Hillary Clinton

"

bl00dengel wrote:

think your vote matters?

















sorry.

Don't apologize. Donald Trump was a New York businessman. Of COURSE he was gonna schmooze with influential people. It's called "doing business." =9[.]9=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Don't apologize. Donald Trump was a New York businessman. Of COURSE he was gonna schmooze with influential people. It's called "doing business." =9[.]9=

I consider them both business people

Trump built this:



Hillary built this:

Hillary built Fallout 4? Noice.

New 'Zyklon' Ben Garrison is on point.

I really just can't wrap my head around the argument against voter ID.

In our country (Czech Republic) (and similarly in most other European countries AFAIK), it works the following way:

You need to report your permanent residence to the government at all times. If you are homeless, you need to report your address as the town hall or get fined.

You need to have a personal ID card on you at all times. This involves the address of your permanent residence and your social security number, which includes your date of birth and a unique identifier. This can be checked by the police without probable cause. If you don't produce your personal ID card or a passport, you get fined.

Before an election, you are mailed the ballots to your place of permanent residence. It contains information on where exactly you are allowed to vote (unless you apply for special forms at least a month in advance). At that location, they have a list of permanent residents for that area, they check your ID against the list and cross you off.

The number and location of these places change BECAUSE THEY KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL COME AND CAN ADJUST ACCORDINGLY.

Seriously, the argument against voter ID that you are making is actually completely destroyed by strong enough voted ID. Please wake up. Sorry, but American democracy is shit.

First off, the population of the Czech Republic is ~10.5 million, or 3% of the size of the united states. So thanks for your input here, but these are two different animals. The logistics alone, even if the government structures were similar would be a huge difference.

Secondly, We have to prove who we are when we register to vote, including proof of identity and proof of residence.

Thirdly, Voting is regulated by state governments, not the federal government, which is a structure pretty different than most other places in the world.

Fourth, We have a long experience with voter suppression by the powers that be, from the land owning male voter laws to 3/5ths laws, to poll taxes, to having to take reading tests at the polls. Voter ID laws are the newest form, nothing more, said directly from the mouths of the people that constructed them.

Fifth, The voter id laws arn't even about proving who you are, you can have a photo id, absolutely legit proving who you are and still be ruled out of being able to vote if any piece between what your id says and what is on the voter registration, such as a misspellings or having moved within the 'you must notify' grace period. It isn't about proof, it is about opportunities for technicalities to suppress votes with.

Sixth, When constructed the states did not include ways to get the ids for free, creating a absolute poll tax situation. Not to mention people not living close to a facility that issues ids, so basically needing not just an id but also transportation and time, to perform their civic duty they could perform just fine 'yesterday'.

Is Trump reaching for bubba's balls? That's what it looks like to me.

[/quote]

"

Jennik wrote:

Your Podesta wackiness is reminiscent of hysteria in the 80s about D&D or in the 90s about Marilyn Manson

Like I said earlier, I don't believe in the supernatural. When I say "Tony Podesta is secretly an Thelemite," I don't consider that to be any more hysterical than, say, "Tony Podesta is secretly a Muslim." I think both the OTO and the Quran have enough WTF beliefs in them to fill a South Park episode, which would form the core of the concern; I believe the religion is often, but not always, used to justify attacks against our way of life; I wonder why keep it secret. I'm not a person who advocates burning witches at the stake; I just know a witch when I see one.

So let's presume that the Columbine shooters were actually Marilyn Manson fans (they weren't). If I pointed out merely that they were Marilyn Manson fans, that would be the level of hysteria I'm at. By pointing it out, I'm implying it may be relevant... that's about it. It's a far cry from saying the Devil made them do it through his messenger on earth.

"

Jennik wrote:

At the most extreme, Hitler comparisons (which I've at least defended) are based on observable facts, since the rise of Hitler closely parallels the rise of Trump. Note that this is not saying that Trump will start exterminating Muslims or anything. We don't know what Trump will do in office, but looking at fascists (one article of dozens with arguments that he is one) and demagogues throughout history informs us that it will likely not be anything good.

I'll crosspost my comment on Olbermann's Trump=Hitler video (with link added):

"

As a conservative, I think Mr. Olbermann's observations are actually quite valid. If anything, he didn't go far enough with them.

Hitler didn't run unopposed; his political adversaries were the Weimar Republic establishment. Like the Democratic Party now, the Weimar establishment was blamed for humiliating terms in agreements with foreign powers which led to poor economic conditions for the German People; TPP and NAFTA are modern-day equivalents to the Treaty of Versailles. Unemployment was a major concern. The Weimar Republic expanded the Executive's power to act without the consent of the Legislature prior to Hitler's ascension. Finally, the Weimar Republic was simultaneously corporatist and supportive of entitlements, much like our current Left.

Long story short, the Obama Administration has turned the United States into early 1930s Germany.

So it's not really surprising that a nationalist backlash has ensued. And yes, of course the bigoted crazies will jump on the nationalist bandwagon, but the majority are working-class Americans tired of foreign interests taking our jobs and invading our culture. Michael Moore hates Trump too, but he's got a pretty solid grasp on why he's so popular.

There's also that whole problem of DNC manipulation preventing the nomination of the foremost Democratic nationalist, Bernie Sanders, replacing him with an thoroughly corrupt strawwoman mired by scandal.

So essentially, the Democrats have created all the conditions for a popular right-wing nationalist movement to succeed, almost regardless of what type of person was chosen as its representative. I hope it will not become a fascist one, and I do worry about potential abuse of power, bigotry, and grandiose promises. We need to be watchful of those things, and I think Mr. Olbermann is quite right to point them out. But I still voted Trump, not just because Clinton is a criminal, but because nationalism, hopefully minus the fascism, is what this country needs right now.

