Hillary: Trump is dangerous, not qualified

[DivinePaladin]

PDF said:

DivinePaladin said:

When that political depth comes from a systematic Bush-era "nation-building" campaign as SoS and eight years in the Senate during which she passed very little legislation, and the economic depth comes from bending and sometimes outright breaking federal laws with the Clinton Foundation and now with coordination with Super PACs, I can't consider it good depth. That's specifically the depth we don't need, coming from a progressive here. 

What nation building?  Libya? Would you have let Gadaffi slaughter his people?  

She was a Senator during a time which the Republicans controlled the Senate and there was a Republican president. Very difficult time to get laws passed as a democrat.

Her tax plan is the most reasonable and the capital gain part to further incentivizing longer investments is fantastic.  She for raising the minimum wage.  She understands that you shouldn't just say things like "we need to break up the banks" without having a real plan.  Despite being pulled to the left by Bernie and the rise of populism.  It's clear that she understands that free trade is still a better route than being isolationist.  

She is a bit of a Hawk for a democrat when it comes for Foreign Policy but she understands the waters well.  Has vast experience working with most world leaders.  The last of the Iran sanctions, the ones that really broke the camel back before Obama deal were largely completed due to her efforts.

The two for one deal with Bill is plus.  The guy who went over to get Americans back from North Korea,  and presided over balancing the budget with an opposition party in congress.   

 

Between Trump and Hillary it's a no brainer.  As Mark Cuban recently said you should go with the Devil you know instead of the Devil you don't. 

Hillary is currently appealing to conservative donors because they can trust her more than Trump. If you think we know her any better than Trump I've got bad news for you. To call the attacks on Libya smart when she gave absolutely no plan other than to attack because terrorism and dictatorship is foolish at best, especially considering all Gadhafi's removal did was open up a bigger wormhole. She proposed (not passed, proposed) very little if any progressive legislation, and took a conservative stance on many issues (some of which held well past the acceptable point of changing, such as the legal right to gay marriage). Her argument against claims that she buddies up with Wall Street is 9/11. She's continually playing the victim, especially when gender is considered, when if she were a man she would have been reduced to nonviability months ago because of her moderate-to-right policies masked as progressive, and more importantly, her favorability ratings by likely GE voters. She's got insanely backwards, conservative policies on personal information when it comes to cybersecurity, a field I will be working in for most of my life - saying it's foolish to NOT give the FBI full control of and precedent over personal cell phone and computer data. She's continually made every effort to push away independents or the impassioned young Sanders supporters and making the general race even harder on herself simply because she believes she can do it without them. She has shown no interest in helping down-ballot candidates, which is the key to making her presidency even remotely successful in an already gridlocked Congress, ESPECIALLY with redistricting taking place by her hypothetical second term. I won't go into any accusations of corruption or colluding with Super PACs to specifically take down-ballot money, the two FBI investigations pending, the consistent DNC voter disenfranchisement, the fact that the DNC chair endorsing her has insulted Sanders supporters and happens to be a close friend, the CTR spam-bombs all over the Web, the Wall Street speaking fees, or any of that crap because those aren't the immediate issues at hand. If we're talking about Clinton as a candidate, she's not much better than Trump in terms of what policies she'll enact. She just plays a far better game at hiding it. 

 

I won't touch on Sanders in any specific detail because taking a potshot at him when I never even mentioned his name or his policies - and the inherent need you have to assert superiority in your candidate or choice to one you don't even know I necessarily have - shows what kind of discussion that would be. At this point I don't really have a horse in this race. I certainly won't be voting Trump, and because of her neoliberal policies I won't be voting Clinton. Especially not when both parties are barely grasping onto life and the Democrats especially are doing everything in their power to prevent Sanders from even having a fair shot, even if that means giving Trump the White House, the Republicans the redistricting process, and the GOP control over any new SC appointees in the next eight years.

 

I'm expecting either a total flip in party identity in the coming five years or a third party to take one side out completely over the next 40.