Slashdot Mirror

Hillary also did not have an agenda, all she did was attack Trump.

Maybe she didn't publicize it well enough, but she definitely had an agenda. https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

Trump on the other hand HAD an AGENDA "Make America Great Again"

That's a slogan, not an agenda.

The only people who voted for her were airheads who thought having a vagina was a requirement for the white house.

Now you're just being stupid.

The Economy woke up and got in gear the day after the election

Citation needed.

And what was Hillary's plan to "save" Social Security? To raise SS benefits and correspondingly raise SS taxes on "them" (not you, dear voter, "them"), and to tax other sources of income that "they" (not you, dear voter, but "them") presently don't pay SS taxes on - like dividends.

She left out any specifics, because specifics cost votes - vague references to "them" paying more plays well, because without specifics, the average voter can easily imagine that the "them" are the Scrooge McDuck characters sitting in their vault taking a money bath, not the two teachers in California that work summer jobs "to make ends meet".

(paraphrased) trump had detailed policy propels, and hllary didn't

i did read them, and the conclusion is that youre completely detached from reality and have no f'ing clue what youre speaking of.

trump on immigration:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...

Repetitive, vague, and sometimes openly bigoted statements and goals lacking any actual policy content of how to actually accomplish it , and a bunch of blatant BS about Obama/Clinton.

Hillary on immigration:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

Goals....that actually include how she would have attempted to achieve those goals.

It's one thing to say "I'm going to be an astronaut, I want to be an astronaut, I will be an astronaut."
It's completely another to say "I'm going to be an astronaut, and to do that I'm going to go to attend MIT, work for NASA, and submit a proposal for a Mars habitat, which I then volunteer for."

and you somehow managed to confuse which one was concrete proposal, and which was bluster.
and you also managed to repeat some of the same BS trump did, and discount his well documented racist behavior.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

Hillary supports widened gun control, do you doubt her word for it?

How could you have any guns left after Obama took them all? Oh wait....

AsHornWumpus put it, thank dog, the president doesn't have the power to unilaterally do whatever he wants, and was instead blocked from taking guns as he wanted to by congress who passes actual legislation. Though he did cry on TV because he couldn't stop extremely rare instences of violence that would happen with or without guns.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/...
etc etc etc

"I am a proud lifelong fighter for womenâ(TM)s issues, because I firmly believe whatâ(TM)s good for women is good for America."
-- https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

Then launches straight into propagating the mythical pay gap and the exceedingly misandrist "violence against women" bullshit.

Anything done to improve womens pay relative to mens that doesn't include making them do the same fucking work is a direct attack on men. I've yet to see any "violence against women" legislation or government funding that doesn't demonise, penalise or heavily disadvantage men.

On the 'white' front, Clinton gave anti-white racists speaking slots at the Democratic Convention - see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

You're welcome to challenge whether this is 'actively' demonising or not, but at no point did I ever see anything from Clinton that actually acknowledged let alone support white men.

Donald trump has threatened many times to curtail the press and sue people who don't agree with him when he becomes President.

So? Donald Trump threatening the press in no way contradicts what I said about the Democrats.

There has been no call from any Democrats that I'm aware of, advocating for government censorship.

Well, then you are living under a rock.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...

No, but accusing him of "conspir[ing] with foreign governments to defraud the American public" is, given what we actually know.

Bigot: one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups. Trump != social group. The end.

she doesn't have any kind of coherent agenda or vision

Yeah, incoherent. . . compared to Trump's coherent policies

Unless you have actually gone through and changed your citizenship, you haven't lived "as an immigrant"

Not citizenship, but permanent residence. I had Japanese permanent residence.

Well, I suppose if Japanese is your native language, it is no wonder that you have such queer notions about identity and racism; Japan is one of the most xenophobic and racist countries I have ever spent time in.

English is my native language. Funny. . . saying an entire nation is racist is, in itself, a very racist thing to say. Maybe if you were not so quick to judge your experience in Japan would have been different.

