Oh, don't get me wrong, it's nothing new that politicians actually do this as a method of adaptability with their audience. The fact that Hillary in particular has been not necessarily "adapting" and straight up lying to her audience (even on issues that she has only partaken one side in) has really made her stand out as more of a liar to me than anything else. I don't trust liars.
The fact that Hillary is sly with her words is exactly what bothers me. I guess what I'm trying to say is that any other politician could play her game (and while they're doing it have different goals in mind with their speeches), but she plays it the best, and in a way that feels like that not even the truth she tells is genuine at all. That is exactly why I am reluctant to support her at all. You can only lie so many times before people start finding out that you're lying.
I mean like you were saying in the last part of your paragraph, "Like any other politicians, his (Trump's) voters are mainly divided between people who take his views for granted and it matches their views or people who might have actually seen the meaning behind (his attempts at) diplomacy. I've heard people saying "I don't like Trump, but Hillary's views are cleary against by beliefs and interests", which is a good point." Because Hillary keeps switching up what she presents every single speech, she ends up saying multiple sides and stances to where even her false beliefs become beliefs that people think she holds. At one point she's publicly for gay marriage, at another point she's publicly against it, though at heart she is against it. Yet people see it as either she is "for" or completely "against" gay marriage, and this could even before they find out that she keeps switching so constantly back and forth as well as avoiding just about every question on the subject.
She just does it way too much, and in a way that does not feel like she is adapting her views at all.
2016 US Election
Forum rules
This is Serious Discussion. If you want to tell us how your day was or just get some things off your chest, you will find ample opportunity to find a corner to discuss all the good things we see, or reach out to anyone who needs help. Just remember to pay attention to the Principles of Serious Discussion, and link to the source if posting news.
This is Serious Discussion. If you want to tell us how your day was or just get some things off your chest, you will find ample opportunity to find a corner to discuss all the good things we see, or reach out to anyone who needs help. Just remember to pay attention to the Principles of Serious Discussion, and link to the source if posting news.
Re: Get Things Off of Your Chest
by Harmless » October 13th, 2016, 8:42 am
~ Tesla Bromonovich
-
Harmless - Is it lunch time yet?
- Posts: 2793
- Joined: June 25th, 2011, 11:53 am
- Location: Mother Russia!
Runouw Votes Winner - Thumbs Up given: 271 times
- Thumbs Up received: 240 times
Re: Get Things Off of Your Chest
Thumbs up x1 
by Raz » October 13th, 2016, 2:29 pm
My complaints about you guys post that I hinted at in chat is that clearly none of you took the time to read or watch the videos in my post. I understand the article might be long, but the video isn't. I'm not going to discuss with people who completely ignore the other side of the discussion. The video addresses a few things you guys brought up indirectly.
But whatever.
You really are exaggerating her speeches. I'd say she's fairly consistent, but you make it sound like she flip flops every other speech. Yes, she did have a more liberal approach after Bernie got involved, and yes, she does change her policies depending on public views. But both are still fairly rare. Let me clarify before I continue: her lack of giving a concrete answer in that interview confuses me too. I don't know why she didn't just give a concrete answer. It's more understandable to not be publically for it in the 2000s, it simply wasn't nearly as acceptable back then, and many other democratic candidates thought the same. 2014 was a year before gay marriage was legalized, so she should've just been outright about it. But whatever, I'm not Hillary, I don't know. But what I do know, is that she is NOT lying when she says she has some semblance of a record with gay marriage. The way I interpret it was: she did lie, but not in the way you say. (*In regards to DOMA before anyone bothers to bring it up.) She seemed to really not be completely comfortable with but also at the same time was okay with the idea. She did lie about not supporting/not completely supporting it, but when you look at the time she said these quotes, it's from a time where not many democratic politicans publicly supported it and she wanted to be safe and not be the leader. As the article states, it would've been nice, but she has generally been one to have the policies of the majority. It took her a long time to support it completely at all, and she did support it late. But I believe 100% that this is a non-issue now, she supports it actively. She at least partially supported it, could've been a leader, but didn't. That was a shame. But regardless, she has proven to have some semblance of a record helping the LGBT community, alas, not a strong nor very public one. She has always played it safe, to the point of it hurting her in the long run. Recently, just as much so.
