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.
This is a line of attack that is perfect: 1. Hillary can point to Trump and say "look how this woman hater is attacking me for something my husband did 20 years ago. Has he no decency???" +5 points from women
2. Hillary can point to Trump and call him a hypocritical woman hating SOB who cheated on his wive(S)! and call on all women to vote against such a piece of gak (I'd tell her to just go off on camera). +5 points from married women.
3. Team HRC can dump 50,000 little bits about Trump's philandering to the media.
4. Hillary can now argue that Trump literally has no campaign issues if he's stooping to such a bottom level.
5. Hillary can now refuse any further debates as she won't be "caught in the same room with that son of a B!"
6. Trump can go off and make more vaguely pedo bear comments about his daughters.
7. Bill can promise a new NBC show called "Playboy Mansion II: the Whitehouse" and walk around with a sniffer of brandy and a smoking jacket. I'd watch it. +5 points from male voters.
Personally pushing this line of attack makes ME actually want to vote for HIllary just to spit in the Republicans eye for nominating Trump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/29 19:55:57
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
WrentheFaceless wrote: It disgusts me that they're now blaming the victim (Hillary) for Bill's infidelity.
If the GOP wasn't seen as the anti-women party yet, this sure isnt helping
She ceased became a victim when she didn't do anything about it.
This is probably the most offensive thing I've ever seen you post on here.
Probably not.
In fairness, I'm jaded... my ex had affairs and I did something about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: This is a line of attack that is perfect:
1. Hillary can point to Trump and say "look how this woman hater is attacking me for something my husband did 20 years ago. Has he no decency???" +5 points from women
2. Hillary can point to Trump and call him a hypocritical woman hating SOB who cheated on his wive(S)! and call on all women to vote against such a piece of gak (I'd tell her to just go off on camera). +5 points from married women.
3. Team HRC can dump 50,000 little bits about Trump's philandering to the media.
4. Hillary can now argue that Trump literally has no campaign issues if he's stooping to such a bottom level.
5. Hillary can now refuse any further debates as she won't be "caught in the same room with that son of a B!"
6. Trump can go off and make more vaguely pedo bear comments about his daughters.
7. Bill can promise a new NBC show called "Playboy Mansion II: the Whitehouse" and walk around with a sniffer of brandy and a smoking jacket. I'd watch it. +5 points from male voters.
Personally pushing this line of attack makes ME actually want to vote for HIllary just to spit in the Republicans eye for nominating Trump.
Yup. He's walking into a massive trap.
'Tis why I keep harping both candidate suck.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/29 19:57:50
WrentheFaceless wrote: It disgusts me that they're now blaming the victim (Hillary) for Bill's infidelity.
If the GOP wasn't seen as the anti-women party yet, this sure isnt helping
She ceased became a victim when she didn't do anything about it.
This is probably the most offensive thing I've ever seen you post on here.
Probably not.
In fairness, I'm jaded... my ex had affairs and I did something about it.
Too bad whembly.... Missed your chance to be PotUS
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
A Town Called Malus wrote: As sirlynchmob said, there is no law blocking anybody from drafting legislation if they wish to. They'd then need an elected official to present it to congress or whatever.
Or are you arguing that nobody but elected officials should be involved in drafting or proposing legislation? So no scientists, economists, doctors etc. who are not elected representatives in congress should be allowed any input?
She was an unelected person who held no office, she wasn't even a federal employee, she had no training or background that made her any kind of expert on healthcare she was trying to exert authority she didn't have to create extraconstitutional influence on congress simply because she wanted to more political power than just being Bill's wife.
I don't have an issue with people who are knowledgeable experts in a field providing testimony or input to congress in regards to legislation that involves or touches upon their area of expertise. What qualifications did/does Hillary possess to make her an expert on healthcare reform? At the time she was a former defense lawyer and first lady of Arkansas, that doesn't strike me as credentials to be any kind of expert on federal healthcare laws and practices.
Yes, any American citizen can write whatever they want and send it to their congressional representative but that's not what Hillary did. She didn't work through her congressional representative to get a drafted proposal submitted to a subcommittee for review and a vote, she used her status as First Lady to leverage her inclusion in secret closed door meetings that were challenged in court as unconstitutional and she only won the case in court because the DC Circuit narrowly ruled that her First Lady status made her a government official not a mere citizen like the rest of us who would have had to go through proper channels to be involved in the legislative process.
