Clinton can't be justifiably accused of being all that manipulative or deceitful.
I think most of the electorate, outside ardent Clinton supporters, would disagree with you.
Yes, Clinton has issues and she's not a really a good candidate. But Trump is a whole different level of problematic. They aren't equivalent.
You are drawing a moral distinction between the two, which is within your right. I think a significant amount of people saw no real moral distinction. Clinton was as dangerous to the institution of government as Trump was dangerous for the country.
The problem isn't more about Trump, but his voters. He basically got their attention spewing noncense and it worked so the problem is clear. Most people voted him because he shouted the loudest. Also having Clinton as his oponent jsut made it even more plausible. I think Sanders would have beaten Trump if he was the Democratic nominee but corruption got in the way.
Clinton was as dangerous to the institution of government as Trump was dangerous for the country.
How is this even conceivably true? We know exactly what level of danger Hillary Clinton posed. We have eight solid years of empirical evidence on how the administration of an allegedly-corrupt president surnamed "Clinton" turns out. As it happens, the institution of government was still alive and well at the end of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So, you are saying the institution is in the same, or better shape? I'm not sure how someone overlooks her circumventing oversight, while persistently lying about it to the American people being harmful or dangerous to the institution. I get the argument though, all okay since what she did was not illegal. We still do not know if Clinton's server was accessed by forigen intelligence services either. This does not get into the impact of the Clinton foundation, which we can not reliably measure. I guess not being able to reliably measure forigen political contributions impact on a major party nominee is not dangerous to the institution. These things are incredibly dangerous to the institution.
We know exactly what level of danger Hillary Clinton posed.
So, you are saying the institution is in the same, or better shape?
I'm saying: Look at Bill's presidency. Even if every single criminal or unethical thing of which he has been accused is completely true, it is a manifest fact that he did not wreck the country.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So, you are saying the institution is in the same, or better shape?
I'm saying: Look at Bill's presidency. Even if every single criminal or unethical thing of which he has been accused is completely true, it is a manifest fact that he did not wreck the country.
I'm not sure you can use Bill's time in office as a barometer. If anything, it's led to the decisions Hillary made after he left office. I want to distinguish between "wrecking the country" and "wrecking the institution of the presidency". I'm not sure how anyone can not have serious concerns with a H. Clinton presidency, considering she could not tell the truth about one of the worst decisions she ever made, never mind the motivations behind that decision. My point is, some people think Clinton distinguishes herself from Trump by a large margin, particularly from a moral/ethical stance, and I think a significant percentage of people disagree with that. There is something fundamentally broken about H. Clinton's character. Again, I do not think someone can make the argument that someone should not vote for Trump due to his immoral behavior, and vote for Clinton in the same breath with out looking like a hypocrite. This is the argument Clinton tried to make.
No, I need specific examples of how the liberal agenda is curbing the rights of a church in a way that I should at all be concerned.
Its not curbing any rights. I don't think I said that but
I don't know why the church's leader (are we talking the pope?) being white & conservative has anything to do with what you're talking about. And frankly, I don't think the Pope is a conservative. He believes in the value of life, but that means he also opposes the death penalty and war. So, while he's against abortion, he has some pretty strong liberal notches on his belt. And forgive me, but he's like the Grand PooBah of Social Justice.
Yes. This is by design. First and foremost the Catholic church is a powerful political entity. They know its rapidly losing popularity in western culture due to contradicting views in the liberal agenda. They are also facing a rapid growth of Islam and the threat of modern science. They know they need to appeal to liberals and younger people, especially because younger people are so impressionable. The strength of the church is its members. They can't simply change their stance on some issues, but they can bend and try to bridge the gap with understanding and tolerance. That's Pope Francis. He's a pretty great guy.
I think I'm specifically telling you that that's not so. If you want to "debate" you're going to need to step up and start providing your views and reasons, and that means talking in specifics.
Okay. That is the disconnect here. You're well aware of the how the liberal agenda and the teachings of the church conflict. You've been on this forum at least, for a very long time. All of the topics are already here. I'm not interested in debating them at all. I made an item on a bullet point list, and somehow got asked again and again what it meant every time. That's why I believe you are baiting me. I wasn't trying to be "right" about anything.
Clinton can't be justifiably accused of being all that manipulative or deceitful.
I think most of the electorate, outside ardent Clinton supporters, would disagree with you.
What the people believe is not the indicator of truth.
Yes, Clinton has issues and she's not a really a good candidate. But Trump is a whole different level of problematic. They aren't equivalent.
You are drawing a moral distinction between the two, which is within your right. I think a significant amount of people saw no real moral distinction. Clinton was as dangerous to the institution of government as Trump was dangerous for the country.
This isn't about what I or anyone else have a right to think. I understand that many people think they are equivalent- I am saying those people either have been misinformed about the facts surrounding Clinton's scandals or morally corrupt for thinking Trump is on the same level as what can justifably said of Clinton.