Now: Her emails. Simply put, we don't know about them enough yet. There is not a single damning email that has been leaked yet that has shown anything that could really hurt her. The simple answer is: people (republicans) are getting mad at something non-specific. If people took the time to assess the emails, they'd actually be helping Clinton, considering there really is nothing of harm in the emails. Unless you count discussing questions at a conference where she is the only one there. The reason I bring up that article is because it's one completely blown out of proportion, like every other email. A presidential candidate knowing the questions to a 1 on 1 interview with no other people but herself and the interviewer there? DESPICABLE! Now, let me be clear once again: I am not saying she was completely transparent about emails. I am saying that there was nothing damning in her emails. She lied about her servers, clearly, but I simply believe she was using servers to shield her emails from FOIA requests, which is not a jailable offense, but a punishable one, yes. Like every other Clinton "scandal," republicans used their many many years of attacking the Clintons to make the public believe it was actually a big deal.
And let me extend most of that explanation to her Wallstreet speeches. We were talking about this in chat a few days ago. Her speech transcripts publicly leaked about a week ago, (but let me clarify her wallstreet interviews have been on youtube for the greater amount of a year, just no one cared cause hey ♥♥♥♥ hillary right) and surprise surprise, nothing of harm was said. In fact, she said some stuff that was pretty supportive of her current bernie-like policies, before bernie was even big. I thought that was pretty neat.
Really? She didn't accomplish much during her time as secretary of state (I'd have to read more on her as senator to give any sort of opinion)? Honestly, where did you read this source? 1. 2. Found these pretty good ones off of google, but regardless of those articles, here's a few of her accomplishments as secretary of state: (not typed by me)
Just to name a few of her first lady accomplishments, again, not typed by me: (i can only type so much)
In regards to Clinton Cash, it's an hour long film written by one of the writers on Breitbart. Normally I'd try to watch it but it's already lost any credibility for me. You might as well just watch a movie on clinton written by The Onion. I don't know how you can use that as one of your points as to why she is non-trustworthy.
So uh, in conclusion, she's not that bad personally. I think where Clinton's main problem lies is in her personality. And you know, as weird as it sounds, I can relate a lot to her. Maybe it's why it's easier for me to support her than others. I think we're very similar. Simply put, she's not good at campaigning. She's said it herself, when she's campaigning, everyone hates her, but when she's actually doing the work, her approval ratings are high. She's not very enthusiastic, and she's much better at one v one interactions. I don't need to go more indepth into this, cause if you actually take the time to read my last post and watch the videos/videos in the articles (!!!!!!!) then you'll understand what I mean. When she goes against someone with the energy of Bernie or the assertiveness of Trump, she gets outshined. But she shines in the actual work, and that's what's important. I think overall, the Clintons have just had so much trash thrown at them by the Republican side for the past 15 years that it all surfaced now and created this huge distrust for her and the rest of her family. We discussed this a little bit in the chat too, but there are some theories a lot of people have about her as well. One notable one I found interesting was how people associate her voice with a teacher or grandma or mom or something yelling at you, and subconsciously hate her a little more because of it. I dunno. At her core, she has "conspiracies" just about as bad as any other politician, and nothing really noteworthy. Anything notable is either blown up by republicans, or so full of misinformation and lack of info that we have no idea what is going on at this point.All I really have to say is open up to Clinton, (get used to her as well, considering how trump is practically killing himself) do your own research, stop relying on movies, sites like breitbart, and the like. There's even more I have to say, but I can't really remember it all because it's a lot. Just please vote Hillary. If I don't convince you that she's not so bad, I hope to at least convince you to vote for her. Trump IS that bad. It's not arguable anymore.
But whatever.
