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
Kermit
over 8 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOT_BoGpCn4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8m1LGp1AxA

american politicians are a joke
deletedover 8 years
Cant 4get the 4eigners
deletedover 8 years
WHy are u arguing it about it on this website half the users are underage and the rest cba to leave their house
dahlia
over 8 years
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.
OhLookACat
over 8 years

ChefCrackhead says

Just a remark: if you're going to post facts please provide a source. Don't be that "studies have shown" guy and then ramble on about whatever your point is. Give others the opportunity to verify your claims.


In other words, let's not be weasels.

I'm not sure whose posts you were referring to, but I agree wholeheartedly. :) I'm willing to consider different perspectives and ideas, but I need new information to change my position. I know that an epicmafia forum is far from an academic environment, but I'm a little disappointed just how few sources are in these election threads; it's hard to keep track of the facts on my end when there are so many vague claims being made. .-. Google has helped a bit, but it'd be easier to get on the same page as everyone if I got to read exactly what they were reading. If I tried to investigate the claims all on my own, I might miss out on important details due to personal bias... so if you provide a link, I'll be sure to check it out regardless of where it comes from.
Sportsfan666
over 8 years

Ben says

is that seriously real

how the is that supposed to convince people

"hey vote for me ill kill you daughter in my political war lol"


shut up, its HER turn!
Ashe
over 8 years

cute says

none of your questions were questions, they're merely statements with question marks tacked on.


thats not cute of you huhueuuh
Ben
over 8 years
is that seriously real

how the is that supposed to convince people

"hey vote for me ill kill you daughter in my political war lol"
ChefCrackhead
over 8 years
This is some high energy persuasion


deletedover 8 years

dilectus says

tbh one of the reasons i dont want to vote for trump ( if i could ) is bc forgien policies and stuff. dont really want the prez to start yelling at UN meetings and then get a war started bc they were offended


Even tho HRC is a proven war hawk? (Voted for Iraq war, see all my other points)
dilectus
over 8 years
tbh one of the reasons i dont want to vote for trump ( if i could ) is bc forgien policies and stuff. dont really want the prez to start yelling at UN meetings and then get a war started bc they were offended
ChefCrackhead
over 8 years
Just a remark: if you're going to post facts please provide a source. Don't be that "studies have shown" guy and then ramble on about whatever your point is. Give others the opportunity to verify your claims.
Sishen
over 8 years
My opponent is a liar and he cannot be trusted.
OhLookACat
over 8 years
Speaking of dirty energy, I have some questions about fracking. I don't know enough about fracking to feel strongly about it, but it's to my understanding that Trump and Clinton both support it being decided by the states, but Clinton's position comes with caveats, including mandated release of chemicals being used. This sounds to me like she's advocating for fracking, but is stressing responsibility and mitigation for potential downsides, which I think is a reasonable position if what Terry's saying is true.

I'm open to changing my mind, so I'm gonna try looking into this a little more.

Someone ought to tell me why they think fracking is absolutely unacceptable... I know there's contamination and earthquake concerns, but how much evidence do we have to support them?

Is a "bridge" between renewables and nonrenewable sources necessary? Would nuclear be a better alternative to fracking if that's the case?
OhLookACat
over 8 years
Okay... so I don't like being politically outspoken because in general I believe that I have No Idea What I'm Talking About. Since I'm one year shy of being allowed to vote (I can look back on this year with a clear conscience! :D) my opinion doesn't exactly matter, but I want to learn more about politics so I'll try participating in the discussion.

I think I'll address point 3 first. I'll tackle (1) eventually (I promise!), but right now my concern is their policy positions, not their character. I understand that this is a huge reason why people don't like her, but I'm a little weary of following all these scandals and I need a break. ._.

So when it comes to point 3, I'm not quite sure where you all are coming from. Perfect plan or not, a Clinton presidency would be more environmentally friendly than a Trump presidency provided things actually get passed in Congress. Trump wants to reduce the EPA to almost nothing, remove restrictions on coal and oil and is the only one out of the main four candidates who rejects AGW. Clinton could possibly be flirting with dirty energy interests, but Trump is embracing them fully. As far as I'm concerned, if the environment is your top priority, you should do all you can to keep this man out of office.
deletedover 8 years
I watched the first episode of Love Live today

That was truly an experience
deletedover 8 years

cute says

i already explained/hinted at why you were biased (check my comment on you complaining about pun's negs). and you outright called terry a flop. call it stating the facts, if you will, but it's still an insult.

peace out 4 real this time.


Jesus christ, how am I baised? I don;t think you should upvote anything +10, donald, HRC, Johnson, Stein. It was a request and you guys are making it a big deal.

A flip flopper is an insult? After i got called a "conspiritard" (which is against the rules but error is only interesting in making a mountain out of a molehill here), and dumb stupid etc..
cute
over 8 years
i already explained/hinted at why you were biased (check my comment on you complaining about pun's negs). and you outright called terry a flop. call it stating the facts, if you will, but it's still an insult.

peace out 4 real this time.
deletedover 8 years
saying lol and insulting someone isn't an argument jesus this is infuriating
deletedover 8 years

cute says

none of your questions were questions, they're merely statements with question marks tacked on.


How am I biased, how am I insulting terry?
MeetTerry
over 8 years

Mac says

more namecalling, and don't act like we didnt go into the Middle East for oil. Where are the nukes they had?


I know I'm name-calling. But I'm also hitting you with facts.

British/German/French intelligence worked with the CIA. All of them believed that there were weapons. This was bad intelligence gathering.

simplified version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgQw8EhPJWw



How does fracking work for everyone when it is destroying the environment?


because everyone has cars and natural gas stoves and heaters and kmsgargoiwoioijergjiasfaerijsifenrgini




Yes we have a demand for gas, how does this apply to economics which is theory? Supply and demand everyone knows how this works.


lol
cute
over 8 years
furthermore, you just repeated yourself again. since winnie has ordained this thread to remain on topic, guess i gotta peace out. bye nerds.
deletedover 8 years

MeetTerry says


Mac says

]Terry admitted fracking was bad for the environment which I said?


Terry admitted smoking was bad for the human body and other people but he still doesn't want to ban it????

zoo-wee momma

go for practical solutions buddy. you always talk about limited government but here you are advocating for outright banning something

fracking sucks - then use public policy as a way to make it go away, which it will happen.


Yes I'm into limited government but I have other views. I think things that the government is here to protect as a society, and things that impact the environment need to be regulated.

Interestingly enough, I do think tobacco should be eventually banned. It's been proven that 2nd hand smoke isn't good for you. I'm a libertarian and am all for self liberty, but when something effects my health or right to live I find issue with it.
deletedover 8 years

Merlot says

keep this on-topic and friendly thanks.


no i've HAD it with these mods and their powerful voting digits
Merlot
over 8 years
keep this on-topic and friendly thanks.