Starting on September 28, 1993, Hillary Clinton appeared for several days of testimony before five congressional committees on health care.[8] Opponents of the bill organized against it before it was presented to the Democratic-controlled Congress on November 20, 1993.[8] The bill was a complex proposal of more than 1000 pages, the core element of which was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees.
The First Lady's role in the secret proceedings of the Health Care Task Force also sparked litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in relation to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires openness in government. The Clinton White House argued that the Recommendation Clause in Article II of the US Constitution would make it unconstitutional to apply the procedural requirements of FACA to her participation in the meetings of the Task Force. Some constitutional experts argued to the court that such a legal theory was not supported by the text, the history, or the structure of the Constitution.[19] Ultimately, Hillary Clinton won the litigation in June 1993, when the D.C. Circuit ruled narrowly that the First Lady could be deemed a government official (and not a mere private citizen) for the purpose of not having to comply with the procedural requirements of FACA.[20][21]
Also in February 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. In 1997, Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling.[22] Subsequently, a federal appeals court overturned in 1999 the award and the initial findings on the basis that Magaziner and the administration had not acted in bad faith.
In 2005, referring to her previous efforts at health care reform, she said, "I learned some valuable lessons about the legislative process, the importance of bipartisan cooperation and the wisdom of taking small steps to get a big job done."[25] Again in 2007, she reflected on her role in 1993–1994: "I think that both the process and the plan were flawed. We were trying to do something that was very hard to do, and we made a lot of mistakes."[31]
Hillary Clinton was sued in Federal court because she had secret meetings about her healthcare proposal because she didn't want the public to know what she was doing, certainly sounds familiar doesn't it? Congress passed FACA to make advisory committees more transparent and open to the public and Hillary deliberately sought to avoid that transparency based on an unprecedented interpretation of the role of the First Lady. She was not acting as a ordinary US citizen trying to be involved in the workings of his/her government she was trying to leverage her position of being married to the President to gain undue influence over the passage of Federal legislation via a secret committee unaccountable to the public.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act defines advisory committee as "any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group" that dispenses "advice or recommendations" to the President of the United States, and excludes bodies that also exercise operational functions.[3] They are provisional bodies and have the advantage of being able to circumvent bureaucracy and collect a range of opinions.
Committees composed of full-time officers or employees of the federal government do not count as advisory committees under FACA. Furthermore, the following organizations are also not governed by FACA: the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the Commission on Government Procurement, the National Academy of Sciences, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Reserve, and the National Academy of Public Administration.[4]
Purpose
In drafting FACA, legislators wanted to ensure that advice by the various advisory committees is "objective and accessible to the public" by formalizing the process for "establishing, operating, overseeing, and terminating" the committees. The Committee Management Secretariat at the GSA is charged with monitoring compliance.
In particular the Act restricts the formation of such committees to only those which are deemed essential, limits their powers to provision of advice to officers and agencies in the executive branch of the Federal Government, and limits the length of term during which any such committee may operate. Further, FACA was an attempt by Congress to curtail the rampant "locker-room discussion" that had become prevalent in administrative decisions. These "locker-room discussion" are masked under titles like "task force", "subcommittee", and "working group" meetings, which are less than full FACA meetings and so they do not have to be open to the public. FACA declared that all administrative procedures and hearings were to be public knowledge.[5]
Please. Make up your mind. Does being first lady count as government service or doesn't it?
Besides the fact that congresscritters have private meetings with lobbyists all the time. Not to mention with each other. I'm sure the Koch brothers could easily get a private meeting with ANY Republican lawmaker.
So again, this is yet another complaint that Hillary is a bad, evil person because she does the SAME EXACT THING as other people.
And people wonder why the anti-Hillary hysteria isn't taken seriously...
skyth wrote: Please. Make up your mind. Does being first lady count as government service or doesn't it?
Besides the fact that congresscritters have private meetings with lobbyists all the time. Not to mention with each other. I'm sure the Koch brothers could easily get a private meeting with ANY Republican lawmaker.
So again, this is yet another complaint that Hillary is a bad, evil person because she does the SAME EXACT THING as other people.
And people wonder why the anti-Hillary hysteria isn't taken seriously...
Wrong.