You really are exaggerating her speeches. I'd say she's fairly consistent, but you make it sound like she flip flops every other speech. Yes, she did have a more liberal approach after Bernie got involved, and yes, she does change her policies depending on public views. But both are still fairly rare. Let me clarify before I continue: her lack of giving a concrete answer in that interview confuses me too. I don't know why she didn't just give a concrete answer. It's more understandable to not be publically for it in the 2000s, it simply wasn't nearly as acceptable back then, and many other democratic candidates thought the same. 2014 was a year before gay marriage was legalized, so she should've just been outright about it. But whatever, I'm not Hillary, I don't know. But what I do know, is that she is NOT lying when she says she has some semblance of a record with gay marriage. The way I interpret it was: she did lie, but not in the way you say. (*In regards to DOMA before anyone bothers to bring it up.) She seemed to really not be completely comfortable with but also at the same time was okay with the idea. She did lie about not supporting/not completely supporting it, but when you look at the time she said these quotes, it's from a time where not many democratic politicans publicly supported it and she wanted to be safe and not be the leader. As the article states, it would've been nice, but she has generally been one to have the policies of the majority. It took her a long time to support it completely at all, and she did support it late. But I believe 100% that this is a non-issue now, she supports it actively. She at least partially supported it, could've been a leader, but didn't. That was a shame. But regardless, she has proven to have some semblance of a record helping the LGBT community, alas, not a strong nor very public one. She has always played it safe, to the point of it hurting her in the long run. Recently, just as much so.
Now: Her emails. Simply put, we don't know about them enough yet. There is not a single damning email that has been leaked yet that has shown anything that could really hurt her. The simple answer is: people (republicans) are getting mad at something non-specific. If people took the time to assess the emails, they'd actually be helping Clinton, considering there really is nothing of harm in the emails. Unless you count discussing questions at a conference where she is the only one there. The reason I bring up that article is because it's one completely blown out of proportion, like every other email. A presidential candidate knowing the questions to a 1 on 1 interview with no other people but herself and the interviewer there? DESPICABLE! Now, let me be clear once again: I am not saying she was completely transparent about emails. I am saying that there was nothing damning in her emails. She lied about her servers, clearly, but I simply believe she was using servers to shield her emails from FOIA requests, which is not a jailable offense, but a punishable one, yes. Like every other Clinton "scandal," republicans used their many many years of attacking the Clintons to make the public believe it was actually a big deal.
And let me extend most of that explanation to her Wallstreet speeches. We were talking about this in chat a few days ago. Her speech transcripts publicly leaked about a week ago, (but let me clarify her wallstreet interviews have been on youtube for the greater amount of a year, just no one cared cause hey ♥♥♥♥ hillary right) and surprise surprise, nothing of harm was said. In fact, she said some stuff that was pretty supportive of her current bernie-like policies, before bernie was even big. I thought that was pretty neat.
Really? She didn't accomplish much during her time as secretary of state (I'd have to read more on her as senator to give any sort of opinion)? Honestly, where did you read this source? 1. 2. Found these pretty good ones off of google, but regardless of those articles, here's a few of her accomplishments as secretary of state: (not typed by me)
- Laid the groundwork for the Iran nuclear deal by orchestrating sanctions on Iran
- Helped negotiate with Myanmar's military leadership to promote both freer elections and stronger economic ties with the US
- Did the actual work of rebuilding ties with European and Asian allies frayed by Bush's unilateralism
- Made diplomatic ties more personal, holding town hall type events in foreign countries to respond directly to people's concerns about US policy in their country
- Pressed Arab leaders to provide an economic future for their populace (before the arab spring)
- Strengthened ties with China and promoting an agreement where more chinese students could study in America and Americans studying in China (while also laying the groundwork for the deal on Carbon emissions later).
- Negotiating TPP and TTIP
Just to name a few of her first lady accomplishments, again, not typed by me: (i can only type so much)
- She was part of the innermost circle vetting appointments to the new administration and her choices filled at least eleven top-level positions and dozens more lower-level ones. After Eleanor Roosevelt, Clinton is regarded as the most openly empowered presidential wife in American history.
- In January 1993, President Clinton named First Lady Clinton to chair a Task Force on National Health Care Reform
- Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents could not provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law.
- She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.
- She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.
- The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.
- Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.
- In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.
- In 1999, she was instrumental in the passage of the Foster Care Independence Act, which doubled federal monies for teenagers aging out of foster care.
- As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997), on Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997)
- Clinton traveled to 79 countries during this time, breaking the mark for most-traveled First Lady held by Pat Nixon.
- A March 1995 five-nation trip to South Asia, on behest of the U.S. State Department and without her husband, sought to improve relations with India and Pakistan.
- In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in the People's Republic of China itself,
- She was one of the most prominent international figures during the late 1990s to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Taliban.
- She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries. It and Clinton's own visits encouraged women to make themselves heard in the Northern Ireland peace process.
In regards to Clinton Cash, it's an hour long film written by one of the writers on Breitbart. Normally I'd try to watch it but it's already lost any credibility for me. You might as well just watch a movie on clinton written by The Onion. I don't know how you can use that as one of your points as to why she is non-trustworthy.
