Look, I am not her most devoted fan to put it mildly, but I don’t see how she is any worse than any other politician.
She’s way worse. If you’re interested, here’s a list of all her scandals, including people she’s likely had killed. So, you know…she is way worse than just about anyone else we could elect.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HillaryForPrison/comments/4is8ia/list_of_hillary_scandals/
And, that still doesn’t address why I won’t vote for her. I don’t agree with just about anything she proposes. She could be a saint and I’d still rather vote for GJ because he best represents my beliefs…kinda like how democracy is suppose to work.
you’re conflating issues (not surprising, bros amiright? j/k). there is a difference between valuing different policy positions over others vs not voting for someone simply because of their gender. You cannot fault a man for voting his values, which may line up along gender lines. If you do, you are a hypocrite because you do the same thing.
That’s a lose-lose situation though. Any politician with a lot of experience will be involved in controversial issues. Hillary is tied to scandals mainly because she has been in politics for so long. The only way to avoid controversial history is to choose a relatively inexperienced candidate, like that last guy who was elected. If Hillary was running against anyone else than Mr Trump, she would have lost, just due to email, Benghazi, Iraq, Syria, and any number of other things, not all of which are directly her fault.
Regarding “beliefs”, it is easy to claim that you represent some ideology if you have no actual government obligation to perform. Once elected, things are always different and the candidate is usually forced to move on center. Look at the policy moderation of France, Greece, or others, once they elected extreme parties into power. GJ or similar will be no more productive in a “libertarian” agenda, and would just lose some time at the beginning, as they adjust to the political reality.
Two sides to that coin, women simply think gender stereotypes and disadvantages only apply to them because, well, they’re women.
Transgender women to men that have undergone hormone therapy struggle with aggression and describe their life as much more cold and distanced from others. They also describe struggling with a chronic state of distrust and distance using the following examples: you’re walking 10 ft behind a woman on a dark street and suddenly you’re self conscious because you realize she’s clutching her purse and walking faster, talking to someone else’s kids, female coworkers being closed off, etc. (again, not my examples, theirs). There are also huge societal expectations put on men who the majority of women in polls expect to pay for dates in this egalitarian society. Yes, only only 28% of women in a recent associated press poll said they’d be comfortable dating a man that made less than them, but then incongruously I have to listen to people cry about the pay gap. Then there’s the fact that despite women’s constant complaints about the state of their lives men commit suicide at a rate 3.5 times that of women.
The point is, Hillary is LEADING in the national polls, but somehow according to women the whole country hates women especially the minority of voters that dare to have a different opinion. “But it was harder than it should have been and look at all the stuff she puts up with.” News flash, that’s every election. Assuming Hillary wins this election, which I think is a safe bet, it will have been more than a decade since the last white male devil was voted into office but I’m sure we’ll still be complaining about it decades from now because America.
In response to your first paragraph, if you think that list (including the associated body count) is normal for career politicians, you’re either extremely cynical or you’ve underestimated what Hillary’s been involved in.
Regarding “beliefs”…what’s your point? That it doesn’t matter who we elect because they won’t be able to get anything done anyway? Yeah, that’s pretty much true. So what? That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote for the person that best aligns with your political philosophy.
This sums up the state of my 3rd party hopes and dreams this year, looks like I won’t be voting again: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/see-john-oliver-expose-third-party-platforms-huge-problems-w445178
His position as the pageant’s owner entitled him to that kind of access, Trump explained, seemingly aware that what he was doing made the women uncomfortable. “You know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it… Is everyone OK? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that,” he said.
Oh so he did carry out sexual assault…?
I think anyone who has been in politics for 30 years, including being Secretary of State, will have a similar track record to Hillary’s. Maybe she does have her hands dirtier than the average politician. However, pick anyone who has been in intelligence, CIA, FBI, or anything, and it will be the same. I don’t know what GH Bush was involved in when he was director of the CIA. But, he is a smart guy, and people probably would have realized that it was part of his job.
Beliefs - I’m not saying it “doesn’t” matter. I’m saying that with Gary Johnson, it 95% doesn’t matter, and people should not pretend that he is some sort of libertarian Jesus. Plus, since he has zero chance of getting elected, you should vote for the remaining candidate that you hate the least, even if it’s by 0.1%. You’d still make more of a difference than if you had voted for a party with no chance of winning.
ohai, I think you that you are unfairly diminishing the immense size of HRC’s scandal. Sure, any politician with a lot of experience will be involved in some controversial issues. Hillary’s is not some. Hillary’s is the norm, not the exception. She and her cronies are snakes with no care for anyone but themselves. Don’t take my word for it, read Gary Byrne’s book, and others, about her (and Bill).
Reminds me of modern Christianity (I say that having grown up in a house like that and with great respect for the religion). Oh, the book is about x and y, does z. Or most religions for that matter.
My mom and sister appear to become physically ill when people talk about voting for Hillary. But they dont look at being a women as a struggle. They’ve pretty much kicked ass and taken names though throughout their lives… Maybe if their lives hadn’t gone so well, they would blame sexism and look at hillary as their savior. Amazing that we talk about electing the chief law enforcement officer but we don’t talk at all about who is most likely to enforce the law. Does nobody care about such trivial matters?
I still think it scales with the number of things the person is involved in (Hillary has done more things than most 30 year politicians), but I will read more about it.
The biggest impropriety in my mind is the Clinton foundation. Selling influence and favors to foreign agents is treasonous. Placing personal gain above your country while holding high office is downright evil.
Can someone please convince me that she actually believes the law applies to her and plans to work within the frame work of the law? Obama at least went in planning to uphold the law. He later backed off that idea. This scumbag carpet bagger has zero intent to play by the rules. That is frightening. More frightening that people are going to vote for a dictator.
Are you talking about Hillary deliberately killing people (like the alleged Vince Foster incident), or are you talking about the fact that some embassy people died while she was Secretary of State. I classify those as two different kinds of issues.
My understanding is that when people talk about body count, they are suggesting that the Clintons assassinate their opponents, Putin BSD style. I think these things are likely invented conspiracy theories, because finding stuff to slime the Clintons has been a cottage industry since at least 1992, or 25 years +/-.
Would Trump assassinate people if he could? Why not? He seems to suggest it a lot during rallies, when he says “I’ll pay that guy’s legal bills,” when he says “the second amendment guys can do something about her,” when he says “the Central Park 5 should have been executed” [even though proof of innocence was later found], when he says “we should torture people we think might have intelligence.”
Trump is a guy that can afford to hire hit men. Trump is a guy that clearly doesn’t have a problem with violence when it serves his interest. Trump is a guy that admires Putin. And you seriously think that this guy hasn’t killed people who stand in his way? And you want to give him control of the legal apparatus to do the very same thing? But you think these warmed over claims of Vince Foster prove that the Clintons are killing machines??
It just doesn’t add up. Even if you accept these suppositions that the Clintons poison, shoot, or drive to suicide all people who oppose them, it’s not fathomable that Trump wouldn’t do the same thing with more abandon, particularly if he is put at the head of law enforcement in the US. He suggests doing these things with glee; whereas at least the Clintons [assuming for the moment that the charges are true] have the decency to cover it up and to try not to do it very often.
Bchad is a mental pretzel, but he’s standing by his girl!