Which demographic would that be? Democrats just lost the House, the Senate, the presidency, and with that, the supreme court, so don't hold your breath.

Straight white male. You think ideology matters in Trump's America? This is about the "master" tribe, which people like you are not allowed to become "citizens" of. . . I despise this mentality, but I think I have seen it more than someone with your characteristics might have been exposed to. I feel like only that can explain how you seem to see Trump in such a naive light.

You accuse people of racism, xenophobia, and fraud for the flimsiest of reasons and express your disapproval and condemnation

No, I accuse Trump for what he himself has SAID. . . I am intolerant of unilateral intolerance.

Well, I'm accusing you of being a progressive and a Democrat; you certainly sound like one. And while you obviously don't understand why that offends people, I think it's important to make it crystal clear to you that it does. Perhaps that will induce people like you to reflect a bit on what you're saying and advocating, because obviously reason isn't getting through to you.

I am neither, but I don't want to get too ambitious here. . . if I can get you to make a single post where you properly use the term "bigot", I will consider this entire thread a yuuuge success.

Reading through your posts, I really feel like you are having this conversation with someone else. . . maybe someone in your past. . . maybe your parents. . . Anyway, I am not that person, but I hope you were able to find some kind of resolve. Seems like you really needed it. . .

Saying you seem lacking knowledge of Trump does not make me a "bigot" in any sense of the word

No, but accusing him of "conspir[ing] with foreign governments to defraud the American public" is, given what we actually know.

but saying you did not vote for Hillary because you support gay marriage

I did not vote for Hillary because it is clear that whatever she promises or says in her campaign bears no known relationship to what she actually intends to do. We know that both from her past behavior and from her leaked E-mails. In fact, I'm not even sure that she intends to do anything because she doesn't have any kind of coherent agenda or vision; all she does is have carefully crafted messages to special interest groups.

You see, I have also lived as an immigrant, and I know delusional xenophobia when I see it.

Unless you have actually gone through and changed your citizenship, you haven't lived "as an immigrant", you have merely worked as a temporary guest worker in a foreign country. Furthermore, limits on immigration (whether illegal or legal) are not xenophobic; all other advanced nations have them. Countries generally require valuable skills, cultural compatibility, and a blemish-free record for immigration. Trump's position on immigration is in no way xenophobic or unusual; Hillary's positions don't amount to much of a policy, just a set of carefully crafted messages attempting to maximize support from a particular demographic.

If you knew Japanese, I might be able to continue this discussion in a different language. . . but that seems statistically improbable. . .

Well, I suppose if Japanese is your native language, it is no wonder that you have such queer notions about identity and racism; Japan is one of the most xenophobic and racist countries I have ever spent time in.

Except, this time, I am part of the "demographic in power," and I fully intend to use that position of privilege to fight this dark shadow that has taken hold of my homeland

Which demographic would that be? Democrats just lost the House, the Senate, the presidency, and with that, the supreme court, so don't hold your breath.

At this point, I am not sure you can understand it, but my attacks on Trump are in defense of people like yourself. [...] Again, with the personal attacks. . . of someone you know so little about.

You accuse people of racism, xenophobia, and fraud for the flimsiest of reasons and express your disapproval and condemnation. Well, I'm accusing you of being a progressive and a Democrat; you certainly sound like one. And while you obviously don't understand why that offends people, I think it's important to make it crystal clear to you that it does. Perhaps that will induce people like you to reflect a bit on what you're saying and advocating, because obviously reason isn't getting through to you.

The parallels with the rise of Nazism in the 1930s are quite disturbing.

Indeed it is.

Trump wants to deport 11 million people

Well, yes, just like Germany.

persecute Muslims

No, just strongly scrutinize immigration from countries with lots of terrorists. You know, the same policy as Clinton or much of Europe.

force other countries to respect and build walls for America

Kind of like some European countries

and all on the back of a populist campaign of lies and blame

No argument there.

