Why I am Voting for Hillary
I know there is a sparse "vote for Hillary" crowd here, but there happened to be two articles on the Salon web site that together summarized why I am voting for HRC this time and want to share them with everyone.
The first is here: http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/hate-unleashed-for-decades-the-gop-kept-... . It describes how much more open racists are in their support for Trump then used to be the case for past Republicans.
I can think of three rejoinders I have seen on this site in opposition to the idea of voting for HRC because of Trump's racism.
One is that HRC and Bill have also used racism in their campaign, so there is no real difference to them in this area. Personally, while agreeing with the fact that they have both relied on racial appeals in the past, I strongly disagree with the conclusion of this argument. Dont get me wrong, Bill's racial appeals in his campaign was horrible. As a side note- his refusal to commute the death penalty of a black mentally incapacitated individual in 1992 was the most craven act of political cowardice I can remember. And both HRC and Bill used racially coded attacks against Obama in 2008. Yet, their racial and racist appeals are not comparable to Trumps. Nothing the Clintons have said or done inspired David Duke to rejoin the political arena and to support their candidacies; nothing they did inspired neo-Nazis to actively support their campaigns. The Clinton's acts were egregious and wrong, but they were not a call to arms and a rallying cry to racists everywhere. Trump's are.
Second, that HRC is evil and voting for her supports her evil. This argument is dealt with in the second Salon article: http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/fear-is-a-great-motivator-how-to-reconci... . Basically, the article reiterates that because of Trump's racism and other negatives are of a whole different order then HRC's, progressives should vote for HRC, at least if they live in a closely contested state.
Finally, I know many if not most of you just believe that taking EVERYTHING in consideration, HRC is simply no better then, and some would say worse then, Trump. Obviously, I disagree. For me, Trump's racism is an evil I am going to oppose. I am an employment lawyer and anti-discrimination is the red line I have for any candidate and political race. I understand everyone has different lines that they draw before deciding what candidates to support. In fact for me before this year, my line was free trade, never dreaming that a racist such as Trump would actually get the Republican Party nomination. I will mention though that racism is not the only way that HRC is better, in my opinion, then Trump. While I am not a super environmentalist, economic justice is my main political thing (aside from racism), I do believe that even neo-liberals like Clinton and President Obama understand the dangers of global warming and are trying to do something about it. Trump will not. Also, I think even a neo liberal like Clinton will defend and if possible improve the marginally helpful Affordable Healthcare Act. Trump will eliminate it. I think if given the chance (with an agreeable Congress), Clinton would raise taxes on the wealthy (even Bill did that), while Trump will greatly reduce them. I think if given the chance, Clinton will raise the minimum wage (even Bill did that), while Trump would not. So, regarding the range of issues I most care about, HRC is either vastly or marginally better then Trump.
Honestly, I dont want to end on a "pro-HRC" note. If this was a typical election and HRC had a typical opponent like Dole, McCain or even Romney, I probably wouldnt vote for her because I fear that she will eventually sell workers out on TPP. But this is not a typical election, for reasons set forth in the two cited articles. I hope anyone who read this post has read the article, which is actually a much better use of time then reading what I wrote :).
Comments
Henry Wallace and Untimely Ripped...
Henry Wallace and Untimely Ripped...
I have no idea what "Andy Katz" or AK you are referring to. I can tell you I am the "Andy Katz" from Dailykos before I was banned. If you are curious, go ahead over there and look through 12 years of posts, comments and blogs, and look for 1 single pro-Hillary entry. I can assure you in the couple dozen blogs and hundreds if not thousands of comments, I did not post one favorable thing to her. and, yes, I was a Bernie supporter.
The irony for me is that I am the only poster I can remember that is active online that uses his own name. I thought of changing that, but really I am not ashamed for people to know who I am. I dont write things that lead me to be afraid of people knowing who I am. I am not implying that there is anything at all wrong with not using your own name. Again, I know that that is the nearly universal practice. My only point is that I find it ironic that people here are doubting who I am when I might be the only person who actually uses his own name here.
