Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Is that "want" their own Obama or something?

Yup.

Also, this election is really coming down to vote for turd, or vote for turd.

Exactly.

Unless we have a Contested Convention... which we can reasonably project that it'll be a non-Trump candidate.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Hillary changes her "public opinion" repeatedly to appease the masses. She has remade herself in the last 4 months to align more with Sanders to suck in some of his votes. What she really thinks, who knows?

I have trouble voting for anyone that 1. Defends and admitted child rapist. 2. Manages to get his conviction overturned due to a technicality. 3. Immediately after the court proceeding gets caught making a crude joke about the rape victim. That's the Hillary I'm afraid of.

I'm also wary of he ability to declared "incompetent" as legal counsel and her loose ties with known domestic terrorists. Let's also add it that she was all on board for a cap-and-trade emissions law that would have HUGELY benefitted a bank she had stock in.

Errrr, shouldn't a politician who wants to represent the people of their country align their personal beliefs with the majority of the population?

It would be a very bad and undemocratic politician who ignored the wishes of the very people who elected them because they felt that X was better than Y.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Hillary changes her "public opinion" repeatedly to appease the masses. She has remade herself in the last 4 months to align more with Sanders to suck in some of his votes. What she really thinks, who knows?

I have trouble voting for anyone that 1. Defends and admitted child rapist. 2. Manages to get his conviction overturned due to a technicality. 3. Immediately after the court proceeding gets caught making a crude joke about the rape victim. That's the Hillary I'm afraid of.

I'm also wary of he ability to declared "incompetent" as legal counsel and her loose ties with known domestic terrorists. Let's also add it that she was all on board for a cap-and-trade emissions law that would have HUGELY benefitted a bank she had stock in.

Errrr, shouldn't a politician who wants to represent the people of their country align their personal beliefs with the majority of the population?

It would be a very bad and undemocratic politician who ignored the wishes of the very people who elected them because they felt that X was better than Y.

No. Generally you want each politician to have a set of beliefs. Then the citizens elect the one that aligns with what they want.

Some mutability is good, but not to the level that Clinton waffles around.

Trumps complete lack of experience in government at any level is a concern for me. Obama was an unusually inexperienced president, and he'd been in elected office for a decade, with significant public service prior to that. Trump has altered between being a business owner and an entertainer, with the latter being his focus more recently. (Reagan was an actor, but he was also president of SAG and governor of California before becoming president).

I've seen people dislike Hilary for generally vague reasons for over two decades. I'll concede that she's not the trust inspiring person, but given the inherent inability of a president to always tell the truth, I don't see it as a huge drawback. Obviously others do, which is their right.

She's nakedly ambitious, which alienates a lot of people. She's a popular candidate with a center-left platform in a country that's shifting very slightly to the left. She's got enough of a resume, and I think she has the ability to compromise and be flexible in running the country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No. Generally you want each politician to have a set of beliefs. Then the citizens elect the one that aligns with what they want.

Some mutability is good, but not to the level that Clinton waffles around.

Man, people are idiots, myself included. I'm not sold that we should all come up with a list of views on incredibly complex, inherently unknowable issues, and then try to match them to a candidate.

I'd rather have a president that listens to people and changes their opinion rather than someone who takes a my way or the highway approach.

And if you believe that's what Hillary is actually doing, well I've got some land in the Everglades to sell you at a real good rate...

I would prefer a leader who is open to reason and change of opinion, due to the reason.

Not due to naked vote grabbing.

I would prefer said reasonable leader over a "My beliefs never change regardless of evidence" too.

 Polonius wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No. Generally you want each politician to have a set of beliefs. Then the citizens elect the one that aligns with what they want.

Some mutability is good, but not to the level that Clinton waffles around.

Man, people are idiots, myself included. I'm not sold that we should all come up with a list of views on incredibly complex, inherently unknowable issues, and then try to match them to a candidate.

Well you'll never have a perfect match of course. but that's better than having something you just really have no idea on.

Hillary is fickle and waffling on issues. This instability isn't a good thing. On top of all the other bad things she'd bring into the picture. Really her only consistent feature is her ability to lie and her ambition.

I would trust Hillary to keep civil rights more than I would trust Trump (And I'd trust Trump more than Cruz for that point).

 skyth wrote:
I would trust Hillary to keep civil rights more than I would trust Trump (And I'd trust Trump more than Cruz for that point).

Disagree.

They'll both want to strip civil rights.

Difference is Hillary might actually succeed. Trump wouldn't ever be able to do what he is proposing.