This is something I like to ask self proclaimed conservatives. Hilary is the most conservative candidate out there by the actual definition of the word. She's going to do a fine job maintaining the status quo. A few tax cuts here, a few tax raises here, but nothing substantial. She's your classic nixonite pro-corporate politician. A little corrupt but nothing out of the ordinary.

How do you know? Hillary's actual political program is radically different from that. I think Hillary's actual political program sucks, so if I were to vote for her, I would have to assume that she is lying through her teeth. So, which is it? Is she a pathological liar and a psychopath, or has she turned into a Sanders-style political radical over the last few years?

But you can't vote Trump and really be conservative, can you?

Well, luckily, I'm not a conservative, Republican, progressive, or Democrat. Neither are the majority of Americans. Nor do most Americans share your literal or partisan mindset. I have voted Democratic before and I may again in the future. I'm not voting for Hillary because I think she is actually a pathological liar and a psychopath, and even a loudmouth nutcase like Trump is preferable to her in the Whitehouse.

"Is it interesting that the Clinton Foundation has no measurable results?"

https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

If your hero has a chance he is going to fuck you over big time.

I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. Trump isn't my first choice for president, and I think he's not very competent, but his actual political program is a fairly moderate conservative program. Depending on how close it looks where I live, I may hold my nose and vote for Trump anyway because I don't want Hillary.

Stop pretending to be so stupid and open your eyes.

Hillary has already "fucked me over". But that's not why I'm not voting for her. Neither am I not voting for her because I think she is cold, opportunistic, corrupt, duplicitous, and utterly unlikable.

The reason I don't want Hillary to become president is simply because I think Hillary's political program is awful. I agree more with Sanders and JIll Stein than with Hillary Clinton.

Why is it that La Clinton is automatically and personally responsible for every opinion spouted by some random blogger who happens to think she's less terrible than the other option?

Why is it you have poor reading comprehension? The person you replied to wrote:

"After all, Pepe wasn't a hate symbol until Donald Trump used it. Well that, and the Clinton Campaign wrote an article on it, based off an article where the author was trolled so hard that despite the troll standing on the bridge and saying "I'm a troll, suckers" they still ran with it."

I linked in the Clinton campaign article, which wasn't linked in the original comment.

Except as something from the past, Bill has nothing to do with this election, so there is actually no reason to bring him in.

Trump has brought him in numerous times during the campaign and Hillary herself prefers to be Hillary rather than Clinton: https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

Unless you're black. Or Hispanic. Or an immigrant. Or Muslim. Or a woman. Or gay. Or the rest of the LGBTQ team

Being several of those things myself, I find the idea that Hillary stands up for my interests laughable.

Or don't want random wars.

Are you kidding? Look at Hillary's actual record, not the fiction her campaign has fabricated for her.

So yeah, if you're well isolated from any possible problem, you'll do ok, no matter who wins. If you aren't, you really only have one option

Which is why so many privileged white males and billionaires support Hillary.

As for Hillary's political program, it's a joke: most of if is wishful thinking or simple hubris; it's a bunch of empty promises to gullible voters like you, designed by political strategists and pollsters.

Both Hillary and Trump are so despised by Congress and the public that they are lucky if they don't get impeached and manage to get a basic budget passed.

Her campaign says she "supports the Department of Commerce’s plans to formally transition its oversight role in the management of the Domain Name System to the global community of stakeholders".

Really? Cartoon frogs?

Oh No! More White Supremacism!

could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information

So, either

• the abuela's memory is fading and she is unfit to be President; or
• she lied to the FBI (a federal crime) and is unfit to be President.

What a pickle... An entire jar of pickles!

Uh, I don't think you know what the word means.

Are you suggesting that she's a conservative? Because, within the realm of US politics, that's the alternative.

It's possible that she's:

• Not liberal enough for your tastes.

If you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, then the word you're looking for is progressive.