To you and a person who commented below, I forget who he/she is now, who thought I might not be a lawyer like I claim, feel free to google either Andy or Andrew Katz, West Virginia, employment lawyer. My law firm name, if you are interested, is The Katz Working Families Law Firm.
I Did a Search on Kailykos for "Andy Katz" and Couldnt find it..
I guess because I am banned. Here is a link though that goes to my DK page.. http://www.dailykos.com/user/Andy%20Katz
Andy Katz...
I can vouch for you. Actually, if I remember correctly, I KosMailed you and gave you a personal invitation to join us here when I saw the grief you were getting in your last diary there, figuring that you were going to be banned for it.
Most folks here are not Hillary Clinton fans, including myself, but you are free to post as you wish as long it is kept civil and you are not an obvious shill/troll, which I am convinced that you are not. But do be aware that if you post pro-Hillary pieces here expect some major pushback, as I think you were expecting from the get-go.
Thanks! I Was Expecting Pushback and Thats What Debate is About
Not necessary in my case.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/184690#comment-184690
The time stamp that post of mine is Sat, 10/01/2016 - 2:34am, more than eight hours before your post to untimely ripped and me at Sat, 10/01/2016 - 10:51am
I point that out not to fault you for not having read it before calling me out--no reason you should have--but to show that I did not post it because you called me out. (I hope the distinction is clear.) I posted it because I realize any number of possibilities exist.
Also, in the other post of mine, the one to which you replied, I said:
I am very, very sorry if any post of mine prompted you to post personal information. I don't recommend putting much personal info on a message board, especially the kind that enables people to locate you. It's not a matter of whether you are ashamed or proud of who you are and what you post, but a matter of there being nutters in this world, some of whom are on the internet. They don't even have to be members of a board, only readers. In your shoes, I would delete some of the info from some of your posts and not go down that road again. That is my heartfelt advice.
fair enough.
in which case, it's just an amusing coincidence -- go ahead and google as henry wallace advised, and you'll discover that a photojournalist named andrew katz has about a gazillion photos of hillary clinton posted on news sites all over the web.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
What I got out of all those returned hits on the two names
is that our poster here is not some naif venturing out onto the blogosphere for the first time.
I'm not saying they claimed to be--in fact, that tells me that their word usage is as manipulative as I initially gave them "credit" for being. Starting with their statement that they were an attorney, to establish authority in their writing.
Hmm. We've garnered the valuable attention of, if not the NYT
itself, then at least of one of its employees.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Possibly, but not necessarily.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/184683#comment-184683
It's also possible that the opening poster is neither the Andy Katz we find we google or an admirer of that Andy Katz.
Their ability to use--and mis-use--the English language
is rather striking, though.
I think it takes one to know one. This English aficionado says if our OP is not the same Andy Katz, he does a damned good imitation of him.
How About You..Do you Post and Run
I posted the OP at about 12:30 yesterday on lunch break. I had to meet clients at 1:00 then pick up my son. I resumed posting yesterday afternoon then again this morning. Are you satisfied?
I AM a Hillary hater, and proud of it!
I've been a Hillary hater since 1993, when she said that insurance companies are more important than people and sicced the cops on everyone who disagreed. Since then she's added the banksters, the credit card companies. the frackers, and the makers of cluster bombs, just to prove me right. Sh has pandered to - and betrayed - every oppressed demographic on the list, usually only after pandering to bigots first.
I hate Hillary not because she is a woman, or because she is corrupt, or even because she is a cold warrior who thinks that it should still be 1955, and Russia is to blame for everything - even her crimes. I hate her because of all of that; she is satanic evil, period.
On to Biden since 1973
Meaningless political rituals
“Those who still care about the war of Rs and Ds, Dion writes, are practicing “political rituals that haven’t made sense since the 1980s, feathered tribesmen dancing around a god carved out of a tree trunk.”
Excerpt From: Thomas Frank. “Listen, Liberal.” iBooks.