I should probably add that, if Bernie Sanders was in this race, my Republican ass would almost definitely have voted for the socialist instead of Trump. If we were doing instant-runoff voting instead of first-past-the-post, I'd rank Gary Johnson, who doesn't even fucking know where Aleppo is, over Clinton (but below Trump). If Clinton was running against a turnip, I'd vote for the turnip. In short: Never Hillary. Potential fascist versus known criminal with no regard for the security of our secrets, funded by the same people who find IS? Potentially corrupt, versus certainly so? Potentially, please; knock on wood.

bl00dengel might be right; it might not matter. If that's true, then ever the more reason to thank god for Julian Assange.

Scrotes, your view of Hillary is more distorted than a fun house mirror. Trump is worse than her by any metric. Your understanding of what happened during the Obama administration is also pretty out there, since we're in a better place as a country than we were before he went into office.

The only thing that seriously stifled progress and kept us from improving even more was the GOP stonewalling in every possible way. The fact that they're refusing to allow liberals to appoint Supreme Court justices ever again is just one small piece of their anti-democratic pie. The Republican Party has become a cancer on America in recent years.

If you look at Hillary's policies, they are good for America. She wants to improve America just as she always has and is fighting for a chance to do so. The only problem is that people like you have been so thoroughly misled by smear campaigns and your own imaginations that you believe she's an evil monster who will betray us and actively work to destroy the country once elected. That notion's absurd and flies in the face of who she has been all throughout her life.

The smear campaigns against Hillary are one of the most damaging things the GOP (with a fair bit of assistance from Russia) have done to America. The fact that you can vote for Donald fucking Trump over her is indicative of that. There is no rational, reality-based argument for Trump over Hillary, because even if you're one of the people who desire one of the few polarizing things he'll likely do that Hillary won't, like fuck us over with a conservative supreme court for another 40 years, you're still getting Donald fucking Trump along with that.

Unfortunately for all of us, way too many people are unaffected by rationality or reality. That genuinely believe that Hillary Clinton is a worse or more dangerous person than Donald Trump in any way.

> known criminal with no regard for the security of our secrets, funded by the same people who find IS?

Get the fuck outta here! Every single one of those """facts""" is wrong. You believe she's a criminal, yet there's no evidence she is one even after decades of witch hunts! You believe she has no regard for the security of our secrets, yet there is no evidence of her disregarding American secrets! When grandma set up a private server so she could keep using her favorite phone, she took measures to keep classified information off of it. What actual, objective facts do you have supporting your claim? And fuck right off for saying that a charity accepting donations from people in Saudi Arabia is Hillary being "funded by the same people who find IS." That's as delusional and dishonest as it fucking gets.

When you described Hillary as a "corrupt strawwoman," you were right. Your description of her is a corrupt strawwoman. It's not a remotely accurate description of reality. It's a blatantly false distortion of reality that is so horrifically warped it no longer bears any resemblance to the woman you're describing.

And, for one last attempt to knock you back to reality, for every single one of those characteristics you falsely attribute to Hillary, they actually do apply to Donald Trump. He openly talks about what's discussed in his classified briefings. His criminal history includes racial discrimination, spousal rape, the Trump University scam, his fake charity, and so, so many more. He has business dealings with everyone, and to make that orders of magnitude worse, is actually in debt to many of them. Trump has had business dealings with the fucking mob, and has funded bad guys himself!

Though, to be fair to Trump, he calls himself "the cleanest guy there is," so clearly there's no corruption there. Guess I was wrong.

"

LostForm wrote:

Sixth, When constructed the states did not include ways to get the ids for free, creating a absolute poll tax situation. Not to mention people not living close to a facility that issues ids, so basically needing not just an id but also transportation and time, to perform their civic duty they could perform just fine 'yesterday'.

The fact that DMVs near heavy minority populations are sometimes closed down after voter ID laws are enacted is a pretty good indicator of the actual reason these laws exist. There are tons of articles and videos out there like the notorious "you know we can hear you, right?" from the Daily Show that reveal some of the GOP's repulsive views when it comes to a fair democracy.

I'd be fine with voter IDs if all Americans had equal and free access to them, including at polling places. Unfortunately, that's very far from being the case.

"

Jennik wrote:

> known criminal with no regard for the security of our secrets, funded by the same people who find IS?

Get the fuck outta here! Every single one of those """facts""" is wrong. You believe she's a criminal, yet there's no evidence she is one even after decades of witch hunts! You believe she has no regard for the security of our secrets, yet there is no evidence of her disregarding American secrets! When grandma set up a private server so she could keep using her favorite phone, she took measures to keep classified information off of it. What actual, objective facts do you have supporting your claim? And fuck right off for saying that a charity accepting donations from people in Saudi Arabia is Hillary being "funded by the same people who find IS."

Most of that my conclusion here was by watching C-SPAN coverage of the Benghazi and Oversight committees of Congress. Also Wikileaks. Nothing but verified documentary evidence and sworn testimony. But go on, keep believing that the media - any media, whether "mainstream" or alternative - is going to give you a fair and balanced perspective.

Even the "Tony Podesta is an occultist" claim - I can back that up with evidence where not a single word from a so-called journalist is written or uttered. It's utterly devoid of editorial.

If you want to split hairs on the Clinton Foundation - which is under investigation, but also innocent until proven guilty - then fine. But what kind of charitable foundation accepts funds from actors the Clintons say, in their own emails, are also funding IS?