Donald vs Hillary

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, msj said:

That's the thing about Trump: he doesn't even have to have a policy and it is just assumed that this guy who "tells it like it is" will implement effective policy. 

 

As I said, a roll of a dice with Trump, combined with the natural economic reaction to his view on protectionism.........versus Clinton's policies that are reliant on credit based debt (with low or no interest) and never ending growth.....

 

4 minutes ago, msj said:

I have clearly stated financial regulations so don't be making up shit. 

So have I.........the ones enacted by Bill Clinton and what would be continued by Hillary Clinton......you know, the ones that caused the financial crisis... 

[bush_cheney2004]

Agreed...."supporting" Hillary Clinton means support for the status quo, support for American domestic and foreign policies, and support for more fiscal and monetary disasters.

Who would have ever guessed that so many members here are now so closely aligned with American policies based on previous posts.

 

 

 

[Hal 9000]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Agreed...."supporting" Hillary Clinton means support for the status quo, support for American domestic and foreign policies, and support for more fiscal and monetary disasters.

Who would have ever guessed that so many members here are now so closely aligned with American policies based on previous posts.

 

 

 

Who would've guessed that a country with 350 million people would be deciding between a reality star without a lick of experience and a woman leading an organized crime syndicate.

[cybercoma]

Trump has lost Utah's top Mormons.

"We prefer to stand for something rather than against someone."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/utah-mormons-republicans-donald-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1

Edited October 11, 2016 by cybercoma

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Rue said:

I Hilary is a cold blooded sociopath, Trump a border line anti social  narcissist sadistic pig. What a choice.

What makes Clinton a sociopath? She's certainly ambitious, but that's not enough. Is she honest? Well, on a scale of major politicians, she's probably about normal. What of her past? She's spent decades working on behalf of the poor, the sick, minorities, often volunteering her time. Where's the sociopathy? That she ferociously attacks women who sleep with her husband?

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Not at all, I dislike Trump nearly as much as I do the Clintons.......if I were voting in this election I would hold my nose and vote Trump simply based on policies he has alluded too, versus the corrupt and dishonest Clinton(s)........of the two crappy choices, I'd liken the global instability of the Obama years to continue in a Clinton administration, hence making it more likely if anyone was to have their finger on the button it would be Clinton.

Policies Trump has 'alluded to"? Trump HAS no policies. He has talking points in his sales pitch. A policy is something you develop in concert with experts in the area, a plan you can talk about knowledgeably. Trump has no plans, just a sales pitch. He'll tell you whatever he thinks will get him votes, regardless of whether he actually believes it or intends to do it. And his past behavior is easily as or more corrupt than anything Clinton has ever done. Further, if you think he's likely to change that behavior in office you really haven't been watching this man. A Trump white house would be filled with sycophants and flatterers, and every high office would hold people of the same ilk, appointed not for their capability but obedience. Rules and laws are just things to be dodged and avoided. Government institutions would be there to be used as he desires, including making it easier to sue anyone who says anything he doesn't like, or, as he's already stated, launching politically motivated investigations into anyone who he perceives as being opposed to him. If you loved how Chris Christie closed down a highway to punish a mayor who wouldn't support him you'll love what Trump does to cities and states which won't go along with his agenda.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

And another thing, why is DeNiro applauded for calling men (as in Trump) a dog, a pig and stupid...and how he wants to punch him in the face, when Trump is ostracized and called a misogynist for saying less than that to Rosie O'Donnell?  

Because actors are judged on a different scale than politicians.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

You're going to agree with two money mongers that don't feel the 2007/08 financial crisis was caused by the Clinton administration's repealing of Glass-Steagall in 1999?

The move to repeal Glass-Steagall received almost unanimous support across party lines. It had very strong Republican support.

The financial crisis wouldn't have happened had it not been for the fact Bush stuffed regulators with people who were opposed to regulations, and whose philosophy could best be summed up as "Let them make money. It's good for everyone."

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

As to Trump, his protectionist policies will likely deflate the economy to such a point that a debt bubble won't be a problem. 

So in other words, another giant recession. You like that idea, do you?

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Who would've guessed that a country with 350 million people would be deciding between a reality star without a lick of experience and a woman leading an organized crime syndicate.

I've seen a lot of writeups which suggest Trump has close ties with organized crime figures. I've never seen anything with regard to Clinton. Perhaps you could cite evidence.

