I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

Do you know when 9/11 happened?
You claimed millions of jobs were lost because of the tech bubble bursting. Your own numbers show there were not millions of jobs lost before 9/11. Even including after 9/11 there were only a couple of million jobs lost.

I can count and tell time. It seems you can't.

We keep trying to show you facts and you keep wanting to cling to your story. You can look up the facts yourself if you want.

- The "tech bubble" burst (2000) during Clinton's presidency (1993-2001), not during Bush's (2001-2009).
- The economy was growing strongly under Clinton and Clinton produced a budget surplus despite the tech bubble. A Fed paper at the time predicted the entire US deficit would be erased by 2012.
- President Obama has overseen seven years of economic growth

We aren't lying by showing you this. You've made some assumptions about the last couple of decades and maybe those assumptions feel right based on your personal experience, but they don't hold up to scrutiny. The car is going in the right direction. It might not be going as fast as you want to and it might not be as comfortable as you think it should be but running the car into a tree to shake things up a little is not a reasonable plan.

Fools. The attacks on 9-11 did not cause jobs to be eliminated. Manufacturing jobs were lost between 2000 and forward due to growing trade deficits and shift of manufacturing by companies outside the US. Tech jobs were lost due to the "Bubble". Just to name a few.

Planes crashing into the WTC killed people immediately but did not permanently eliminate jobs.

I thought you said you lived in the real world???

I never said jobs weren't lost due to the tech bubble bursting. You made the claim that "millions" of jobs were lost because of it. Your statement was BS and continues to be BS. The TOTAL jobs lost over 2 years was about 2.2 million and that includes the year and a quarter after 9/11 happened.

Planes crashing into the WTC probably did more to hurt the economy than the tech bubble bursting did. People were not losing jobs from the tech bubble bursting in 2002 or 2003.

Quote Blickers:


Quote Woiyo:

Screw the unemployment numbers, there are too many variables. Including partisans trying to confuse people between the U-6 number and the U-3 number to make the other guys look worse. I look at jobs, preferably Full Time jobs. More than anything else that gives the real picture. And the number of Full Time jobs created looked great under Clinton, (16 Million Full Time jobs created under Bill vs 2 Million jobs created for W). So yes, I absolutely am looking forward to another Clinton presidency to happen.

Quote Woiyo:

Declining salaries? When you lose 11 Million Full Time jobs like we did from 2008-2009, your first task is stop the jobs hemmorhage, then start building up Full Time jobs. What's more important-having salaries going up but fewer people working who want to, or having salaries level but most people working who want to?

Now that we are having robust Full Time job growth, the average weekly earnings are beginning to go up anyway. Note the chart for median weekly earnings from the year 2000. It is in 1982-84 dollars, which corrects for inflation automatically. See how they are going up? The century started with the median weekly earnings lower than what we have now.


By the way, note that weekly earnings surged during the recession, 2008-9. That's because they only count the earnings of the people working at the time. In 2008-9, we lost 11 Million Full Time jobs, and in many cases the newer,lower paid workers were let go and the older, better paid workers stayed because of the time they had on the job. They didn't get raises-they just kept their job and since they were paid a little higher than the new workers on the job who were laid off, the median weekly earnings went up-for those who were still working.

Now we have strong Full Time job growth PLUS a rising median weekly earnings number. That's real growth.

Other people aren't doing the right thing, and then they expect people who disagree to go along with what they're doing nonetheless. They're not the boss of me. I'm not voting for evil. I'm not giving my stamp of approval to the Democratic Party. I'm only one person, but many others feel the same way I do. If the party's designated heir apparent can't win the election without me and others like me, then that's something the party elite should have thought about before they promised Hillary the highest political office in the nation.

None of that is my fault. Call your state senators and legislators. Complain to them. My boycott of both Trump and Hillary shouldn't affect you at all. Your boycott of Bernie Sanders doesn't affect me either. You live with your choice, I live with mine.

That truly sounds like a reasoned, mature approach.

DrewDad? You're being the unreasonable one in this scenario. If I don't do what you want, then you resort to belittling me. How mature is that? Same goes to all the other folks who are eager to give the thumbs down to anyone who doesn't agree that we all have to join together and vote for Hillary. I don't support her.

