It's even simpler... If you bash Hillary for corruption and dishonesty, then you have no business voting for Trump. You are only left with two unqualified candidates to vote for. Pick your poison.
I will likely vote for Johnson as I will not vote for Hillary or Trump. If they were truly the only people I could vote for, I think I would have a harder time voting for Trump. I think he has more potential for devastating affects than Hillary. That is very hard to type because I really don't like Hillary.
must be a real hard decision to choose between someone who can have davastating affects to the US and the world vs someone you really don't like
Both can have devastating effects to the US and the world and I don't like either. Honestly I don't see how anyone could see it any differently unless they are blinded by partisanship. There's nothing about either candidate worth liking.
I don't know what she hoped to hide, and it really doesn't matter. Even if I had confidence that every email was recovered and that no evidence of corruption or other wrongdoing was found, I still wouldn't forgive her because of her efforts to hide things from me (twice over). You can hash that out with Bobby, but I think you're setting the bar too low for her if you're waiting for actual prosecutable evidence of wrongdoing. Votes of any kind don't actually do anything. But, I'm not worried as much about an administration with an ill-equipped president -- we probably wouldn't do great but the experts in the bureaucracy would keep things afloat so long as the president doesn't get in the way. I worry more about a president who is competent but wants to do the wrong things.
My issue with Clinton is the lack of transparency and being real - but that's a huge difference between her and what Trump is. Bobby won't give an answer because he can't. No one can. With Clinton there is this sense of corruption because many of her critics have used her lack of transparency to create that image. But endless searches from Whitewater to Benghazi to even this email scandal have not yielded a single instance of corruption from her. Her big mistake was the terrible way she handled the email situation from start to finish. Believe me I'd much rather have Joe Biden as the nominee over Clinton. But before people call her corrupt, they should produce one instance of her actually being corrupt.
Sounds exactly what a spokesman for Al Capone would have said before they finally got something on him that would stick.
I mostly agree. The character assassination has gotten so bad, there isn't a good environment to debate the merits of accusations any more. Her political enemies will point at the myriad scandals and say there is a robustness there because of the number of troubles she's been associated with. Her allies would point at the same ones and say those political enemies have manufactured so many fake scandals that no new allegation has any credibility anymore. No one believes someone from the other side could have reached their conclusions in earnest. When this email scandal started 3 centuries ago, a bunch of posters told me nobody cares about it, but I did. There's a ton of noise around everything else with insinuations of corruption on the one side and conspiracy on the other, but it's clear as day that she intentionally broke the rules as Sec of State in order to hide her activities. I hope she's not actually corrupt, since she's our next President and all, but she is certainly willing to flout the rules if she believes the risk-reward calculus supports it. If she's not corrupt, is it because she refuses to be, or is it only because no one made it worth her while?
I'm disappointed, JV. You are falling into the trap set for you from 25 years of GOP slander and "investigations" that never produced anything. GOP attacks with the sole purpose being to damage her character so people like you can imagine some vague "terrible thing" that she must have done, because she was falsely accused of crap so many times that it's impossible to count them all. What "activities" was she trying to hide? What possible benefit was there for her to acquire by using that server? What was the payoff? Donations for a non-profit foundation that they didn't get paid for having and has helped hundreds of thousands around the world? Hell, I haven't seen evidence of that much, much less anything else worth mentioning. Where's the beef, JV, aside from the phony hamburger being tossed your way for over 2 decades by a Republican Party controlled by extremists that deliberately planned for just this scenario. The assassination of Hillary Clinton's character because everyone and their uncle knew that she would one day run for President. An assassination of Hillary Clinton's character based on outright lies, with a dribble of innuendo. Lies and innuendo you seem to be slurping up.
I can see that with our electoral college system however which states won was key to the 2000 election. Then would anything really change? Johnson would be putting in his own cabinet members and assigning posts. The same machine would still be running in the background. If anything, Congress would return to having the most power, as it did before Teddy Roosevelt. I just don't get a nefarious vibe from Clinton. I don't think Trump is nefarious either but I merely find him and his style repulsive and embarrassing.
