Can someone please explain to me why people are voting for this person?
Are they aware of the FBI investigation?
Are they aware that she won't release the transcripts of her speeches?
Every time I post in a thread asking some Hillary supporter these questions they never respond. Why is that?
How the fuck is she getting votes?
Are you aware of the alternative?
If the fbi was after her shed be done. shes good whatever i sure as ballld aint putting trump, if that dude wins next election im going kanye all the way
This is a meme. Provide some kind of source if you can.
Yes I am aware of the alternative. I'd rather vote for that than someone who is literally blatantly lying, pandering, and deceiving the American people.
How can they be so blind?
I have no idea why anyone would vote for Hillary.
Her email server contained secret information and was hacked by someone in Romania. If fact, the Romanian hacker said there were a number of other hackers from around the world snooping in her email server.
Isn't it obvious? She's a women...
Woman will vote her because she'll be the first "feminist women" as president.
It is obvious actually.
I have watched numerous debates where she has literally answered a question with something along the lines of:
"well I'd be the first female president"
to which she'd receive uproarious applause. Why is that? Why do people care if she's the first female president? How does being a woman equate to leadership of the US?
These are questions I ask and they 100% go unanswered.
This shit is true
I don't know why anyone would vote for her. You want leftist policies and a more economically stable state? Vote Sanders.
You want cuts on foreign spending, conservative policies and tighter border controls? Vote Trump.
Just make your mind up, and don't vote for a moderate liberal like Clinton who can't even make up her own.
Aren't your two chambers still legally insider trading?
Aren't you still mostly electing corporate representatives (with more than one mechanism in place so that it happens)?
Guess what, you'll only get Hillaries and Trumps. Either the corporation's friends and representatives, or their CEO.
Seriously how can someone vote for a candidate who when called to release the transcripts of certain nefarious speeches simply says "no I won't release them".
How do people just ignore that and pretend it's a nonissue?
Was this too hard?
You're almost only electing whoever is favored by corporations (based on their guessed merit to these corporations). Congress, senate, president.
The people speak almost exactly the same way as the big campaigns do.
Donald Trump, you are a gangster and which supports your chair, smell like sulfur I vote for those that never chose the easy path of history, i vote for Martin Luther King, i vote for David Dellinger, i vote for Sean Eldridge, i vote for Rosa Parks and for Eleanor Smeal, i vote for Nelson Mandela, I VOTE HILLARY.
No one is really voting for her. She's got a 2 million dollar SuperPAC running rampant on the chans and reddit to play down all of her faults.
It isn't working, /pol/ is bigger than the PAC I think.
what the fuck are you talking about, cuntshit? She is LITERALLY lying in your face of your people, >>>LITERALLY<<< HELLO DO YOU UNDERSTAND SHE IS FUCKING LYING IN FRONT OF YALL AND THERE IS PROOF OUT THERE ARE YOU FUCKING BLIND YOU FUCKING NIGGER=!?!!!!!!!!!!????!?!
We got plenty of sheit against her goto hell nigger then eat a dick n suck on dat shit bitch
Somehow that's nothing? See, this is exactly the kind of response you get from Hillary supporters when questioned about these things.
They literally have no answer.
>Was this too hard?
I guess. Primarily because it was vague and you didn't make any kind of tangible point.
>You're almost only electing whoever is favored by corporations (based on their guessed merit to these corporations).
Why do you say this? What corporations? How do they have control over Hillary/Trump?
>The people speak almost exactly the same way as the big campaigns do.
Elaborate please. This statement, standing alone, quite literally has no meaning.
For me, it's mostly the poor foreign policy that Trump has going right now. I would have preferred Christie, Kasich as a strong second preference. Then Clinton and Sanders third. But, well, here we are.
>For me, it's mostly the poor foreign policy that Trump has going right now.
What is your problem with his foreign policy?
Honestly I would've voted Kasich if I had the opportunity. Now I'm unsure.
I wouldn't vote Bernie simply because he wants to ban fracking, eliminate nuclear power, and tax carbon. I don't believe this is feasible.
Why not? I consider national security very tightly tied to international peace and cooperation. Additionally, many of the things he's proposed would be bad for America as well. The "America First" policy set greatly underestimates the importance of international cooperation and how beneficial it is to us.
My apologies, I'm on mobile and walking home from work. But I've got a snippet here from you in the screenshot that is just an example. It's really the contradictions that many people have pointed out that get me. I can at least plausibly consider some of the non-interventionist policies reasonable, but then there's plenty about trade and, especially the military, that makes little rational sense.
Maybe because Trump is fucking awesome?
One I may be the only hill supporter on this god forsaken site. But here let me tell you why I support here.
1. I like Bernie's policies more but the reason I support her over him is that she is the moderate and therefore her policies are more likely to get passed.
2. The investigation is 90% political. There have been 2 very similar cases in the last 8 years of holding classified documents in an improper way and in both they received a demotion from their current job and a slap on the wrist. It would be a different story if the information was leaked or stolen but there has yet to be any evidence of that. (plus the person in charge of pressing charges is her bro the nigger in charge).
3. 80% of all polticians get paid large amount of money to make speeches. This is how a majority make a living once they are out of office. So what if in the speeches she is pandering to the wall street people. Look at a leaked speech from mitt last election where is shits on the poor and that really hurt him so I understand not doing so now.
4. The only person I considered voting for on the republican ticket was Kasich for the same reason I support Hillary because if we had more moderates in government shit might get done.
This is interesting and I'd like to ask for sources on both of his statements. Specifically what he said and when he said it to be precise.
Again thought, I want this to be a Hillary thread not a Trump thread.
I don't think there will be one to be quite honest and because of that this is the only time I've ever thought about putting on a tin foil hat.
I'll add this:
Trump said that “we’re getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world.” He warned that leaders who have sought to bring democracy to countries uninterested in it have only plunged into chaos.
That's a reasonable statement. We're awful at nation-building. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Chile... We're bad at it. Foreign aid and trade is a good way to go about it, since it puts pressure on the troublesome government to get their act together. Sometimes military intervention is good (hey there Syria) as a human rights issue, but in general we shouldn't be building the government ourselves. Look at Iraq this past week. Yet, There's just too much else in his policy outlines to put my weight behind him.
Because the people voting for her don't care what she says. They don't have the attention span or critical thinking skills to actually assess what's going on. Hillary knows this of course. She's a master of manipulation. She's taken vocal, oratory, and body language classes to perfect her image. The image is simply "The One Woman Who Overcame Adversity". Because she has nothing to actually say or contribute, her words actually have no substance or meaning, and so this leads to her inevitable dodging and ducking questions, creating straw men to attack, and other fallacious means to avoid actually answering anything. When she does give an actual answer (because she actually believes it or because she believes thats what the people want to hear, usually the latter), she later has to change that opinion to correct for the majority opinion.
