Clinton Coverup Queen

[Ego]

Least worst option.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Good question. I asked in the Trump thread. The end rationale seems to come down to fear IMO. She is, by the literal definition, the "conservative" candidate: she will conserve the status quo of the broken system we have now, as well as its current trajectory toward collapse, but never mind. Those who perceive themselves to be doing well under the current system see little incentive to change it.

I agree with you, though.

[IlliniDave]

The only people that I know who support her do so because she is a democrat and they cannot conceive of supporting anyone other than the democrat candidate, and indeed never have.

I mentioned elsewhere that it is nearly surreal how quickly all the violence erupted to steal the headlines after the FBI Director spoke. There' still some squawking from congress that they'll follow up on the perjury under oath, which they have her on dead-to-rights, but lying under oath is sort of a Clinton tradition and I suspect nothing will come of it.

In my mind she's the worst possible winner that we could have. Electing her would formally legitimize a two-class system in this country: the political elite (aka royalty), and us commoners. In a sense that's existed in the past to a degree, but if she's elected, being as blatant about it as she has, it becomes accepted by the media (same media that went so tenaciously after Nixon and Watergate--my how that institution has fallen).

[GandK]

She is so repulsive to me that I am truly curious why anybody would support her if they aren't personally gaining from it.

I agree as well. But since Trump is equally repulsive to me, and no 3rd party candidate can win this year, I'm not sure where that leaves me as a voter. The only consideration I'm still looking at is potential Supreme Court picks. And Trump is so unpredictable in every other way that it's almost pointless to think about his choices there, too.

When I go to the polls this November, I feel like I'll be either asking a nominally-liberal-yet-warmongering Nixon to come back for round 2, knowing that this time Watergate will become the official reason and way of conducting all government business (Hillary), or jumping out of a plane with no way of knowing if I have a chute on (Trump).

[Spartan_Warrior]

Least worst option.

False. There was Bernie on the left, Kasich on the right, and there'll be Stein and Johnson in the general.

no 3rd party candidate can win this year

I'm curious why you specified "this year"? I can understand the self-fulfilling truism that "no 3rd party candidate can win ever"--but this year in particular, when both corporate-sponsored candidates have the lowest favorability ratings, um, ever, I'd think would be the best possible shot for third parties.

Note also that the goal is not necessarily for the 3rd party to win. It's my understanding that if they reach 15% of the vote (or is it polling?), they receive access to public funding (which is probably useless) and TV debates (which are critically important). It's also about the only way left to protest the non-choice/threat that is "Clinton or Trump".

ETA: Why is it more important to vote for a candidate "who can win"? Why is that more important than voting for a candidate with a vision you support or at least don't morally oppose?

ETA2: (Because I've got news for you: based on what I've seen in the primary, Clinton is practically already president. Selected, not elected, folks. So the consideration of "who can win" seems irrelevant.)

[GandK]

no 3rd party candidate can win this year

I'm curious why you specified "this year"? I can understand the self-fulfilling truism that "no 3rd party candidate can win ever"--but this year in particular, when both corporate-sponsored candidates have the lowest favorability ratings, um, ever, I'd think would be the best possible shot for third parties.

You're probably not old enough to really remember the election of 1992. Ross Perot didn’t win (running as an Independent), but if he'd handled his campaign differently I think he could have. Even with a huge stumble he ended up with ~19% of the vote in November. That's why I said "this year."

ETA: Why is it more important to vote for a candidate "who can win"?

Because I am more concerned with moving the needle than with making a point.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Even if you believe both candidates who could plausibly win will move the needle in the wrong direction? I guess in that case it's back to who moves the needle in the least wrong direction...?

I think that's exactly the kind of mentality that has brought us to where we are. This election is the ultimate result of "lesser of two evils" voting. I don't think they could have chosen two candidates more designed to inspire hatred. This is the year of voting against what you hate most. But when you vote for the lesser evil, you still end up with evil. And the direction you're moving the needle, year after year, is toward worse and worse evil.

Like Dave, I am greatly concerned about giving a mandate to the kind of behavior we're seeing from Clinton. Nixon resigned over 18 minutes of recording. Clinton is coasting in for a landing despite perjury, mass election fraud, and 30,000 emails. To me that difference is staggering and goes to show how complacent the "lesser of two evils" strategy makes us. A few decades ago, today's lesser evil (assuming you believe Clinton is that) was an inconceivable evil.

