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
ChefCrackhead
over 8 years
http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

This is an interesting read.
Ashe
over 8 years

ChefCrackhead says

https://youtu.be/njN75nJdCAk
A homeless woman getting assaulted by a mob of clintonites for protecting Trump's Hollywood star. Absolutely despicable.


After watching this I've lost all faith in humanity... christ that's sad, even if it wasn't political people have the mob mentality to take down someone that has NOTHING.
ChefCrackhead
over 8 years
https://youtu.be/njN75nJdCAk
A homeless woman getting assaulted by a mob of clintonites for protecting Trump's Hollywood star. Absolutely despicable.
deletedover 8 years
remembered as in informed, I guess. I was just a lil' baby Jimbles when that happened
deletedover 8 years
Yes I remember in 2000 when Al Gore got the popular vote yet still lost here

I think Mac's post above makes the best point: People are forced to absorb your platforms if you join their party. All I'm saying is don't feel forced to always have to chose between two people when there are more.
Ashe
over 8 years
"FBI reopens Clinton email investigation after new messages found"

FBI is as slow as me slowrolling a vote; curious how they'll deal with this.
deletedover 8 years

MeetTerry says


Jimbei says

Yes but the more chances a 3rd party has the more it can prove to people that we are the reason that 3rd parties aren't viable


first past the post will never let third parties in.

normies like you keep whining about third parties because they always eventually disintegrate and have to ally themselves with another

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo


The party commission should be non partisan, not how it's run now.

Also, I've said this so many time: Main platforms are forced to absorb 3rd party platforms. HRC was forced to absorb Bernie's platform. It's happened throughout US history whenever the parties splinter. If the Republicans absorb the Libertarian party it will make them less against social issues. The Dems will eventually absorb the green party.

Finally, please stop insulting people in this thread, argue don't insult. Insult anyone else, belittle them, whatever, and I'll mute you.
Nikki
over 8 years
if u have 3 parties and one candidate gets 40% of the popular vote and thus wins the election (the other two garnering only 30%) you'd still have 60% of voters not wanting one candidate to win and thus creating a system where the winner does not necessarily represent the true wishes of all of the voters.

as sad as it is, 3rd parties can muddy up the system. unless we adopted the preferential ballot or something similar, it isn't
likely that we will ever have anything more than a two party system. even countries that use the preferential ballot (see: australia) still have two major parties.
deletedover 8 years
But we live in a country where everyone has different opinions

3rd parties are people who are minorities on issues. I'm saying that if anyone aligns politically with a 3rd party they shouldn't feel forced to conform with the majority rule, but vote to who they think best represents their values.

If you don't like 3rd party, don't vote them. No one's forcing you, it's your vote and you can chose how to use it. Same with everyone else. We should still be critical of people's perceptions on issues and critical of their ways of thinking, but suppressing their voices is not the answer.
MeetTerry
over 8 years

Jimbei says


I just feel people need an open perspective when posting and consider 4 or more choices, not just 2. The longer they're ridiculed the more people will be bullied into one side or another


you still don't get it

you didn't even bother watching the easy video

multiple parties create minority rule, not majority rule

third parties never last long

this has been proven over and over again in numerous countries
ChefCrackhead
over 8 years

ohboyherewego
Reamix
over 8 years
Hillary when the FBI dropped more email scandal today.
Entil
over 8 years
Vote for Trump, i want to see your country get ruined even more.
deletedover 8 years
It's worth noting in a democrat and don't really agree with third parties as they currently stand

I just feel people need an open perspective when posting and consider 4 or more choices, not just 2. The longer they're ridiculed the more people will be bullied into one side or another
MeetTerry
over 8 years

Jimbei says

Yes but the more chances a 3rd party has the more it can prove to people that we are the reason that 3rd parties aren't viable


first past the post will never let third parties in.

normies like you keep whining about third parties because they always eventually disintegrate and have to ally themselves with another

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
deletedover 8 years
Yes but the more chances a 3rd party has the more it can prove to people that we are the reason that 3rd parties aren't viable
MeetTerry
over 8 years

Jimbei says

By the way it's worth noting I live in Utah which has a 3rd party polling better then Hillary Clinton

Not that I like him one bit but conservatives who don't like Donald Trump are turning to someone else and he has a viable chance of winning Utah, making it a battleground state

If you vote 3rd party and get enough people to agree with you stuff like this can happen, instead of forcing yourself to choose between Trump and Clinton.


utah christians/mormons are people who like showing how moralistic they are in the public but not in private

they will be voting for trump. the third party candidate will lose.
MeetTerry
over 8 years
The main issue with the Iraq War (from investigations) was that there was groupthink in that people did not want to underestimate Saddam Hussein's weapon arsenal.

All evidence did point to this. British/French/German intelligence worked with the CIA. He was already using biological warfare in huge amounts against people. He had numerous facilities throughout the nation that were suspected to hold WMDs.

Hillary's speech outlined the dangers of inaction versus action. She noted a lot of history where inaction led to endless massacres. She also said that her vote was the final message to Saddam Hussein to disarm, or be forcibly disarmed.
deletedover 8 years
McMullun?
MeetTerry
over 8 years

Mac says

Even tho HRC is a proven war hawk? (Voted for Iraq war, see all my other points)


This is what I mean when you only know buzzwords.

Yes, she voted for the Iraq War, but if you actually listen to her speech when she officially voted for it, she explained why perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyCBF5CsCA

Saddam Hussein had already been using chemical warfare against Iraqis. He had been fighting with Iran and had invaded Kuwait. Iraq had expressed publicly its desire to increase its arms and aggressions toward other nations. He had massacred his family members as well as native Iraqis.

Diplomatic efforts failed. 90%+ of Americans supported stopping Hussein.

“This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.”

"[This] is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
deletedover 8 years
Evan McMillan I honk for those interested
deletedover 8 years
By the way it's worth noting I live in Utah which has a 3rd party polling better then Hillary Clinton

Not that I like him one bit but conservatives who don't like Donald Trump are turning to someone else and he has a viable chance of winning Utah, making it a battleground state

If you vote 3rd party and get enough people to agree with you stuff like this can happen, instead of forcing yourself to choose between Trump and Clinton.
deletedover 8 years

dahlia says

A vote for the third party is a wasted vote. You know they have no chance of winning. Unfortunately, it's a two party system, and it seems that that's not going to change in the States for a while. You're just going to have to wait until they implement something like proportional representation for a 3rd party candidate to stand a chance.


How is it a wasted vote when my state will vote blue no matter what? HRC will win my state no matter who I vote for, so why not toss my vote to someone I agree with more, and if he gets 5% of the popular vote his party gets funding?
deletedover 8 years

dahlia says

A vote for the third party is a wasted vote. You know they have no chance of winning.


Your vote is wasted as long as you tell yourself it is.

Your vote is your voice, if you want 3rd parties to win you keep voting to say they have a chance. If a candidate has 15% chance in the polls they could have joined the debates with Hillary and Trump.

Your vote is your voice and you're forcing yourself to let one of two people represent it because they have the best chances of winning, instead of considering as many people as possible.
Ashe
over 8 years
Now that you think about it Mac makes good points, he's the better fraternal twin of Terry..