You are voting for the republican perception of evil. Unproven. Pushed by political opinion. Where were you when we had real evil in the White House. You remember, weapons of mass destruction.

The hillarylynchmob has spoken. You must MUST vote Hillary, no exceptions. No matter she is a war monger and corporate shill.

No one is argueing with your voting choices. Only with your perception of evil.

The Clintons aren't war mongers, notice how Bill handled the Serbian/Bosnian situation where the "ethnic cleansing" was taking place and blood was running in the streets. No loss of American life, put an end to a horrible bloody war that was threatening to engulf the region and allow Russia to move in militarily. Cut Russia out of the whole deal, except for whatever percentage of the 5 Million Serbs who think Russia is their buddy. Dayton Accords. Peace. And increasing prosperity and life expectancy for the former Russian serf states.

There is a big difference between being stuck with a "yes or no" vote after given bad intel, and being able to shape events so that "yes or no" vote doesn't come up.

If she were a real leader she would have seen through the bad intel. She would have just known. Also, real leaders can walk through fire without getting burned.

The Clintons????

We aren't electing a couple, we're electing a President. Bill's handling of international affairs has Absolutely Nothing to do with what Hillary might do as Commander in Chief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0

As far as I'm concerned, Bill Clinton's Number One advisor was Hillary, and Hillary's Number One advisor will be Bill Clinton. If you liked the first Clinton Administration, I see no reason not to hope for a second one.

I once commented on my impression that her supporters have been quick to associate her with Bill, but only when it worked her way.

da old shell game

I was never a Bill fan, still not a Bill fan, and if we're electing "The Clintons" then it's just one more reason that I mostly agree with the title of this thread.

I learned a long time ago to never say never. There were/are some specific scenarios that would have had me doing a nose-plug vote for Hillary, the primary one being if Ted Cruz had gotten the nomination, or DT chooses and evangelical crusader as a running mate, and polls indicate he may win the state of IL where I'm registered. That's really the only way I would ever cast a vote for HRC.

Another facet Clinton supporters will just brush off.
---------------------------------------------------------------

From PDiddie's blog
film, written and produced by Breitbart News executive chairman Stephen K. Bannon and directed by M.A. Taylor, is based on the New York Times bestselling book of the same name (subtitled “The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”) by Peter Schweizer.

MSNBC got an “exclusive first look” at the documentary, which is strategically set to hit U.S. theaters on July 24, one day before the start of the Democratic National Convention:

“The movie alleges that Bill Clinton cut a wide swathe through some of the most impoverished and corrupt areas of the world — the South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Colombia, India and Haiti among others — riding in on private jets with billionaires who called themselves philanthropists but were actually bent on plundering the countries and lining their own pockets.

“In return, billionaire pals like Frank Giustra and Gilbert Chagoury, or high-tech companies like Swedish telecom giant Ericsson or Indian nuclear energy officials — to name just a few mentioned in the film — hired Clinton to speak at often $750,000 a pop …”

Yes, it's very, very harsh.

One of the most damning follow-ups to Schweizer’s most startling accusation — that Vladimir Putin wound up controlling 20 percent of American uranium after a complex series of deals involving cash flowing to the Clinton Foundation and the help of Secretary of State Clinton — was printed in The New York Times.

Like Schweizer, the Times found no hard evidence in the form of an email or any document proving a quid pro quo between the Clintons, Clinton Foundation donors or Russian officials. (Schweizer has maintained that it’s next to impossible to find a smoking gun but said there is a troubling “pattern of behavior” that merits a closer examination.)

But the Times concluded that the deal that brought Putin closer to his goal of controlling all of the world’s uranium supply is an “untold story … that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“Other news outlets built on what I uncovered and some of that is in the film,” Schweizer, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, told NBC News Tuesday. “To me the key message is that while U.S. politics has long been thought to be a dirty game, it was always played by Americans. What the Clinton Foundation has done is open an avenue by which foreign investors can influence a chief U.S. diplomat. The film may spell all this out to people in a way the book did not and it may reach a whole new audience.”