Decision 2016

[Greg]

Donald Trump uses death of Dwyane Wade’s cousin to boast about election odds, misspells NBA star's name:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2768061

[Big Magilla]

James Carville was on MSNBC last night predicting that after the election, if the Republicans are still in charge of the Senate, they will declare the election as not being valid because Trump wasn't a valid candidate and will refuse to consider Supreme Court appointments and other vital measures until after the next election in 2020.

I'm sure he was joking, but he may have also planted a seed.

On the other hand, Clinton needs to do all she can to bring pressure to bear on her supporter, Senator Manchin, to talk horse sense to his daughter, the CEO of Mylan, the pharmaceutical company that has raised the price of the allergy treatment device EpiPen over 400 percent since 2007. Pricing people out of life-saving drugs just because you can is not only ethically and morally wrong, it should be illegal. Even if Congress were to act to make it illegal, the new law wouldn't take effect retroactively.

The argument that drug companies need to keep prices high to pay for the development of their drugs doesn't hold water in most cases where government subsidies, not cash out of the company's pockets, have paid for the cost of development. It's certainly not true of this product which Mylan bought in a package from Merck, the company that developed it.

I realize it's dicey for a politician to publicly strong-arm another politician to get something done that is beyond the scope of the law, but doing nothing could make her appear insensitive despite her strong condemnation of the practice itself, probably not enough to cost her the election but enough to lose some of her soft support. This could mushroom into the dreaded October surprise that could make the entire Democratic party look two-faced.

[criddic3]

I never said I thought she was evil.

That's the problem. You say you aren't gullible, yet you still reference scandals and patterns that only exist because they were an effort to find something where nothing existed.

You won't be convinced otherwise and I'm going to stop responding to you. You are a Republican and you'll believe everything that's thrown at you. That's a fact.

1. You said others have called her and her actions evil:

Here's the problem with that assertion, Criddic, people like you want to be so outraged by things that, upon actual research and investigation, aren't nearly as onerous, outrageous, or "evil" as they initially thought.

2. I don't believe she was to blame for Benghazi, although she did tell people it was all a result of a video that the administration knew early on wasn't the cause of the attack. That's on her. Then she tried to blame the families when they called her out on that. This is not about me being gullible. It's about you being so entrenched in your narrative that I am, because if I wasn't that would mean you might be wrong.

3. Your go-to shutdown option is always to say "you are wrong and will never change, so I'm gonna stop responding to you" as if that means you have won some victory. You don't know how to have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you. I'm sure sometimes you feign sympathy, saying "yes I see what you're saying..." but I bet you laugh at people who disagree with you even if they are better at making their points than I am. And, no I don't think this is a case of me being weak on debate style. You just don't get that I'm not saying the Clintons are guilty of everything they've been accused of. Just that they don't exactly do a good job of proving they aren't. They just come off as guilty by they way they react to the allegations. I think they have been dishonest at times, but as I said I don't prescribe to the idea some have that they must be evil. That's not a reason to vote for them. Sorry if you think it is.

[OscarGuy]

I never said I thought she was evil. Calculated perhaps, but not evil. She's a career politician and while she isn't perfect, she isn't evil. She isn't the lesser of evils. The concept of degrees of evil for politicians is the reason our system is broken. People have been so convinced that politicians are bad for us that they immediately assume they are crooked regardless of evidence to the contrary. You have proven this concept over and over by referencing events that superficially are not as dire or foreboding as you might think. White Water was a fake scandal. Vince Foster was a fake scandal. Clinton's improprieties in office are unrelated to Hillary, so immaterial. Benghazi was a fake scandal. The e-mail thing was wrongheaded, but not demonstrably illegal and certainly not a genuine scandal. The Clinton Foundation is a fake scandal. Hillary's health is a fake scandal. Yet, people believe all of this leads to a pattern of dishonesty.

My question is this: Other than the e-mail thing, which I could see being classified as a scandal, what other ACTUAL scandal exists to put her forward as a dishonest or scandal-ridden candidate? You cannot cite any of the above I referenced as fake scandals because they have been proven, factually, objectively, to be lies and misinformation drummed up to ridiculous proportions. They have each been demonstrated through evidence to be nothing, figments of overworked imaginations. So, which scandal would you like to latch onto as part of your pattern of dishonesty that's actually dishonest. That's the problem. You say you aren't gullible, yet you still reference scandals and patterns that only exist because they were an effort to find something where nothing existed.