My position/opinion remains consistent and unchanged that being First Lady does not make a person a public servant because it is neither an elected office or a government job. The DC Circuit court made a new precedent when they declared that it was in a narrow split decision. The outcome of that lawsuit is a fact but not one that changes my opinion.
The only reason Hillary wasn't found guilty of violating Federal law (specifically FACA) for her secret meeting was because the court ruled that her First Lady status made her a government official. If the Koch brothers or any other PRIVATE CITIZEN did the SAME THING that Hillary did it would be ILLEGAL. She did NOT do the same thing other people do she narrowly avoided violating federal law regarding open government due to the court setting a new precedent just for her. Those are the facts of the matter you can take them as you want but please don't completely misconstrue them to make a point that is demonstrably false.
WrentheFaceless wrote: It disgusts me that they're now blaming the victim (Hillary) for Bill's infidelity.
If the GOP wasn't seen as the anti-women party yet, this sure isnt helping
She ceased became a victim when she didn't do anything about it.
This is probably the most offensive thing I've ever seen you post on here.
Probably not.
In fairness, I'm jaded... my ex had affairs and I did something about it.
Whembly, you may still want to go back and edit your post to explain your point better. I think I know what you were trying to say, but what you actually said is dangerously close to being the same sentiment as "that woman deserved every black eye she got because she didn't leave her abusive husband after the first one".
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
WrentheFaceless wrote: It disgusts me that they're now blaming the victim (Hillary) for Bill's infidelity.
If the GOP wasn't seen as the anti-women party yet, this sure isnt helping
She ceased became a victim when she didn't do anything about it.
This is probably the most offensive thing I've ever seen you post on here.
Probably not.
In fairness, I'm jaded... my ex had affairs and I did something about it.
Whembly, you may still want to go back and edit your post to explain your point better. I think I know what you were trying to say, but what you actually said is dangerously close to being the same sentiment as "that woman deserved every black eye she got because she didn't leave her abusive husband after the first one".
No. I meant what I said.
You and I both know that sentiment isn't anywhere close to that. I mean, I think we all can agree she doesn't condone it, but man it's something else to attack the other women as viciously as she has done.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/29 23:27:12
WrentheFaceless wrote: It disgusts me that they're now blaming the victim (Hillary) for Bill's infidelity.
If the GOP wasn't seen as the anti-women party yet, this sure isnt helping
She ceased became a victim when she didn't do anything about it.
This is probably the most offensive thing I've ever seen you post on here.
Probably not.
In fairness, I'm jaded... my ex had affairs and I did something about it.
Whembly, you may still want to go back and edit your post to explain your point better. I think I know what you were trying to say, but what you actually said is dangerously close to being the same sentiment as "that woman deserved every black eye she got because she didn't leave her abusive husband after the first one".
No. I meant what I said.
You and I both know that sentiment isn't anywhere close to that.I mean, I think we all can agree she doesn't condone it, but man it's something else to attack the other women as viciously as she has done.
Look again at the actual words you used. They do mean that, by themselves. So, please, take the italicized sentence and add that to that earlier post to help qualify your statement better. Seriously, I am trying to help you out here, but you're digging yourself deeper by doubling down on it.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
And people wonder why the anti-Hillary hysteria isn't taken seriously...
I have done nothing of the sort, you're confused. I stated that the court's decision is an established fact and that it doesn't judge my personal opinion. I wouldn't refer to being First Lady, at the gubernatorial or presidential level as an "impressive history of public service" nor do I consider being First Lady as being a public servant or government official. The DC Corcuit court disagrees with me and they opinion carries far more weight than mine. Anecdotally I don't know many people that consider a First Lady to be a government official and popular perception probably aligns closer to that opinion than the court's but that doesn't change the fact that it's been ruled to be one either.
tneva82 wrote: Yes but they pay it off with new debts. Take loan to pay out existing loan. No goverment will really aim for 0 debts because that would basically take them into misery and because economics works on the assumption countries are eternal they don't NEED ever get that debt to zero.
Exactly. Rolling debt is fine, with both companies and governments.
Well until one goverment actually ceases to exists and that myth burst...
When a government ceases to exist you have a lot bigger problems than unpaid debt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: The two records of Clinton and Trump aren't alike but there is a difference between Hillary being less worse than Trump and being an objectively good candidate. Hillary doesn't have a "very long record of public service" she as 2 terms as a US Senator from NY and one term as Secretary of State, that 12 years.