But she's supposedly for:

• Increasing government involvement in things (pretty much everything here)
• Raising taxes
• Making college free (if your family makes less than $125K in 2021, 1 year after her first term...)
• Expanding the ACA (ObamaCare)
• Reducing defense

These are all liberal ideals (and many are considered progressive as well). The reality is that, it's Hillary Clinton, and therefore you have no idea what she is really for until it matters -- and then it may be too late for everyone. With the exception of reducing defense spending, none of these will ever be uttered by a conservative and a conservative would only mention it with respect to fixing runaway spending and waste (e.g., duplication); not reduction.

Uh, I don't think you know what the word means.

Are you suggesting that she's a conservative? Because, within the realm of US politics, that's the alternative.

It's possible that she's:

• Not liberal enough for your tastes.

If you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, then the word you're looking for is progressive.

But she's supposedly for:

• Increasing government involvement in things (pretty much everything here)
• Raising taxes
• Making college free (if your family makes less than $125K in 2021, 1 year after her first term...)
• Expanding the ACA (ObamaCare)
• Reducing defense

These are all liberal ideals (and many are considered progressive as well). The reality is that, it's Hillary Clinton, and therefore you have no idea what she is really for until it matters -- and then it may be too late for everyone. With the exception of reducing defense spending, none of these will ever be uttered by a conservative and a conservative would only mention it with respect to fixing runaway spending and waste (e.g., duplication); not reduction.

Uh, I don't think you know what the word means.

Are you suggesting that she's a conservative? Because, within the realm of US politics, that's the alternative.

It's possible that she's:

• Not liberal enough for your tastes.

If you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, then the word you're looking for is progressive.

But she's supposedly for:

• Increasing government involvement in things (pretty much everything here)
• Raising taxes
• Making college free (if your family makes less than $125K in 2021, 1 year after her first term...)
• Expanding the ACA (ObamaCare)
• Reducing defense

These are all liberal ideals (and many are considered progressive as well). The reality is that, it's Hillary Clinton, and therefore you have no idea what she is really for until it matters -- and then it may be too late for everyone. With the exception of reducing defense spending, none of these will ever be uttered by a conservative and a conservative would only mention it with respect to fixing runaway spending and waste (e.g., duplication); not reduction.

Uh, I don't think you know what the word means.

Are you suggesting that she's a conservative? Because, within the realm of US politics, that's the alternative.

It's possible that she's:

• Not liberal enough for your tastes.

If you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, then the word you're looking for is progressive.

But she's supposedly for:

• Increasing government involvement in things (pretty much everything here)
• Raising taxes
• Making college free (if your family makes less than $125K in 2021, 1 year after her first term...)
• Expanding the ACA (ObamaCare)
• Reducing defense

These are all liberal ideals (and many are considered progressive as well). The reality is that, it's Hillary Clinton, and therefore you have no idea what she is really for until it matters -- and then it may be too late for everyone. With the exception of reducing defense spending, none of these will ever be uttered by a conservative and a conservative would only mention it with respect to fixing runaway spending and waste (e.g., duplication); not reduction.

Uh, I don't think you know what the word means.

Are you suggesting that she's a conservative? Because, within the realm of US politics, that's the alternative.

It's possible that she's:

• Not liberal enough for your tastes.

If you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, then the word you're looking for is progressive.

But she's supposedly for:

• Increasing government involvement in things (pretty much everything here)
• Raising taxes
• Making college free (if your family makes less than $125K in 2021, 1 year after her first term...)
• Expanding the ACA (ObamaCare)
• Reducing defense

These are all liberal ideals (and many are considered progressive as well). The reality is that, it's Hillary Clinton, and therefore you have no idea what she is really for until it matters -- and then it may be too late for everyone. With the exception of reducing defense spending, none of these will ever be uttered by a conservative and a conservative would only mention it with respect to fixing runaway spending and waste (e.g., duplication); not reduction.

I'm damned if I can explain the status quo. Feels like americans are just stupid, en masse?

Fear.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

There's no question that this election features the two most unliked candidates. This should be an election where 3rd parties make significant inroads. On both sides they're using the retiring or passing justices as a bludgeon of fear to beat voters to fall in line and vote for the party because, "They can't let Trump/Hillary nominate that many justices".

