably will end up becoming president whether we like it or not, simply because of progressive voters whose zealousy has deprived them of any sort of reason.
While I do wish someone would prove me wrong, I doubt they will. I know that I am being pretty pessimistic, but that is just how it is.
I'm almost willing to bet that Hillary will win the election. It is because she is something we never had in office before- a woman. Regardless of what she does she probably will end up becoming president whether we like it or not, simply because of progressive voters whose zealousy has deprived them of any sort of reason.
While I do wish someone would prove me wrong, I doubt they will. I know that I am being pretty pessimistic, but that is just how it is.
Last edited on
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| Also, I'm not sure you know what a socialist is. If you did, you wouldn't sling it like an insult, nor would you refer to Obama as one (he clearly isn't) |
| Dictionary wrote: |
|---|
| An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. |
| SLP wrote: |
|---|
| Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization. |
An attempt to take over / compete with the health insurance industry on a federal level is a fairly obvious sign. They still won by proxy by forcing everyone to buy some form of insurance...so like meta-socialism. Wonder how many health insurance companies are in bed with the federal government now.
Last edited on
| An attempt to take over / compete with the health insurance industry on a federal level is a fairly obvious sign. |
That's the only thing he's done that's even remotely socialist. And he wasn't even successful.
What's more, his original ACA proposal amounted to little more than expanding programs that were already in place (like Medicare/Medicaid).
| Wonder how many health insurance companies are in bed with the federal government now. |
You can thank Republicans for that. It wasn't until they started screaming "expanding medicare will destroy private insurance companies" and other nonsensical bullshit, like Obama having "death panels" that the ACA changed to be the pile of shit it is now.
And I totally agree with you. The ACA is shit. It's terrible, terrible legislature.
A 100% pure government funded, single payer, health program (like most of the rest of the civilized world has) would have been much, much better. But Rep's would never let that fly.
closed account (Gvp9LyTq)
@Luke
Don't you think your application of the definition of Socialism is a little too loose to be useful? When you apply a definition that loosely almost anyone can be called a socialist.
I am not saying you can't call the President a socialist using your logic--I am saying that it isn't a useful name because it provides almost no way to differentiate him from almost all US politicians. Most politicians in the US support some government social services.
Just try and find a politician in this the US who wants to end Social Security or Medicare.
The reason nobody is running against Hilliary is the same reason that nobody serious ran against Mitt. The election is a bad one for Democrats (In Mitts case it was a bad year for Republicans). If Hilliary is elected it will be because of incompetence among the Republicans.
Still Hillary might win when her husband ran against Bush nobody thought Bush could be beaten. But Bill ran a good campaign. Being a life long Democrat I found Bill offensive because he really was just a Republican in with a Democratic campaign pin. I believe the main reason that Republicans hated him was because he out beat them using their game plans: Deregulation, Welfare Reform and Free Trade.
Don't you think your application of the definition of Socialism is a little too loose to be useful? When you apply a definition that loosely almost anyone can be called a socialist.
I am not saying you can't call the President a socialist using your logic--I am saying that it isn't a useful name because it provides almost no way to differentiate him from almost all US politicians. Most politicians in the US support some government social services.
Just try and find a politician in this the US who wants to end Social Security or Medicare.
The reason nobody is running against Hilliary is the same reason that nobody serious ran against Mitt. The election is a bad one for Democrats (In Mitts case it was a bad year for Republicans). If Hilliary is elected it will be because of incompetence among the Republicans.
Still Hillary might win when her husband ran against Bush nobody thought Bush could be beaten. But Bill ran a good campaign. Being a life long Democrat I found Bill offensive because he really was just a Republican in with a Democratic campaign pin. I believe the main reason that Republicans hated him was because he out beat them using their game plans: Deregulation, Welfare Reform and Free Trade.
Last edited on
| The reason nobody is running against Hilliary |
Ahem. Bernie Sanders.
| The election is a bad one for Democrats |
Ahem. Bernie Sanders is the best Dem candidate in decades.
closed account (Gvp9LyTq)
I always vote because where I live nobody knows how you vote, but if you voted can be found out. And if you want be taken seriously by a politician your name should be on the list that votes.
That said I'll probably not vote Hillary in the primaries because I don't think she is a good Democrat, if she gets the nomination I'll vote for her. Because I'm philosophically against a party that consistently panders to single issue nut cases; i.e gun-nuts, racists states-rights people, gold-standard nitwits, English-only nuts, and old Cubans still pissed at Castro.