So essentially she's like a walking talking Reddit post of cat eating ice cream with a title like "MeeeWOW" that makes it to the front page and then some people criticize why the cat is eating something unhealthy and the title gets changed to "Animal Abuse: It Needs to Stop"...sprinkle a few pithy remarks and puns...collect upvotes.
That was a Washington Post article, I also saw it in NYT and a few other places, but the article I chose just had those statements all together in one paragraph. You could also feasibly go back to the speech itself, I think.
The other cases of improper handling of emails involved improper log ins etc. They didn't have a private email server set up in their private residence. The FBI is objectively investigating her, because she paid people to intentionally set up that server in her private residence to hide info from gov watchdogs, inspector general, and archives. Typical Clinton move.
9 years ago you elected a man to be your president because of his skin color,
4 years ago you did the same mistake.
now you're about to choose someone because that person doesn't have a penis.
I'm sorry, USA, you're such a cuck of a country
This bitch is so fake. What is the appeal other than that she's a democrat (this appeals to that demographic obviously, heh)? Donald Trump is an idiot, but at least he's not so obviously fake.
Pic related: Average Hillary voter.
OMG FREEDOM OF SPEECH YOU'RE OPPRESSING ME
GET YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF THIS WEBSITE
OMG FREEDOM OF SPEECH YOU'RE OPPRESSING ME
GET YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF THIS WEBSITE
OMG FREEDOM OF SPEECH YOU'RE OPPRESSING ME
GET YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF THIS WEBSITE
OMG FREEDOM OF SPEECH YOU'RE OPPRESSING ME
GET YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF THIS WEBSITE
OMG FREEDOM OF SPEECH YOU'RE OPPRESSING ME
GET YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF THIS WEBSITE
>Living outside of the US and claiming we are willfully doing so.
No man besides a college gender studies taking male feminist beta or some blind nigger is voting for her.
But it's not really about who we vote for. It's all about what the govt decides to do.
We just elected a pretty boy up here in Canada.
That's how politics work - the words are meaningless, its the physical person that matters.
There was a famous debate between JFK and Nixon that was broadcast on radio and TV. Nixon didn't want to wear make-up because he thought it was too feminine, JFK slathered the shit on. After the debate 90%+ of people that listened to the radio broadcast liked Nixon, and 90%+ of people that watched the TV broadcast wanted JFK.
I think 2008 we definitely did, though tbh he and McCain would have both been great presidents. Romney though? That was a no-brainer, he lost in a landslide. Romney was far from the strongest potential candidate the GOP could have put forth that year.
Why do people shit on someone for having their opinion be the majority opinion. Isn't that what the politician suppose to do. Support a majority of their constituents. Fuck I would love it if my Representative had like an online vote for every bill that decided how he/she would vote. (people would have to register with there address and some shit to make sure fuckers on this site couldn't fuck with the voting) but let the people fucking speak.
Probably because they're both non-issues.
The FBI has recovered the emails and haven't found anything of any remote importance, they're just boring personal correspondence. As for the speeches, yeah she hasn't released the transcripts because like every other politician, she was in that room sucking corporate dick. Are you surprised? They even had video footage of golden boy Romney in the act during the last campaign.
Apart from Trump and Bernie (the two most delusional assholes since Obama in terms of what they think they can accomplish), everyone who has run for this office has gotten on their knees and said what they had to say to finance their campaign. If my choices are an egomaniac 'businessman' who will say vritually anything for votes but is too incompetent to succeed at the one thing he boasts about, or a somewhat level headed candidate who will at least continue pushing the country back in the right direction, I'll stick with the latter.
The country was designed to have elected representatives because they should, in many cases, follow the will of the constituents, but our representatives are also tasked with making choices even when they're unpopular. We the people aren't going to be informed or correct on every issue, so our representative is supposed to make unpopular choices sometimes to reflect the right choice, not just the popular choice.
>Isn't that what the politician suppose to do.
No. Not even slightly.
You realize politics is not just democrat/republican right? Not just president/mayor/whatever?
We're all politicians in our everyday lives. Flip flopping our opinions to conform with what we perceive to be the most broadly accepted point of view is meaningless. We might as well put a robot in charge. Why even question majority opinion? Especially when that opinion is literally 55/45 split most of the time.
Your problem is you're part of the degenerate 'doer' mentality. You have no function to society beyond just doing what you're told. You probably work retail or some shit job where you just do the same thing over and over until one day it will be automated.
So do us thinkers a favour, don't vote.
Trust me, I hear you on that. Sometimes the system doesn't work because, like right now, we have such partisan policy that it's overriding all the good that should come from our system. We were never supposed to have a duopoly in our parties because look what happens.
I hesitate to make comparisons to other nations but in other countries with multiple (if marginal) parties, plenty seems to get done via coalition building rather than just voting the party line.
This is what happens when you let women run they world they put idiots in power fuck over the system and the fall of an empire happens.
>implying you'll be safe from the nuclear fallout
Why does no one talk about the fact the Clintons and Trump have been good pals since Bill was in office and probably before that? They are for the exact same causes. It was common knowledge in the 90's
It's exactly what everyone thinks would be on the transcripts. Basically just motivational speaking, according to people at the speeches. She wasn't excessively vindictive of "Wall Street" like ignorant old Bernie. It would be easy for Bernie to rally people against Hillary if the transcripts were released since his whole campaign is based around blaming the wealthy for all of our country's problems.
Trump was a big builder in NYC, she was a sitting Senator. Everyone knows if you wanna get shit done in NYC you gotta grease the "right" palms. Hers was just one of many and Trump knows the game. Doesn't mean he liked the bitch, just had to play the game and look like he did.
Get ready for more examples of trump screwing people over as the general election moves on.
You're an idiot. Guccifer guessed the secret question of one of her aides AOL accounts. He released all the emails he had access too, and not one of Clintons have been released.
He's not a hacker, he's just like the idiot on /b/ who managed to hack Sarah Palins email. Anything he says doesn't mean jack shit.
Do you actually believe military intervention is a good thing or even humanitarian? A democratically elected government was overthrown so the Saudis could build a pipeline. The us is training jihadiis in an attempt to oust Assad and this proxy war with Russia is a disgrace and the definition of anti-humanitarian. Btw, the us ok'd the use of the chemical weapons, and this can be ties to Hillary/benghazi. Do some research.