If nothing else will convince you, then Hillary's own statement that she is now (suprise!) HIRING Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to be co-chair of her campaign and will help Debbie in her re-election fight should WAKE YOU UP!

READ it now.

Why would Hillary do this????

Simple:

She is sending an in-your-face telegram to all her corrupt friends throughout government and the DNC that if you break rules and get in trouble supporting her, she will "fix" it for you. If the rubes get too upset and you have to step aside, she will get you another prestigious position and help you keep your job. Hillary Clinton is REWARDING Debbie for the corruption and boldly doing it right in public!!!!!!

For contrast, here's what Donald Trump said recently

[Referring to problems within the Veteran's Administration] "I will pick up the phone and fix it myself"

Wow, really, every time?

Oh wait, he's going to define "addressed" as "Hey, we told you we can't help you" isn't he?

Besides, the law and order candidate? Him? Yeah, his idea of law and order ended up with false convictions for multiple people. Yay? And his life? Oh my, it's so full of completely honest endeavors and nobody is suing him right now for his disreputable business at all.

(And that's not even getting into the perils of giving veterans such special treatment, why shouldn't ALL Americans have a hotline to the White House? Huh?)

Look at Hillary's positions and see if they give you a warm, fuzzy feeling of goodness.

Look at Trump's positions and see if they describe specific changes and actions.

Hillary is "stay the course", and Trump is "make changes".

Promises, promises.

Trump's changes are the kind of bombastic rhetoric that won't even work, yet you continually shill them out as concrete and definite.

How much is he paying you, or are you just shoveling the shit for free?

Clinton: It's 'Heartbreaking' When IT Workers Must Train H-1B Replacements

For contrast, here's what Donald Trump said recently

[Referring to problems within the Veteran's Administration] "I will pick up the phone and fix it myself"

Look at Hillary's positions and see if they give you a warm, fuzzy feeling of goodness.

Look at Trump's positions and see if they describe specific changes and actions.

Hillary is "stay the course", and Trump is "make changes".

For Donald Trump winning is more important that anything else, not truth or making clear what his plans are for the country. And some people like what is perceived a strong leader. He's just a bullshitter.

Apropos of nothing, I notice that Trump has seven positions, with a concrete plan of changes for each.

Hillary has 31 issues, which are all fuzzy and nondescript.

As a "for example"(*), we all know what Donald's position on immigration is. Here's an excerpt from Hillary's immigration reform issue:

Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship, keep families together, and enable millions of workers to come out of the shadows.
Defend President Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation relief for DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents, and extend those actions to additional persons with sympathetic cases if Congress refuses to act.
Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration.
End family detention and close private immigrant detention centers.

Notice the wording: she'll "Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship". Nothing concrete, gives you a good feeling without saying anything specific.

If you want to "Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration", then vote for Hillary.

If you're worried that 11 million new job seekers suddenly on the market might make it hard for you to get by, then vote for Trump.

(*) I only used the immigration thing because everyone knows Donald's plan. Does anyone know what Hillary's position on tax reform is?

For Donald Trump winning is more important that anything else, not truth or making clear what his plans are for the country. And some people like what is perceived a strong leader. He's just a bullshitter.

Apropos of nothing, I notice that Trump has seven positions, with a concrete plan of changes for each.

Hillary has 31 issues, which are all fuzzy and nondescript.

As a "for example"(*), we all know what Donald's position on immigration is. Here's an excerpt from Hillary's immigration reform issue:

Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship, keep families together, and enable millions of workers to come out of the shadows.
Defend President Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation relief for DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents, and extend those actions to additional persons with sympathetic cases if Congress refuses to act.
Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration.
End family detention and close private immigrant detention centers.

Notice the wording: she'll "Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship". Nothing concrete, gives you a good feeling without saying anything specific.

If you want to "Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration", then vote for Hillary.

If you're worried that 11 million new job seekers suddenly on the market might make it hard for you to get by, then vote for Trump.