I'm not sure you can use Bill's time in office as a barometer. If anything, it's led to the decisions Hillary made after he left office. I want to distinguish between "wrecking the country" and "wrecking the institution of the presidency". I'm not sure how anyone can not have serious concerns with a H. Clinton presidency, considering she could not tell the truth about one of the worst decisions she ever made, never mind the motivations behind that decision. My point is, some people think Clinton distinguishes herself from Trump by a large margin, particularly from a moral/ethical stance, and I think a significant percentage of people disagree with that. There is something fundamentally broken about H. Clinton's character. Again, I do not think someone can make the argument that someone should not vote for Trump due to his immoral behavior, and vote for Clinton in the same breath with out looking like a hypocrite. This is the argument Clinton tried to make.
Clinton's never grabbed a man by the dick against his will or claimed that she would.
Clinton's never forced a married man (that she's not married to) up against a wall, while she herself is married, and forced herself on him.
Clinton's never walked into a boy's changing room to "inspect" the performance while those boys are naked.
Clinton's never told Christians or Muslims or Jews (regardless of the violent acts they've all committed) that we're going to have to stop them from coming into the country.
Clinton has never disparaged an entire country by saying "they're sending us rapists and thieves"
Clinton's foundation has never used it's charity dollars to by a six foot tall image of herself to hang in her house
Clinton's foundation has never bribed a public official to prevent an investigation in to her potentially illegal business practices.
Clinton has never asked someone she has done business with to pay her foundation instead of the company she runs (she was on Walmart's board in her early days)
I think "morality" wise, it's pretty clear Clinton has the upper-hand. As far as judgement goes and recognizing that she's on the back foot, she's not the best and it's probably no great loss that she doesn't get the opportunity to be president. But, she's still clearly morally and ethically far above Trump. And you're blind for not seeing. I say all of this while acknowledging that maintaining your own private server for e-mails is a pretty dumb decision that puts the nations documents in an insecure and risky place. But, none of the investigations into her have ever turned up anything and while its easy to say "she deleted the evidence" the reality is that she made a decision to save space and not buy more hard drives by just deleting everything in the past. And, to be fair Donald Trump does exactly the same thing. His company throws away any communication or document that's at least a year old and he's used it multiple times to avoid investigation or prosecution. So even on that front it's kind of dumb to think he's somehow morally superior.
But, given all of that, it's still entirely true that Hillary was unpopular. And while the reasons why are almost entirely manufactured it was obvious that this was going to be a problem. This conversation, this position is boring. It's out dated and it's been debunked every day of every week of the last year.
Hillary lost. In some ways, she deserved to. But it's quite clear that her faults are trivial in comparison to Trump's. And you're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
The inevitable "but trump is worse" argument. Trump behavior in no way makes Clinton's immorality trivial.
What the people believe is not the indicator of truth.
Then stop telling me you believe she is not a manipulative liar, while passing it off as the truth.
I am saying those people either have been misinformed about the facts surrounding Clinton's scandals or morally corrupt for thinking Trump is on the same level as what can justifiably said of Clinton.
How can you be misinformed about her manipulating the DNC? How can you be misinformed that she circumvented government oversight? How can you be misinformed about her lying about circumventing government oversight? How can you be misinformed about Foreign political donations to the Clinton Foundation? How can you be misinformed about her shaming Bill's accusers?
I understand the ardent Clinton supporter believes these are trivial things. The electorate disagreed, mainly democrats who did not vote.
Trump's lack of morality in no way makes Clinton's lack of morality trivial.
I just don't think that "immoral" is an accurate descriptor of Clinton. Technologically dumb? Yes, sir. Secretive? yeah. Obstinate & dense? Yes & Yes.
Immoral? I don't get it.
And you'd be right that Trump's flaws don't invalidate Clintons. But if I weight each one and how much it matters to me, Trump's weigh a lot more heavily in my mind. But again, this is boring and dumb. Clinton lost and it's clear that this wasn't a big enough issue and Clinton's focus on his ineptitude wasn't a big enough argument to get her elected because people just didn't care. The ultimate judgement against her candidacy is that she lost. I'd argue because most people fantasized about her being some sort of she-devil, but even that doesn't truly matter at this point. It was a strategically bad move since everyone knew that going into the race.
What if the choice was between not voting or voting for Clinton? This is why "but Trump is worse" was largely ineffective. The people she needed to vote for her were never going to vote for Trump in the first place.
So, you are saying the institution is in the same, or better shape?
I'm saying: Look at Bill's presidency. Even if every single criminal or unethical thing of which he has been accused is completely true, it is a manifest fact that he did not wreck the country.