It's pretty contrived to just ignore her time as first lady. While she didn't hold an official position, there isn't a person in this thread who would be unaware of how actively political she was during her husband's term. In those 8 years she was involved in more public advocacy, and more slinging matches with Republicans than most official members of his cabinet.
It's as long as Obama's record as a state legislator and US Senator and Hillary's campaign called out Obama as inexperienced in 2008.
As long as you consider time as a state legislator equal to time as Secretary of State, then that argument would make sense.
A very long record of public service would be somebody like Chuck Schumer the senior US senator from NY, he was in the state legislature from 1975-7980, US Congress from 1981-1998 and US Senate 1999-present, that's 41 years.
Well sure, if someone had said Clinton was the most experienced person in the country, then Schumer’s record would be relevant. You’re repeating the same mistake of including state legislative experience – Washington is a different place entirely. It doesn’t make that experience worthless, but it’s a long way from being equal to time spent actually working in federal politics.
All of Hillary's drawbacks that made her less appealing than Obama in 2008 still apply in 2016 she's just running against an incredibly bad candidate this time.
She actually won more votes than Obama in 2008. Part of that is the Maine weirdness, and part is Obama’s win in states that hold caucuses and therefore don’t have vote totals, but overall it’d be a stretch to call Clinton in 2008 anything other than equally popular with Obama.
Hillary isn't the best/most ideal candidate for the Democrats but it was her turn, she had Party support and Bernie was the only one willing to really challenge her.
The overall Democratic field is actually pretty light on for talent right now. Warren is the rockstar of the internet left, but that means very little in the real world, and there’s hardly anyone else. Looking back at the 2004 convention, John Kerry was a grey blur, but you could see in the convention speeches that Obama and Clinton were the future of the party. Looking at the 2012 and 2016 speeches, no-one stood out. 2020 or 2024 will be interesting for the Democrats, depending on when it is they have to find another presidential candidate.
The race is absurdly close and it isn't because Trump is surprising adept it's because a large enough contingent of Republicans and Republican leaning voters are willing to back Trump in order to oppose Hillary.
And the reality is that a large number of Republicans would convince themselves that the Democratic candidate is just the worst and so they’ll vote for the republican… no matter who the Democratic candidate was. They convinced themselves of this in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. 2016 is no different, and would be no different if Democrats had elected someone else. You think if Sanders had won we’d be seeing a different Republican logic than ‘Trump is bad but the Democrat is dangerously terrible so I better vote Trump’? It would be exactly the same.
This is the basic Republican path to victory. Its how they won in 2000 and 2004 as well. Get everyone to hate politics and all politicians. Democrats will then fail to turn out to vote. Republicans will still turn out to vote, and win the election.
Trump was and still is the most unlikable/unfavorable politician in the history of candidates' unfavorability ratings and he's leading Hillary in multiple states and that's because Hillary isn't a good candidate she's just less awful.
You’re confusing popularity with the actual qualities of a candidate.
Prestor Jon wrote: She was an unelected person who held no office, she wasn't even a federal employee, she had no training or background that made her any kind of expert on healthcare she was trying to exert authority she didn't have to create extraconstitutional influence on congress simply because she wanted to more political power than just being Bill's wife. If she wanted to help draft and pass federal legislation she should have run for congress instead of flaunting the rule of law for the sake of stroking her ego.
If you want to make the argument that Clinton shouldn’t have been involved in major reform work like the healthcare project as First Lady, you have a fair argument. I’d agree with that argument, and in hindsight Bill Clinton and maybe even Hillary Clinton might agree as well.
But that’s not what is being discussed. What’s being discussed is whether that work gave Clinton experience. Of course it did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Personally pushing this line of attack makes ME actually want to vote for HIllary just to spit in the Republicans eye for nominating Trump.
That was a pretty good summary, and I'd watch the hell out of Bill Clinton's Whitehouse Bunny Mansion.
And I actually think Bill Clinton's fairly sordid history with women could have been played by the Trump campaign in to a vote winner. It'd be comically hypocritical given Trump's own record, but Trump's infidelities didn't play out over years in the public eye. Bill Clinton's did. But Trump playing it like he is, starting with crude "I could say this but I'm not gonna" in the backend of a woeful debate performance, it just comes off as loser politics.
In the words of the immortal Spinal Tap; "there's a fine line between clever and stupid".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: In fairness, I'm jaded... my ex had affairs and I did something about it.
I don’t want to comment on your personal decision, but I do want to ask you to not comment on other people’s. If someone is cheated on, but decides to stay with their partner, that is their choice. If they do it for career reasons, or for the sake of their kids, because they think the other person just acted out of character, or even just because they’d have less nice things after a divorce, that is their choice. It is also their choice if they do decide to get divorced.
Other people should just back off, and not judge people’s life decisions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I wouldn't refer to being First Lady, at the gubernatorial or presidential level as an "impressive history of public service"
You're being dishonest. No-one has said being first lady in and of itself counts as an impressive history of public service. Rather, being first lady is eight years of experience in Washington that adds to time as a senator, and time as Secretary of State. It is the combination of time spent working in the Washington machine, from 1992 until 2012 that makes for a long record of public service.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/09/30 02:16:34
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: In fairness, I'm jaded... my ex had affairs and I did something about it.
I don’t want to comment on your personal decision, but I do want to ask you to not comment on other people’s. If someone is cheated on, but decides to stay with their partner, that is their choice. If they do it for career reasons, or for the sake of their kids, because they think the other person just acted out of character, or even just because they’d have less nice things after a divorce, that is their choice. It is also their choice if they do decide to get divorced.
Other people should just back off, and not judge people’s life decisions.
No... you misunderstanding where I'm coming from.
I'm not dinging Hillary for simply staying with her man.
I'm dinging her for attacking the other women who claimed sexual assault and rape.
EDIT: hey! I agree with Obama... do you think Hillary will take me out of her deplorable basket? (note, this isn't me that I'm voting for Trump,just that I'm #NeverHillary)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/30 02:58:15
She ceased became a victim when she didn't do anything about it.
whembly wrote:In fairness, I'm jaded... my ex had affairs and I did something about it.
whembly wrote:I'm not dinging Hillary for simply staying with her man.
I'm dinging her for attacking the other women who claimed sexual assault and rape.
That feeling when you say the most execrable thing you've ever said on this forum, and try to walk it back by attempting to bury it under a thick coating of dishonesty.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
She ceased became a victim when she didn't do anything about it.
whembly wrote:In fairness, I'm jaded... my ex had affairs and I did something about it.
whembly wrote:I'm not dinging Hillary for simply staying with her man.
I'm dinging her for attacking the other women who claimed sexual assault and rape.
That feeling when you say the most execrable thing you've ever said on this forum, and try to walk it back by attempting to bury it under a thick coating of dishonesty.
No. I stand by it and that isn't me walking back it.
I wonder if this year in the DakkaDakka yearly polls there will be a misogynist ranking.
I thought you hated only Hillary because of her political views, but is it a gender thing?
Jehan-reznor wrote: I wonder if this year in the DakkaDakka yearly polls there will be a misogynist ranking.
I thought you hated only Hillary because of her political views, but is it a gender thing?
She ceased became a victim when she didn't do anything about it.
whembly wrote:In fairness, I'm jaded... my ex had affairs and I did something about it.
whembly wrote:I'm not dinging Hillary for simply staying with her man.
I'm dinging her for attacking the other women who claimed sexual assault and rape.
That feeling when you say the most execrable thing you've ever said on this forum, and try to walk it back by attempting to bury it under a thick coating of dishonesty.
No. I stand by it and that isn't me walking back it.
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.
From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.
Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.
We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:
He is erratic. Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them.
He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent. It’s not just Democrats who say this. Scores of Republican national security leaders have signed an extraordinary open letter calling Trump’s foreign policy vision “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Robert Gates, the highly respected former Defense secretary who served presidents of both parties over a half-century, described Trump as “beyond repair.”
He traffics in prejudice. From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals.
Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can’t be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. His attacks on an Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican heritage fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment,” according to House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican Party. And for five years, Trump fanned the absurd “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.