(*) I only used the immigration thing because everyone knows Donald's plan. Does anyone know what Hillary's position on tax reform is?

There's a really obvious reason why Trump is so popular.

A lot of people are facing complete ruin and are scared, holding their breath hoping that something will change.

Trump is the candidate for "change", and Clinton is the candidate for "stay the course".

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I don't think that statement about Hillary is particularly controversial even among her supporters. She's definitely a political insider, is funded by moneyed interests, and her website has a list of issues that give a sense of "direction" without promising anything concrete. Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.

Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change, with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.

People who are secure in their position, who have a job and don't see themselves being laid off or expect to find a new job quickly if they are laid off, should vote for Hillary. There are a lot of these people in the country, and "stay the course" is the least risky choice for them to make.

People who are unemployed, struggling, or in fear of losing their situation should vote for Trump, because he's proposing to make changes.

As the theory goes, when you're doing well you should minimise risk - don't do anything that could change your situation. When you're doing poorly, you can tolerate more risk in the hopes that it might help.

So it really all boils down to the proportion of people in the country who are at-risk and scared, versus the proportion who think the current situation is "pretty good".

We're presented with a never-ending stream of depressing news about this here on Slashdot, and you really can't trust the MSM any more, so it's easy to believe that majority of the country might be shivering in fear hoping for something to change, but that might not be an accurate view.

"Change" or "stay the course"? The voters will probably decide this November.

Trump could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody. And he wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's like incredible.

There's a really obvious reason why he's so popular, so I don't think "incredible" is the right word to use.

A lot of people are facing complete ruin and are scared, holding their breath hoping that something will change.

Trump is the candidate for "change", and Clinton is the candidate for "stay the course".

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I don't think that statement about Hillary is particularly controversial even among her supporters. She's definitely a political insider, is funded by moneyed interests, and her website has a list of issues that give a sense of "direction" without promising anything concrete. Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.

Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change, with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.

People who are secure in their position, who have a job and don't see themselves being laid off or expect to find a new job quickly if they are laid off should vote for Hillary. There are a lot of these people in the country, and "stay the course" is the least risky choice for them to make.

People who are unemployed, struggling, or in fear of losing their situation should vote for Trump, because he's proposing to make changes.

As the theory goes, when you're doing well you should minimise risk - don't do anything that could change your situation. When you're doing poorly, you can tolerate more risk in the hopes that it might help.

So it really all boils down to the proportion of people in the country who are at-risk and scared, versus the proportion who think the current situation is "pretty good".

We're presented with a never-ending stream of depressing news about this here on Slashdot, so it's easy to believe that majority of the country might be shivering in fear hoping for something to change, but that might not be an accurate view.

"Change" or "stay the course"? The voters will probably decide this November.

What about your tax returns?

I'm not running for POTUS.

They're a private matter between Trump and the IRS.

Hillary disagrees.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tax-returns/

All they'd really show is that he's an amazingly successful business man with far more real-world experience in running successful enterprises than any other candidate left, which everyone already knows.

If that was so, why didn't Mitt Romney released his tax returns in 2012. I'm still curious as to how he got $100M into an IRA account.

No, she doesn't get things done. Go through her history. She went home early while her diplomats were being killed. Anyone that "got things done" would have spent all night trying to save their people. She didn't even care enough to keep her chair warm much less lift a fucking finger to anything about it.

Wouldn't expect it, because outside of Hollywood movies, Presidents, Secretaries and other bureaucrats aren't action movie stars, and leave that business to the people who do it professionally.

Even those videos of the OBL mission were just a stunt, the real work had been done long in advance, without much input by the putative leaders. (Not that that will stop her from using it, mind you.)

Sorry, but the thing about political leadership in the modern days? It's not exciting, you don't lead an army on the charge against the enemy anymore. Even Ronald Reagan didn't defeat the Russians by force of arms, they just gave up calling themselves communists, then went on with their business.