I'm not sure you can use Bill's time in office as a barometer. If anything, it's led to the decisions Hillary made after he left office. I want to distinguish between "wrecking the country" and "wrecking the institution of the presidency". I'm not sure how anyone can not have serious concerns with a H. Clinton presidency, considering she could not tell the truth about one of the worst decisions she ever made, never mind the motivations behind that decision. My point is, some people think Clinton distinguishes herself from Trump by a large margin, particularly from a moral/ethical stance, and I think a significant percentage of people disagree with that. There is something fundamentally broken about H. Clinton's character. Again, I do not think someone can make the argument that someone should not vote for Trump due to his immoral behavior, and vote for Clinton in the same breath with out looking like a hypocrite. This is the argument Clinton tried to make.
Careful, or the only person qualified to be president will be a perfect saint (i.e. no one).
I think most all people will agree with a few ideas about “morality”:
1) A breach of “morality” is a breach of some principle or duty. Principles and duties are owed as a result of a relationship or state of being. It is wrong for me to not take my child to school, because I have a duty as his father. It is not wrong for a complete stranger to neglect to do so, because there is no relationship or duty. Now, there are certain breaches of ethics that have nothing to do with the office of the Presidency, and those that do. Specifically, the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, breaches of duty that violate the Constitution are those central to the question of a president’s ethics. Those questions of morality unrelated to the Constitution are ancillary.
2) In speaking of “character”, there are those things that directly impact one’s moral duties, and those things that have an indirect effect. I fail to take my son to school, that is a direct moral failing. I drink too much at night, and my ability to take my son to school on time is indirectly impacted. I might be able to fulfill my duty, I might not, but it is more difficult for me to do so. On point of Clinton v Trump, questions of general character (two-faced Hillary, sleazy Trump) are of indirect impact to the office of presidency. Of direct impact though are specific policy proposals that violate the Constitution, or international law.
3) Two things that are both considered “immoral” can each have different degrees of severity. The severity is measured by the impact of the consequences, and their foreseeability. I fail to take my son to school, he misses out on an education. I fail to feed my son, he dies of starvation. Starving to death being worse than going without education, it’s worse not to provide my son food. So if given the choice, I would provide food and delegate responsibilities for education to someone else, like the bus driver.
Trump has said that he would target the families of terrorists and use torture (worse than waterboarding). That’s in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, a breach of the office of the presidency, and extremely severe in consequence.
Trump has promised to block all Muslims from entering the country, on the basis of their religion, and target Latinos for deportation based on their race/national origin. That’s in direct violation of the 1st amendment of the Constitution, in direct violation of the President’s responsibility to uphold it, and highly severe.
Trump has promised to restrict freedom of the press, expand libel laws, etc, in what amounts to prior restraint. Again, a direct violation of the 1st amendment, violation of the duties of the President, and would have dire consequences on our freedoms.
Whatever people have/had against Hillary, it doesn’t amount to this. Her judgment has been far from perfect. But it’s a far cry from someone who has won the office of President openly intending to trample over the Constitution that he will swear to defend on taking office. How this continues to escape people, I have no idea. What Trump has threatened to do is severe enough on its own to justify pursuit of any other available course.
So, you are saying the institution is in the same, or better shape?
I'm saying: Look at Bill's presidency. Even if every single criminal or unethical thing of which he has been accused is completely true, it is a manifest fact that he did not wreck the country.
I'm not sure you can use Bill's time in office as a barometer. If anything, it's led to the decisions Hillary made after he left office. I want to distinguish between "wrecking the country" and "wrecking the institution of the presidency". I'm not sure how anyone can not have serious concerns with a H. Clinton presidency, considering she could not tell the truth about one of the worst decisions she ever made, never mind the motivations behind that decision. My point is, some people think Clinton distinguishes herself from Trump by a large margin, particularly from a moral/ethical stance, and I think a significant percentage of people disagree with that. There is something fundamentally broken about H. Clinton's character. Again, I do not think someone can make the argument that someone should not vote for Trump due to his immoral behavior, and vote for Clinton in the same breath with out looking like a hypocrite. This is the argument Clinton tried to make.
Careful, or the only person qualified to be president will be a perfect saint (i.e. no one).
I think most all people will agree with a few ideas about “morality”:
1) A breach of “morality” is a breach of some principle or duty. Principles and duties are owed as a result of a relationship or state of being. It is wrong for me to not take my child to school, because I have a duty as his father. It is not wrong for a complete stranger to neglect to do so, because there is no relationship or duty. Now, there are certain breaches of ethics that have nothing to do with the office of the Presidency, and those that do. Specifically, the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, breaches of duty that violate the Constitution are those central to the question of a president’s ethics. Those questions of morality unrelated to the Constitution are ancillary.