>How the fuck is she getting votes?
neolibs and old people.
literally everone else wants to see her fail because she is horrible.
ok OP was gone for a sec so need to catch up
>2. The investigation is 90% political
Correct but when someone claims to be an honest politician this sort of thing directly calls that into question does it not?
>3. 80% of all polticians get paid large amount of money to make speeches.
She is supposed to be an enemy of Wall Street and yet she is giving speeches to them for exorbitant amounts of money and refusing to release the transcripts of said speeches? Do you not find that at least a little startling?
I'd agree that our recent attempts at nation building have failed however we have not always been so unsuccessful. Look at Germany, Japan, and South Korea for examples.
There were human rights violations in Iraq. Are you saying we should not have intervened there?
Link the article if you can please.
>The FBI has recovered the emails and haven't found anything of any remote importance
>As for the speeches, yeah she hasn't released the transcripts
Are you admitting that releasing the transcripts of the speeches would be damaging to her campaign?
>is too incompetent to succeed at the one thing he boasts about
What do you mean by this?
Hardly. Virtually everyone used private email accounts and servers.
The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act. Over 5 million emails may have been lost. Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations. In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.
The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee, for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas. Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc.") and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.
I think I might have just written my viewpoint unclearly. I'm a pretty non-intervention person, and pretty against military action, but the situation in Syria, for example, where hundreds of thousands of people are being systematically starved to death, calls for humanitarian intervention. Rwanda in the 90s is another example of when I thought intervention was warranted. We don't need to engage in actual fighting, but ending the slaughter of fellow humans should be a moral imperative.
Too bad he's shown absolutely no plan to fix the middle east and has specifically said he'd be sending troops in.
Moderator Hugh Hewitt asked, "Mr. Trump, more troops?"
Trump replied, "We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS. We have to knock the hell out of them, we have to get rid of it and then we have to come back hereand rebuild our country, which is falling apart."
Hewitt asked, "How many?"
"I would listen to the generals but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000. We have to knock them out fast."
Source for what?
To be honest I'm not sure what is on them. The fact that she won't release them and the fact that she has accepted large sums of money from groups she claims to be opposing raises some questions that could and should be answered.
Do you not have a problem with your future president pandering both to the disenfranchised and the 1%?
You need to do some research. Why do you think the US dabbles militarily and politically around the world?
>I would listen to the generals
Are you really using this as an attack on Trump? What kind of answer would you expect from him? He's obviously not a military strategist. Would you prefer Obama or Hillary making our military decisions?
You don't actually believe the president simply decides how many troops will be deployed to x area for y amount of time do you?
If they are smart they listen to the council of their generals and make a decision based on that.
"I would listen to the generals" honestly is a perfectly reasonable answer to that question because they are the experts.
I'd like to add in that Trump said previously that the generals would listen to him, no matter what, when asked about his proposal of killing terrorists' families, i.e. committing war crimes. An example again of the contradictions in military policy.
Source is somewhere, I'm still on my way home from work. Sorry.
I don't honestly care that much about the pandering. There are more issues than just that, and every politician, including trump and sanders, pander for votes.
Plus we get gems like this one
Lol... Yes I would most definitely prefer Obama or Hillary making those decisions. Obama has consistently taken the smarter route and not tried to reinvade the country and waste more time and money.
He said he would send troops in, but as to how many, he said between 20 to 30 thousand and would simply listen to the generals as to how many.
Stay the fuck out of Iraq, you fools have fucked it up enough and the cost of those wars could have paid every single dollar of debt we owe to foreign countries.
Indeed he did.
"This was brought up by one of the moderators at the Fox News debate, and Mr. Trump brushed it aside. He said his personality would count more.
“They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me,” he said. “If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”"
She took money from Goldman Sachs (and other companies), not necessarily people she disagrees with since it's a company. There are even people who work there who support Bernie.
This is why Trump would honestly be one of our greatest presidents of all time. People see the president as some great hero or someone greater than a normal human. Look how he does business. He wants a thing to happen, he finds a great team to get it done. When it's completed he puts someone in charge that can handle it and he leaves it the fuck alone unless he needs to find a replacement for whoever is in charge.
What is the president supposed to do? Enforce the law, head the military, and represent us to the world. Before his current campaign he was able to reach both sides of the aisle very effectively. He may not be able to anymore with the light that shines on him now, but he knows how to deal with those that don't want to deal with him. If he can get great teams together think how his cabinet will be. I will never vote for president for policy, I will always vote who will do the best job. Trump will do one of the best jobs as president in history. I won't say the best, we'll let time tell that.
because the majority get their information from new channels that are paid for by people who want hillary to win. so of course they see all her good stuff and none of her bad stuff.
People are unable to make informed decisions, they just rely on cnn or some shit to tell them what to do.
Honestly dude, people have been investigating her for 25 years and always come up empty handed. Nobody is that good at hiding shit, she's innocent of all the shit she's been accused of (Whitewater, etc.). I love Bernie, I voted for Bernie in my primary, but he's not going to get the nomination and we've got to stop Trump. She's our only chance. She did everything she could on Benghazi. It was a fucking mess but it wasn't her fault it went to hell. She testified to her most bitter enemies for 11 hours live on television and they got nothing. The email thing was stupid but she didn't break any laws. The 3 previous Secretaries of State all used private email at times and they've all come to her defense. It was only made illegal for State people to use private email after John Kerry took over. She's done stupid shit in the past like all politicians but I don't think it was malicious. Trump however is pure evil and would wreck the country and probably the world. As much as it sucks, Hillary is our last hope.
>killing terrorists' families
This is one reason I find it difficult to vote for Trump. I served in the Marine Corps for 6 years. I deployed to Afghanistan. There is no way he would be able to institute that kind of policy. No service member I have ever met will willingly go into a mud hut and murder an entire family because they are connected to a known enemy. It simply won't happen. No need to source it, I am already familiar with that.
You should care about pandering. The reason politicians do it is to secure votes. They don't do it because they care about the people they are pandering to.
>Yes I would most definitely prefer Obama or Hillary making those decisions.
Why? What do you mean by Obama's "smarter route"?
I agree. He will not "force" the military to do anything.
So in her speeches to them she was lying? Just to get their money?
I do care about the pandering, but literally every successful politician panders. It's just something that has to be accepted at this point, and maybe laughed at. Like the "build the wall" idea or Bernie hanging out with "killer mike" and having Danny devito introduce him at his speeches. It's obvious pandering, but it's funny.