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
The 1980s: Al From, the Clintons, Will Marshall, the Koch
brothers and others formed the DLC with corporate money for the purpose of taking the Democratic Party (and European parties) considerably to the right. Before that, Democrats were still pushing back at Republicans on issues other than equal rights and choice. Now, Hillary even talks compromising on choice with a Constitutional amendment!
Actually, as a pagan, let me speak up for the
dancing around the tree trunk, which makes a hell of a lot more sense than this partisan claptrap.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It's Pastafarian sabbath
Time to drink some beer and relax...
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
good on ya.
as her! says, vote yer conscience.
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
I get the racism argument, I really do, but
when she said that she would use "military force" in retaliation to cyber attacks, a week after accusing Russia (falsely) for a "cyber attack", where her fixing of the primary was exposed, Sorry, but given a choice between civil war and nuclear war, I have lost my sympathy for your position.
On to Biden since 1973
"the racism argument"
sort of neglects to mention the fact that hillary isn't terribly worried about supporting policies that get white-brown-yellow-black people killed all over the place. i'm not sure "racist" trumps "sociopath".
at least racists have some scruples. heh.
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
Lots of "thinks, possiblies, and I do believes"
in this essay, making your argument for Clinton even weaker than it already is. Regarding your "belief" that Clinton is less of a racist than Trump is, I respectfully disagree. Should Clinton slither into the position of globel defender of dictators and corporations who want to plunder the planet, her presidency will be shared with Bill. She's hinted as much. But Bill's treatment of Africans and African Americans has been disastrous. He ended welfare as we know it, plunging poor women and children (mostly minorities) into abject poverty by yanking the safety net out from under them. Bill's "three strikes" legislation put more black males in prison than all other presidents combined and spawned the rise of for-private prisons. The Clintons also take prison lobbyist money. But Bill's real racism shone through in 1994, when he turned his back on the Rwandan genocide. During a two month period, almost a million ethnic Tutsi's were killed by the majority Hutu's. Later, Bill claimed that it was his biggest regret; he could have done more. Yes, indeed.
You see, Trump hasn't done these things. But the Clintons have. A track record of evil, over and over again, proves that THEY are the greatest evil.
Your premise has a BIG flaw in it
Actually labeling African Americans as SUPER-PREDATORS was an acknowledgement by the white house that AA's are not as human as whites. It didn't inspire David Duke, but it did embolden the "Scary black man" meme that has driven fear up. So it WAS a call to arms, look at today. That very type of thinking AA=super-predator has lead to HOW MANY police shootings out of Scary black man" meme?
What Hill-bots, her supporters, and those who have bought into the whole "Fear the trump" don't realize is Hillary is the FAR WORSE choice in 2016.
She will continue the dog whistles of the past as she looks to shore up the center-right/right. Her goal (as was her husbands) is to move the DNC to become the GOP. Look at all the Right Wing support she has now!
And should you care less about that argument, lets look at 2020 should Hillary win in 2016. This is TRULY the scary part of this.....
Whoever the GOP nominates will learn the lessons of Trump. The new candidate Trump 2.0 will be just as disgusting,hateful and vile. HOWEVER, they will have learned the mistakes from Trump, and we will be getting a disgusting, hateful, vile, POLISHED TURD who will be able to ride Trumps populism and bigotry into the White House in 2020 after we keep hurting people with Third-Way policies of Hillary Clinton's first term and only term in the White House.
If Trump wins in 2016, NO Democrat will support him in anything in congress as will many republicans also reject him. And on 2020 the whole Trump type hateful movement will die and be buried for all but local elections. But like I said if Hillary wins, the new trump, Trump 2.0 will be truly dangerous as he/she won't be nearly as incompetent as Trump!
A vote for Hillary is a vote for handing over America to a polished competent Trump-like republican in 2020!
When I was a kid, Republicans used to red scare people, now it's the Democrats. I am getting too damn old for this crap!
HEEL!
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
Too many echoes of Clinton using racial attacks on Sanders
First off this defense of Clinton echoes the charges of racism that were leveled against Bernie supporters. I hope you are offended by the vicious use of race by Clinton, her campaign, and her supporters toward Sanders and his supporters. Hell, a DNC official wanted to evn throw religion as an attack on Sanders. The implication is that if you don't vote for Clinton, you support racist Trump.