2) In speaking of “character”, there are those things that directly impact one’s moral duties, and those things that have an indirect effect. I fail to take my son to school, that is a direct moral failing. I drink too much at night, and my ability to take my son to school on time is indirectly impacted. I might be able to fulfill my duty, I might not, but it is more difficult for me to do so. On point of Clinton v Trump, questions of general character (two-faced Hillary, sleazy Trump) are of indirect impact to the office of presidency. Of direct impact though are specific policy proposals that violate the Constitution, or international law.
3) Two things that are both considered “immoral” can each have different degrees of severity. The severity is measured by the impact of the consequences, and their foreseeability. I fail to take my son to school, he misses out on an education. I fail to feed my son, he dies of starvation. Starving to death being worse than going without education, it’s worse not to provide my son food. So if given the choice, I would provide food and delegate responsibilities for education to someone else, like the bus driver.
Trump has said that he would target the families of terrorists and use torture (worse than waterboarding). That’s in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, a breach of the office of the presidency, and extremely severe in consequence.
Trump has promised to block all Muslims from entering the country, on the basis of their religion, and target Latinos for deportation based on their race/national origin. That’s in direct violation of the 1st amendment of the Constitution, in direct violation of the President’s responsibility to uphold it, and highly severe.
Trump has promised to restrict freedom of the press, expand libel laws, etc, in what amounts to prior restraint. Again, a direct violation of the 1st amendment, violation of the duties of the President, and would have dire consequences on our freedoms.
Whatever people have/had against Hillary, it doesn’t amount to this. Her judgment has been far from perfect. But it’s a far cry from someone who has won the office of President openly intending to trample over the Constitution that he will swear to defend on taking office. How this continues to escape people, I have no idea. What Trump has threatened to do is severe enough on its own to justify pursuit of any other available course.
I find your moral distinctions between the two just as valid as a Trump voters.
The "but Trump is worse" misses the point. You have to actually get people to vote for you, that will not vote for Trump. People want to pretend there was only two choices, but in reality there were a few others. Trump may be a horrible person, but that argument does not seal the deal that people should automatically vote for Clinton. You like the rest of the "but Trump is worse" gang can rationalize who is worse between Clinton and Trump, while ignoring the million of people who previously voted, but stayed home or voted 3rd party this election. Ask yourself why she did not win those peoples votes. when you do, her failing become much less "trivial".
So, you are saying the institution is in the same, or better shape?
I'm saying: Look at Bill's presidency. Even if every single criminal or unethical thing of which he has been accused is completely true, it is a manifest fact that he did not wreck the country.
I'm not sure you can use Bill's time in office as a barometer. If anything, it's led to the decisions Hillary made after he left office. I want to distinguish between "wrecking the country" and "wrecking the institution of the presidency". I'm not sure how anyone can not have serious concerns with a H. Clinton presidency, considering she could not tell the truth about one of the worst decisions she ever made, never mind the motivations behind that decision. My point is, some people think Clinton distinguishes herself from Trump by a large margin, particularly from a moral/ethical stance, and I think a significant percentage of people disagree with that. There is something fundamentally broken about H. Clinton's character. Again, I do not think someone can make the argument that someone should not vote for Trump due to his immoral behavior, and vote for Clinton in the same breath with out looking like a hypocrite. This is the argument Clinton tried to make.
Careful, or the only person qualified to be president will be a perfect saint (i.e. no one).
I think most all people will agree with a few ideas about “morality”:
1) A breach of “morality” is a breach of some principle or duty. Principles and duties are owed as a result of a relationship or state of being. It is wrong for me to not take my child to school, because I have a duty as his father. It is not wrong for a complete stranger to neglect to do so, because there is no relationship or duty. Now, there are certain breaches of ethics that have nothing to do with the office of the Presidency, and those that do. Specifically, the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, breaches of duty that violate the Constitution are those central to the question of a president’s ethics. Those questions of morality unrelated to the Constitution are ancillary.
2) In speaking of “character”, there are those things that directly impact one’s moral duties, and those things that have an indirect effect. I fail to take my son to school, that is a direct moral failing. I drink too much at night, and my ability to take my son to school on time is indirectly impacted. I might be able to fulfill my duty, I might not, but it is more difficult for me to do so. On point of Clinton v Trump, questions of general character (two-faced Hillary, sleazy Trump) are of indirect impact to the office of presidency. Of direct impact though are specific policy proposals that violate the Constitution, or international law.
3) Two things that are both considered “immoral” can each have different degrees of severity. The severity is measured by the impact of the consequences, and their foreseeability. I fail to take my son to school, he misses out on an education. I fail to feed my son, he dies of starvation. Starving to death being worse than going without education, it’s worse not to provide my son food. So if given the choice, I would provide food and delegate responsibilities for education to someone else, like the bus driver.
Trump has said that he would target the families of terrorists and use torture (worse than waterboarding). That’s in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, a breach of the office of the presidency, and extremely severe in consequence.