Benghazi is proof positive that the right will look for and create any scandal they can to tarnish someone's image without having a shred of evidence to the prove there's any impropriety. They fought tooth and nail for months to try and pin this whole thing on Clinton and, when after seven straight different investigation attempts they found nothing, they quietly dropped the matter and went on their way. Fox News ignored it. They left the damage they had done in place and never cleared it up. And people ate that shit up. So, don't lecture me on having rose-colored glasses. I know where all of Clinton's policy positions are that I disagree with, including hawkish military stances, a slowness to accept new ideas, once-poor policy positions that conflicted with my beliefs.

I don't see her as a saint, but I don't see her as evil, not even remotely close. I see her as a person who makes mistakes and whose personal character is stronger and more effective than anyone the Republicans have produced in generations. I see her as a person who will fight for the American public tooth and nail even those who disagree with her.

You won't be convinced otherwise and I'm going to stop responding to you. You are a Republican and you'll believe everything that's thrown at you. That's a fact. We've caught you multiple times buying into conspiracies and misinformation and passing it off as genuine critical thought. You are incapable. That's why, I assume, everyone else has stopped bothering to respond to you in this matter because they feel you are a lost cause. I remember that every time I engage you, but hope for once you'll actually listen, but you never do. Your last post was proof positive of that. You ignored what I said and fabricated your own personal belief of what I said. You tried to justify everything you said by demonizing me (after criticizing the rest of us for doing the same thing to you). I will always look at empirical and demonstrable facts to justify my opinions and, when evidence is brought forward that contradicts those facts, I will look at them critically and shift my position as a result. You are incapable of this. That's why I need to bow out. I have more important things to do than argue with someone who doesn't want to take his head out of the sand.

[criddic3]

There were a handful of classified messages, all of which were sent to her. You can rip her about having the server, but she did not use the server for classified information. That isn't what the right wing media wants you to believe, but the fact that you're still harping on it and sharing incorrect and misleading information shows just how right my original point was. You investigate someone for so long, yell so loudly that they are corrupt, and never admit when and loudly acknowledge when you are wrong and people will begin to believe the lies even when the truth is plain, simple, out there, and far less outlandish than people want you to believe.

If that's how you justify your vote, it's okay by me. You can rationalize any way you like. We all have our own methods of arriving at that decision. I believe that is your right. I have a right to make my own conclusions based on all versions of this theory. I think there is a pattern of secretive and manipulative behavior on the part of the Clintons. Some of it is, as you say, orchestrated to reach its maximum hype factor. That is undeniably true. At the same time, I do not believe the Clintons are squeaky clean innocents either. In your view, not being as evil as her detractors might believe is enough to say she is clearly the better choice in this election. Which is fine. Many people don't think it's that clear cut. That's not because they are all dumb or gullible. Your belief that they are doesn't make it a fact. We have a problem in this country in that so many people are quick to demonize those we disagree with.

[OscarGuy]

There were a handful of classified messages, all of which were sent to her. You can rip her about having the server, but she did not use the server for classified information. That isn't what the right wing media wants you to believe, but the fact that you're still harping on it and sharing incorrect and misleading information shows just how right my original point was. You investigate someone for so long, yell so loudly that they are corrupt, and never admit when and loudly acknowledge when you are wrong and people will begin to believe the lies even when the truth is plain, simple, out there, and far less outlandish than people want you to believe.

[criddic3]

It's how a Bush-era official, someone quite respected in Republican circles (Comey) can come under fire and have his motives questioned and rebuked simply because he tells people what they don't want to hear.

You're like the people P.T. Barnum always talked about. You should see The Great Egress. It's marvelous.

I like how you lump me in and just smirk to yourself about how clever your explanation is, and how dumb I must be.

Comey didn't completely exonerate Clinton, though. If he had, a lot of people would move on from it. A lot of the fault comes from Clinton herself. Telling interviewers that the FBI found no classified e-mails, etc. Just like her husband claiming "I did not have sexual relations with that woman... Miss Lewinsky." So it's hard not to think they are untrustworthy. Sure, the Republicans do go after them politically. That's kind of expected, but that's only part of it.

[OscarGuy]

All this started 25 years ago when investigation after investigation was launched into various matters from White Water to Vince Foster to Monica Lewinsky. The ONLY thing that came out of these was Bill lying under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky. ONE thing. That's it. That one thing resulted from years of investigations that all turned up the same thing. It's what the Benghazi panel turned up. It's what the e-mail gate has turned up and it's what eventually will turn up about the Clinton Foundation.

That's a pattern of behavior, not from Clinton, but from her opponents. Who in their right mind could even consider what happened in Benghazi to be Clinton's fault. That was as partisan as anything. Building scandal out of nothing is part-and-parcel for the Republican party. They've been doing it for years. You can claim it's because Clinton must be sleazy, but if you investigate someone time and again and have very little to nothing to show for it, that says more about how scandals are fabricated than about whether they are actually true.

I could be the nicest guy in the world, but if one person doesn't like me and spreads unwarranted and fallacious rumors everywhere, people are going to start believing them whether they are true or not, especially people who don't know me. That's how school yard rumor mongering works. If you repeat a lie long enough, especially to those who've never been able to form their own opinions about someone, those lies begin to stick.

The Republicans, for years, have made big press about the latest investigation of the Clintons. Then, as they discover there's nothing there and move on, they don't make big press about it, they release it quietly, ignore it and move on. THAT is how you destroy someone's reputation. You put the suggestion of impropriety out there and then when you're disproven, you minimize it and stop talking about it. So, those who heard all this commotion about a scandal probably don't hear that the scandal has been resolved or, like Fox News, Trump and Breitbart like to do, they flop it as being a system not working and clearly not conducting the investigation correctly or with bias or with behind-the-scenes shenanigans.

It's how a Bush-era official, someone quite respected in Republican circles (Comey) can come under fire and have his motives questioned and rebuked simply because he tells people what they don't want to hear.

You're like the people P.T. Barnum always talked about. You should see The Great Egress. It's marvelous.

[criddic3]

Here's the problem with that assertion, Criddic, people like you want to be so outraged by things that, upon actual research and investigation, aren't nearly as onerous, outrageous, or "evil" as they initially thought. Critical thinking in this country, or lack there of, is the problem. People like you will believe every tiny little detail, no matter how vague or, in the grand scheme of things, minor that people like Trump can play off that ignorance to get you to vote against your best interests. Every. Time.

Good thing I'm not a Trump supporter, right?

Look, I have said more than once that I voted for Mrs. Clinton once. I don't necessary think she is evil like some people I know do, but I don't think these controversies and scandals happen for no reason. The Clintons have been in trouble too many times through their careers for this to just be political gamesmanship by their opponents. The FBI is investigating the allegations against the Clinton Foundation's use of funds and the contributions made to the organization. Some of Clinton's supporters have suggested shutting down the operations if she is elected so that there can be no question about impropriety. I know very liberal people who do not trust Hillary Clinton. So, it isn't just a Conservative Right Wing Conspiracy. It is just as possible that you are allowing your political leanings to cloud your own judgment on this topic.

[OscarGuy]

Here's the problem with that assertion, Criddic, people like you want to be so outraged by things that, upon actual research and investigation, aren't nearly as onerous, outrageous, or "evil" as they initially thought. Critical thinking in this country, or lack there of, is the problem. People like you will believe every tiny little detail, no matter how vague or, in the grand scheme of things, minor that people like Trump can play off that ignorance to get you to vote against your best interests. Every. Time.

[criddic3]

I mean, it certainly raises red flags when most of their charitable money goes to their own foundation (essentially back to themselves).

A complete falsehood, which I'm not surprised you believe, because it was widely promulgated by the many tentacles of the right wing media.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/clin ... 1.12168010

Not a right wing publication! Oh, it's perfectly legal for them to make contributions to their own foundations, but it doesn't sound very good to most people. It doesn't really matter which foundation it is. It's under their name. Telling us that it's funneled to other organizations is a convenient way to dodge this reality. There's also a lot of controversy about foreign contributions to their foundations during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Thank you for proving my own point that pro-Hillary supporters will do just about anything to demonize those who question the Clintons' behavior.

[Mister Tee]

I mean, it certainly raises red flags when most of their charitable money goes to their own foundation (essentially back to themselves).

A complete falsehood, which I'm not surprised you believe, because it was widely promulgated by the many tentacles of the right wing media.

Most of their charitable donations went to the Clinton Family Foundation (not to be confused with the Clinton Foundation, though most of Fox universe took pains to promote that confusion). The foundation redistributes the money by donating to a variety of charities. In other words, Bill and Hillary don't sit and select the charities themselves -- they have a permanent board set up to do that. They are not giving the money to themselves.

But thanks for illustrating OscarGuy's point: that right-wing think tanks/media outlets promote false narratives of corruption, which those who don't read the fine print take for actual proof of corruption. This is the story of how basically honest people have been turned into the world's biggest liars for so many people.

[criddic3]

You investigate someone enough whether you find anything, people get the impression that you're scandal prone. Yet, not a single one of these investigations have turned up anything, but a bit of carelessness in terms of how she uses her e-mail (and really it was others who were sending e-mail to her, not Clinton herself, who were inappropriately using the e-mail). I bet if you investigated Obama every time he didn't something and accused him constantly of being a liar or a thief or corrupt that he'd eventually have the same impression developed about him. I bet any Republican lawmaker who went through a quarter of the shit she's been through would be seen in the public eye the same way. Being investigated for faux scandals that turn out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors does not qualify someone as being scandal-prone.

Opposing federal protections and allowing the free market to do the work for you does not count as being pro-LGBT. Libertarians, whether Johnson wants to support their positions or not, are against federal marriage laws among other issues, so I won't accept him as social on liberal issues. They also don't believe in women having the right to choose as it should be left to the states to decide how they feel about abortion since Libertarians oppose federal laws protecting abortion.

I think everyone has to use their own judgment on whether or not the Clintons are corrupt or unethical. I mean, it certainly raises red flags when most of their charitable money goes to their own foundation (essentially back to themselves). Years of scandal, unethical behavior (the Monica Lewinsky matter was more than just about sex; the e-mail issue was more than just a case of carelessness) have left most Americans (as polls routinely show) wary of their actions.

Gary Johnson has said he feels that the Religious Liberty laws being propose and sometimes passed in various states is wrong and should be stopped. He has also said that he believes in the "woman's right to choose" (something that I feel distorts the issue, but that's my own belief). Despite being at odds with the stance on abortion and other issues, I still feel Johnson and Weld are better options considering their more thoughtful approach and their more practical reasoning in many areas. An all-out Clinton supporter is bound to poke holes in any of the opposition's platform or agenda. I voted for Mrs. Clinton once, but refuse to be fooled twice.

[OscarGuy]

You investigate someone enough whether you find anything, people get the impression that you're scandal prone. Yet, not a single one of these investigations have turned up anything, but a bit of carelessness in terms of how she uses her e-mail (and really it was others who were sending e-mail to her, not Clinton herself, who were inappropriately using the e-mail). I bet if you investigated Obama every time he didn't something and accused him constantly of being a liar or a thief or corrupt that he'd eventually have the same impression developed about him. I bet any Republican lawmaker who went through a quarter of the shit she's been through would be seen in the public eye the same way. Being investigated for faux scandals that turn out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors does not qualify someone as being scandal-prone.

Opposing federal protections and allowing the free market to do the work for you does not count as being pro-LGBT. Libertarians, whether Johnson wants to support their positions or not, are against federal marriage laws among other issues, so I won't accept him as social on liberal issues. They also don't believe in women having the right to choose as it should be left to the states to decide how they feel about abortion since Libertarians oppose federal laws protecting abortion.

[criddic3]

And some of us don't consider Clinton an evil and never have.

Listen, I voted for her once when she ran for re-election to the Senate. She was being fair to the Bush administration on the Iraq question when she didn't have to be (it was 2006). So I don't know if "evil" is quite the word I would use, but the Clintons have been more scandal-prone and involved in more seemingly corrupt or unethical behavior than the average politicians. It makes it hard for most Americans (according to all the polls) to trust her.

If it wasn't for this fact, I may have considered voting Democrat for president this year for the first time in 20 years of voting.

Gary Johnson isn't an orthodox Libertarian, so a lot of the supposed flaws in the Libertarian Party platform aren't being touted by him. He does overplay the "let's do it on the state or local level" bit and I disagree with some of his ideas. But socially, a lot of liberals would be happy with his stances on immigration, race and LGBT issues, etc. He's a lot better than Trump, and seems more trustworthy than Clinton. He and running-mate Bill Weld are also pretty well-spoken and seem like sensible people from the forums I've seen them in (two CNN forums recently, and a Fusion forum online).