Meanwhile, the GOP Congress tried their best to get any of that Benghazi mess to stick to Clinton, yet all that happened was the public became even more disillusioned by it. They basically inoculated her against any attacks on that front.

I know I know... You're going to against tell me she gets things done... well, "what" she's done has been asked of experts, advocates, and her many supporters... and generally what happens when people like you are asked point blank what she's done... deer in the fucking headlights.

So lets try that right here and now. What has she done? Something specific please that she actually did?

*gets popcorn*

Apparently gotten to the Democratic nomination while doing nothing. That's quite an accomplishment.

Nonetheless, you should be aware, that getting credit for things, and getting things done are two different horses.

But hey, if you want to talk to her cheerleaders go ahead.

Plenty of things to hang her hat on. Whether you believe she did them or not.

Not like it matters, what's she up against, a guy who had a TV show, a few casinos, and two chaps who can't manage more than a couple of filibusters between them? The former is a joke for getting where he is, and the other two could be beaten just by getting a promise of free elections in Cuba. They're all puff and powder.

At least Eisenhower and Grant could pretend they won a war, even while they had no political understanding whatsoever.

Also Why isn't there a female equivalent that I could send pics of my junk too.

There is! There is a woman that has leaked highly classified US documents to people around the world. You can send your pictures here.

Not supporting Clinton is literally Patriarchial rape. By supporting Sanders, you are basically supporting Trump and the continued oppression and systemic harassment of wymen online. Stop asking questions about internet survellance. President Clinton needs these powers to protect women from MRAs like you.

"Literally Patriarchal rape"?

That's fucking hilarious as a claim to support Hillary!

Wouldn't supporting Clinton be supporting real world Clintonian Rape?

Thus supporting an actual rapist since the woman must be believed?

You know, LITERALLY.

Simply hovering --
Now my system will connect to things I would elect to not connect to.
It is clear that network connections and data in a cache are no
longer valid in a court of law.

With such a feature there is no reasonable expectation that anyone
looked at or was in fact interested in anything.
The good news is web sites that count will see their hit count
jump for joy... Ponder an email with
    https://www.hillaryclinton.com...
    https://23.235.47.75/

I am not sure about Hillary (you could've provided a link)

Hillary Clinton was a candidate in the U.S. Presidential election; here is some information about her and here is her website. She was also married to a former president of the U.S. Let me know if you need links or information about him too.

Obama will say "green" a lot in the next few weeks, babble about "corporations", promise "free" healthcare and you'll be right back in line.

Nice attempt at a troll,

Not really a troll I would think. Most of the obama supporters jump up and down and sing when he says the keyphrases.

but none of those things are the reason why I started supporting him in the first place.

I started supporting him because he seemed to "get it". He wanted to end the war on science.

Yeah, like cutting NASA funding for the next five years?

He spoke of following the Constitution. He seemed geninuely informed about tech issues (including network neutrality). He talked about a new kind of politics where we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Now he has sold out a fundamental principle because it would probably have been too hard to defend it. He has exposed himself as the standard issue politician, willing to say anything to get elected and willing to retreat from past promises when they become inconvenient.

I may still vote for him but he has lost my support beyond that.

Oh bullshit. What other support does he want and what else can you give that matters? Money? He has plenty after going against another platform he had regarding campaign finance. Again, bullshit.

Come to think of it, I live in a fairly blue state -- so I don't even feel an obligation to vote for him as the "lessor of two evils".

Guess I'll start reading up about Nader and Barr. I don't particularly like Nader and Barr scares the hell out of me but at this point in time I'm almost beyond caring. The bigger slap in the face is the fact that the person who opposed Obama actually had the balls to vote against this.

Whatever happens now I feel like I owe HRC supporters a big fat apology.

And we graciously accept and ask that you either write her in or vote independent. A vote for nobama noballsa is a vote for the next Bush.

Obama will say "green" a lot in the next few weeks, babble about "corporations", promise "free" healthcare and you'll be right back in line.

Nice attempt at a troll, but none of those things are the reason why I started supporting him in the first place.