Trump has promised to block all Muslims from entering the country, on the basis of their religion, and target Latinos for deportation based on their race/national origin. That’s in direct violation of the 1st amendment of the Constitution, in direct violation of the President’s responsibility to uphold it, and highly severe.
Trump has promised to restrict freedom of the press, expand libel laws, etc, in what amounts to prior restraint. Again, a direct violation of the 1st amendment, violation of the duties of the President, and would have dire consequences on our freedoms.
Whatever people have/had against Hillary, it doesn’t amount to this. Her judgment has been far from perfect. But it’s a far cry from someone who has won the office of President openly intending to trample over the Constitution that he will swear to defend on taking office. How this continues to escape people, I have no idea. What Trump has threatened to do is severe enough on its own to justify pursuit of any other available course.
I find your moral distinctions between the two just as valid as a Trump voters.
The "but Trump is worse" misses the point. You have to actually get people to vote for you, that will not vote for Trump. People want to pretend there was only two choices, but in reality there were a few others. Trump may be a horrible person, but that argument does not seal the deal that people should automatically vote for Clinton. You like the rest of the "but Trump is worse" gang can rationalize who is worse between Clinton and Trump, while ignoring the million of people who previously voted, but stayed home or voted 3rd party this election. Ask yourself why she did not win those peoples votes. when you do, her failing become much less "trivial".
What if the choice was between not voting or voting for Clinton? This is why "but Trump is worse" was largely ineffective. The people she needed to vote for her were never going to vote for Trump in the first place.
I could have voted for an ethical and competent Republican over Clinton. She really did get my vote because Trump is worse. Way worse. The choice of not voting is the choice of intellectual laziness and civic irresponsibility. The opinions of nonvoters are irrelevant because they themselves have decided they are.
The choice of not voting is the choice of intellectual laziness and civic irresponsibility.
I'm sorry, I do not think deciding between a racist, or a manipulative liar who could be corrupt is a civic responsibility. I do think not choosing between the two is a valid option.
I'm sorry, I do not think deciding between a racist, or a manipulative liar who could be corrupt is a civic responsibility.
It's the difference between exerting some control over what the government is going to do to you next, and just lying down and taking it. If you care, you vote. If you don't vote, you don't care.
Keep telling yourself that. Ignoring the reasons these people did not vote seems like intellectual laziness to me.
No, seriously, they didn't vote. Their presence on this earth had absolutely zero influence on the outcome of this election. Every one of them could have been abducted by aliens on November 7 and the thing would have turned out exactly the same.
I'm sorry, I do not think deciding between a racist, or a manipulative liar who could be corrupt is a civic responsibility.
It's the difference between exerting some control over what the government is going to do to you next, and just lying down and taking it. If you care, you vote. If you don't vote, you don't care.
I agree, these non-voters did not really care whether it was Trump or Clinton and it appears you think its irrelevant why they did not care, but ironically, it can help explain why Clinton lost.
No, seriously, they didn't vote. Their presence on this earth had absolutely zero influence on the outcome of this election. Every one of them could have been abducted by aliens on November 7 and the thing would have turned out exactly the same.
That implies you can not stop the alien abduction.
EDIT: To elaborate, Clinton could be the reason these people did not vote, but to you that is irrelevant to the reason Clinton lost.
You will hear a lot of talk about how Trump attracted supposed new voters. He didn't, not in relevant numbers. He didn't "expand the map" like his surrogates say. He received less votes than both McCain and Romney. What happened is the opposite: it's the democrats that shrinked. They lost 5 million votes. While still winning the popular vote.
So to sum up:
* Romney and McCain had more votes than Trump;
The republicans continued with their trend of the last 10 years or so: slow decline of their ageing electorate.
This was actually updated this morning. Donald Trump has surpassed John McCain and is now on track to surpass Mitt Romney. It's honestly not that big of a deal since as it doesn't challenge the overall point and as far as I can tell he's still not on track to beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, but I just wanted to throw that out there. We probably won't have a finalized tally until next week.
In addition to that, what I found interesting was that even though Republicans lost fewer voters from 2012 than the Democrats, Trump's votes in raw numbers was actually below Romney's from 2012, a candidate that many people say lost because he did not excite his own party.
and yet, he won. I predicted Trump would win three months ago and the reason was that he was running against Hillary Clinton. That is why he won. President Obama's record, Obama care, the demonization of Russia attempted by the Clinton campaign, etc would all have been able to be overcome by any other Democratic candidate I can think of, but Hillary is despised by too many people in way too many demographic acrossed this country. All Trump had to do was to keep focused, keep point out he was running against Hillary and not arouse the left to get upset enough at him to shake off their complacency and go vote against him. So many thought there was no way he could win that they decided that they would not soil themselves by voting for Hillary. I work in the unemployment system here in Michigan and speak with as many as 200 people a day, people from all races, income groups, and backgrounds. It was not just the rightwingers and hardcore Republicans who despised Hillary Clinton, it was not just white men over 40 years old who despised her. She and her husband were the reason many, many women, black, Hispanic, asian and self identified Demoncrats I spoke to over the course of this election cycle gave me as why they did not vote. Many, many people who said they were Democrats told me they would not vote or they would vote for Dr. Jill Stein. Almost all said they wished Bernie Sanders was their candidate.