So uh, in conclusion, she's not that bad personally. I think where Clinton's main problem lies is in her personality. And you know, as weird as it sounds, I can relate a lot to her. Maybe it's why it's easier for me to support her than others. I think we're very similar. Simply put, she's not good at campaigning. She's said it herself, when she's campaigning, everyone hates her, but when she's actually doing the work, her approval ratings are high. She's not very enthusiastic, and she's much better at one v one interactions. I don't need to go more indepth into this, cause if you actually take the time to read my last post and watch the videos/videos in the articles (!!!!!!!) then you'll understand what I mean. When she goes against someone with the energy of Bernie or the assertiveness of Trump, she gets outshined. But she shines in the actual work, and that's what's important. I think overall, the Clintons have just had so much trash thrown at them by the Republican side for the past 15 years that it all surfaced now and created this huge distrust for her and the rest of her family. We discussed this a little bit in the chat too, but there are some theories a lot of people have about her as well. One notable one I found interesting was how people associate her voice with a teacher or grandma or mom or something yelling at you, and subconsciously hate her a little more because of it. I dunno. At her core, she has "conspiracies" just about as bad as any other politician, and nothing really noteworthy. Anything notable is either blown up by republicans, or so full of misinformation and lack of info that we have no idea what is going on at this point.All I really have to say is open up to Clinton, (get used to her as well, considering how trump is practically killing himself) do your own research, stop relying on movies, sites like breitbart, and the like. There's even more I have to say, but I can't really remember it all because it's a lot. Just please vote Hillary. If I don't convince you that she's not so bad, I hope to at least convince you to vote for her. Trump IS that bad. It's not arguable anymore.
Disclaimer: none of these messages have been edited, context can be provided if needed (thanks discord!) but absolutely does not change anything about these messages and that he's too overly defensive and cocky to make situations better
Karyete: I don't have anything to say to you, I've been deliberately trying to not offend you for years, actually, but apparently everything I say to you is wrong. You come across as so aggressive that you successfully intimidated me into not wanting to talk to you
Karyete: Seriously, what is your problem? And not only that, you fail to even acknowledge you might be in some wrong here.
Karyete: Oooh it's you? Hello. Feel free to drop this right now. You're going to make yourself look like an idiot.
Karyete: We don't want to hear your opinion at this stage.
Karyete: You're not getting any apology, especially after now.
Karyete: You can stay up on your high horse, continue to twist the truth and act like an absolute child all you want. I refuse to give respect to a man who right now is picking up a dropped argument because he simply cannot fathom the idea that he might be in the wrong.
Karyete: How pathetic
-
Raz - "quite easily the most manly man of all" --Raz
Error contacting Twitter - Posts: 4432
- Joined: July 12th, 2010, 5:48 pm
- Location: :-)
Razzian Fighter - Thumbs Up given: 40 times
- Thumbs Up received: 367 times
Re: Get Things Off of Your Chest
by Harmless » October 13th, 2016, 3:59 pm
Calm down.
I did read your post, but I made a mistake when replying to you and that was not mentioning anything about the videos you had on your post, rather just the point of Clinton's credibility alone. Another reason I brought up what I brought up was also because you're the only person who has actually given proper responses to the questions I've given about Clinton in my entire life (with regards to what she actually accomplished as secretary of state and first lady, as well as stuff like Clinton Cash and Uranium One which like you have said, have no actual evidence, yet I felt the need to bring it up because you're the only person I've met to have an actual response to it).
I say she's inconsistent as one can get through speeches and actions during her campaigning, and meanwhile you're supporting her consistency through her work. Neither of us are wrong, but when I was replying I brought up something different than I probably should have and that was talking more about my experience with her campaigning than her actual work in office (which as you might've guessed I also have a lot more experience with her campaigning).
I also never said that Trump was better by any means, nor did I imply it. All I mentioned was Hillary is super flip-floppity from all of the speeches I have seen from her over the span of several years.
I've never heard of breitbart in my life, btw. :l
I did read your post, but I made a mistake when replying to you and that was not mentioning anything about the videos you had on your post, rather just the point of Clinton's credibility alone. Another reason I brought up what I brought up was also because you're the only person who has actually given proper responses to the questions I've given about Clinton in my entire life (with regards to what she actually accomplished as secretary of state and first lady, as well as stuff like Clinton Cash and Uranium One which like you have said, have no actual evidence, yet I felt the need to bring it up because you're the only person I've met to have an actual response to it).