[Guest]

Here is an interesting piece on Trump's scary connection to the Kremlin. The Russians created a fake email and attributed it to Clinton and oddly enough Donald Trump somehow received the disinformation and repeated it live on stage the same day. Trumpkins have to cut the crap, stop repeating the BS and leave the treasonous, orange idiot behind.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/wikileaks-falsified-documents-trump-russia/

Quote

“I am Sidney Blumenthal. At least, that is what Vladimir Putin—and, somehow, Donald Trump—seem to believe,” Eichenwald wrote. “And that should raise concerns about not only Moscow’s attempts to manipulate this election but also how Trump came to push Russian disinformation to American voters… [But] now that I have been brought into the whole mess—and transformed into Blumenthal—there is even more proof that the Russians are not only orchestrating this act of cyberwar but also really, really dumb.”

It is still unclear precisely why Russian agents would falsify information in an attempt to derail Hillary Clinton’s campaign and aid Donald Trump’s, but the cozy relationship between Trump and the Kremlin can’t help but be highlighted by this. “This is not funny. It is terrifying,” Eichenwald wrote. “The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin?”

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by Guest

[cybercoma]

33 minutes ago, Argus said:

What makes Clinton a sociopath? She's certainly ambitious, but that's not enough. Is she honest? Well, on a scale of major politicians, she's probably about normal. What of her past? She's spent decades working on behalf of the poor, the sick, minorities, often volunteering her time. Where's the sociopathy? That she ferociously attacks women who sleep with her husband?

Calling Clinton a sociopath is hyperbole. It's not even an exaggeration. It's plainly falsifiable. I have to wonder if Rue even knows the definition of sociopathy.

[BC_chick]

12 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Calling Clinton a sociopath is hyperbole. It's not even an exaggeration. It's plainly falsifiable. I have to wonder if Rue even knows the definition of sociopathy.

Rue doesn't know that she's a sociopath any more than you know that she's not.  

We are all basing our opinions on the person based on what we see and what we hear and I agree with Rue that Hillary exhibits many of the traits associated with sociopathy.

She's unapologetic liar and she aims to 'win' at all costs (insofar as destroying the lives and reputations of the women who accuse Bill of wrongdoing).  She shows very little remorse and I have yet to see her show accountability for anything she does (Benghazi, emails).  She flips on the issues depending on what suits her politically (SSM) and she blatantly lies and makes things up (Bosnia)

She may or may not be a sociopath but she certainly exhibits many of the personality traits.

 Remember, 4% of the population is a sociopath and the number is much greater among politicians, so it wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

I have yet to see her show accountability for anything she does (Benghazi,

Have you looked?

From Factcheck.org

Quote

 

In a report released Dec. 18, 2012, the independent (accountability) board said responsibility for the attack rests “solely and completely with the terrorists.” However, it also said “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

In particular, the report said the “perimeer and interior security” at the temporary diplomatic facility was inadequate and its security equipment was “severely under-resourced.”

 

Clinton took responsibility for those deficiencies:

 

Quote

Where does Clinton play into this? Well, aside from being the Secretary of State — an important cabinet position — she later took responsibility for the security at the compound, or rather, a lack thereof. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts," Clinton said, in an interview with CNN. "The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs, and make a considered decision."

 

Quote

The former secretary of state said she took responsibility and introduced reforms after the attack that killed four Americans, including the US envoy.

Also: 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/clinton-takes-responsibility-benghazi-attack-151022211612239.html

This is an oft-repeated claim that appears to have reached the status of 'truth' through repetition, rather than accuracy.

 I generally trust you to know what you are talking about, so I'm rather surprised by your acceptance of this claim.    I won't bother fact-checking the rest of your claims; I've seen no substantive proof of any of them, other than people *saying* they're true.   But that seems pretty par for the course for anti-Hillary rhetoric; lots of claims, very little actual proof.

[BC_chick]

Actually, please do try and dispute the other things I mention.

The attacks on the other women especially get downplayed when she hired investigators to dig into the past of these women simply to destroy them.  Who does that??  Seriously, you think that's normal behaviour for someone who was cheated on??

Also from factcheck about Benghazi:

Oct. 15, 2012: Clinton Blames ‘Fog of War’

Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blames the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with the anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton says. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

[cybercoma]

56 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

Rue doesn't know that she's a sociopath any more than you know that she's not.  

We are all basing our opinions on the person based on what we see and what we hear and I agree with Rue that Hillary exhibits many of the traits associated with sociopathy.

She's unapologetic liar and she aims to 'win' at all costs (insofar as destroying the lives and reputations of the women who accuse Bill of wrongdoing).  She shows very little remorse and I have yet to see her show accountability for anything she does (Benghazi, emails).  She flips on the issues depending on what suits her politically (SSM) and she blatantly lies and makes things up (Bosnia)

She may or may not be a sociopath but she certainly exhibits many of the personality traits.