But big stuff. Why did Clinton choose a white privileged guy who failed as DNC chair? Clinton could have chosen an African American or Hispanic as her running mate given how those groups put her over the top (forgetting the cheating). She could have assured that POC would have real powerful positions within future generations of the party. In fact, Hillary ensured that the Democratic party would be controlled by white leadership for the next several generations as she shut off the aspirations of younger black leadership. And she is paying for this with potential low voter turn-out rates in minority communities. Oh, and the DNC gave out guidelines on how democratic party Congressional candidates should basically marginalize BLM.
There is a better choice: Jill Stein.
I Agree With Most of This
Actually, I left KOS, in significant part, because of one of KOS' posts stating that anyone who wanted Sanders to win after the primaries were over were guilty of racial prejudice because African Americans chose HRC. If your interested, you can still see my last post there even though I quite and was subsequently banned. And I dont know why she picked Kaine. I think he is a horrible pick. I wanted her to pick Warren, even though she is obviously not a POC.
I think we've figured out why Kaine
1. He's the "safe" choice, the banksters' and oligarchs' choice, for a backup in case HRC's health problems really are that serious and she can't complete her elected term.
2. She owes him bigtime for stepping down as head of the DNC so that buddygal DWS could step up into the position. Even if there wasn't an explicit quid pro quo involved, there's a big favor owed. Clintons prefer to be the people owed rather than the people owing.
3. Virginia is a swing state - and a "must-win" state for HRC. QED: Sen. Kaine of Virginia. (Never mind that a lot of Virginians think he's a waste of office space - he's still supposed to bring in the votes.)
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Thanks for the reply (nm)
let me explain why I've decided to vote for Hillary
it's because I'm the dumbest mutha$%%& you ever saw. Voting for Hillary is not my first choice. My first choice would be to dig a big hole and hide in it. Hide from Trump!!! Hide from Putin!!!!! But personally I can't dig a big enough hole to be safe. I know if I vote for Hillary I won't have to hide from Trump. I'd still have to hide from Putin though and Hillary would personally come to my house and, with her team of expert holediggers, create a hole in my backyard that the house would probably fall right into it. That'd be ok, though, because then Putin!!!! couldn't get me.
Although I suppose it's always possible that Hillary would become friends with Putin. She and the Obamas love Kissinger, Powell, even Bush now. Trump!!! is already friends with Putin (that's why I need a big hole) but in a bad way. If Hillary wins and becomes friends with Putin then instead of exclamation marks after his name to show how scary he is, we could put some of those heart emojis.
And Hillary has shown she cares about the children, like that rich girl who lives next door to Chelsea.
next *floor
i think... chelsea owns half the floor, and the other half is/was a medical facility.
or maybe that's bullshit. /shrug
so much bullshit i don't even care anymore.
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
Damn, you're awesome.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thank you for the well reasoned, respectful reply.
Usually, I have to be on the DK site to have a reply of such depth. Thanks again.
Andy, seriously, I think they are both horrors
whichever gets elected will bring us a different horror. Is one worse than the other? We don't know and we're being asked to guess and then vote accordingly, as in "our horror is less horrible than their horror so you have to vote for our horror".
We were told all through the primary season that the reason Bernie Sanders polled better than Hillary Clinton against Republicans was because of something we would have to imagine; that being the Republicans would attack him and Hillary, having been through it all, was immune. It turns out that she isn't immune at all. And I believe in what was actually there, that Bernie would do better, and never believed in something because somebody said something might happen...
For me, this is similar. We have to use our imaginations. Sure, Trump is as bad as you think. I think so, too. We also know what Hillary has done in her career and there's no reason to think she'll be different as President. She voted for the AUMF. She postured about it. Then, when it was an inconvenient vote she lied about it. "I only did it so we could hold Bush accountable". We know what policies she's been for as Secretary of State. She wants to protect corporate profits and if people die then it's too bad. To me that's a horror.
