Archive

Why are you voting how you're voting?

  • majorspark
    O-Trap;1810140 wrote:I know she's likely feigning ignorance.
    I didn't use the word likely for a reason.
    O-Trap;1810140 wrote:My point, though, is that it's equally problematic for a person seeking the presidency.
    I agree and under either she is indefensible. My point is similar I am just leaving out the possibility of woeful ignorance on Hillary's part
    O-Trap;1810140 wrote:Either you knowingly mishandled confidential documents, which makes you ethically unfit, or you unknowingly mishandled confidential documents (because you didn't know the 'C' meant 'confidential'), which makes you incompetent. Either way, you're inadequate as a candidate for president.
    Hillary has used the 'C' in communications herself. I don't communicate with my colleagues with symbols or abbreviations that I am ignorant of its meaning. Hillary has been a high level government official since the turn of the century. Given the technological advances in the movement of information Hillary has been briefed and her staff thoroughly briefed on the procedures of handling such information. The federal government has not be derelict in its duty in that respect. Hillary is not ignorant she is a liar.
  • O-Trap
    majorspark;1810148 wrote:I agree and under either she is indefensible. My point is similar I am just leaving out the possibility of woeful ignorance on Hillary's part
    Sure, but not everyone is. The reason I don't mine whether or not they allow for the possibility for her to just be wrong is because, in the end, it doesn't change whether or not she should be seen as a viable candidate.

    Whether someone insists that it was intentional or whether someone insists that it was an accident, their defense still doesn't pass muster.
    majorspark;1810148 wrote:Hillary is not ignorant she is a liar.
    But if you're arguing with someone who insists that this is untrue, you may end up at an impasse, and they'll have the results of the FBI investigation to fall back on to support their claim. I think it's better to avoid wasting energy arguing that point, since conceding it still makes her incompetent with classified information, and thus, unqualified to be president.
  • majorspark
    Otrap I get it. Your point is taken and there is nothing wrong with it. You have chosen your course and I have chosen mine. In the end our fellow countrymen will have us both taking a giant bite out of the same maggot infested shit sandwich.

    Just to provide a little context I am one of the seven that voted "I have no idea. Everything sucks." One thing is for certain I can not vote for a candidate whose election would affirm popular support for undermining the rule of law for the sake of political power.
  • O-Trap
    majorspark;1810175 wrote:Otrap I get it. Your point is taken and there is nothing wrong with it. You have chosen your course and I have chosen mine. In the end our fellow countrymen will have us both taking a giant bite out of the same maggot infested shit sandwich.

    Just to provide a little context I am one of the seven that voted "I have no idea. Everything sucks." One thing is for certain I can not vote for a candidate whose election would affirm popular support for undermining the rule of law for the sake of political power.
    I can certainly agree with that, and I wasn't disagreeing with your position before (You may know this. I'm just trying to be clear.). I think she knew as well, which would make her actions treasonous. I just don't know if intent can be proven in this case, which is the motivation for my "softer" stance.
  • isadore
    CenterBHSFan;1810136 wrote:Let's try this, then.

    I've listed some of the things that I don't like about Clinton. I've also stated numerous times that I cannot stand Trump. Therefore I'm willing to try something new and that means voting 3rd party.

    You have already listed what you don't like about Trump and Johnson. So, list some of the things about Clinton that you do not approve of?
    Gosh a ruddies, I don't think she dresses very well and the same is true of many of her hair styles.
  • majorspark
    isadore;1810187 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, I don't think she dresses very well and the same is true of many of her hair styles.


  • Heretic
    O-Trap;1810181 wrote:I can certainly agree with that, and I wasn't disagreeing with your position before (You may know this. I'm just trying to be clear.). I think she knew as well, which would make her actions treasonous. I just don't know if intent can be proven in this case, which is the motivation for my "softer" stance.
    Yeah, I just look at it as a waste of time because of how it does bring up the "BUT THE FBI CLEARED HER!!!!" defense and then it just turns into everyone shouting at brick walls instead of noticing the obvious: that the results dictated that if she wasn't willfully corrupt, she was hilariously incompetent and that in the grand scheme of things, that is a worse quality to have as a leader. Better to be corrupt and smart than simply a dunce, especially since that would mean both major party choices are dunces.
  • O-Trap
    Heretic;1810198 wrote:Yeah, I just look at it as a waste of time because of how it does bring up the "BUT THE FBI CLEARED HER!!!!" defense and then it just turns into everyone shouting at brick walls instead of noticing the obvious: that the results dictated that if she wasn't willfully corrupt, she was hilariously incompetent and that in the grand scheme of things, that is a worse quality to have as a leader. Better to be corrupt and smart than simply a dunce, especially since that would mean both major party choices are dunces.
    So, what happens when you can trust neither candidate to be either competent OR ethical?
  • Heretic
    O-Trap;1810207 wrote:So, what happens when you can trust neither candidate to be either competent OR ethical?
    Me? Vote 3rd party so I can at least say that I personally didn't support either shit-show. Other than that? Not much a person can do when the general public has become so stupid that they look at "first woman evar!" and "he speaks his mind and isn't PC" as defining attributes that should guarantee support for a candidate.
  • QuakerOats
    Johnson was on with Megyn Kelly last night; she hit him pretty good about Aleppo and obviously he owned it, but I just did not think he came across too well overall. He seemed to be shaking also; maybe he has a medical condition, or was nervous, or needed a beverage. A lot less stature than I would have thought.
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1810212 wrote:Johnson was on with Megyn Kelly last night; she hit him pretty good about Aleppo and obviously he owned it, but I just did not think he came across too well overall. He seemed to be shaking also; maybe he has a medical condition, or was nervous, or needed a beverage. A lot less stature than I would have thought.
    He always kinda seems that way. Doesn't seem to relish being on camera the way many politicians do.
  • HitsRus
    Heretic;1810208 wrote:Me? Vote 3rd party so I can at least say that I personally didn't support either shit-show. Other than that? Not much a person can do when the general public has become so stupid that they look at "first woman evar!" and "he speaks his mind and isn't PC" as defining attributes that should guarantee support for a candidate.
    exactly....it's become an issue of integrity and who can I trust to follow and protect the Constitution. There are a lot of things that Johnson advocates that do not align with my views, but at least he has a modicum of integrity, and I think I can count on him not to ride roughshod over the Constitution and the fabric of this country.