Hillary Clinton is the worst

Pages: 12
gennny wrote:
Edit: Luke I mis-read unjustified as justified. I have to say I now don't understand your point.

Add another negation somewhere in there for the intended sarcasm and I believe you'll be set :)

* to clarify, the point was that you were missing 'opponents of "obama-care"' in your list of stereotypic right wing focal points.

Ispil wrote:
Erm... SOPA didn't pass because he threatened to veto it if it did. I would not put that one on the President.

Good call, I didn't follow SOPA or any of the others that popped up in the news because I really didn't think it would affect my personal browsing habits. The only people that I know it would negatively affect were pirates and those that border the lines of ethics. I'd say that I was more against it because of the premise that it would grant more power to the already overly-powerful federal layer of government.
Last edited on

What do you think about Elizabeth Warren? Would you vote for her if she ran?

Hillary lost before and she can lose again. I really don't think she's nearly as well liked as some people would have us believe.
Warren isn't running; she's already outright said that she won't.

As for SOPA, the problem is that the wording gave them the authority to close any website that hosted any copyright-infringing content. This means that a single copyright-infringing video on Youtube would get the entire site shut down permanently. It wasn't going to end well.
closed account (Gvp9LyTq)
luke wrote:
you were missing 'opponents of "obama-care"' in your list of stereotypic right wing focal points.

That's the problem. Being opposed to obama-care/ACA isn't crazy, nor an unreasonable position. And I don't fault the Republican party for taking this position. What bothers me is the pandering to single issue nut case voters because it wins primaries.

For the last part of the 19th century and the very beginning of 20th century Republicans were the progressive party in this country and democrats were the conservatives. Then the Republican party made its slow march towards conservative fiscal policy and rejecting social liberalism. Then the civil rights movement happened and southern democrats felt that their party (particularly northern democrats) did not support their "states rights" or more simply their rights to discriminate.

Then Nixon came along and pandered to these nut cases--and it worked for him. Since them it has been become a formula among Republicans pander to nut cases to win primaries and move to the center in the general elections. The only thing changing is now Republicans pander to more than just southern "states rights" nuts.

I believe this is why the Republicans can't get anything done even when they control both houses. Pandering to nut cases has left them incapable of passing legislation.
@Luke Leber:

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

I agree those are all shitty. But how are they socialist? Just because regulation exists does not mean it is socialsim.

Nixon created the EPA. Does that make him a socialist?

I'm not trying to defend Obama, here. I agree he's a lackluster president and has done more than a few really shitty things. My point is that the far right likes to associate the term "socialist" with "evil anit-american freedom hater".

WHAT!?! Then I want my $13,500 back next year on my tax return.

Obama was unsuccessful at socializing healthcare. What we have is now "privatized insurance is mandatory". And I completely agree, it's shitty. And makes the problem worse in just about every way imaginable.

Are we all on the same page here talking about "Federal Socialism"?

Probably not. I'm referring to Socialism in general, not necessarily on a federal level.

Fox News and similar forms of media today are painting "Socialism" in frame similar to what "Communism" was in the 80s. Calling Obama a socialist, whether or not that's true, is meant as an insult. It's supposed to be derogatory. When really, there's nothing about Socialism that is derogatory. It has its flaws, and it has its ways that it can be abused (like everything else), but that doesn't mean it's the spawn of all evil.

Things like police/public education/etc are government run social programs. Everyone pays into them, and whenever we need them we can just call on their services, receive them, and not be handed a bill afterwards.

Ideally, healthcare should be the same way. And while I agree with you that things like police and firefighting should be primarily handled on a local level, IMO things like education and healthcare should be handled on a federal level.

Healthcare in paricular isn't hard to accomplish in theory (in practice it's very difficult, but theoretically it's simple).

Medicare currently usually pays less for its services than private insurace companies do, since many hospitals bill themselves as non-profit, the government can actually analyze the cost of performing a specific medical procedure, include costs for medicine, wages, and administrative fees, and pay that dollar amount. Whereas private insurance companies have to pay whatever the hospital asks of them (which is often highly over-inflated -- don't ask me how that is legal, I still don't understand how it is)

So the solution here is to transition everyone over to medicare to bring costs of healthcare down. Costs would come out of increased taxes -- which is shitty -- but nobody would have to pay for private insurance anymore. And since medicare costs would be less than private insurance costs (not only because medicare has to pay less, but also because they don't have to turn a profit like private insurance does), people would end up with more take-home pay.

Granted I'm overly simplifying here, and there are downsides to that approach, but really I think it's the direction we need to start moving in. And good lord the ACA took us the exact wrong direction.

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.

The email scandal is simply the most recent and easiest to point to. Her questionable campaign finacing is another. And both of these things are indicitave of what Clinton is all about: She's a sleazy, corrupt politician who dodges accountability and public scrutiny every chance she gets.

What do you think about Elizabeth Warren? Would you vote for her if she ran?

I really like Warren. I like where her heart is at but whenever I hear her speeches they sound like empty rhetoric. I like that she gets on regulators ass and tells them to do their job. I like that she points out corruption when she finds it. But when it comes to her interviews, she always just spouts generic statements like "we need to work to help the middle class family". That's great and all, but what does that mean? How are you going to do that?

Bernie Sanders has a lot of the same ideas, but he actually has a plan. His public speeches and interviews are a lot more substantive.

