Back to General Discussion

Why you shouldn't vote for HRC

deletedover 8 years

Ok so a lot of people are voting for HRC for a few main reasons: (1) She's not Trump (2) She will enact Liberal policies/ put in Liberal Justices (3) Global Warming/ The environment is an important issue RN (4) Female President (5) Most experience

Here's my responses: (1) OK so I'm not a Trump supporter/fan by any means. BUT people seem to ignore a lot of the shady/ messed up that she's been caught in. Her emails (Yes they are a big deal, people have gone to jail for way less), taking money from corporate interest groups (more on this later), working with the DNC/ DWS to make her the nominee (leaked emails shows voter suppression and the DNC pitching anti-Bernie Sanders stories to the media). She may not be Trump but I'd argue that she's really just as bad.

(2)/(3) Liberal Policies - I'd say most liberals are: Anti-War, Anti-Private Prisons, Pro-Pot, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Environment, Anti-Corruption in Politics. HRC has received private donations totaling 87 million dollars from lobbyists and special interest groups (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=W) more than all the other presidential candidates in this election combined! (Trump, the 2nd most, has 19 million). Let's look at some of her donors: Private Prisons (leaked emails have shown her to be anti-pot and for minimum prison sentencing), Defense Companies (she's stated she wants a no-fly zone over Syria, which many top generals and politicians agree would be a bad idea because it would lead to a war with Russia), and fracking companies, which has been proven to be terrible for the environment (see Flint Michigan). Not very liberal of her it seems. Why would you trust her to put in liberal judges/policies when she seems to be able to be bought by whatever company wants her?

(4) Wanting a candidate because of their genitals or race is stupid. Just a plain fact. I have no problem with a female president, but I don't think HRC is the right person for the job. It'd be sexist to say you voted for Trump because he's male, and racist to say you voted for him because he's white, but spin it the other way and it's "Progressive".

(5) Yes she went to Wellesley and Yale, but going to college doesn't make you qualified for POTUS. She was FLOTUS, but who cares? To be qualified for FLOTUS you have to marry the POTUS. If Trump wins would Ivana be qualified to be POTUS? She was senator of New York, a blue state which she was an implant in. Bill Burr said it best "HRC walked out onto that stage with a brand new Yankees hat they just bought and said 'I've always been a Yankees fan!' I hate that woman." Let's also not ignore her terrible tenure as Secretary of State, where she had her now infamous email scandal (even if it was a mistake it's a terrible mistake that shows she not fit for the job) and her with Benghazi.

One of my favorite videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

So ya, like I said, I'm not a Trump supporter by any means. But I'm not a HRC supporter at all. To say you're voting for her so Trump doesn't win is asinine.

Now I'm voting for:
16
Trump
10
Clinton
5
Stein
4
Johnson
deletedover 8 years
Confession: Up until recently I had every intention of voting for Clinton. Like many Americans, I figured sure she's shady but she's experienced and qualified, unlike the orange racist misogynist. But recently, I've had a couple realizations. This is a person who is promising a lot progress for my vote. Do I believe she will keep her promises?

Well, not really. She has shown time and time again her interests are in her legacy and her own financial gain. She is highly skilled in political rhetoric and its the reason she's made it to the top as a First lady and Secretary of State. Her abilities have allowed her to trade favors around while making millions of dollars off speeches and donations.

Meanwhile, I have never seen her speak from her heart. I have never seen her rejoice with the poor or weep with the broken. These are the reasons she is perceived reptilian or cold-hearted.
Maybe losing sincerity was the trade-off to being a great politician, maybe she does care about the middle class, LGBTQ rights, women's rights, climate change, etc. but just doesn't emote it. Maybe it doesn't matter if she cares as long as she makes progress.

I may not know what the true motives are behind her cold exterior are, but I do know that there is an entire political machine, a movement of people, whose entire job is to get Clinton votes. CTR is just one example. The DNC is arguably another. The machine has hijacked democracy by placing this candidate as the only option for President. Sanders was shoved out because he was not the chosen one. Trump sank his own ship.

I won't vote for "the only option for president", because its not a choice. I won't buy what they are selling. I won't be reduced to another vote, a product, of these voter turnout machines we call political parties. If voting third party means throwing my vote away, I'd rather do that then choose which of the rich and powerful gets to represent me.
deletedover 8 years
Terry claims I only know buzzwords when all his defenses have been word for word HRC campaign defenses, his history of plagiarism follows him
deletedover 8 years

ChefCrackhead says

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/ I'll just leave this here


Terry will just say "it's a few emails" and fake

look word for word fracking defense by HRC that her campaign thought of! LOL!
ChefCrackhead
over 8 years
http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/ I'll just leave this here
deletedover 8 years
Also I like how Terry is trashing breitbart and r/thedonald like he didn't swear by them like a month ago
deletedover 8 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycWoqDI3WeI

this is what i imagine terry would be like if he made his own videos
deletedover 8 years
Terry just calls you stupid while saying he has many sources, then he posts a YouTube video and tells everyone he won the argument
ChefCrackhead
over 8 years

MeetTerry says


David Duke is a guy that isn't just some nut job. He's a guy running under the GOP flag while running for Senate.



You didn't answer either of my questions.



https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680



Why is a charity with a 94% transparency rating under FBI investigation*? What a wonky algorithm.
Also worth to note that Charity Navigator was a member of the Clinton Global Initiative from 2012 to 2014**. Sounds like a conflict of interests to me chief.



numerous sources have already verified the millions of people the CF has helped



Then post these 'numerous sources'.



only use the_donald for the memes, not the breitbart-level shintposting



'Every piece of anti-Clinton information is a conspiracy theory'
t. cognitive dissonance



* http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-fbi-never-closed-its-clinton-foundation-investigation/article/2606035
** http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-charity-watchdog-gives-clinton-foundation-high-marks-2016-9
Chaika
over 8 years

Ashe says


Mac says

Also @error/fnoof can you not use your +10 upvotes in this thread? You can use your +1, +10 makes it look like they have more support than they do.