BTW, isn't it funny how biased and politically influential the media has become as they've conglomerated into six major corporations with powerful lobbyists as a result of Bill Clinton deregulating the FCC? Still surprised the Clintons are bullet-proof in the media? Things that make you go hmm...

FYI, I think Johnson is currently polling around 11% and Stein was around 7%. Neither of them is mounting a particularly stunning campaign at this point, but I think the potential is there. IMO a Sanders/Stein 3rd party run would crush in November, with the grassroots movement Bernie has built; but still might come short of the 270 electoral votes needed. It's a moot point because it looks like Bernie is choosing to go out like Ned Stark rather than William Wallace.

Frankly, this country/planet is fucked. Making a point is all I have left. It probably helps that I don't think it matters. We'll be saying President Clinton in November.

[Ego]

This election is the ultimate result of "lesser of two evils" voting.

Every election I've ever seen has been a choice of the lesser of two evils.

[slimicy]

A 3rd party candidate (especially Gary Johnson, as a more conservative one) doesn't need to get 270 electoral votes to prevent a Trump/Hillary presidency. They only need to win enough votes to ensure neither Trump or Hillary get 270.

Simply put, if nobody gets to 270 electoral votes, it comes down to the House of Representatives to pick the next president from the three candidates leading in electoral votes. Obviously, in this imagined scenario, that would be Clinton, Trump, and the mystery conservative. Here's how it would work: Each state delegation would have just one vote. Meaning (for example) that all of California's 53 representatives would have to vote among themselves to decide how to cast their one overall vote. When a candidate secures an outright majority of 26 state delegations, they become the president-elect.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/160830-w ... hould-want

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Ego: You've never seen a candidate you actually support? You've always voted based on working backwards from who you hate more to decide who is best positioned to defeat them?

I don't doubt it. Like I said, we didn't get here overnight. But I do wonder why--why, both at a personal and systemic level, is this what we do, and is there a better way?

[IlliniDave]

Her Majesty got a rousing endorsement from Bernie. That's a shame, I really thought he was a decent guy.

[7Wannabe5]

I find both of them so very repulsive, I am almost inclined towards not voting for the first time ever. I am an Independent or Classical Liberal or Sesame Street Anarchist who almost always ends up voting Democratic as lesser of two evils, but I don't know if I can pull that trigger. What I might end up doing is put all my concerns about the world at large and all my personal feelings aside, and calculate a very rational analysis of which one would likely best serve my pocketbook and other practical purposes, and walk into the voting booth like it is the day I need to kill the Thanksgiving turkey.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@7WB: I can only appreciate the idea of not voting if TRULY NO CANDIDATE aligns with your views, in which case it is a rational response. But from what I've seen of your posts you sound like you would support the majority of Jill Stein's platform. So if you were planning on voting anyway, why on Earth would you sit out the opportunity to perhaps, eventually, create a viable alternative party? Like I said, there are achievable, incremental goals in voting third party even if you don't expect the candidate to win this time around. And if the mainstream corporate options are that bad that there is no distinguishable difference and you don't care who wins this time anyway (my opinion), why not at least fight for better options in the future?

@FFJ: "If you would have told me that the media purposefully would have hyped up the latest minority police shootings, with the end result of five murdered police officers, in order to deflect attention from their chosen candidate, then I would have labeled you a conspiracy theorist not that long ago. I wouldn't today."

x2.

On that note... there are those who wonder if Bernie's sudden decision to prostrate himself before the Queen has anything to do with the DNC official who was shot in the back at 4:20 AM the other day with signs of struggle and no missing belongings.

Clinton's first words at the podium were to thank Bernie--and explicitly call out his wife and son. "It was such a pleasure to meet them." I'm sure.

Bernie looked awfully sweaty.

https://heatst.com/politics/dnc-staffer ... -theories/

[jennypenny]

Yeah, wasn't it nice of Sanders to endorse HRC at the same time Lynch was being questioned on Capitol Hill? I'm sure the timing was purely coincidental.

Of the women I know who enthusiastically support HRC, they are mostly older than me and not necessarily voting for her because she's a women, although I've heard several times how "exciting" it would be if Warren was also on the ticket with her. They view Clinton's abrasiveness and ruthlessness as just the way she has to act to 'get ahead' and compete with men in politics. I don't think it's necessarily like that old line that women have to work twice as hard as men to succeed. I think it's more that Clinton has to act just like the men do to compete, but then gets criticized unfairly because she's a women. It's hard to argue with that. (Remind me again why Martha Stewart was one of the only people to go to jail for insider trading over the last 10 years?) They also don't see Bill as a liability. They see her as stronger for having to deal with all of his shenanigans while doing her thing.