 Remember, 4% of the population is a sociopath and the number is much greater among politicians, so it wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

If Clinton was a sociopath she would have had absolutely no interest in helping others. She would have no empathy for children, seniors, and everyone else she has devoted her time and attention to. She would not have been able to work with other legislators to get anything done either. There would have been absolutely no co-operation from her.

I get it. You don't like Clinton. But calling her a sociopath is such an outlandish claim, it's hard to take any of the legitimate concerns you have about her seriously. I don't like Clinton either, but it doesn't matter because 1) I'm not American, and 2) the Democrats weren't ready for Bernie Sanders. I even have issues with some of his positions, particularly on guns. There will never be a perfect candidate and if there is, others certainly aren't going to see them as perfect as you do.

As an aside, because it's irrelevant to whether or not Clinton is a sociopath,  if you had said Trump was a sociopath for his complete disregard of people (from the contractors who've worked for him to POWs to Latino Americans to African Americans to women to people with disabilities), then you might be onto something. There is a man who shows utter disregard for others and zero empathy. And you know what? That's why a certain segment of the US population love him. Because he doesn't give a crap about anything or anyone but himself. They see that as a virtue. I see that at best as narcissism but there is a very good case to be made for calling him a sociopath. The only emotions he truly shows are proto-emotions, getting visibly agitated at anyone who dares criticize or question him. I've seen absolutely no ability to empathize from him. He brags about sexually assaulting women (breaking laws is a key aspect of sociopathy) and is a serial philanderer. I mean, there's few better examples of a sociopath running for public office than Trump.

[cybercoma]

 

33 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

Actually, please do try and dispute the other things I mention.

The attacks on the other women especially get downplayed when she hired investigators to dig into the past of these women simply to destroy them.  Who does that??  Seriously, you think that's normal behaviour for someone who was cheated on??

Also from factcheck about Benghazi:

Oct. 15, 2012: Clinton Blames ‘Fog of War’

Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blames the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with the anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton says. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

There have been 33 congressional hearings and investigations into the Benghazi Tragedy with hundreds of witnesses questioned and countless hours and dollars spent trying to dig up some kind of dirt, anything, on Hillary Clinton. There are 13 published reports from those hearings that you can go investigate yourself. I'm so sick of hearing about Benghazi. The Republicans have been trying to find something to skewer her with on Benghazi and have spent millions of dollars turning over every grain of sand on the matter.

They've found absolutely no administrative wrongdoing.

[BC_chick]

Why is it that anytime someone says anything about Hillary the response is about Donald Trump?

Yes, Donald Trump is inifinitely worse than Hillary Clinton.  At least she's surrounded by good people and she has experience.  At least her policies aren't geared toward the wealthy.  At least she doesn't say racist inflammatory things.  

I hope she wins the election and this is not about 'liking' her.  When I saw her fall down, I genuinely felt for her.  I do not dislike her and I'd go as far as liking many things about her.

Having said that, I do think she exhibits some sociopathic traits.  I provided several, the most prominent of which is the way she handled her husband's affairs/sexual assault accusations.

I also don't think her work experience is indicative of her not being a sociopath.  Everything she has done is calculated, the possibility exists that it was all part of the persona.

Again - I don't know if she is a sociopath any more than you think she's not.   Neither of us are trained psychologists who have worked with her.

For all I know, she's not, but she definitely shows many of the characteristics and given her career choices, it would hardly be a stretch.

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by BC_chick

[cybercoma]

16 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

Why is it that anytime someone says anything about Hillary the response is about Donald Trump?

Notice how I said, "as an aside, because it's irrelevant to Hillary?"

Nothing else you mentioned addresses the points I made. I brought up her public service because it contradicts the symptoms of sociopathy. I contrasted her public service with Trump's stunning lack of public service and dismissiveness of illegal activities and the sanctity of his own marriages because that is an indication of sociopathy. It wasn't so much to say, "but Trump is worse." Rather, it was to say, this is what it actually looks like. Look at the contrast.

Edited October 11, 2016 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

It is amazing to see (non-voting) Canadian liberals and progressives so passionately throwing their "support" to Hillary Clinton and all that she stands for.   They are embracing previously rejected American policies at home and abroad with both arms in candidate Clinton.   The frantic panic and scare from Donald Trump must be overwhelming.  

 

 

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, BC_chick said:

She's unapologetic liar and she aims to 'win' at all costs (insofar as destroying the lives and reputations of the women who accuse Bill of wrongdoing).

