I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

I asked you because in the post I responded to you seemed to agree. Now I understand you to say you do not agree the Iraq war vote in and of itself is not disqualifying?

I've stated my opinion on that explicitly several times in my last few posts to this thread. Including in the very post you are responding to.

Quote:

What you consider last worders (people come up with new labels everyday) might just be defenders of Hillary and/or our own beliefs.

They are not mutually incompatible and not all Hillary supporters engage in the same mindless hivemind behavior. There are plenty of grownup Hillary supporters who can live with Joe not agreeing with them. Not all Hillary supporters are last worders, not all last worders are Hillary supporters.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Kerry did, did Joe or anyone else who thinks the Iraq war vote is disqualifying think the same when Kerry ran in 2004? If not, why not?

I voted for Kerry in 2004. He wasn't my first choice (or second, or third), but I believe my thinking at the time was very much like the position that many on this thread have taken: if I didn't vote for Kerry, that was like voting for Bush. And I can only think that, at the time, the magnitude of the Iraq debacle had not fully dawned on me.

I have since reconsidered and regretted the position I took in 2004. In retrospect, had I the opportunity to do it over, I would not cast a vote for Kerry or for any of the other members of congress who were complicit with the Bush Jr. administration in waging that illegal war. And I think I came to that realization well before Clinton came to the realization that her vote in favor of the Iraq War resolution was a mistake.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I didn't think your position was the same then. I also agree Hillary is more hawkish and I believe you are right in that she held on to her belief longer than most others. I was strongly against the war myself, however, Kerry filled in for me the missing piece of what those in congress actually voted for, of which I already explained (the UN, WMd inspections...)

I just think if people live in a swing state, the luxury of voting on principle is not available unless you actually want Trump in the WH. There was no way Bernie was ever going to be President once the press and the republican machine went negative against him. From what I can tell, they used up most of their capitol on Hillary in the primary just to keep her from winning. Every time they talked about who they were up against, they didn't mention Bernie's name, but Hillary's. I know I said this before, but it bears repeating. Trump is what is what we are facing in the place of Hillary and I know no reasonable person can say Hillary is as bad or worse. If they do say that, imo, they are not in any way reasonable or perhaps honest.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Fair enough.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

You argue like kids in high school, just sarky insults, vapid put downs and mindless downvoting of those you disagree with. Grow up.

I suggest you check your backend database if you want to find who's doing the downvotes, because it ain't me. About the only thing I downvote for is profanity or abuse, because I just don't want that on my screen. You're probably the only person here who doesn't have to take my word for it.

Other than that, if you want to pick a fight with someone about their behavior here, go find someone who's willing to bite. If you're offended by me, put me on ignore.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I don't need to choose between accepting whatever you say or ignoring you. I can see why you might not want to be criticized but that is a perfectly valid option in responding to your posts. And criticism doesn't have to be about picking fights either, this is a schoolyard mindset. This is not a "fight" it is merely criticism.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

0 Replies

Glad not every Sander's supporter feels like this thread's title.

6 times as many Sanders supporters would shift to Clinton over Trump: poll

1 Reply

@revelette2,

From a link on your link, there's an article explaining the near-total disconnect from politics by the under-forty voters.

Quote:

With the economy low on the list of government-related concerns, there’s no easy way to gauge how young people will vote. The Harvard spring survey found that a scant 15 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds saw the nation going in the right direction, below other generations’ already dismal numbers.

Half of the younger people agreed that “politics today is no longer able to meet the challenges our country is facing,” while just 16 percent disagreed. Only 23 percent trusted the federal government and 18 percent trusted Congress.

Given the disconnect with economic policy, young Americans tend to judge candidates on some social issues and on personality.

Democrats have an edge because they’re seen as more tolerant of gay rights, abortion and other social issues. And Clinton starts with an advantage, though she generates little enthusiasm.

“For some reason, I just don’t like her,” said Garneau, who voted for Obama twice. But he’s not a Donald Trump fan. “I don’t think the country should be run like a business,” he said.

(snip)

Quote:

Unlike their parents, younger people don’t regard Washington — or their presidential votes in the fall — as an important force behind their economic well-being.

“I don’t think the presidential race has anything to do with economics anymore,” said Tifini Hill, 36, a financial systems administrator from Brandon, Fla., near Tampa.

Rebecca Arends, 26, is an attorney from Tampa with tens of thousands of dollars in outstanding student debt.

She’s paying 6.8 percent in interest, the rate on loans to a graduate or professional student, well above the prime rate. She’s a fan of President Barack Obama’s, but she lamented that he hadn’t done much to help her with the loans.

“I’ve kind of given up on the government helping me out,” Arends said.

This disdain for all things political is a logical aftershock from the politics that dominated the younger generation’s most impressionable years. Since they became adults and began dealing with taxes, mortgages, health insurance and jobs, most voters under 40 have witnessed only what most regard as an inert, bickering Congress and White House.

1 Reply

@Builder,

From what I have been reading here from various posters, the president has little to do with the economy, so perhaps it is a better thing they are basing their vote based on social issues.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

The president normally has quite a bit to do with the economy, but then normally the president has a Congress who will meet him at least halfway. Deadlock like this we have never witnessed.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

History has shown that democratic presidents have done better for our economy than republicans. Keep that in mimd when you vote. We also need a complete turnover in congress.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Well, frankly, that part is over my head; I leave it to others to debate. I am more into social issues and helping people through programs and things like that.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

We also need a complete turnover in congress.

Australia's next federal election is due to a "double dissolution", which basically means the sitting govt can't push laws through the senate, after two sittings of parliament.

Essentially, everybody's position becomes vacant, and everybody has to win back their seat, or lose it to a newcomer.

0 Replies

It's not like this is a new HRC that Republican hawks are fawning over. It's new that they're now holding fundraisers for her.

Quote:

Another week, and another set of Republicans have endorsed Hillary Clinton. Is it because of existential threat of Donald Trump, or could it be because many of Clinton’s potential policies conveniently line up with theirs?

Longtime Republican foreign policy stalwart and Iraq warmonger Robert Kagan became the latest neoconservative to endorse Clinton for president last week.Source

1 Reply

@JPB,

Quote JPB's source:

Quote:

Another week, and another set of Republicans have endorsed Hillary Clinton. Is it because of existential threat of Donald Trump

Pretty sure that's it. Please note the following clip where Trump is talking about how he wants a new closer relationship with Russia and China and is ready to let Europe defend themselves, thereby disbanding NATO. Since NATO is the only reason Russia did not go take over much of Western Europe after WWII, this is quite a scary idea. Check the short video from the 0:45 mark:

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Trump proves his ignorance every time he opens his mouth. That's good, because his rating keeps dropping.

0 Replies

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/29/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-meet-on-airplane-in-phoenix-video/

Your justice, USA, for sale on the tarmac.

0 Replies

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/10/hillary-clintons-favors-to-foundation-donors-stret/

Clinton: spreading it out, raking it in - but she's fighting for you!!! Make sure you donate money to help her afford another $600. haircut.

0 Replies

We're still a good way away from the general election and the sting of the primary loss may not have had sufficient time to fade, but I wonder if any of the Sanders supporters here who have been vehement about not voting for Clinton have changed their mind, now that the realization that it will be Clinton or Trump in the White House next year, is beginning to dawn on them.

2 Replies

I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know