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Clinton, but you (ffj) asked why someone would vote for her.

In some ways, I don't see this as voting for the lesser of two evils. To my mind, I see a vote for Clinton as a vote for the establishment and a vote for Trump as a vote to blow up the establishment, particularly the Republican party. That's why Sanders's endorsement seems like such a betrayal. He chose to get back in line instead of standing his ground. I think there would have been less complaining if he'd endorsed Trump or Johnson.

[Riggerjack]

I'm confused by this talk of voting for a lesser evil. Yes, I will do this in local elections, but I live in Washington state. 65% blue.

I will vote libertarian, and the state electoral votes will go to the greatest evil. Same as it has for my adult life.

There aren't many swing States, so why vote for evil if your vote is irrelevant? If you believe in Clinton or Trump, totally vote for them, but if not, why not vote your conscience? No downside, potential upside, in Taleb parlance.

[7Wannabe5]

@Spartan-Warrior- Good suggestion. I will vote for the Green Party this time out just on the slim hope that some of the platform might get some attention.

[IlliniDave]

You won't see this on the evening news, but check out the interrogation of Lynch:

I saw a couple excerpts of that. It was every bit as surreal as what went on last week. Maybe more so. What I saw was either the AG being less than fully truthful, or the AG demonstrating she is staggeringly unqualified.

I'll actually be worried about the future of the country if Clinton's elected. Not because of what I think she might do while in office. Electing her will be a popular mandate that establishes a "class" within the country that is above the laws that apply to the rest of us. To a degree, it's nothing new. But this time it's being openly sanctioned by the people. We'll get what we deserve.

[GandK]

You cannot convince me that she was unaware of Bill's predilections by the time Lewinsky came on the scene.

Oh, she knew. She knew back before Gennifer Flowers happened, I'm sure.

That said, I'm not sure this issue should be on the table. A thousand things can be laid at Hillary's feet, but Bill's cheating (and the repercussions of that) isn't one of them. Even her lies about that, to me, are understandable. To a wife in that situation, that to me is a coping mechanism. Head firmly in the sand. But her lying about Benghazi and the emails? About her official duties as a paid representative of this nation? We should be ripping her a new one for that. No question.

[7Wannabe5]

ffj said: You cannot convince me that she was unaware of Bill's predilections by the time Lewinsky came on the scene.

Yeah, it would have been much better if she and Bill had come out of the closet as polyamorous, but the time was not yet right in America. Of course, the time also wasn't right in 1800 when Jefferson accused Adams of sending a servant to Europe to procure mistresses for himself, or during the 1884 campaign when Republican crowds concerned with "Home Protection" shouted "Ma, Ma, where's your Pa?" because Grover Cleveland had been accused of fathering a child out of wedlock. Powerful, charismatic men having more than one lover? Who'd a thunk? Maybe, just maybe, things will be different by the time Zalo runs for office.

[jennypenny]

I don't think anyone was surprised that Bubba was the original love sponge, and I don't think it was an untenable problem as long as he stuck to women around his age*. Lewinsky was young and worked for him, which changed the dynamics and I think made it a little too unpalatable for many people. His extracurricular activities are the one subject that I would advice HRC to keep quiet about. It's what most wives would do in that situation. I give her credit for keeping her mouth shut all these years and not using it to garner sympathy with women, although there's still time to do that before November I guess.


This is the stuff I can't believe rank and file democrats are putting up with ... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpC ... ef=2&pli=1
I still can't believe Sanders caved. What could they have on him?




* My father was a lobbyist in DC in those days and spent most weeks staying at the River Inn in Foggy Bottom. One night when I was in town to see him, when we got to the hotel it was full of secret service personnel. Dad asked the doorman who had checked in, thinking it was some diplomat. The doorman leaned in and whispered "Markie Post is a guest tonight." My dad nodded like he knew what that meant, but as soon as we got to the room he asked who Markie Post was LOL. I explained that she was a rumored paramour, and we had a great laugh knowing Bubba was in the same hotel somewhere getting his groove on while we had our pizza and beer.