It's a necessary evil.
What do you want to know specifically? I'm replying to a lot of people at the moment.
I agree with you. Trump is a businessman. They are accustomed to negotiating hard deals AND listening to council from experts. This is why I believe he would make a good president.
>I will never vote for president for policy, I will always vote who will do the best job.
This is a good post.
>She did everything she could on Benghazi.
I want to believe this but until all the information comes to light I can't.
>The email thing was stupid but she didn't break any laws.
I was under the impression that she actually broke several laws.
>Trump however is pure evil and would wreck the country
Why do you say this?
What do you think about the transcript issue?
>burnie has no hope
In her speeches she wasn't addressing political issues. They were motivational speeches that would not look good in this current political environment. The general tone would likely come off as disingenuous at times when she's debating a guy who blames nearly every problem in our country on "Wall Street"
>every successful politician panders
Who does Trump pander to?
I agree that pandering is a necessary evil. The only reason I mention it is because in all of the Democratic debates that I watched it seemed that both candidates (particularly Bernie) did an excessive amount of pandering. Far more than I noticed in the Republican debates.
Do you believe building a wall is not possible?
you would be under the impression that she broke several laws because people are publicly playing judge and jury before the investigation is over and a decision whether to charge her is made, and she's given the opportunity to defend herself in court should charges be brought.
Just remember the university of Virginia rape story. Everyone was so sure it happened and it turned out to be completely fabricated. Let it play out in the courts. American values hold that were innocent until proven guilty in court.
>In her speeches she wasn't addressing political issues.
Then I would ask; what was the purpose of the speech. Why did she receive so much money for it? If there is nothing damning in these transcripts why not release them?
>would not look good in this current political environment
She made the speeches in the current political environment. It's not like they were made 5-10 years ago.
Because to start out with an opinion, and then change it because the majority wants you to is loathsome, pathetic and deceitful. If your opinion conforms with that of the majority, then YEAH, you've got a chance, but not otherwise. In any case, didn't the bitch suffer a STROKE when she was secretary of state? How the hell did she recover from that? Fucking Hillary...
>American values hold that were innocent until proven guilty in court.
You are correct and I'm not jumping to any conclusions here. However, I do have some experience in the area of classification and using a personal is always an extremely bad idea. I don't know all the details however which is why I am asking. I am trusting in the investigation to sniff out the truth.
I'd like to ask you this: Why did she delete the emails if there was nothing to hide?
>Provide some kind of source if you can.
How about Trump and Shillary have been friends for decades and he was a democrat until this year. Its a good plan in all honesty, fuck over the GOP and actually win this time. Hope neither of them do personally. It will be the same policies either way.
Trump panders to the uneducated conservative people who cannot adjust to the social changes our country is facing.
Building a wall is technically feasible, but it won't solve anything since most illegals came legally and never left when their visas expired. Drugs don't generally come over the Mexican border, they come through our ports. Building a wall is such a simple idea to sell to people who don't have the interest, time or ability to understand the entirety of the issue. It's about as stupid and simplistic an idea could be while still sounding somewhat sensible.
He constantly "otherizes" people and blatantly lies to rally people around him. Just recently he accused Ted cruz's father of knowing lee Harvey Oswald and possibly being involved in the Kennedy assassination, and he cited the national inquirer as a source (a fake gossip tabloid).
Remember the birther phenomenon? That was pandering. Now he's accusing Hillary of starting it, again pandering.
He used to be pro choice and pro universal healthcare, which, now that he's suddenly a republican he's against.
He claims to have been a prophet, suggesting that he singlehandedly warned the American people of Osama bin ladens danger to the United States, although he wrote of that in 2000, after the embassy bombing and World Trade Center bombings had been definitively linked to Osama. Again, he's stretching the truth to pander to the same crowd.
Yesterday he posted a picture of him eating a taco bowl on Twitter saying he loves Hispanics.
>If the fbi was after her shed be done.
They need the witness statements and evidence put together before the judicial system accepts it. The FBI can't ignore laws like the NSA
They have so much that the head of the FBI said he would resign if they didnt indite her. About 12 agents are supposed to be looking into her and no one else in US history has not been indited with that many agents looking into the case.
>Aren't your two chambers still legally insider trading?
Goddamn socialists using business jargon in politics. Jesus Christ what are you fucking saying? They're selling stock together?
She received so much knew because they have that much money and she is a high profile speaker. That's really not a lot of money to those firms.
There likely is something damning, yet not all that surprising, in the speeches that Bernie and trump would be able to jump on her, painting her as disingenuous when she says she wants to take on "Wall Street."
I'm not exactly trying to defend her, it just seems pretty obvious to me why she won't release the transcripts.
>who cannot adjust to the social changes our country is facing
What social changes?
>most illegals came legally and never left when their visas expired. Drugs don't generally come over the Mexican border, they come through our ports.
Source for both please.
>Just recently he accused Ted cruz's father of knowing lee Harvey Oswald and possibly being involved in the Kennedy assassination
I'm not familiar with this yet.
>Remember the birther phenomenon?
No, elaborate please.
Again, I'd like to say that I'm not denying that any candidate panders. Just it seems that the Democratic candidates do it far more.
>lol you are too young to be on here
And yeah, yeah, one's a conservatard while the other's a stinkin hippie liberal.
But they had the same foreign policy, "ObamaCare" is the most politically conservative health policy in the civilized world, both were pro-patriot act, the list goes on.
Why did she delete the emails if there was nothing to hide? There could be something to hide, or there could be thousands of emails of her asking other people in her office to buy a different brand of toilet paper or where the fruit she keeps out on a table in her office went.
People have been accusing her of wrongdoing since the early 90s and she consistently comes out unscathed. Maybe there is some conspiracy going on, but I assume someone as smart as Hillary would have enough sense to realize it's only going to continue. The email thing was stupid, but I highly doubt she didn't fully understand the law (she is a lawyer) and operate within those bounds.
You didn't answer the question concerning why she would give the speech.
>There likely is something damning
Do you believe this is something that should be kept secret from her supporters or the American public in general? If so, why?
>There could be something to hide, or there could be thousands of emails of her asking other people in her office to buy a different brand of toilet paper or where the fruit she keeps out on a table in her office went.
Is transparency and clarification not more important when one is running for president of the United States?
If she has nothing to hide then why not release them?
The lying doesn't bother me
When exactly did she cheat
What exactly did she steal?
We know what we're getting with Hillary. With trump, we have no idea how far this country could fall.
>What social changes?
Letting gays get married, not all niggers are bad
Source for both please.