That said I'll probably not vote Hillary in the primaries because I don't think she is a good Democrat, if she gets the nomination I'll vote for her. Because I'm philosophically against a party that consistently panders to single issue nut cases; i.e gun-nuts, racists states-rights people, gold-standard nitwits, English-only nuts, and old Cubans still pissed at Castro.
Last edited on
| Just try and find a politician in this the US who wants to end Social Security or Medicare. |
Or police
Or fire dept
Or public education
Or any other of the dozens/hundreds of social programs the US has had since day 1 of it's creation.
Socialism became some kind of slur somehow -- when really the US has always had socialist aspects to it.
Last edited on
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| That's the only thing he's done that's even remotely socialist. |
Take a peek at all of the attempted legislation aimed at the BATFE. Let's also not forget about SOPA and all of the other attempts to regulate the internet...and his unwillingness to scrap the patriot act. Those are the most publicized, but are only the tip of the iceberg.
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| And he wasn't even successful. |
WHAT!?! Then I want my $13,500 back next year on my tax return.
| gennny wrote: |
|---|
| I am not saying you can't call the President a socialist using your logic--I am saying that it isn't a useful name because it provides almost no way to differentiate him from almost all US politicians. |
Both republicans and democrats are making big government more intrusive and worse for anyone who isn't looking for a free handout. It's just that the republican party is going about it slower.
| gennny wrote: |
|---|
| i.e gun-nuts, racists states-rights people, gold-standard nitwits, English-only nuts, and old Cubans still pissed at Castro |
Let's not forget the nuts that think adding an instant, mandatory $4,500 / person annual "tax" for healthcare while not significantly raising minimum wage is unjustified. Those people must be right-wing nut-jobs.
if possible, try not to take personal offence to anything above
* also, since I really don't follow much in the news, are there currently any candidates that are for forcing unemployed bums receiving federal/state funded handouts to work? that would override everything and earn my vote.
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| Or police Or fire dept Or public education Or any other of the dozens/hundreds of social programs the US has had since day 1 of it's creation. |
I don't believe that police, fire departments, or public education (?) are under direct federal regulation. *there may be some rules passed down, but state and local levels have nearly infinite potential for customization.
Are we all on the same page here talking about "Federal Socialism"? State business is state business as far as I'm concerned. Strictly, "Socialism" must exist in one form or another to avoid anarchy. Socialist programs are best suited for the most granularity that can be afforded. (IE local police departments where the officer actually lives in and cares about the community that he or she is protecting).
Last edited on
closed account (Gvp9LyTq)
| luke wrote: |
|---|
| Let's not forget the nuts that think adding an instant, mandatory $4,500 / person annual "tax" for healthcare while not significantly raising minimum wage is unjustified. Those people must be right-wing nut-jobs. |
Those people would be nuts, although, I personally have never heard of someone who both supports the ACA and is against raising the minimum wage.
In the circles I run in, which are pretty liberal*, most people that take the position that the Republican compromise was a mistake and we should have held out for single payer.
*Yes, I know I am using liberal wrong but in the US everyone uses liberal wrong--to the point that liberal doesn't mean liberal here.
Edit: Luke I mis-read unjustified as justified. I have to say I now don't understand your point.
Last edited on
| Luke wrote: |
|---|
| Take a peek at all of the attempted legislation aimed at the BATFE. Let's also not forget about SOPA and all of the other attempts to regulate the internet...and his unwillingness to scrap the patriot act. Those are the most publicized, but are only the tip of the iceberg. |
Erm... SOPA didn't pass because he threatened to veto it if it did. I would not put that one on the President.
I'd say who I'd vote for, but since I can't vote, it doesn't really matter (can't vote if you're not a citizen, even if you lived here for 18 years because believe it or not the immigration system is so horribly broken that it can take, depending on the case, 21 years from moving to the country to getting citizenship).
Last edited on
| I'd say who I'd vote for, but since I can't vote, it doesn't really matter (can't vote if you're not a citizen, even if you lived here for 18 years because believe it or not the immigration system is so horribly broken that it can take, depending on the case, 21 years from moving to the country to getting citizenship). |
+1 (10 years here)
I'm so glad Obama keeps saying he is going to fix immigration though *ahem*.
From what I see Clinton is going to lose just from the email scandal which I find kind of strange, is that really the best thing people can complain about.
Last edited on
Pages: 12