Don't get me wrong: Clinton and the DNC failed miserably and the voter turnout for Democrats versus 2012 was huge. My point was that Trump didn't win by exciting the Republican Party, because again Romney lost against Obama and analysts said it was because he didn't excite his own party (while he also lost with other groups like Mexicans, named Republicans were lower than they were for McCain). Trump had less votes than both of the former candidates. Clinton had far less.
What Clinton needed to was get people more excited to vote, because the "not as bad as him" was just not enough. I think Surging Chaos had it right before in the Trump thread: The groups that voted for McCain/Romney voted Republican begrudgingly. I think there were people excited for Clinton, but I wasn't one of them. And the message was not one to inspire confidence.
And yes, I do not think the DNC respected how many people felt cheated by the primaries.
The American Physical Society congratulated Trump for winning the Presidency. People criticized them so much that they publicly retracted the congratulations and apologized for any offense they caused.
So, you are saying the institution is in the same, or better shape?
I'm saying: Look at Bill's presidency. Even if every single criminal or unethical thing of which he has been accused is completely true, it is a manifest fact that he did not wreck the country.
I'm on my phone so I can't block quote from the preliminary Democrat Autopsy I posted on the Democrat Crack Up thread, but to summarize, Donald Trump's victory is evidence that at the least, The Rust Belt disagrees with you.
I live in the Deep South, so I can't say the following with certainty. Everyone underestimated the Rust Belt's hatred of NAFTA. President Clinton left the White House with the country in great shape, but now twenty five years later, people were looking starting to look at the Clinton White House (and by extension the Obama Legacy that was the next evolution of the Clinton's direction of the Democratic Party) and either raise concerns or express disdain (both rational and irrational). Nobody believed Hillary was forever against the TPP, and Bill set the deregulations in motion that many people credit to setting the Wall St. crash in 2008 in motion. A lot of people knew this. It's a prime reason why Bernie Sanders ran for the presidency in the first place to try to change that policy course.
Fortunately for Clinton (not that it matters anymore), Bernie Sanders knew better than to outright say those things because he did not want to run a scorched earth primary. He got close when the primary got tense in April and through May, but he restrained himself… for the most part.
I'd say that even if the Clinton Legacy did not ruin the country, people will point to this election and say it played a role in wrecking the Democratic Party.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
The American Physical Society congratulated Trump for winning the Presidency. People criticized them so much that they publicly retracted the congratulations and apologized for any offense they caused.
Thoughts?
Echo....echo...echo...
This is why some people are so stunned Clinton lost. They never listen to anything that does not subscribe to their views and go out their way to ostracize them.
They know they need to appeal to liberals and younger people, especially because younger people are so impressionable.
The Catholic Church has known about the necessity of impressionable young people since at least the 16th century, if not longer. (See: St. Francis Xavier)
The American Physical Society congratulated Trump for winning the Presidency. People criticized them so much that they publicly retracted the congratulations and apologized for any offense they caused.
Thoughts?
As a general rule, throwing marginalized people under the bus for grant money is morally wrong, and encouraging demagogues in the hope of not being added to their list of enemies is cowardly.
I'd have been happier with the organization if they'd imitated Merkel.
“Germany and America are connected by values of democracy, freedom and respect for the law and the dignity of man, independent of origin, skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views,” she said in a statement, adding: “I offer the next President of the United States close cooperation on the basis of these values.”
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
The American Physical Society congratulated Trump for winning the Presidency. People criticized them so much that they publicly retracted the congratulations and apologized for any offense they caused.
Thoughts?
How vicious were the complaints?
If they weren't that bad, this seems like an overreaction or a revealing of little support behind the original statement.
I suspect the complaints were quite bad though, they probably requested this to happen, which is too much on the complainer's part. Generic support for Trump is not some kind of radical hatespeech.
I think most of the electorate, outside ardent Clinton supporters, would disagree with you.
You are drawing a moral distinction between the two, which is within your right. I think a significant amount of people saw no real moral distinction. Clinton was as dangerous to the institution of government as Trump was dangerous for the country.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So, you are saying the institution is in the same, or better shape? I'm not sure how someone overlooks her circumventing oversight, while persistently lying about it to the American people being harmful or dangerous to the institution. I get the argument though, all okay since what she did was not illegal. We still do not know if Clinton's server was accessed by forigen intelligence services either. This does not get into the impact of the Clinton foundation, which we can not reliably measure. I guess not being able to reliably measure forigen political contributions impact on a major party nominee is not dangerous to the institution. These things are incredibly dangerous to the institution.