Lee Havey Oswald
What social changes? Seriously?
Black people getting upset about every hint of potential wrongdoing by the police.
Women becoming equal and generationally surpassing men in college education and income.
Non-religion becoming the fastest growing religion in the country, particularly within the millennial generation
The birther phenomenon happened during obamas first term, where people accused him of being from Kenya up until Obama released his birth certificate. Trump was the main proponent of that and it made him a hero amongst the "fuck Obama" tea party republicans.
The Ted Cruz ing died down because he did it the day of or the day before the Indiana primary, and Ted dropped out right after that. If he stayed in trump would likely bring it up in every speech he gives.
>What social changes?
People having to deal with another religion besides christianity mainly(Islam).
>Source for both please.
>>most illegals came legally and never left when their visas expired
>>Drugs don't generally come over the Mexican border
Not OP of comment, cannot substantiate claim.
>Ted cruz's father of knowing lee Harvey Oswald
Says Ted Cruz’s father "was with Lee Harvey Oswald" before the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
— Donald Trump on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2016 in an interview on Fox News
>Remember the birther phenomenon?
"Trump rides issue of Obama’s birth certificate" - 2011
Why wouldn't she give a 30 minute speech for hundreds of thousands of dollars? Do I really have to answer that? She made more in one hour than most people make in three years.
From a constituents point of view, I would like more transparency. That's one of her main issues and why people don't like her. She comes off as dishonest and disingenuous. From the candidates point of view, sharing the transcripts of her speeches where she compares her personal struggles of being Secretary of State to Wall Street workers being vilified by people like Bernie and the occupy people will not help her with this campaign. It would likely end her campaign.
This article indicates that Mexico is importing cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin.
Ok so people are coming on a visa and overstaying that visa. Do you not think that is a problem?
They never respond because they're paid shills. 4chan is being astroturfed by companies paid for by the Hilary campaign.
>Ok so people are coming on a visa and overstaying that visa. Do you not think that is a problem?
The point is Donald's idea of building a big 'ol wall to keep them dang mexicans out won't stop a god damn thing.
They come right across through regular border checkpoints with valid visas.
>People having to deal with another religion besides christianity mainly(Islam).
Do you, or anyone you personally know, discriminate against Muslims?
I get the gist just by reading the titles but what is the point here?
Like I said, I'm ignorant of this so I won't comment. Just to be clear I'm not a Trump supporter just looking for clarification.
Maybe you should read this thread. We have been responding. Expect more of it now that we're in the general election.
>Mexico is importing cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin.
Of course, mexico is a shit hole. But the US makes drugs too. A shittier country, the more terrible things they have to do to make a living.
>Do you not think that is a problem?
Did you even notice they were their in the first place? Yeah they should go back but its not like they werent already vetted into the US through the visa program.
also, she doodled a draco eating a human.
confirmed cabal/khazarian mafia
Dude. The head of the FBI says he will resign if Hillary doesn't burn for this. This is not a made-up issue. This is a real thing.
Best guess most people have is that Obama will pardon her if they indite her, so they are biding their time. They nearly did around Nov-Jan, then shit just like dropped or something. Seems plausible
I do know people who discriminate or prejudge Muslims or people who seem Muslim/middle eastern. I live in the Adirondacks (northern ny state, trump/sanders country).
Today a guy at work named farooq was sick. Another guy at work said, "you know what the last guy named farooq did? He shot up a bunch of people in San Bernardino."
These people think "Muslims" are the ones attacking us, even though Isis mainly targets other Muslims and is a political movement rather than a religious one.
Even though we have over 16,000 murders a year in this country, somehow "Muslims" are the biggest threat to our security.
because people are afraid of Trump, and will vote her over Trump because they are afraid of him so much, that they do not even think of how much worse she is for our country.
Also, she's a woman. And she has constantly used her gender as a reason to vote for her, and she will continue to do so.
In short, it's based off fear of Trump, and if that does not work, she will make her excuse as making it as if it is the only opportunity to vote a woman into office. Democucks hate sexism, unless it can be used in their favor
>Why wouldn't she give a 30 minute speech for hundreds of thousands of dollars?
Because she's already rich?
>From a constituents point of view, I would like more transparency.
This is ultimately what it boils down to.
Why won't she give you the transparency you want?
So 95% of the drugs in the US come over water? I actually believe this is plausible and I think we should increase our presence on the water. However this does not address the illegal immigrants crossing the border into the country overland.
So then do you believe we should deport those people that overstay their visas?
She's our only chance against Donald Trump
When did he say that? Are you honestly deluded, or do you just like making shit up?
He may have said "if this investigation isn't handled properly, I will resign." He most definitely did not say "I will resign if we don't take Hillary down."
She admitted to doing it...
Her is video
How much are you getting paid to do this?
We want 8 more years of the greatest man to ever run this country
>Do you, or anyone you personally know, discriminate against Muslims?
Yes, I live in the mid-west. Work a blue collar job. I hear daily from a particular co-worker things like "that rag head driver damn near hit me". Or "fukin mudslime that lives next to me....". Foreman doesn't give a shit so oh well.
>I get the gist just by reading the titles but what is the point here?
Trump ran before against Obama in 2012 election, his main shtick was Obama didn't qualify to be president because he was 1) Not a naturally born american. 2) Born to american parents.
Trump said if he didn't show his birth certificate proving he was born in america he should be removed from office.
First off we are veering off track onto another topic, Muslims in America. You say you know one man who made one comment about a Muslim he works with daily. Out of the entire list of other people you know have you ever encountered a similar situation? Or one in which a Muslim was disenfranchised?
>16,000 murders a year in this country, somehow "Muslims" are the biggest threat to our security.
The reason people consider RADICAL Muslims a threat to society is because they don't simply go out and shoot their wife or stab their drug dealer. They specifically target non Muslims and kill them en masse. Comparing jihadists to regular murderers is not really logical.
cause she is most qualified and smarter than trump. except , Trump is better at business - either is better colonel sanders... so it's all good.
HOW ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDS IGNORING THIS. SHE WORKS FOR LIZARD PEOPLE. AND ITS PRETTY MUCH BEEN CONFIRMED. but all anyone cares about are some silly fib charges. fuckin morons
Ok, so you know one man who has a problem with Muslims. Does he have any power over any Muslim? Do you know any other people who share his views?
>Trump said if he didn't show his birth certificate proving he was born in america he should be removed from office.
Again, what is your point here? I'm sorry I'm not following. Are you arguing that the president of the United States should not have to show his birth certificate?
Why wouldn't she give a 30 minute speech for hundreds of thousands of dollars?
>Because she's already rich?
Right, because people with money just fucking HATE making even more money. ESPECIALLY if it involves very little work.
>So then do you believe we should deport those people that overstay their visas?
Yes. Of course. But the infrastructure needed to find and deport these people is non-existent. God forbid congress give any more money to ICE.
I'm all of those guys you responded to.
She's rich partly because of he speeches. She lives in New York, it's not that hard to see why she would simply go downtown and talk to a group of people for an hour or so and get paid an obscene amount of money.
She won't give the transpanacy because she's running to win the election. It's a calculated decision. She's trying to sell her policies and herself. Generally you try to point out the positives and not the negatives when trying to sell something.
I bring up drugs because that's one of trumps main arguments for building the wall - that it will stop the flow of drugs over the border. Those drugs don't generally come over land.
As far as deporting illegals go, not all should be deported in my opinion. Many have lived and worked here for many years and have become Americans as far as I see it. Some, however, are actual gang members or other violent offenders who should be either deported or imprisoned, though I don't think anyone will argue with that.
That's why you should vote Trump. Hillary actually knows how to ACCOMPLISH her goals and either one doing so is a BAD THING. Trump will be cock blocked for four years and we can try this shit over again and get somebody decent instead of Clitler and Dump.
If that were true, she would have won the 2008 primary. You can't face up to the fact that your favored candidate lost, so you invent a conspiracy theory.
>inb4 closed primaries
No more unfair than caucuses, which suppress 75% of the vote and favor Sanders
Superdelegates suck, but Clinton is winning the pledged delegates by about 280. If Sanders had won with pledged delegates, a lot of the supers would have defected to him, as with Obama eight years ago
I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton because (my complete list)...
Benghazi. Too many details to name here but the fact is she ignored cries for help and Americans died. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE
She voted for the needless Iraq War.
She voted for the Patriot Act and supports spying on Americans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24pR3USBJYo
She supports the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UERicIJ2J5U
She claims that she wants to break up the big banks when actually her largest contributors are the big banks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxQsKBH74JE
The Clinton Foundation Financial Fraud.
She wants to expand the no fly list to restrict fire arm purchases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctrJNERhq5w
She want to restrict firearms and is a complete hypocrite about guns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=672LzxVX3FI
The email scandal and her lack lack of ability to secure top secret documents. Not a good trait for a presidential candidate. No better person to explain than Judge Napolitano....
The Clinton Murders... too many mysterious deaths of people in her and Bill's way.
In cases of rape, she believes that you're guilty until proven innocent. That’s unconstitutional. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wr9PFK52wg
When she was an attorney, she defended a child rapist and laughed about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4
There’s a risk that she will go to prison during her presidency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abseaKytug0
She blamed Trump for protest violence. Really?
The lies... so many lies. https://youtu.be/ALYwbYDVhBA?t=1m9s
> it's not that hard to see why she would simply go downtown and talk to a group of people for an hour or so and get paid an obscene amount of money.
Because speaking to these people (whom she claims to oppose), accepting large amounts of money from them, then not releasing the transcripts of said speeches doesn't raise any red flags for you?
She's supposed to be running for president of the United States. Not just trying to collect a paycheck.
>not the negatives
How can we know her negatives if she won't reveal them? Is this something that should be secret during a presidential election?
>and have become Americans as far as I see it.
Where do you draw the line on this issue?
>Obama did nothing wrong
Except for that whole signing a bill that allows indefinite detention of us citizens without ever being charged with a crime or having access to a lawyer
And expanding the patriot act
And ordering the execution of US citizens living abroad without ever charging them with a crime and calling it "extrajudicial killings"
So besides creating a new legal precedent to allow the federal government to kill and indefinitely jail US citizens at will without ever being charged with any crime, ya he did nothing wrong
Yes I do know other people who speak like that. It was one example of the mindset of people I work with. I'll elaborate.
They (Isis and others) don't primarily target non Muslims. They target Muslims who disagree with their political aspirations, and that is simply because most people in that region are Muslim. The radical Islamists are political revolutionaries, not religious revolutionaries. They're essentially a nazi-like fascist movement that doesn't tolerate any dissent. The primary victims of Muslim terrorism in the post 9/11 era and before then have been other Muslims. Not understanding this is the type of ignorance I'm referring to.
People believe the tenets of Islam are promoting all or most Muslims to support killing non Muslims when the reality is most Muslims both in the middle east and the United States hate these groups. They're almost like the middle eastern version of gangs, though with stronger political aspirations and success.
> Do you know any other people who share his views?
Oh god yes! I had a man show up at my door asking me to sign a petition to the city counsel to prohibit the building of a mosque in the neighborhood. The first couple pages were already flipped over the clipboard when he got to me.
>Again, what is your point here? I'm sorry I'm not following. Are you arguing that the president of the United States should not have to show his birth certificate?
>Who does Trump pander to?
"Remember the birther phenomenon? That was pandering."
>No, elaborate please.
That's how we got here on the Birther issue.
I voted for Obama because Palin fucking terrified me.
Then I voted for him again because Mittens was Bush 2.0.
I'm not fucking voting for that cunt. I'll sooner vote for Trump and watch the world burn.
its a file from guccifers leak. the guy that hacked hillarys emails. she works for lizard aliens. google it
And by the way, the petition was not legal in the slightest. The dude just figured that if he showed up at the city council with enough signatures that they'd listen to him and stop the mosque. He didn't seem like a very intelligent man... As bigots tend to be.
>They (Isis and others) don't primarily target non Muslims.
>The primary victims of Muslim terrorism in the post 9/11 era and before then have been other Muslims.
How do you explain the recent attacks in America, Europe, and Africa? As well as the beheadings of the journalists?
You're post is confusing me and I don't know how to respond to it.
Someone brought up that Trump doesn't pander to the populous as much as democrats do, via post >>682986406
The argument was made that Trump, in the previous presidential election cycle, based his entire campaign on "Obama isn't american, and therefore cannot be president" via post >>682987923
someone then said "No, elaborate please." Regarding the birther issue relating to Trump and his pandering in post >>682988807
Then you said
>>Again, what is your point here? I'm sorry I'm not following. Are you arguing that the president of the United States should not have to show his birth certificate?
and here we are
Not who you linked to, but here's how you "explain it." You look at the number of fellow Muslims ISIS has killed in Syria and Iraq, and it turns out to be in the thousands. Then you compare it against the few hundred (at most) westerners they've killed. Hence the conclusion that ISIS primarily targets other Muslims.