I say she's inconsistent as one can get through speeches and actions during her campaigning, and meanwhile you're supporting her consistency through her work. Neither of us are wrong, but when I was replying I brought up something different than I probably should have and that was talking more about my experience with her campaigning than her actual work in office (which as you might've guessed I also have a lot more experience with her campaigning).
I also never said that Trump was better by any means, nor did I imply it. All I mentioned was Hillary is super flip-floppity from all of the speeches I have seen from her over the span of several years.
I've never heard of breitbart in my life, btw. :l
~ Tesla Bromonovich
-
Harmless - Is it lunch time yet?
- Posts: 2793
- Joined: June 25th, 2011, 11:53 am
- Location: Mother Russia!
Runouw Votes Winner - Thumbs Up given: 271 times
- Thumbs Up received: 240 times
Re: Get Things Off of Your Chest
by npromin1 » October 13th, 2016, 4:02 pm
My dad bought tickets to a Trump rally tommorow and he's forcing me to go.
Long story short
IM ♥♥♥♥
Long story short
IM ♥♥♥♥
- npromin1
- As Ninja As Myst
- Posts: 167
- Joined: July 20th, 2015, 4:11 pm
- Thumbs Up given: 28 times
- Thumbs Up received: 7 times
Re: Get Things Off of Your Chest
by Raz » October 13th, 2016, 4:20 pm
Harmless wrote:Calm down.
I am calm, otherwise I would've been far more direct about some of your statements. Don't tell me to calm down after I give you fairly in depth evaluations of all the problems with her you mentioned.
My point was was that the whole gay marriage thing was semi-addressed in the article in the way that she listens to the wrong people sometimes.Harmless wrote:I did read your post, but I made a mistake when replying to you and that was not mentioning anything about the videos you had on your post, rather just the point of Clinton's credibility alone.
Harmless wrote:I also never said that Trump was better by any means, nor did I imply it. All I mentioned was Hillary is super flip-floppity from all of the speeches I have seen from her over the span of several years.
I never said you said that. I was reiterating the fact that she was indeed better than trump. Which is kind of an important factor in this election
Harmless wrote:I've never heard of breitbart in my life, btw. :l
Now you have, and now you know it's not reliable.
Disclaimer: none of these messages have been edited, context can be provided if needed (thanks discord!) but absolutely does not change anything about these messages and that he's too overly defensive and cocky to make situations better
Karyete: I don't have anything to say to you, I've been deliberately trying to not offend you for years, actually, but apparently everything I say to you is wrong. You come across as so aggressive that you successfully intimidated me into not wanting to talk to you
Karyete: Seriously, what is your problem? And not only that, you fail to even acknowledge you might be in some wrong here.
Karyete: Oooh it's you? Hello. Feel free to drop this right now. You're going to make yourself look like an idiot.
Karyete: We don't want to hear your opinion at this stage.
Karyete: You're not getting any apology, especially after now.
Karyete: You can stay up on your high horse, continue to twist the truth and act like an absolute child all you want. I refuse to give respect to a man who right now is picking up a dropped argument because he simply cannot fathom the idea that he might be in the wrong.
Karyete: How pathetic
-
Raz - "quite easily the most manly man of all" --Raz
Error contacting Twitter - Posts: 4432
- Joined: July 12th, 2010, 5:48 pm
- Location: :-)
Razzian Fighter - Thumbs Up given: 40 times
- Thumbs Up received: 367 times
Re: Get Things Off of Your Chest
by Oranjui » October 13th, 2016, 7:37 pm
Just for the record
[7:04 PM] rOJce Bracket: now that's it's all consolidated in one spot and not dispersed over a bunch of chat messages and reddit comments and tiny news articles I can understand your support for her a lot more
[7:04 PM] rOJce Bracket: I still don't like her war policies and stuff but that's no reason to completely reject her
[7:06 PM] rOJce Bracket: I can't enthusiastically support her in the same way I'd love to support someone like bernie or jill (rip in zero chances) but it's stupid in my opinion to just reject her entirely because of a couple past bad moves, when she's the only viable option that's even remotely good
As in: I don't like Hillary, but I also kinda like her and can relate to her in a way like Raz said. It's complicated, but Raz's post made sense to me and he seemed pretty calm; Hillary has had failures but she's the only real option left at this point. I wish that we could have something better this year, in an ideal world we would, but it's not an ideal world and we'll have to wait for next election (if you're in the US, vote in midterm elections!). Actually working to support/spread the word about better candidates in advance will also help a lot, instead of just waiting until election season comes around and we're stuck with people like Trump and Hillary (Bernie was close tho </3).