No we do not.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm not sure you can use Bill's time in office as a barometer. If anything, it's led to the decisions Hillary made after he left office. I want to distinguish between "wrecking the country" and "wrecking the institution of the presidency". I'm not sure how anyone can not have serious concerns with a H. Clinton presidency, considering she could not tell the truth about one of the worst decisions she ever made, never mind the motivations behind that decision. My point is, some people think Clinton distinguishes herself from Trump by a large margin, particularly from a moral/ethical stance, and I think a significant percentage of people disagree with that. There is something fundamentally broken about H. Clinton's character. Again, I do not think someone can make the argument that someone should not vote for Trump due to his immoral behavior, and vote for Clinton in the same breath with out looking like a hypocrite. This is the argument Clinton tried to make.
Yes. This is by design. First and foremost the Catholic church is a powerful political entity. They know its rapidly losing popularity in western culture due to contradicting views in the liberal agenda. They are also facing a rapid growth of Islam and the threat of modern science. They know they need to appeal to liberals and younger people, especially because younger people are so impressionable. The strength of the church is its members. They can't simply change their stance on some issues, but they can bend and try to bridge the gap with understanding and tolerance. That's Pope Francis. He's a pretty great guy.
Okay. That is the disconnect here. You're well aware of the how the liberal agenda and the teachings of the church conflict. You've been on this forum at least, for a very long time. All of the topics are already here. I'm not interested in debating them at all. I made an item on a bullet point list, and somehow got asked again and again what it meant every time. That's why I believe you are baiting me. I wasn't trying to be "right" about anything.
Favour isn't the best word, but if this is serious question about "healing", I'm interested
My Buying Thread
What the people believe is not the indicator of truth.
This isn't about what I or anyone else have a right to think. I understand that many people think they are equivalent- I am saying those people either have been misinformed about the facts surrounding Clinton's scandals or morally corrupt for thinking Trump is on the same level as what can justifably said of Clinton.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The inevitable "but trump is worse" argument. Trump behavior in no way makes Clinton's immorality trivial.
Then stop telling me you believe she is not a manipulative liar, while passing it off as the truth.
How can you be misinformed about her manipulating the DNC? How can you be misinformed that she circumvented government oversight? How can you be misinformed about her lying about circumventing government oversight? How can you be misinformed about Foreign political donations to the Clinton Foundation? How can you be misinformed about her shaming Bill's accusers?
I understand the ardent Clinton supporter believes these are trivial things. The electorate disagreed, mainly democrats who did not vote.
What if the choice was between not voting or voting for Clinton? This is why "but Trump is worse" was largely ineffective. The people she needed to vote for her were never going to vote for Trump in the first place.
Careful, or the only person qualified to be president will be a perfect saint (i.e. no one).
I think most all people will agree with a few ideas about “morality”:
1) A breach of “morality” is a breach of some principle or duty. Principles and duties are owed as a result of a relationship or state of being. It is wrong for me to not take my child to school, because I have a duty as his father. It is not wrong for a complete stranger to neglect to do so, because there is no relationship or duty. Now, there are certain breaches of ethics that have nothing to do with the office of the Presidency, and those that do. Specifically, the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, breaches of duty that violate the Constitution are those central to the question of a president’s ethics. Those questions of morality unrelated to the Constitution are ancillary.
2) In speaking of “character”, there are those things that directly impact one’s moral duties, and those things that have an indirect effect. I fail to take my son to school, that is a direct moral failing. I drink too much at night, and my ability to take my son to school on time is indirectly impacted. I might be able to fulfill my duty, I might not, but it is more difficult for me to do so. On point of Clinton v Trump, questions of general character (two-faced Hillary, sleazy Trump) are of indirect impact to the office of presidency. Of direct impact though are specific policy proposals that violate the Constitution, or international law.
3) Two things that are both considered “immoral” can each have different degrees of severity. The severity is measured by the impact of the consequences, and their foreseeability. I fail to take my son to school, he misses out on an education. I fail to feed my son, he dies of starvation. Starving to death being worse than going without education, it’s worse not to provide my son food. So if given the choice, I would provide food and delegate responsibilities for education to someone else, like the bus driver.
Trump has said that he would target the families of terrorists and use torture (worse than waterboarding). That’s in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, a breach of the office of the presidency, and extremely severe in consequence.
Trump has promised to block all Muslims from entering the country, on the basis of their religion, and target Latinos for deportation based on their race/national origin. That’s in direct violation of the 1st amendment of the Constitution, in direct violation of the President’s responsibility to uphold it, and highly severe.
Trump has promised to restrict freedom of the press, expand libel laws, etc, in what amounts to prior restraint. Again, a direct violation of the 1st amendment, violation of the duties of the President, and would have dire consequences on our freedoms.