How would Hillary succeed where Trump would fail? I feel silly adding on this that this isn't a trap/trick question, I just don't get it.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
How would Hillary succeed where Trump would fail? I feel silly adding on this that this isn't a trap/trick question, I just don't get it.

Because Hillary is an "insider". Everyone in Washington hates Trump. Everyone.

That feels like a pretty fair answer actually, thanks.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Really her only consistent feature is her ability to lie and her ambition.

Her chief weapon is lies! Lies and ambition, two chief weapons, lies and ambition, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among her chief weapons are: lies, ambition, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to Wall Street!

I don't see Hillary trying to roll back gay rights or religious freedom. (Real religious freedom, not legalizing being able to punish someone else for not following your religion).

As long as she's our liar, I'm comfortable with it.

She doesn't need money, and there's nothing to run for after POTUS. She'll want a legacy, which could be interesting to watch, but while she's into self glorification, she's chosen public service as the outlet for that. She was effective as secretary of state, and has generally shown a non-ideological, pragmatic view of foreign policy.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Hillary changes her "public opinion" repeatedly to appease the masses. She has remade herself in the last 4 months to align more with Sanders to suck in some of his votes. What she really thinks, who knows?

I have trouble voting for anyone that 1. Defends and admitted child rapist. 2. Manages to get his conviction overturned due to a technicality. 3. Immediately after the court proceeding gets caught making a crude joke about the rape victim. That's the Hillary I'm afraid of.

I'm also wary of he ability to declared "incompetent" as legal counsel and her loose ties with known domestic terrorists. Let's also add it that she was all on board for a cap-and-trade emissions law that would have HUGELY benefitted a bank she had stock in.

Do you have links explaining what you're talking about?

I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.

She was a lawyer who got assigned an alleged* rapist in 1975. She successfully defended the man because it was her job as his lawyer.

About the joke I have no idea.

*I'm pretty damn sure he was a rapist though.

I'm always surprised that "she's ambitious" is considered a drawback.

You have to be a narcissist and ambitious to think that you would be the best person to become POTUS. How many people thought that God Himself chose them for the job this time around?

Here is some other reasons I hope Hillary looses. She is backing Loretta Lynch in her plans to press charges against climate change deniers. While I don't necessarily agree with climate change denial prosecuting "thought crime" is a travesty.

Also, Obama will have appointed three Supreme Court Justices. The next President will be in line to appoint to or three more. The next President needs to appoint people that are a little right of center to re-balance the Supreme Court. I prefer the Court to have 4 Conservatives, 4 liberals, and one swing vote. Which is what we've had up until recently.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.

She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm always surprised that "she's ambitious" is considered a drawback.

You have to be a narcissist and ambitious to think that you would be the best person to become POTUS. How many people thought that God Himself chose them for the job this time around?

there's a theory, that I won't argue for, but certainly won't try to dispute, which states that openly ambitious women are seen as inherently less capable or trustworthy. It's pretty well supported by social science.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
She was a lawyer who got assigned an alleged* rapist in 1975. She successfully defended the man because it was her job as his lawyer.

About the joke I have no idea.

*I'm pretty damn sure he was a rapist though.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with her defending that scum, or even winning. Disparaging the victim after the fact is a cheap shot. If she were a man I wouldn't have blamed someone for punching her.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Here is some other reasons I hope Hillary looses. She is backing Loretta Lynch in her plans to press charges against climate change deniers. While I don't necessarily agree with climate change denial prosecuting "thought crime" is a travesty.

Also, Obama will have appointed three Supreme Court Justices. The next President will be in line to appoint to or three more. The next President needs to appoint people that are a little right of center to re-balance the Supreme Court. I prefer the Court to have 4 Conservatives, 4 liberals, and one swing vote. Which is what we've had up until recently.

Picking a president based on their SCOTUS picks is actually one of the best reasons, in my opinion. Personally, I'm fine with a liberal bench, but that's why we vote, isn't it?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
She was a lawyer who got assigned an alleged* rapist in 1975. She successfully defended the man because it was her job as his lawyer.

About the joke I have no idea.

*I'm pretty damn sure he was a rapist though.

It's the job of all defense attorneys to make sure that the state did their job correctly when it comes to investigating and prosecuting crimes. They don't defend guilty people to get them off, they defend them to make sure the constitution was followed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Here is some other reasons I hope Hillary looses. She is backing Loretta Lynch in her plans to press charges against climate change deniers. While I don't necessarily agree with climate change denial prosecuting "thought crime" is a travesty.

