I am starting from the position that Trump is an unacceptable choice, so comparing Clinton to him is not helpful. Also, my issues are more around character than policy.
I wish to offer a seperate plot. On one end you have Obama. On the other end you have Nixon. Is Clinton closer to Obama or Nixon? I would place her just past the center on the Nixon side of the plot.
You are seriously using Putin's propaganda outlet as your source?and it continues
WIKILEAKS PODESTA 20: DOJ Blocks FBI from Investigating Clinton Foundation. DNC Cheats Bernie
H. A. Goodman
The corruption links just keep getting stronger, they may have cut off Assanges internet, but it keeps coming.
https://www.rt.com/usa/364461-assange-clinton-wikileaks-hack/
Clinton’s FBI Email Probe Was Almost Certainly A Cover-Up
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/26/clintons-fbi-email-probe-was-almost-certainly-a-cover-up/
Memo shows Bill Clinton's wealth was tied to Clinton Foundation
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tons-wealth-tied-clinton-foundation/92842822/
WikiLeaks memo exposes 'Bill Clinton Inc.'
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2605639/
and part 2
Clinton Foundation Corruption | Charles Ortel and Stefan Molyneux
What continues ?
Other than your delusional rants.
You didn't answer my question.Clinton is rather close to Obama if you can ignore the spin & charisma. As staunch centrists they're both rather opportunistic (ie deferring to expedience) when it comes to position.
The choice you've made to embrace one while vilifying the other frankly says more about you than them.
and it continues
WIKILEAKS PODESTA 20: DOJ Blocks FBI from Investigating Clinton Foundation. DNC Cheats Bernie
H. A. Goodman
The corruption links just keep getting stronger, they may have cut off Assanges internet, but it keeps coming.
https://www.rt.com/usa/364461-assange-clinton-wikileaks-hack/
Clinton’s FBI Email Probe Was Almost Certainly A Cover-Up
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/26/clintons-fbi-email-probe-was-almost-certainly-a-cover-up/
Memo shows Bill Clinton's wealth was tied to Clinton Foundation
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tons-wealth-tied-clinton-foundation/92842822/
WikiLeaks memo exposes 'Bill Clinton Inc.'
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2605639/
and part 2
Clinton Foundation Corruption | Charles Ortel and Stefan Molyneux
He's not delusional. He's a part of the alt-right trolliverse.
You didn't answer my question.
From a policy standpoint, you are correct that they are nearly identical. I wouldn't say I embrace Obama, but I certainly respect him, and thought he was an admirable leader even if policy wise I didn't align with him on everything. To me, he is what a President should be.
I actually align more closely with Clinton from a policy perspective, but there is a lingering question of character.
For the record, I will probably vote for Clinton to prevent Trump because I fear a turnout wild card.
The left wing spin machine just happens to be concentrated on Clinton as a victim of some vast conspiracy. I would counter you are just as emotionally invested in Clinton.I answered your question; you didn't like the answer because you're emotionally invested in hating clinton. Consider that the right wing spin this cycle is concentrated on the very thing you "just happen to be" proposing. Propaganda works; that's why PR is a good fraction of the economy.
The left wing spin machine just happens to be concentrated on Clinton as a victim of some vast conspiracy. I would counter you are just as emotionally invested in Clinton.
The PR door swings both ways my friend, as both Democrats and Republicans need their useful idiots. You are clearly intelligent enough to recognize that.
Last I checked, the right wing PR spin does not show any respect for Obama, which I have.
The both sides argument is effective because its true. Anyone who thinks their side is better is just fooling himself. At this point in history, the left has the high ground because the focus now is on social justice, but civilizations tend to move in cycles. Inevitably the high ground becomes a mountain of bullshit and corruption, and comes crashing down. Rinse, wash, repeat. In this country, its a debate that's been raging since its very founding. Ask Alexander Hamilton how bitter partisanship worked out for him.The GOP PR platform isn't a vast conspiracy, we know who works for them and does what. Personally I don't care much for centrists, they're the rearguard of advanced civilizations.
Perhaps not the breitbart types, but the current narrative with moderate republicans is that they were wrong about obama and presumably the first clinton, but for reasons untold can't possibly be wrong about the other clinton.
Generally speaking the "both sides of the issue are the same" argument is pretty weak, but for whatever reason rather popular within the GOP, and evidently effective among themselves. Did you come up with that one independently, too?