Whatever people have/had against Hillary, it doesn’t amount to this. Her judgment has been far from perfect. But it’s a far cry from someone who has won the office of President openly intending to trample over the Constitution that he will swear to defend on taking office. How this continues to escape people, I have no idea. What Trump has threatened to do is severe enough on its own to justify pursuit of any other available course.
I find your moral distinctions between the two just as valid as a Trump voters.
The "but Trump is worse" misses the point. You have to actually get people to vote for you, that will not vote for Trump. People want to pretend there was only two choices, but in reality there were a few others. Trump may be a horrible person, but that argument does not seal the deal that people should automatically vote for Clinton. You like the rest of the "but Trump is worse" gang can rationalize who is worse between Clinton and Trump, while ignoring the million of people who previously voted, but stayed home or voted 3rd party this election. Ask yourself why she did not win those peoples votes. when you do, her failing become much less "trivial".
I find your moral distinctions between the two just as valid as a Trump voters.
The "but Trump is worse" misses the point. You have to actually get people to vote for you, that will not vote for Trump. People want to pretend there was only two choices, but in reality there were a few others. Trump may be a horrible person, but that argument does not seal the deal that people should automatically vote for Clinton. You like the rest of the "but Trump is worse" gang can rationalize who is worse between Clinton and Trump, while ignoring the million of people who previously voted, but stayed home or voted 3rd party this election. Ask yourself why she did not win those peoples votes. when you do, her failing become much less "trivial".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm sorry, I do not think deciding between a racist, or a manipulative liar who could be corrupt is a civic responsibility. I do think not choosing between the two is a valid option.
Keep telling yourself that. Ignoring the reasons these people did not vote seems like intellectual laziness to me.
No, seriously, they didn't vote. Their presence on this earth had absolutely zero influence on the outcome of this election. Every one of them could have been abducted by aliens on November 7 and the thing would have turned out exactly the same.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I agree, these non-voters did not really care whether it was Trump or Clinton and it appears you think its irrelevant why they did not care, but ironically, it can help explain why Clinton lost.
That implies you can not stop the alien abduction.
EDIT: To elaborate, Clinton could be the reason these people did not vote, but to you that is irrelevant to the reason Clinton lost.
Don't get me wrong: Clinton and the DNC failed miserably and the voter turnout for Democrats versus 2012 was huge. My point was that Trump didn't win by exciting the Republican Party, because again Romney lost against Obama and analysts said it was because he didn't excite his own party (while he also lost with other groups like Mexicans, named Republicans were lower than they were for McCain). Trump had less votes than both of the former candidates. Clinton had far less.
What Clinton needed to was get people more excited to vote, because the "not as bad as him" was just not enough. I think Surging Chaos had it right before in the Trump thread: The groups that voted for McCain/Romney voted Republican begrudgingly. I think there were people excited for Clinton, but I wasn't one of them. And the message was not one to inspire confidence.
And yes, I do not think the DNC respected how many people felt cheated by the primaries.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Summary-
The American Physical Society congratulated Trump for winning the Presidency. People criticized them so much that they publicly retracted the congratulations and apologized for any offense they caused.
Thoughts?
I'm on my phone so I can't block quote from the preliminary Democrat Autopsy I posted on the Democrat Crack Up thread, but to summarize, Donald Trump's victory is evidence that at the least, The Rust Belt disagrees with you.
I live in the Deep South, so I can't say the following with certainty. Everyone underestimated the Rust Belt's hatred of NAFTA. President Clinton left the White House with the country in great shape, but now twenty five years later, people were looking starting to look at the Clinton White House (and by extension the Obama Legacy that was the next evolution of the Clinton's direction of the Democratic Party) and either raise concerns or express disdain (both rational and irrational). Nobody believed Hillary was forever against the TPP, and Bill set the deregulations in motion that many people credit to setting the Wall St. crash in 2008 in motion. A lot of people knew this. It's a prime reason why Bernie Sanders ran for the presidency in the first place to try to change that policy course.
Fortunately for Clinton (not that it matters anymore), Bernie Sanders knew better than to outright say those things because he did not want to run a scorched earth primary. He got close when the primary got tense in April and through May, but he restrained himself… for the most part.
I'd say that even if the Clinton Legacy did not ruin the country, people will point to this election and say it played a role in wrecking the Democratic Party.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Echo....echo...echo...
This is why some people are so stunned Clinton lost. They never listen to anything that does not subscribe to their views and go out their way to ostracize them.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I'd have been happier with the organization if they'd imitated Merkel.
Art is life itself.
How vicious were the complaints?
If they weren't that bad, this seems like an overreaction or a revealing of little support behind the original statement.
I suspect the complaints were quite bad though, they probably requested this to happen, which is too much on the complainer's part. Generic support for Trump is not some kind of radical hatespeech.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice