EquALLity wrote:
I think that Wikileaks is an amazing organization in that it challenges the government through releasing certain documents.
I think it's terrible how they're trying to throw this election.
EquALLity wrote:
It's not the same as Russia, that's an actual terrible smear.
I did not say it was the same, it has links. Please don't put words in my mouth.
If I had to guess, I think Wikileaks is probably worse than Russia, and only has connections with some rogue agents representing the worst of the Russian government, and not Russia as a whole. That would be an insult to Russia, to say it was the same as a corrupt anti-American espionage promoting agency. But there's not a lot of transparency to show what is going on there, so that's just a guess.
Wikileaks supporting Trump is enough to know they're evil, though. They've done more to harm to world than ISIS ever has if they've helped get him elected. We'll see if they're successful, maybe then you'll change your mind about them?
This has really hurt Clinton.
It would have been more acceptable if they'd done it after the election.
EquALLity wrote:
There's a reason why they fired her. They maintained that she gave the questions in advance but that CNN didn't give them to her.
Where did she get them from? If you don't know, she could have been speculating. These are reasonable guesses if the emails are even legitimate, which there's no proof of.
And do you have proof Hillary did it?
Again, Hillary's campaign is not Hillary personally. That goes far more for her than for Sanders, since she has a very large network of supporters in positions.
You're jumping to conclusions against Hillary here.
EquALLity wrote:
I can't honestly believe that Hillary Clinton was against marriage equality until 2013. Just like Obama was revealed to being against it for political expediency, that's probably what happened with her as well. She's not a bigot, she's just a politician.
You don't know Hillary's motivation. It's not about having faith that she thought that, it's about
not knowing, and not accusing people of being liars when you really don't know.
Even if it was politically expedient, that doesn't make it morally wrong. Political expedience is a good thing.
They've had to work with Republicans, and if they conceded that, that means they traded something else, and probably did a lot more good. It's called consequentialism. Sanders has no sense of morality, only deontological dogma, so he wouldn't understand that.
I would vote for a bill limiting abortion in exchange for cutting subsidies to animal agriculture, for example. Doesn't mean I support limiting abortion.
Politicians want to do good, and sometimes that means sacrificing a smaller goal for a larger one. Particularly when you know the courts are on their way to fixing marriage equality anyway (as Democrats had good reason to believe) and that the popular opinion was moving that way.
I would rather a "good politician" who lies sometimes or compromises who has good intentions than an incompetent one who is an uncompromising ideologue and can't get anything done with good intentions, and I'd certainly rather one who supported science to one who cherry picks on major issues like environment.
EquALLity wrote:
As for TPP, she was totally for it UNTIL Bernie challenged her on it. Then she flip-flopped, because Bernie had the populist position. I don't think that's a coincidence.
I don't think it's a coincidence either. I think that debate probably changed her mind about supporting it.
Too bad Sanders doesn't change his mind.
EquALLity wrote:
Actually, Bernie was generally very polite given that she IS corrupt.
AGAIN you're claiming that as a fact.
"She IS corrupt" is not comparable to "I think she's probably corrupt", or "I think there's a strong argument to suggest she is" or anything like that.
You're making an absolute assertion.
There's no evidence that she's corrupt. We've talked about this, You're being just as bad as the Trump people.
If you're going to be like that, there's no reasoning with you.
If you can't take it back, and apologize for claiming it so assertively yet again and admit you don't know, I'm giving up discussing politics with you.
It's harmful rhetoric like that which is why Trump might win this. And in so far as you've ever uttered that opinion to others, you helped him win. In so far as that's harmful, you're promoting an immoral belief.
EquALLity wrote:Most of his supporters are voting for Hillary, in fact the overwhelming majority.
Not an overwhelming majority. A slight majority.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/about-a-third-of-bernie-sanders-supporters-still-arent-backing-hillary-clinton/
A third still refused to back Clinton in August, and this is basically unprecedented in politics. The amount of hate and distrust he generated has outlived his campaign.
The article says it didn't matter at the time -- once upon a time when Hillary was so far ahead -- but now that the race is tightening that's changing.
Wayward Sanders supporters could easily decide this election for Trump.
This statistic seems to still be cited as accurate:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/21/politics/bernie-sanders-nh-voters-general-election/
A number of people are apparently planning on writing in Sanders on their ballots, and I've seen this trend too based on comment threads.
EquALLity wrote:Don't blame this on Bernie. Bernie would have beaten Trump in a LANDSLIDE.
He didn't win the ticket, though, and he should have known it was improbable. That's just like Sanders, never mind the consequences.
The damage he did trying is lasting.
It's like when the U.S. supports a failed political coup in another country, and just ends up thrusting it into a war that hurts everybody.
The road to hell is paved in good intentions.
Sanders wasn't likely to be an option, so yes, he is to blame for tearing apart the party before what may be the most important election in a hundred years.
EquALLity wrote:It's the fault of the democratic party for favoring Hillary Clinton and nominating such a flawed candidate.
IF he won (which didn't happen, and probably wasn't, so it's irrelevant), we would have had a very different race.
Hillary is a better candidate than Sanders. She's a better politician, and she appeals more to the center and people on the right who Trump alienated.
Just as Sanders pushed Clinton to the left, I think we would have seen the same with Trump.
