(July 9, 2016 at 11:32 am)dyresand Wrote:

(July 9, 2016 at 11:15 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Understood. I hope if someone else is nominated instead they have a chance of beating Trump better than she would if she was nominated

Jill Stein is the female Bernie Sanders.

Also this is a thing 

Isn't she anti vaccination?

(July 9, 2016 at 11:49 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 9, 2016 at 2:43 am)Losty Wrote: What now, though? My conscious and my politics both tell me that we cannot allow a Trump presidency. Hillary shouldn't even be the nominee. If you break the law on purpose and put the security of the entire nation at risk but you might not be sophisticated enough to know that that is illegal, you shouldn't even be allowed to run for president.

You cannot strip a citizen of the right to run for office without first convicting them. I think that's as it should be.

I disagree. If she loses security clearance she isn't qualified for the job. How could she do anything?

(July 9, 2016 at 11:50 am)Losty Wrote:

(July 9, 2016 at 11:32 am)dyresand Wrote: Jill Stein is the female Bernie Sanders.

Also this is a thing 

Isn't she anti vaccination?

Considering she attended Harvard Medical School and is a qualified physician, I wouldn't think she would be against vaccinations.

According the following law , Hilary should not be seeking office,am I right or no?
(edited for wrong link; now has correct link)
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

(July 9, 2016 at 11:51 am)Losty Wrote:

(July 9, 2016 at 11:49 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You cannot strip a citizen of the right to run for office without first convicting them. I think that's as it should be.

I disagree. If she loses security clearance she isn't qualified for the job. How could she do anything?

Well, that's a different kettle of fish. I'm speaking in principle; you're speaking in practicality.

(July 9, 2016 at 12:05 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: According the following law , Hilary should not be seeking office,am I right or no?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2072

Does she have a conviction for "false crop reporting"?

(July 9, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 9, 2016 at 12:05 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: According the following law , Hilary should not be seeking office,am I right or no?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2072

Does she have a conviction for "false crop reporting"?

Sorry wrong link:

I meant this one:
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

(July 9, 2016 at 11:53 am)Bella Morte Wrote:

(July 9, 2016 at 11:50 am)Losty Wrote: Isn't she anti vaccination?

Considering she attended Harvard Medical School and is a qualified physician, I wouldn't think she would be against vaccinations.

Yea looking further into it, appears to be just a false rumor.

(July 9, 2016 at 4:00 am)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: The Libertarian and Green Party candidates are polling close to 20% combined. Upset Republicans who aren't afraid of Hilary more than Donald (but who still hate her) will likely vote Libertarian and this may be enough to deny Donald the Oval Office. You don't need to vote for Hilary. Donald will be blocked from doing most things by the rest of the government anyway.

And 20% combined is barely enough to even be allowed to come to the debates.  You need to be polling 15% by five major national public opinion polls in order to even be allowed at the debate table. 

I don't think you know much about American politics if you think that Trump will be blocked from doing most things by the rest of the government anyway.  Republicans currently run the house and senate.  And they'll gladly let him throw whatever conservatives he wants on the Supreme Court.  If Hillary loses, then there's no chance that the Democrats take back the Senate or the House.  Worst of all, Trump could nominate up to five supreme court justices.  Clarence Thomas could step down, Scala's seat still isn't filled, Ginsburg is getting up there in age, so is Anthony Kennedy, and that's four right there.  Breyer is no spring chicken either, and could also die in the next four years.  That's five supreme court justices, and that's not even including the likes of Alito and Roberts.   Easily enough to overturn Roe v. Wade, or allow outrageous abortion restrictions.  Enough to allow forced c-sections for women.  Enough to overturn Obergfell, or allow religious discrimination against gay couples. 

The Libertarian and Green Party candidates (Johnson and Stein) aren't even on the ballot in all fifty states.  And it's likely they won't be.  Even if they manage to get on the ballot on every state, they still have to be polling 15% on five national polls in order to make it to the debates.  And even if they do that, they still won't get the exposure needed to overcome everything else.

I for one support Hillary.  While I don't agree with her on everything, I don't agree with any candidate on everything. I certainly agree with her more than I do any other candidate that has a shot at winning the election.  For me, that's enough. She's pro-choice, pro public education (she sent Chelsea to public school while they were in Arkansas, and never ran a Private University that was nothing more than a scam) she's pro gay rights (she had to turn around on it, but so did Obama) and she's pro-union.

(July 9, 2016 at 12:22 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote:

(July 9, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Does she have a conviction for "false crop reporting"?

Sorry wrong link:

I meant this one:
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

And again I ask: does she have a conviction for this?