It's pretty sad to me that people attack where they think the hack came from, but not what it's uncovered. When Hillary was asked about something in an email, she didn't refute it, instead went on about Russia hacking. Same thing happens here. Disregard all the lies and dirty politics, it's all Russia's fault... sad. Complaining that Russia is trying to use the hacks to interfere with the election, while ignoring that our own politicians have been interfering with the election is silly. Whoever is being the hacking is simply showing what has been going on behind closed doors. All Americans should be upset about it, sad that some aren't.
Only once have I seen a Dem refute it, saying she didn't write the email and it was fake. Her claim was proven false however.
It's pretty sad to me that people attack where they think the hack came from, but not what it's uncovered. When Hillary was asked about something in an email, she didn't refute it, instead went on about Russia hacking. Same thing happens here. Disregard all the lies and dirty politics, it's all Russia's fault... sad. Complaining that Russia is trying to use the hacks to interfere with the election, while ignoring that our own politicians have been interfering with the election is silly. Whoever is being the hacking is simply showing what has been going on behind closed doors. All Americans should be upset about it, sad that some aren't.
Only once have I seen a Dem refute it, saying she didn't write the email and it was fake. Her claim was proven false however.
Its effectiveness in the pantheon of possible things to argue about in world is largely limited to american conservatives or maybe grade school children, on themselves. There's nothing on the democrat's side akin to the trump fan base.The both sides argument is effective because its true.
Anyone who thinks their side is better is just fooling himself. At this point in history, the left has the high ground because the focus now is on social justice, but civilizations tend to move in cycles. Inevitably the high ground becomes a mountain of bullshit and corruption, and comes crashing down. Rinse, wash, repeat. In this country, its a debate that's been raging since its very founding. Ask Alexander Hamilton how bitter partisanship worked out for him.
Perhaps back in the day, but given where the world is headed tradition is already going out the window even with the anchor. We're seeing the greatest blossom in human quality of life in history and it's not from doing things as granpappy did back in the day.I see nothing wrong with being a moderate Republican. When you pair moderate Republicans with moderate Democrats, you tend to get good governance.
Sure but you're certainly evaluating character from personality. For example, Obama talks a pretty good game of progressive ideals but doesn't let it get in the way of expedience. Seems rather suspect to call that a sign of greater character than Clinton.We've had this discussion before. I evaluate leaders based on character, which to me is a bit different and distinct from personality.
Carter, Bush Sr, Kerry, Sanders, Warren, Eisenhower and Obama are examples of leaders with character. All have flaws, but I believe they serve or served from a position of integrity.
The Clintons and Trump are examples of leaders severely lacking in it.
W is an example of what happens when you surround a weak person with advisors severely lacking in character.
Reagan is somewhere in between, with cult of personality probably being his stronger attribute.
All great points and you've changed my thinking on a lot of these topics. I don't have direct responses but I appreciate your thoughtfulness.Its effectiveness in the pantheon of possible things to argue about in world is largely limited to american conservatives or maybe grade school children, on themselves. There's nothing on the democrat's side akin to the trump fan base.
There's no perioidic mechanism to history as if it's some sort of planetary orbit. The first world is never moving back to the state of things 100 years ago, or in the case of merica 50 years ago.
Perhaps back in the day, but given where the world is headed tradition is already going out the window even with the anchor. We're seeing the greatest blossom in human quality of life in history and it's not from doing things as granpappy did back in the day.
Sure but you're certainly evaluating character from personality. For example, Obama talks a pretty good game of progressive ideals but doesn't let it get in the way of expedience. Seems rather suspect to call that a sign of greater character than Clinton.
W pretty obviously has more character or least as much as Reagan. Relenting to bad things as a weak/stupid person says a lot less about their integrity than doing them on purpose. A strongman personality cult is also not a sign of character unless you worship putin/hitler types more than you let on.
keep winking..."racist" sheepalt-right and delusional goes a bit hand and hand though
and the plot to take down Assange, because "they go low, we go high" am I right?
Background and Documents on Attempts to Frame Assange as a Pedophile and Russian spy.
keep winking..."racist" sheep
Hillary only hires the best....
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3746
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899
http://www.infowars.com/russian-hackers-podestas-password-was-simply-pssw0rd/
https://www.cyberscoop.com/4chan-may-stalked-john-podesta-using-leaked-apple-id/
and the plot to take down Assange, because "they go low, we go high" am I right?
Background and Documents on Attempts to Frame Assange as a Pedophile and Russian spy.
https://wikileaks.org/Background-and-Documents-on-Attempts-to-Frame-Assange-as-a-Pedophile-and.html
Keep on with your walls of BS
I defy you to show me one single post where I was racist.
I guess for all your spewing in general, you're pretty guilty of what you try to preach.