Granted, ISIS might wish to target Westerners more than Muslims with whom they disagree. I honestly dk. But it's a tougher task for them, other Muslims are just so much more accessible. It's a lot easier to kill a Syrian soldier than an American one now that we've withdrawn most of our troops.
1) normally it would raise red flags if it wasn't Hillary. It's really not surprising.
She wasn't technically running for president when she collected thenpaychecks, although I might argue she's been running for presidents snce she ran for senate.
I remember back in 99 the Yankees had just won consecutive World Series and had basically their dream team. Mrs. Clinton, former First Lady of Arkansas and Chicago native put on a Yankee hat and claimed she's always been a Yankee fan, as though she wasn't a Cubs or white sox fan before she wanted to be a New York senator (if she even gave a shit). She's been doing this shit for years, I know she's very calculating and a good politician, which makes her seem like a slimy used car salesperson.
I actually knew Bernie personally, I used to work with his wife. Hillary is no Bernie, but she's the best option of the two actual candidates.
2) transparency may cause her to lose the election since it's hard, particularly now, to get the dem base who think "Wall Street" is evil to support someone who understands it's not fair to group all Wall Street workers together and therefore had no issue being a motivational speaker (my take, not hers)
3) there is no definitive line in my mind, but people who have been part of our communities for years should not be deported. Maybe charged with something or pay a fine if there is a law they broke, but I don't believe all illegal immigrants should be deported. Some should: the new ones, the ones that commit serious crimes, probably other categories I'm not going to try to think of right now.
Do you think Trump is any better? He has no political track record to compare. All we have to look at is his business history, in which he has proven time and again that he's willing to fuck over literally anyone for his own personal gain.
Elections are all about choosing the lesser of two evils. Trump most definitely is not the lesser evil.
Guy you responded to here about radical Islam targets
That's not the majority of the atrocities they have committed. It's e majority of what makes the news here because we are westerners.
Any time middle easterners make a stand against Isis they are beheaded. They have an actual police state in the area they control.
By many estimates over a million Iraqi and Syrian civilians have been killed since the us invasion in 2003, primarily at the hands of the insurgent groups who seek to overthrow the Shia minority government and replace it with a majority Sunni government. Most people support the installation of a sunni government, Isis is one of many groups that have risen in that environment, and they are probably the most ruthless of the groups with any sort of power or influence. This is why al quaeda and Isis are enemies, they disagree on political ideology.
I"ll answer them for you then. They matter because there is a liberal agenda to get apologetic white men to admit guilt in order to give them power. This power will be used to garner favor in other sects which will then let the liberal left become more powerful in its own right.
Why else will they spin stories that show a few bad encounters out of the thousands of good ones as being the norm? It's for pandering man.
So your explanation is that given the chance they will kill as many Westerner's as possible, it's just not easy or feasible for them to do so right now?
What sort of reaction does this warrant from the west?
>normally it would raise red flags if it wasn't Hillary. It's really not surprising
>transparency may cause her to lose the election since it's hard
For me I guess I believe if a candidate loses an election based on the transparency of their character and their campaign than that person was not who the American people wanted as their president.
Can you not argue that she is hiding things and deceiving her voters by not releasing the transcripts? She is not portraying herself as she is, only as she believes will get her the most votes. Is there a problem with this?
>2) transparency may cause her to lose the election since it's hard, particularly now, to get the dem base who think "Wall Street" is evil to support someone who understands it's not fair to group all Wall Street workers together and therefore had no issue being a motivational speaker (my take, not hers)
If she is running a "Wallstreet is evil" campaign then why would she want and accept money for their votes?
>there is no definitive line in my mind
I feel like this is a major problem with a lot of people nowadays. They are able to identify an issue but when pressed on the specifics of how to implement a fix they don't have an answer because they want to be everyone's friend.
Why not just deport everyone who came here illegally? They broke the law. They had opportunities to come here legally but they chose not to. Why cut them slack when they are by definition criminals?
Singing "lalalala" and sticking your dragon dildo up your ass like the fucking bitch fag you are with lube spewing out your ear holes doesn't mean he didn't answer. Fuck man that one general that I can't spell his fucking name got nailed hard for just letting some woman view he fucking calendar.
>what sort of reaction
Frankly, probably about what we're doing so far. Airstrikes, military support to local groups that oppose ISIS, maybe limited special forces raids. Not troops on the ground, that's an overreaction. And maybe some caution is due respecting immigration and asylum requests from that part of the world, but that is mainly a European issue.
Also, here's a worthwhile article regarding Clinton and honesty/her compulsion re privacy
Basically, she's an honest person, but one who has an unrealistic view of the amount of privacy due to a public figure in her position. This has led to some poor decisions, but nothing near as awful as her detractors would assert.
>Flip flopping and pandering
oh the irony
>That's not the majority of the atrocities they have committed. It's e majority of what makes the news here because we are westerners.
This is correct and this is why westerner's care. Because it directly affects us. How do you think we should respond to such attacks?
>By many estimates over a million Iraqi and Syrian civilians have been killed since the us invasion in 2003
Do you believe the west should intervene in the area because of this?
>Net worth 36 million
Are people really stupid enough to think he she could possibly bribe him? He is fucking loaded. Liberal cucks just dont want to admit that Trump is gonna hand their ass to them in November.
I just explained why it doesn't surprise me Hillary won't release the transcripts. Being non-transparent is who she is. People should know this by now.
Deporting all illegal immigrants would be expensive and doesn't seem like the best idea for people who have been living here and working here, making friends with their neighbors here for many years. It's not worth the cost and effort to deport them, we have bigger issues to deal with.
Hillary Clinton has led in the average of national polls versus Sanders since the race began. The size of her lead has fluctuated over time; the fact of her lead has not.
If a majority of Democratic primary voters actually supported Sanders, but a conspiracy of voter fraud was throwing the election to Hillary, we would not expect this to be the case (or are the pollsters a part of your conspiracy too)?
Also, if Clinton wielded that kind of power, she would never have lost the 2008 election (which was actually much, much closer in delegates and the popular vote than this one).
But if it's too painful for you to accept that Sanders legitimately lost the race, don't let me dissuade you from your fantasies.
>Frankly, probably about what we're doing so far.
I agree with this. Boots on the ground is a big and expensive step and I'm not expert so I can't speculate accurately on whether or not that is a good decision.
>And maybe some caution is due respecting immigration and asylum requests from that part of the world
So you're voting Trump?