His business career is checkered. Trump has built his candidacy on his achievements as a real estate developer and entrepreneur. It’s a shaky scaffold, starting with a 1973 Justice Department suit against Trump and his father for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals. (The Trumps fought the suit but later settled on terms that were viewed as a government victory.) Trump’s companies have had some spectacular financial successes, but this track record is marred by six bankruptcy filings, apparent misuse of the family’s charitable foundation, and allegations by Trump University customers of fraud. A series of investigative articles published by the USA TODAY Network found that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades, including at least 60 that involved small businesses and contract employees who said they were stiffed. So much for being a champion of the little guy.
He isn’t leveling with the American people. Is Trump as rich as he says? No one knows, in part because, alone among major party presidential candidates for the past four decades, he refuses to release his tax returns. Nor do we know whether he has paid his fair share of taxes, or the extent of his foreign financial entanglements.
He speaks recklessly. In the days after the Republican convention, Trump invited Russian hackers to interfere with an American election by releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails, and he raised the prospect of “Second Amendment people” preventing the Democratic nominee from appointing liberal justices. It’s hard to imagine two more irresponsible statements from one presidential candidate.
He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.
He’s a serial liar. Although polls show that Clinton is considered less honest and trustworthy than Trump, it’s not even a close contest. Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to the quality and quantity of his misstatements. When confronted with a falsehood, such as his assertion that he was always against the Iraq War, Trump’s reaction is to use the Big Lie technique of repeating it so often that people begin to believe it.
We are not unmindful of the issues that Trump’s campaign has exploited: the disappearance of working-class jobs; excessive political correctness; the direction of the Supreme Court; urban unrest and street violence; the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group; gridlock in Washington and the influence of moneyed interests. All are legitimate sources of concern.
Nor does this editorial represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton, who has her own flaws (though hers are far less likely to threaten national security or lead to a constitutional crisis). The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.
Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president.
Other board members have serious reservations about Clinton’s sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.
Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.
Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.
whembly wrote: No... you misunderstanding where I'm coming from.
I'm not dinging Hillary for simply staying with her man.
I'm dinging her for attacking the other women who claimed sexual assault and rape.
The latter is a proxy for the former. In fact, the latter is only understood through the former. Because when you go looking for actual attacks made by Clinton against women speaking out against her husband, you find nothing but whispers and innuendo. But these whispers are accepted and believed, in part because there's a lot of people who'll believe anything mean that's said about Clinton, but also because she remained married to him, therefore she must have been complicit in the affairs, somehow.
Look dude, you said it quite clearly; "In fairness, I'm jaded... my ex had affairs and I did something about it." That isn't a comment on whether or not you attacked the people your partner slept with, it's a comment on you leaving your partner for their adultery, and you judging someone else who failed to do the same.
whembly wrote: EDIT: hey! I agree with Obama... do you think Hillary will take me out of her deplorable basket? (note, this isn't me that I'm voting for Trump,just that I'm #NeverHillary)
Did you subscribe to Milo before his twitter ban? Do you read Breitbart? If the answer to both of those is no, then you were probably never in the basket
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/30 03:27:00
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
EDIT: hey! I agree with Obama... do you think Hillary will take me out of her deplorable basket? (note, this isn't me that I'm voting for Trump,just that I'm #NeverHillary)
if you're in a deplorable basket, that's on you. which basket are you in?
That article was a great summary of just how far short of the requirements of the presidency Donald Trump falls.
On Johnson, given the guy was unable to name a world leader he admires, and ended up floundering about for a Mexican President who's name he couldn't recall, do you know admit that his Aleppo wasn't just a mind blank. That he's actually hopelessly lightweight on foreign policy knowledge? And if you do concede that, do you also accept that Johnson's first effort to minimize his Aleppo comment as just a mind blank was actually an attempt to hide his actual ignorance of the subject?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Hey! Gary Johnson got an endorsement from the 'Detroit News' today, which ended an unbroken 143-year trend of endorsing the GOP POTUS candidate. Baby steps...
That article was a great summary of just how far short of the requirements of the presidency Donald Trump falls.
On Johnson, given the guy was unable to name a world leader he admires, and ended up floundering about for a Mexican President who's name he couldn't recall, do you know admit that his Aleppo wasn't just a mind blank. That he's actually hopelessly lightweight on foreign policy knowledge? And if you do concede that, do you also accept that Johnson's first effort to minimize his Aleppo comment as just a mind blank was actually an attempt to hide his actual ignorance of the subject?
Don't worry the sun will engulf us so we don't got to worry about it - Johnson
3000
4000 