It's sad state of politics right now, but the Clintons should have postponed the Clinton Foundation until they were both out of office. She's given them a lot of extra ammo considering the already tough climb to the top for her. I find the character assassination tiresome as it only further proves the GOP truly doesn't have any ideas and solutions for this country's problems.
Why is it only Hillary is the one being targeted with legit accusations. And by legit accusations, I mean ones that are probable, not silly movements like Obama birthers or the Lewinsky scandal. Bill Clinton and Lynch meet up at the airport, and then a couple days later Lynch decides not to move forward with the investigation? The Clintons do not understand the term 'Conflict of interest'. This is why most Americans find Hillary unlikable. But you are too focused on the 'D' after her name to care.
What is the one instance of corruption out of the many you claim to know of? You still haven't answered. Show some credibility first. The FBI recommended not moving forward with the investigation. AG nearly always follows that reco. You need to learn more before throwing this crap out there and giving Trump a free pass on real corruption
Meanwhile the POTUS... paid Iran 1.7 BILLION to settle a debt with a nation that was sponsoring terrorism. Out of yall damn mind if you think another 4 years of Obama is something I wanna see. We have a coward for a President. https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/14ce7115-18c2-38df-9c69-951999508c44/us-sent-%241.3-billion-more-in.html
Lynch said she would do whatever the FBI recommended. They recommended no charges. Conflict of interest nowhere to be found except on Faux News and talk radio of course. You're so focused on this played out false equivalency that you can't even see straight. Voters aren't focused on the D next to her name, they're focused on the fact that a con man and a clown with no government experience is their alternative.
Protest votes do matter in that they show up in the stats and if Johnson is hopeful to get say 2% of the vote and he exceeds that to say 2.5% it tells Johnson's camp he has a support base out there bigger than he thought even though he lost the election. It would then lay credence that the Libertarian party is gaining momentum and can be hopeful of perhaps acquiring 3% of the vote the next election cycle or whatever their projections may be. It gives them more backing for funding into the next election cycle where they'll continue to get an increase in their support base. It's like a Democrat voting in a red state or a Repub voting in a blue state. Damn near any Democrat knows their vote won't likely matter in determining if their guy wins the election in Texas. However if every election cycle shows an increasing trend in Democratic votes to where a traditional red state becomes a swing state then it shows an increasing population of voters are upset with Republican platforms. Likewise for an increasing GOP movement in a traditional Blue state that becomes a swing state. In some ways I'm more interested in the 2020 election more so than this one. A new census will be conducted where I fully expect more gerrymandering attempts from the GOP to curtail an increasing rise in the Democratic vote in Texas. If you think the build a wall bulls-hit is bad this election cycle wait until immigrants get lambasted for all American problems when the census is conducted in 2020.
They both can have devastating affects but I think Hillary really only has a down side it just isn't as extreme as Trump's might be. With Trump however, there is the possibility of an upside but more likely it will just be a roller coaster ride without seat belts.. lots of fun if you're not the one the fell off and died.
Partisanship blindness would be an apt decription if one is unwilling to see or acknowledge the flaws of one of these candidates. But concluding that one is "less bad" than the other is just a judgment call based on the platforms of each candidate and the risks associated with each candidate. It's not a matter of partisan blindness. You don't have to be a partisan to conclude one would, on the whole, be better than the other -- irrespective of their personal likability.
Pessimistically, Hillary will need to pull a rabbit out of her butt with the people living in three straight Dem terms. Might be another term where Republicans retake a shaky dem senate majority. At least she'll appoint a couple justices.
Well yeah, I'm not saying that one can't decide one is better than the other, I have done that as well, Hillary is clearly better than Trump, there's literally nothing that would get me to vote for Trump but if I absolutely had to vote for one of the 2 and not voting wasn't an option then I'd vote for Hillary despite the fact that she should probably be in jail and she shouldn't ever have access to classified information again or work in ANY position that requires security clearance even including the kitchen staff at the white house......I'm just pointing out that they are both REALLY terrible. Those who can't acknowledge that they are both terrible are those IMO who are blinded by partisanship.