The kind of things Warren is good at makes her better suited for the Legislative branch. I don't think she'd be super effective as president. And I think she knows that -- and I think that's why she didn't run. Which is another reason I really like her.

As for whether or not I'd vote for her? Probably. But it would depend on who else is running. It's hard to answer a hypothetical like that.
Last edited on
hello , I agree with @Disch, there is no democrat mainstream today who is close to be a socialist, they are liberal-centrists not really different from the republicans ; their disagreements are based on secondary issues ; the main lines of their politic same all same, maybe the last seen "socialist president" was Truman ; since, socialism totally disappeared from America (At least in the white-house).

Last edited on
Republicrats and Democans are just two sides of the same coin. It's a 1-party system playing two-card monte. That being said, I have no faith that a respectable republican or democrat candidate will run... The fact that a person so far left as you thinks Hillary Clinton is a scumbag shows just how far into the depths of hell we are diving... If this trend doesn't stop, this country will be in financial and social ruin.

That's all I have to say on this matter.
Last edited on
IWishIKnew wrote:
Republicrats and Democans are just two sides of the same coin. It's a 1-party system playing two-card monte.

Eh. There are some significant differences between the modern GOP and the Democratic party. Mainly... they both have a fundamentally different idea of how the government should operate in the economy. Reps say the government should stay out and let the free market and private business run its natural course, whereas Dems say the government needs to regulate to stop big business from running amok.

On top of that, Reps tend to be more extreme religious fundamentalists, which often causes them to be very socially regressive and kind of batshit crazy.

The one thing that's the same pretty much in both parties is that they're both pretty much totally corrupt. Though honestly the Reps seem to be more upfront and brazen about their corruption than the Dems are.

That being said, I have no faith that a respectable republican or democrat candidate will run...

Ahem. Bernie Sanders.

Best Dem candidate we've had in literally decades. Look him up. He's running.


Clinton doesn't have the Dem ticket yet. Sanders could still steal it, much like Obama stole it from her in 2008.

The fact that a person so far left as you thinks Hillary Clinton is a scumbag shows just how far into the depths of hell we are diving

I think you are letting your cynicism get the better of you. Just because we get a bad candidate now and then doesn't mean the country is falling apart.

Things are still fixable. We just have to get people in office who will actually fix them. Which is why people like Sanders and Warren who actively fight against political corruption are so important to get into office. And why we need to kick people like Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton who are so deep in other people's pockets to the curb.

Vote in the primary. It's important. The primary vote is waaaaaay more important than the general election vote.
I think Hillary Clinton will definitely win the primary, I'm not too crazy about her though. Other than that I have a few things to get off my chest.

1. The Republicans I have seen typically see anything other the capitalism as evil. Some type of system that may benefit most of Americans is socialist(universal health care).

2. Republicans want smaller government even when the 2008 recession was caused by assholes on Wall Street doing shady,unethical activities, in which the government didnt even know what to call it.(Now termed as credit default swaps). Oh and JP-Morgan was caught manipulating markets and had the nerve to tell Senator Warren how she doesn't know how the banking system works.

3. I hate fox news.

4. Most votes are based on voter ignorance and political lies.

5. "Republicrats and Democans are just two sides of the same coin. It's a 1-party system playing two-card monte. "

6. A Princeton study found that America is an oligarchy not a democracy, surprise.

I think Hillary Clinton will definitely win the primary

The more time that goes by, the less I'm sure of this.

Sanders is absolutely dominating on social media, and is completely filling every rally/event he goes to. He just is being ignored by traditional mainstream news outlets... for the same reason Ron Paul was. But given how increasingly irrelevant mainstream media is, this isn't as much as a hinderance as it used to be.

Really the only thing slowing him down is that people have never heard of him, whereas everybody has heard of Clinton.... so to them, Clinton is the "default" candidate and they're just going to vote for her on those grounds. But as time goes on and more and more people find out about Sanders, I think he's going to suck up more of the votes because he's just that damn good. Honestly, I haven't talked to a single person who actually knew who Sanders was and still preferred Clinton over him.

He has a big gap to make up, sure. But he also has a lot of time. The primary election isn't like for another year. You can gain a lot of traction in that time. Especially if mainstream media starts treating him seriously like they should (but they won't).

Regarding your point #6 -- yup. The Citizen's United decision was like a slap in the face to anyone who thought otherwise. I swear the judges that voted for that should not only be taken off the bench, but should be hung for treason.
On top of that, Reps tend to be more extreme religious fundamentalists, which often causes them to be very socially regressive and kind of batshit crazy.

Reminds me of although not religious oriented:
Last edited on
My Dream-Team for the 2016 presidential cycle

Bernie Sanders as President
Elizabeth Warren as Senate Majority Leader

... I'd fill in the rest of the major roles but those are the only two politicians in washington that seem to give a fuck and not be completely bought and paid for.
What if we all write in "Google" on our ballots to replace the entire United States government?

Gawd. That lady is crazy.

Though to be fair, there's just as many batshit crazy conspiracy theorists on the left. In fact there's arguably more.
If you watch the longer version, with the reply, it is even more ludicrous.

From the description:
Now at this point, if he were anything resembling a respectable figure who gave a damn about some degree of integrity in discourse, Santorum would have immediately stopped with some clarification of, you know, facts. Or at least point out that Obama did not in fact try to nuke Charleston.

Topic archived. No new replies allowed.
Pages: 12