Abusing powers is only one of the many liberating things of being a site mod (:

Curious if anyone already went voting early like in some areas?



Washington state allows for early mail-in ballots, which I voted and submitted on Sunday.
Ashe
over 8 years

Mac says

Also @error/fnoof can you not use your +10 upvotes in this thread? You can use your +1, +10 makes it look like they have more support than they do.


Abusing powers is only one of the many liberating things of being a site mod (:

Curious if anyone already went voting early like in some areas?
MeetTerry
over 8 years

ChefCrackhead says


trash



1.

David Duke is a guy that isn't just some nut job. He's a guy running under the GOP flag while running for Senate.

2.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

numerous sources have already verified the millions of people the CF has helped

only use the_donald for the memes, not the breitbart-level shintposting
ChefCrackhead
over 8 years

MeetTerry says


ChefCrackhead says

"Hillary is the LGBT candida-"




I don't think anyone actually supports those oil countries' policies


Then why accept their money? Some nutjob from the kkk endorses Trump and for weeks the media blows it up. Clinton accept money from backwards goverments and it's totally ok?





but the millions of people the Clinton Foundation has saved is impressive. It has a higher rating as a charity than does the Red Cross. The vast majority of its donations went straight to helping those in need


[citation needed]

Do you also believe that 90% of the Clinton Foundation donations go to charity? It's closer to six.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf




If some Middle Eastern country offered me millions of dollars for my charity, I'd accept it too. I don't think any sane person wouldn't.


'charity'. I do not believe for one second that a goverment that kills gays on sight, sends female rap*e victims to prison and actually trafficks human slaves to donates to her foundation out of the kindness of her heart. It's bribery plain and simple.
MeetTerry
over 8 years

ChefCrackhead says

"Hillary is the LGBT candida-"




I don't think anyone actually supports those oil countries' policies

but the millions of people the Clinton Foundation has saved is impressive. It has a higher rating as a charity than does the Red Cross. The vast majority of its donations went straight to helping those in need

If some Middle Eastern country offered me millions of dollars for my charity, I'd accept it too. I don't think any sane person wouldn't.
deletedover 8 years
i think we should get rid of the government
deletedover 8 years
ChefCrackhead
over 8 years
"Hillary is the LGBT candida-"

"b-but drumpf hates ga-"
ChefCrackhead
over 8 years
Amd if anyone cares I'll provide sources for my statements, too lazy to do it rn
ChefCrackhead
over 8 years
And Nate Shillver has been wrong about Trump for p much this entire election cycle. I don't trust 538 at all. Same with RCP who use some ridiculous polls as there input (HRC going from +12 to +1 in 5 days on that ABC poll? What's up with that)
ChefCrackhead
over 8 years

Mac says

Ok so I was messing around with an electoral college map.

Looks like HRC will win, unless Trump wins New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, and Ohio.

Even then he can't win, it just prevents HRC from getting 270.

If Evan McMullin wins Utah (he has a good chance), then he's in the running to be picked to be Pres.

So if you live in Utah vote McMullin. If you live in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, or Ohio vote Trump.




Last time I checked mcmuffin was behind Trump in double digits

Trump is up in Florida, Ohio in early voting significantly

Trump is doing better than Romney did in NC at this point 4 years ago and he won the state

Nevada is tied right now, but not really a mustwin imo

I haven't looked at Arizona numbers, but with Obamacare going up 110% and their R+5 demographic I cannot see it going blue

No idea about NH, but I don't think he needs it, because...

He's up in early voting in Michigan and tied in PA polls (even with the oversampling of Ds). If he wins either of those he's going to be president regardless.
deletedover 8 years
http://www.270towin.com/2016-house-election/

http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/
OhLookACat
over 8 years
I don't mean to doublepost again, but don't the Republicans control the House still? 538 forecasts the Dems gaining control of the Senate, but that's not all of Congress. What are the chances of the Dems controlling the House this election?
OhLookACat
over 8 years

Chaika says

Ok, it was a theoretical statement followed by a theoretical response, what didn't I understand?


I think I was the one who misunderstood, actually. I'm very sorry. ._.

I assumed Jimbei meant that if she was voting Clinton just to keep Trump out of office, she'd vote McMullin considering he has the better chance of winning over Clinton at the moment. So when she said that, I assumed that she's voting for Clinton for other reasons.
Uprizzle
over 8 years

Mac says


Uprizzle says

It's not like Hillary can just slam a button and create a no-fly zone over Syria. Congress would definitely have to approve something like that.

And since Congress is mostly projected to remain majority Republican, Hillary's plans wouldn't get too far anyways, sometimes simply because she came up with them.


Not true, Congress is projected to become majority Dem

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast


Even if Congress becomes Democrat, there are plenty of Democrats who would be strongly against a no-fly zone due to the potential for further confrontation with Russia. I don't see a war coming from it, but definitely tensions that gradually reach closer and closer to Cold War levels.
deletedover 8 years

Uprizzle says

It's not like Hillary can just slam a button and create a no-fly zone over Syria. Congress would definitely have to approve something like that.

And since Congress is mostly projected to remain majority Republican, Hillary's plans wouldn't get too far anyways, sometimes simply because she came up with them.


Not true, Congress is projected to become majority Dem

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
Chaika
over 8 years
Ok, it was a theoretical statement followed by a theoretical response, what didn't I understand?