I would probably be supporting Trump if Sanders got it, although perhaps reluctantly. A lot of democrats and centrists would be, and he'd be playing to the center rather than to the far right in order to win those votes (he would have advanced very different policies than he has been recently).
He wouldn't have flip flopped on his position on the war on drugs, for example, among other issues which appeal to independents.
I think Sanders as an opponent would have made a better Trump. While Clinton, being more center, has pushed Trump to the extreme right.
That's probably the only good thing that would have come from a Sanders ticket.
I don't know if he would have beat Trump or not, but given his policies I would only hope that he wouldn't.
EquALLity wrote:Are you calling Bernie Sanders corrupt because he subsidized the dairy industry?
He bought their votes. Vote for him, and he'll give you free money so you can continue profiting from animal abuse. Pretty simple tit for tat. It's 100% legal (it should be illegal, that's the REAL money that needs to get out of politics), but it's very much a special interest like any, he's just buying votes directly with money. There's no sensible reason to support handing out money to dairy farmers, this isn't welfare, it's a subsidy to something the government has no business subsidizing.
EquALLity wrote:So Bernie give subsidies to small farms (which coincides with his beliefs, there's no reason to suspect corruption), and that makes him corrupt.
What belief does that coincide with? Can you read his mind? I'd say it probably coincides with his belief that he'll get votes if he pays off dairy farmers. Can you read Hillary's to know she doesn't do what she believes is right?
And how, as a supporter of animals, could you ever think he's anything less than wicked for his policies? He's not a good person, the illusion that he's something other, or better than other politicians, it a well crafted lie from his campaign.
EquALLity wrote:Hillary flip flops on everything when it's conveniently politically expedient, and you see no semblance of corruption. I don't know how to respond to that.
I think she's a good politician and she trades favors for the greater good to support the things she believes in.
And I know she believes in more sensible science-based policies than Sanders does. She has made that very clear and spoken eloquently on the issues that matter there. So, she's better in every metric.
EquALLity wrote:Throughout the entire campaign, the Clinton team was propagating this BS idea of 'Bernie Bros'.
Her personally, or her campaign?
I don't think it's totally BS.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/11/how_google_shapes_the_news_you_see_about_the_candidates.html
There are two sides to it. That looks like a good breakdown, I only have time to skim it now though. That's what you're talking about, right?
EquALLity wrote:How could she not know? They're her donors.
Pretty easily, since she has staff that deal with that stuff. Big campaigns have people to solicit and manage donations.
She probably assumed that since she supported carbon limits that she hadn't received any donations. It was a fair assumption.
Maybe she got them so she could beat Sanders, who would have been worse since he probably unreasonably opposes Fracking (which is not a bad thing, it's way better than coal). That's just a guess.
The key is in not assuming people's motivations.
If she knew she received them, she probably would have acted more political and deflected.
EquALLity wrote:Like I said, I don't think she's uniquely bad.
But because of the Sanders camp propaganda, you don't think she's good either. That probably makes you a pretty poor advocate for her.
We need Democrats to vote, we need independents to support her, and we need it to happen not just for hatred of Trump; that's a very poor motivator when they hate her too.
EquALLity wrote:1) Flip-flopped on bankruptcy bill after receiving money from Wall Street.
We talked about that one.
EquALLity wrote:2) Gives paid speeches to Wall Street and won't release the transcripts (which reinforces the terrible influence money has on politics- what did she have to hide?), even after her standard for releasing them was met
Do you know why? Don't assume.
These speeches were heard by plenty of people, she wouldn't have said anything she couldn't risk being leaked. She's a good politician.
There are any number of explanations, if the accusation is even true. Look into them first. When you make charges like this, evidence is required.
EquALLity wrote:3) Doesn't want to reinstate Glass Steagall.
Why?
Don't say because she's bought out like a conspiracy theorist. Look into her actual reasons.
Take some time to look into the actual issue more, instead of just believing what people say and assuming special interests.
I don't think Glass Steagall should be reinstated. Are you going to accuse me of being bought off?
There are very good reasons why it should not be.
EquALLity wrote:4) Blatantly dishonestly accused Bernie Sanders of helping support gun violence in New York.
Maybe he did. Show me what she said, then prove he didn't.
I'd believe Hillary over Sanders.
She could have also been mistaken if it wasn't true.
EquALLity wrote:5) Having people campaign for her who say "There's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women"
Does everything you say on the phone right now represent Hillary? It's foolish to refuse support from any popular voice.
Sometimes campaigners make bad decisions. If they said that, it was probably a bad choice of words.
And fact checking...
http://time.com/4220323/madeleine-albright-place-in-hell-remark-apology/
That was Albright, who apologized for the remark there, with respect to the political context.
It's a popular catch phrase of hers, but she shouldn't have said it in a context that suggested that meant supporting Hillary specifically.
If you're condemning Hillary based on working with Albright, you have a lot of stones to look under for the people who campaigned for Sanders. That's really unreasonable.
EquALLity wrote:I'm glad you care so much about Trump not winning. What activism are you doing to stop it, if you're going to critique mine?

Just talking to a small number of people. I haven't put much time into it, vegan activism is more important.
EquALLity wrote:I'm not just saying that to be snarky, I really think you and everyone should volunteer. I want Hillary to win, despite her many flaws.
You'd do a better job of it if you didn't believe these bad things about her. Give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she's actually innocent of ALL the claims until proved guilty. And find good arguments against them so when you talk to people who believe these things you can debunk them.