So it's a question of do I reject both and vote for Jill Stein? Or do I "imagine" Trump's horror is so much worse that I vote for someone I think should be out of public life?
Hope that's enough depth this time!
We are not only being asked to choose between two horrors,
We are being told to further cement that system into place, when we finally have a chance to open it up to three, or maybe even four, possible choices. No thanks, I want to break the stranglehold of the 'two-party' system.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Seriously this time, Shahyar Thank You For the Reply
Actually, I agree that Sanders would probably have been the stronger candidate vs Trump, just as the polling showed. I say probably because the Clinton people had a point that polls can change after someone is subject to a heavy attack. Still, the thing that most Clinton people dont realize is that standing for something is a strength. For example, as much as I loathe Trump, I admit that the reason his many many MANY stupid statements dont destroy his candidacy is that he actually stands for certain things and is very clear about that. Even if what he stands fo, e.g., r "Make America Great Again" is bogus I mention this because it occurred to me that HRC is hurt by things like the email scandal, the Clinton Foundation, even her health, in part, because she hasnt ever stood for any principals. Sanders, on the other hand, has a life time of standing on principals, principals that I mostly agree with. So, yes, he would have been subject to attack, but because there is a "there, there" with him, it would not have hurt him to the degree attacks hurt Clinton (or most politicians really).
The Shah was entirely justified.
Andy Katz, even if you
were correct that Trump would be a worse President than Clinton, it would not change the fact neither of them is an acceptable choice. It seems to me that you are comparing a rotten orange to a poisoned apple here, and trying to parse which would be the more distasteful.
Both Trump and Clinton would be likely to cause harm to the nation and to the world if/when they are elected - each of them in a different way, but in the long run both visions of the future are fatally flawed.
native
rotten orange to a poisoned apple
is apt.. the poison is going to kill you. the orange might just be a bit alcoholic.
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
This seemed appropriate, somehow.
Maybe a little optimistic, but hey, that's me.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClQcUyhoxTg]
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The only reason the Clintons aren't more openly racist ...
is that it would cost them votes and their burning, craven need for power and money is stronger than their inherent nature. If racism attracted Democratic votes, Bill and Hill would be Racists-In-Chief.
The important thing to remember about Hillary Clinton is that she has very few core values. She will lean whatever way the prevailing wind forces her to lean. And that cannot be trusted. Look how bill sold out welfare recipients, black people, factory workers, etc. while he was president. Just think how much worse Hillary will make things for the "small people".
Nope no Shillary. And all these 'be afraid, be very very afraid'
post and articles are not going to change it. I was a young wife and mother the first time around. I remember the 'two for the price of one' dirty duo. In fact, I think one even said something about bringing 'super predators to heel' if I'm not mistaken.
She wasn't talking about those of Irish descent.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
I bet she has choice words for people of Irish
descent, too. People who use stereotypical slurs like "kike" and "super predators" do not tend to confine themselves to one race or religion.
Elie Wiesel
I doubt she likes people of Italian ancestry either
and yes, we know the hurtful names, including the ones that lump us with Latinos as "underpeople".
Evviva Calitri!
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I do not need to get
into the befuddling business of trying to judge whether Clinton is worse than Trump, or whether Trump is so horrible that he must be stopped at all cost, or blah de blah.
The bottom line is that Henry Kissinger is a dealbreaker for me. I will not vote for anybody who openly and quite genuinely praises that evil SOB. Nothing else that anybody has to say on the candidates is of any consequence, because admiration of HFK is an insuperable disqualifying flaw in any candidate. She might as well have cited Dick Cheney as a good friend and foreign policy advisor.