[7:04 PM] rOJce Bracket: now that's it's all consolidated in one spot and not dispersed over a bunch of chat messages and reddit comments and tiny news articles I can understand your support for her a lot more
[7:04 PM] rOJce Bracket: I still don't like her war policies and stuff but that's no reason to completely reject her
[7:06 PM] rOJce Bracket: I can't enthusiastically support her in the same way I'd love to support someone like bernie or jill (rip in zero chances) but it's stupid in my opinion to just reject her entirely because of a couple past bad moves, when she's the only viable option that's even remotely good
As in: I don't like Hillary, but I also kinda like her and can relate to her in a way like Raz said. It's complicated, but Raz's post made sense to me and he seemed pretty calm; Hillary has had failures but she's the only real option left at this point. I wish that we could have something better this year, in an ideal world we would, but it's not an ideal world and we'll have to wait for next election (if you're in the US, vote in midterm elections!). Actually working to support/spread the word about better candidates in advance will also help a lot, instead of just waiting until election season comes around and we're stuck with people like Trump and Hillary (Bernie was close tho </3).
-
Oranjui - Minister of Oerhaos
- Posts: 1914
- Joined: June 26th, 2010, 6:49 am
Runolympics 2015 MVP - Thumbs Up given: 388 times
- Thumbs Up received: 188 times
Re: Get Things Off of Your Chest
by Harmless » October 13th, 2016, 9:19 pm
I mean when you make these remarks like "do your own research, stop relying on movies, sites like breitbart, and the like. " in your post I start to get the impression you were agigated by something I posted
but okay
but okay
~ Tesla Bromonovich
-
Harmless - Is it lunch time yet?
- Posts: 2793
- Joined: June 25th, 2011, 11:53 am
- Location: Mother Russia!
Runouw Votes Winner - Thumbs Up given: 271 times
- Thumbs Up received: 240 times
Re: Get Things Off of Your Chest
by MessengerOfDreams » October 14th, 2016, 6:28 am
At this rate, it's not about the candidates, it's about the people. It's why I can't follow my little believies because I can't afford to. Even the third parties are ignorant and would cause a lot of harm so I hardly see them as good alternatives. People who would be affected I find people voting rarely care about and since Trump threatens to harm all of them I cannot see him be president.
-
MessengerOfDreams - Moderator
Error contacting Twitter - Posts: 6615
- Joined: August 16th, 2009, 11:31 am
- Location: When I figure it out, I'll let you know.
Winter - Thumbs Up given: 519 times
- Thumbs Up received: 707 times
Re: Get Things Off of Your Chest
by Oranjui » October 17th, 2016, 8:07 pm
For who? (don't you dare say Bernie) I feel like that's just as bad of a decision as not voting at all, because you're not really going to have any visibility. I would at least pick a third party if I came to that point, but now if I could vote I feel like I would settle for Hillary as a lackluster but acceptable compromise between my ideals and the reality. Best case, she'll probably just be a more or less forgettable president who could get stuff done but who I'm not expecting much revolutionary from. Trump and Johnson are far worse, and I just don't even know what to think about Jill anymore. Her heart's in the right place at least.
I guess what I'm saying is that how I see it is, in spite of all of her failures, Hillary is the only real option that's left and that isn't a complete disaster, and I'll begrudgingly support her for the rest of this election.
Only 3 weeks left. (!!!!!!)
I guess what I'm saying is that how I see it is, in spite of all of her failures, Hillary is the only real option that's left and that isn't a complete disaster, and I'll begrudgingly support her for the rest of this election.
Only 3 weeks left. (!!!!!!)
-
Oranjui - Minister of Oerhaos
- Posts: 1914
- Joined: June 26th, 2010, 6:49 am
Runolympics 2015 MVP - Thumbs Up given: 388 times
- Thumbs Up received: 188 times