I started supporting him because he seemed to "get it". He wanted to end the war on science. He spoke of following the Constitution. He seemed geninuely informed about tech issues (including network neutrality). He talked about a new kind of politics where we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Now he has sold out a fundamental principle because it would probably have been too hard to defend it. He has exposed himself as the standard issue politician, willing to say anything to get elected and willing to retreat from past promises when they become inconvenient.

I may still vote for him but he has lost my support beyond that. Come to think of it, I live in a fairly blue state -- so I don't even feel an obligation to vote for him as the "lessor of two evils".

Guess I'll start reading up about Nader and Barr. I don't particularly like Nader and Barr scares the hell out of me but at this point in time I'm almost beyond caring. The bigger slap in the face is the fact that the person who opposed Obama actually had the balls to vote against this.

Whatever happens now I feel like I owe HRC supporters a big fat apology.

Server: Apache/2.2.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.6 OpenSSL/0.9.7a mod_apreq2-20051231/2.6.0 mod_perl/2.0.3 Perl/v5.8.8

Server: Apache/2.2.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.6 OpenSSL/0.9.7a mod_apreq2-20051231/2.6.0 mod_perl/2.0.3 Perl/v5.8.8

Both Clinton and Obama have promised massive rail investments, and both also endorsed a big Pro-Amtrak bill in the senate last year.

Even though I'm not a Hillary supporter, her transportation plan is damn impressive, and a massive step in the right direction.

McCain made some vague promises in 2000, but has been carrying the party line of denying funding to public transport ever since.

Although public transport is starting to take off around city centers with great success, thanks to state funding (virtually all NYC commuters arrive via public transport today), Amtrak's intercity network remains pathetic.

Considering how staggeringly expensive the interstate highway system is to maintain, it's appalling and shocking that more thought hasn't been given to rail transport, especially when rail corridors could have very easily (and cheaply) been built alongside the highways.

Operating at peak capacity, a 2-track light railroad can carry as many passengers as a 16-lane freeway, without experiencing any of the bottlenecking associated with rush hour traffic seen on road networks. Heavy rail systems are even more efficient, assuming that the demand exists for one.

France is running trains along their new LGV Est line at 320km/h along nearly the entire length of the 300km track, and plans to turn the speed up to 350km/h once the system has been in operation for a few years.

The fastest train in the US, Amtrak's Acela has a top speed of 241km/h, which it is only able to attain on 18 miles of track. The rest of the Northeast Corridor is still running on equipment built during the Great Depression. The average speed of an Acela journey from DC to Boston is 129km/h (80mph). There are conventional rail systems that do better than that....

This service only exists between Boston and DC, and is extremely expensive to travel on. Most other routes are considerably worse.

1.First think of something negative (but valid -and not incendiary or provocative- like lack of experience for Obama and openness for Hillary) about the two candidates.
2.Register on their websites so that you can post your comments.
Obama
Hillary
3.Post your comments in answer to any of their blog postings.
4.Check the blog to see if your postings appear or not. Give some time.
Having gone through all these, I have to say-a better candidate should not(and does not) censor anything which is a valid criticism.

"Worth noting: Barack Obama voted against telco immunity. Hillary Clinton couldn't be bothered to show up."

That is because she is the candidate with experience. This is just part of her "Comprehensive Government Reform" agenda. Clearly she abstained from the vote as a way to show how she is going to change government, since voting against the telco immunity simply wasn't on the table.

This has already been addressed earlier in the thread. The post refers to her as Hillary because she refers to herself as Hillary. Take a long look at her website. See that graphic in the upper left corner there? It says "Hillary for President." "Hillary for President."

Or maybe take a peek at her swag. Oh look! It all says Hillary on it, in GIANT LETTERS.

Hey, check the URL above. It doesn't say Clinton Store! It says Hillary store! Hillary.

If she doesn't want anybody to call her Hillary, she has a strange way of showing it, spending all that money to put "Hillary" on everything.