It does not get worse than Henry Fucking Kissinger. Nothing is worse than HFK. Nothing. Not even Nazis. HFK and the Nazis both inhabit the absolute zero region of moral and ethical thermodynamics. Admiring Henry Kissinger is like admiring Baby Doc Duvalier. Or Jeffrey Dahmer. Or Pol Pot. Only a person who has no meaningful moral compass could spend a comfortable moment in HFK's presence, nevermind spend a cheerful holiday basking in his hospitality.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
To further elucidate:
HFK "trumps" this claim:
NONE of Trump's negatives can possibly be worse than HRC's admiration for HFK, because there is nothing worse. I wasn't being hyperbolic -- admiring HFK is on the same moral plane as admiring Jeffrey Dahmer (Although to be fair, I think Jeffrey Dahmer actually realized that what he was doing was pretty horrifying -- he just couldn't help himself. HFK exhibits no comparable disquietude. In other words, HFK is actually a worse human being than Jeffrey Dahmer was.)
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Admiring Henry Kissinger was the other deal breaker for me, too
the first was Mother Jones' claim that Hillary stated she'd meet the GOP halfway on "abortion restrictions".
There is nothing anyone can say--here or anywhere else--that is going to change my mind. Hillary Clinton is at least as craven and evil as Donald Trump. And probably a whole lot more. But see, that doesn't even matter so much to me, because I don't think Trump is in this to win it anyway.
It's time America had a functional Green Party platform #JillStein2016
Look, you likely will vote as
Look, you likely will vote as you see fit OP, but rd party need votes to break out and go to the main stage. If you do what has failed for 30-40yrs, then nothing will actually improve, so it is Jill Stein for me and many others. Do not reward the crap-mongers selling us a shit sandwich or the shit sandwich with lettuce and tomato. I rather have the BLT sandwich which is Jill and the Green Party.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
Counterpoint
Trump is a symptom of the problems afflicting the nation. Sort of. Really, he is a symptom brought about as a result of the other symptoms that afflict this nation. Hillary Clinton, and her like, are the cause of those symptoms. Voting for Hillary means keeping the cause of the symptoms that created Trump alive and well, which will inevitably create another Trump threat, or worse. The only logical solution isn't to vote for Hillary to "treat" the symptoms, it's to vote for a third party candidate, and actually start treating the cause of the symptoms.
You can't cure a poison victim by giving them more poison.
Edit: counterpoint to the racism. It took Trump dog whistling quite blatantly to get the Republican racists going. It didn't take any dog whistling from Hillary to get her supporters to do essentially the same thing on the other end of the spectrum. An eagerness to be horrible seems scarier to me than having to be rallied to be horrible.
don't tell that to the homeopaths.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Vote for whomever you wish.
If you are convinced Trump's open racism is worse than Hillary's more sophisticated "super predator" style racism, then let's move on to another issue: WWIII.
Do you see any difference is their war posturing?
Would you agree that she is the MIC's dream candidate?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Thanks for writing this
I think it takes some courage to come to a place you know is pretty negative about Hillary and post your reasons for voting for her. That's commendable as is the fact that you didn't resort to insults and threats.
That being said, as others have noted, I've heard all those arguments before. I've heard them in most or all elections I've ever participated in. It is the reasoning of the duopoloy and I happen to think that the duopoloy is (literally) killing us. So obviously, I'm not much interested in following it's advice.
The core problem here is that while Trump is, in fact, awful, he's not as awful as Democrats would have us believe (go figure) and Hillary is much worse than Democrats would have us believe. Democrats went nuts regarding Iraq because Bush lied us into a war. Well, Hillary also lied us into that same war and bears the burden along with Bush. But unlike Bush, Hillary went on to repeat that performance again and again.
But hey, if we're cool with slaughtering random brown people over in the mideast we can always turn our attention to Wall Street. Those criminals on Wall Street have repeated the entire situation all over again and we are just waiting for the first domino to fall. Hillary thinks we can maybe finagle a few regulations to get things ship shape if there's any hint of a problem. Except there's already more than a hint of a problem and as we sit and watch the Wells Fargo (et.al.) corruption case is playing out. I have not heard Hillary calling to break up the banks which are systemic risks. I have not heard Hillary call for the criminal prosecution of executives. In short, Hillary is not present and accounted for and this next global financial crisis will be a doozy.
So at a bare minimum Hillary is a bloody handed murderer and sociopathic enough to not really care if we take another 40% (or more) of wealth from the bottom 90%. Without even moving on to other issues, that's pretty awful.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Pages