We respond the way we have been responding. With drones and special forces. Only one American soldier has been killed in the fight against Isis and we have made significant progress this way. We defeat Isis using the methods we are currently using and in the wake we welcome a new government created by the people living in the area to participate in global affairs by not imposing sanctions if they meet our human rights standards.
You're quoting two different anons (I'm one of them, the first one you quoted). And no, "I'm with her." Seriously though, I voted for Clinton in the primaries and will do so again in the fall.
Donald Trump is an intelligent and charming man, but he's also taken a lot of horrific policy positions (a national database registry for Muslims? Really?). The prospect of a Trump presidency frightens me. I think he's profoundly unqualified for the position.
>Deporting all illegal immigrants would be expensive
How expensive? Have you ever heard of Operation Wetback?
>It's not worth the cost and effort to deport them
Why do you say that? I have heard people say that they are hurting our economy because they come here and take advantage of our programs and wealth while sending the money they make back to Mexico. Is that untrue? If it is, why?
Yes, I heard of operation wetback. It happened in the 1950s and has been highly controversial due to the number of deaths at resulted.
I've heard they help our economy because they provide labor often at below the minimum wage (affordable apples) and spend their money here. Many illegal immigrants even pay taxes: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/16/Study-Finds-Illegal-Immigrants-Pay-118B-Taxes
>why the fuck are we doing anything anyway?
Probably so we have some tangible influence in the Middle East.
>obama already handed Iraq over to an Iranian proxy.
>in the wake we welcome a new government
Is this new government a puppet of the US?
>You're quoting two different anons
I guess I'll start posting this shit on /pol/ lol.
>a national database registry for Muslims
Can you elaborate on this? I've heard it talked about but I'm uninformed about it's full extent.
>I think he's profoundly unqualified for the position.
Why is that? He has said he will use the best advisors to assist him in making decisions.
Not exactly. Insurance companies got a lot of new customers, but also a lot of new regulations. A surprising amount of young, healthy people are opting to pay the tax-penalty rather than get insurance, and some insurance companies are having a hard time making a profit off the Exchanges. Not that I have much sympathy for them, nor do I necessarily oppose the idea of a single payer system. But Obamacare barely made it through Congress; it overcame the Senate filibuster by the smallest possible margin. When Obama was asked in 2012 about his views on a single payer system, he replied that it just wasn't politically feasible. I think Clinton's views are largely the same.
I know no one wants to hear "because trump is the other option" but for me this is beyond the truth. I hate hillary, and I hate trump just as much. But those are our options. I'm looking for the first time.. a president who will literally do nothing. I just want them to smile and wave and be gone in 4 years. We have no good choices.
It is right.
I've read a fuck ton on the USA interferring in international countries that want to be on their own
Basically Jamaica was one of the heads, alongisde columbia in introducing crack cocaine to America. Jamaica was they key and the secured the middle man route via Jim Brown.
Cuba was another attempt at gaining control during soviet times
>see failed assinations of castro (3+ of them by luis?)
>Bay of Pigs last resort failure
Cuba happened and failed. They then moved onto Jamaica and succeeded because of one mans ability to strike down the PNP government then single handedly take entire control of the Jamaica under ground.
Im not even going to entertain the idea that he would be browsing /b/ right now. He is a very busy person with a filled schedule of speeches today, not everyone has all the free time that you do.
You must admit, he picked a really A+ cabinet.
There was another guy running for his place but he didn't have the tredaue name except:
>Was a politician
>Had two PHDs
>Including numerous other achievements
He lost the place cause no publicity and they needed the treadeu name to block Harper from using his corruption to win.
Obama care increased prices 3x fold. forced people to get healthcare by law, and didnt even make its quota. It was clearly a way to let the insurance companies make more money and guess what, they are still reaching record breaking amounts.
Except $hillary was fighting against civil rights while it was happening. You niggers are so gullible and easy to manipulate.
$hillary doesn't care about you or anyone else, and she is a liar who will say whatever she needs to to get elected, regardless of whether she believes it.
>highly controversial due to the number of deaths
How many deaths were there vs the number of people deported? I believe a more modern and technological system would result in fewer deaths. Do you believe a similar and safer version of the program could be implemented today?
>because they provide labor
Some say that there are Americans who would provide the same labor.
>and spend their money here
They also send a very large portion of that money back to Mexico. This is not good for the US.
>Many illegal immigrants even pay taxes
I've been curious about this and maybe you can shed some light. How does an illegal alien pay taxes?
I thought you meant he couldn't be here because he's on an airplane and airplanes don't have Internet. My bad, you're right about him being busy. Also, the guy is 70, I doubt he knows what this even is
Perhaps there is truth to this. Virtually everyone agrees that Obamacare is imperfect; it needs some significant changes. Hopefully when she's president, Hillary will be able to get meaningful progress on that front.
she isnt going to change anything. she will tweak a few things here and there, but ultimately it will be 4 more years of obamas lackluster approach to running this country. Besides abusing the shit out of her power of course.
>Read the rest of my sentence. No wonder people stop responding to you.
In this entire thread this is the first time I've become aggravated. You are literally shitposting and it's annoying. Explain your point of fuck off.
I hope you're wrong; time will tell. At the very least, Clinton in the White House means someone more liberal than Garland on the Court. Say what you will, but Bill Clinton and Obama, who are ideologically similar to Hillary, made decent picks for SCOTUS.
Best I could find on short notice; this thread is gonna die in 3 minutes
I do think it could be safer, I don't think it would be safer today.
Of course Americans would provide the labor. Who wouldn't want to pick apples all day and get paid? The problem is American citizens are entitled to minimum wages which would drive up the cost of production, thus the price of the good, if illegals didn't do the work.
plenty of legal immigrants send money back to their homeland, and families of us expats also send money out of the us. It's not inherently bad for the us. Foreign investment is an inevitability in a growing economy. We cannot be a successful country through economic protectionism/isolationism. For instance, Argentina had a similar nationalistic economic policy, where they couldn't import more than they export. At some point an economy evolves beyond production based into a primarily service based economy, which Argentina and the United States have surpassed. Look into the state of the argentine economy, because that is one of the primary reason they are s fucked.
Wouldn't it be good for the us if our southern neighbor were more like our northern one?
> Clinton isn't kidding when she says she supported the public option in the past — the evidence can be found among those accursed emails of hers, which document her efforts to keep the provision in the bill
>"work with interested governors, using current flexibility under the Affordable Care Act, to empower states to establish a public option choice."
>Finally, Clinton is proposing to extend access to Obamacare exchange plans to all families, including those of undocumented immigrants
Fucking what mate?