Also, Obama will have appointed three Supreme Court Justices. The next President will be in line to appoint to or three more. The next President needs to appoint people that are a little right of center to re-balance the Supreme Court. I prefer the Court to have 4 Conservatives, 4 liberals, and one swing vote. Which is what we've had up until recently.

Picking a president based on their SCOTUS picks is actually one of the best reasons, in my opinion. Personally, I'm fine with a liberal bench, but that's why we vote, isn't it?

SCOTUS appointments are always in the mix, but this time it is just a very obvious part of the campaign. Which is why the GOP wants to make it a campaign issue instead of holding hearings or votes.

Oh, I know d-usa. Should've mentioned that in my post.

I remember a pretty good post on reddit by a defense lawyer discussing that very thing.

His views were it was his job to do his best to defend his client, regardless of who they were. And his view that the prosecutor should also bring their best, with the idea that once his client was convicted, if they were a real witch there'd be less to no means of them trying to get off from a technicality raised by his previous defense.

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.

She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.

On the first, the right to object on the grounds of religion. See the bakery that refused to make a cake for the gay couple and got in trouble, when really you should have the right to deny service for any reason. If I am running a business there should be nothing which compels me to serve a particular customer. I fear Hillary would take this even further.

On the fourth, Hillary is a fan of big government. Especially when it comes to privacy infringement. I don't trust her to not expand government privacy intrusions.

:edit for derp

 cuda1179 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
She was a lawyer who got assigned an alleged* rapist in 1975. She successfully defended the man because it was her job as his lawyer.

About the joke I have no idea.

*I'm pretty damn sure he was a rapist though.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with her defending that scum, or even winning. Disparaging the victim after the fact is a cheap shot. If she were a man I wouldn't have blamed someone for punching her.

Is there a link or anything to her disparaging the victim? I found a story in which the victim claimed she was put through hell, but it also noted that the defendant took a plea deal, which usually occurs prior to trial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

On the first, the right to object on the grounds of religion. See the bakery that refused to make a cake for the gay couple and got in trouble, when really you should have the right to deny service for any reason. If I am running a business there should be nothing which compels me to serve a particular customer. I fear Hillary would take this even further.

This is a complex issue, in that I feel that it's a violation of the first amendment, but because it's compelled speech. I think that cake decorators and florists are artistic enough that their work classifies as speech (and would), so that forcing a person create the message for a client they disagree with is inappropriate. I have no problem with laws that require business to offer "off the shelf" goods and services to all customers, regardless of sexuality. Religious freedom is simply the dogwhistle for being anti-gay rights, and I don't buy it. Making a cake for a gay wedding isn't against any Christian belief I'm familiar with.

Those laws won't survive the inevitable SCOTUS challenge anyway, so Hilary's not going to be the one to erode that.

On the fifth, Hillary is a fan of big government. Especially when it comes to privacy infringement. I don't trust her to not expand government privacy intrusions.

I don't trust any president not to expand government privacy. I think if we elected Cory Doctorow, eventually he'd start toying with intrusions. Power, corruption, etc.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.

She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.

On the first, the right to object on the grounds of religion. See the bakery that refused to make a cake for the gay couple and got in trouble, when really you should have the right to deny service for any reason. If I am running a business there should be nothing which compels me to serve a particular customer. I fear Hillary would take this even further.

And that doesn't impinge on your freedom of religion at all. Freedom of religion does not mean the ability to punish someone who doesn't follow the tenets of your religion. You are allowed to have whatever religious beliefs you want. Your beliefs cannot impact anyone else.

Or in other words, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

On the fifth, Hillary is a fan of big government. Especially when it comes to privacy infringement. I don't trust her to not expand government privacy intrusions.

Ummm...Fifth Amendment is the right to not be forced to incriminate yourself.

I don't trust Trump not to expand government privacy intrusions either (Or Cruz for that matter). Cruz would absolutely butcher the religious protections of the First amendment. Trump would butcher the speech part (He wants to roll back Libel laws so he can sue anyone who says anything he doesn't like about him).

 Grey Templar wrote:
If I am running a business there should be nothing which compels me to serve a particular customer.

We've been down that road before. And people seriously need to read the laws of the land. You're not allowed to deny service in public accommodations based on sex. Federal law says it. Oregon Law says it. At this point most states have a public accommodations law. So no. They had no right to deny service. We've been down that road before. We already know where it goes.

I fear Hillary would take this even further.

What doomsday scenario is Hillary going to usher in? How is she even remotely related to the case you cited?