How many politicians have you seen who are truthful? How many have apologized for lying? Win at all cost sounds like just about every A-type personality.

And I don't know any women who wouldn't 'viciously attack' a woman sleeping with their husbands. You don't even know how much truth is in any of the specific accusations or what or who was behind them.

 

Quote

She shows very little remorse and I have yet to see her show accountability for anything she does (Benghazi, emails). 

Nine separate congressional investigations into Benghazi showed nothing wrong. What did you want her to apologize for? Likewise, just what about the emails do you reckon merits an apology to anyone? No one was harmed by it except her. She's admitted she was wrong and careless. What do you want, self-flagellation?

 

Quote

She flips on the issues depending on what suits her politically (SSM) and she blatantly lies and makes things up (Bosnia)

So like every politicians then.

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by Argus

[cybercoma]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

It is amazing to see (non-voting) Canadian liberals and progressives so passionately throwing their "support" to Hillary Clinton and all that she stands for.   They are embracing previously rejected American policies at home and abroad with both arms in candidate Clinton.   The frantic panic and scare from Donald Trump must be overwhelming.  

You add literally nothing of value to this discussion. Frankly, it's surprising since you advertise over and over again that you're eligible to vote in the election. Guess what? Dual-citizens can vote in the US election as well. Do you know which of us on the forum hold American citizenship or not? I wouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about who can and who cannot vote in the US election.

[cybercoma]

Also, BC_chick, I understand what you're doing, but at this point in the election cycle it's purely academic to be roasting Hillary for her transgressions. A third-party candidate is not winning the US election. This is a race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton with a bunch of placeholders thrown in next to them.

Gary Johnson didn't even know what Aleppo was. He couldn't name a single foreign leader when asked whose policies he admires. He wasn't intelligent enough to say that he admires no one because his brand of politics isn't replicated anywhere. Johnson is non-starter.

Jill Stein is trying to court Bernie's supporters, yet her donors are all top corporate interests, whom Bernie would never take money from.  She's running against Elizabeth Warren in MA, which may divide the vote enough to allow the Republicans to get in there. She has little to no political experience. Her beliefs about vaccines and wifi are straight out of the nuttier parts of the internet. She refuses to release her tax returns. She's a nobody candidate who is going to get nobody-level votes.

So the election is between Trump and Clinton. When people are outlining the reasons people should vote Clinton instead of Trump, you're not doing your progressive values any favours by tearing down Hillary. Bernie Sanders implored his supporters to come together around Clinton. Why? Because the next president is probably going to be responsible for two supreme court justices and there is no third option after Trump and Clinton. When you actively work against Clinton, you're sadly working for Trump because there will be no third party candidate winning the presidency. Not this time around and very likely not for many years, if ever in our lifetime.

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

You add literally nothing of value to this discussion. Frankly, it's surprising since you advertise over and over again that you're eligible to vote in the election. Guess what? Dual-citizens can vote in the US election as well. Do you know which of us on the forum hold American citizenship or not? I wouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about who can and who cannot vote in the US election.

 

You add nothing to this discussion by parsing Americans and Canadians with or without dual citizenship.  Citizens who can vote  are also embracing Clinton after railing against the status quo.   My comment concerned the non-voting wannabes in Canada who now gush over candidate Clinton and her large status quo baggage, policies they rejected before.   Since their "support" is very much irrelevant, why wouldn't they stick to their lofty principles and reject one or both major party candidates ?

 

[BC_chick]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

How many politicians have you seen who are truthful? How many have apologized for lying? Win at all cost sounds like just about every A-type personality.

And I don't know any women who wouldn't 'viciously attack' a woman sleeping with their husbands. You don't even know how much truth is in any of the specific accusations or what or who was behind them.

 

Nine separate congressional investigations into Benghazi showed nothing wrong. What did you want her to apologize for? Likewise, just what about the emails do you reckon merits an apology to anyone? No one was harmed by it except her. She's admitted she was wrong and careless. What do you want, self-flagellation?

 

So like every politicians then.

 

One or two women is one thing, but when you have the number of women accusing Bill Clinton, I think you'd have to be pretty naive to believe there is not truth to it.  She did not just viciously attack the women, she set out to destroy them.  I'm sorry, I don't agree that that's normal behaviour.  I know lots and lots of women who were cheated on, and if any of them did the crap Hillary Clinton did, I would think very badly of them too.  Numerous articles have been written about how that tarnishes her for many women, but you're free to think otherwise.  

I'm not blaming her Benghazi, but the outright lying to the very end about why they blamed it on the video shows a very deceitful side of her.  She did the same thing with the emails.  Do you really think she didn't know what the C was for?