Hillary's forces target Bush donors

[Mermaid]

Part of it is probably because this time around, we actually have a candidate that's a good guy. Not the lesser of two evils, but someone many actually want to vote for. And a dirty shirt always looks worse when put next to a clean one.

I agree. Sanders is the best of guys. I am a real fan.
I also think Obama is a genuinely good guy.

[ReptilianPeon]

What Hilary's campaign is saying is: "What's the difference between Democrat and Republican? We are basically a single party country now. When it comes to screwing the general populace we work together." And it's true. The Republicans and Democrats only really differ on some social issues. Both parties wanted the Panama free trade deal, they both want never ending war and don't care about the crumbling middle class in America.

I don't think Sanders is perfect - he has said some things I didn't like - but he seems a lot better than what else is on offer (besides Jill Stein). I don't feel Sanders has spoken up enough about the third world, for example. He sounds like a decent and principled person nonetheless.

[AFTT47]

What Hilary's campaign is saying is: "What's the difference between Democrat and Republican? We are basically a single party country now.

No, YOU are saying that.

[ReptilianPeon]

What Hilary's campaign is saying is: "What's the difference between Democrat and Republican? We are basically a single party country now.

No, YOU are saying that.

So when Charles Koch says "'Possible Clinton could be better than GOP nominee" that doesn't bother you? It doesn't bother you that Hilary is pandering to Republican donors? Bush donors of all people. The Bush people that created the mess in Iraq?

And, look, anybody who gets their foreign policy advice a war criminal is evil. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. This is a man who supported Pakistan whilst it raped and slaughtered Hindus and others in the Bangladesh Liberation War. Pakistan was commited genocide in Bangladesh and Kissinger was fine with that.  And what threat has Vietnam ever posed to the United States? This is yet another person who loves pointless wars.

[robvalue]

Bush donors? Is that like when someone leaves their pubes to medical science?

[ReptilianPeon]

Bush donors? Is that like when someone leaves their pubes to medical science?

Ah, good one. I like it. Thanks for that.

[AFTT47]

No, YOU are saying that.

So when Charles Koch says "'Possible Clinton could be better than GOP nominee" that doesn't bother you? It doesn't bother you that Hilary is pandering to Republican donors? Bush donors of all people. The Bush people that created the mess in Iraq?

And, look, anybody who gets their foreign policy advice a war criminal is evil. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. This is a man who supported Pakistan whilst it raped and slaughtered Hindus and others in the Bangladesh Liberation War. Pakistan was commited genocide in Bangladesh and Kissinger was fine with that.  And what threat has Vietnam ever posed to the United States? This is yet another person who loves pointless wars.

No, none of that bothers me.

1. Hillary has no control over what Charles Koch says. It's hardly surprising that he would think she would make a better President than Trump though. Trump is a fucking train wreck. If he tanks the economy, everyone is going to lose out including Koch.

2. Of COURSE she's going to go after Republican voters who are dissatisfied with their nominee. When running for election, one endeavors to get the most votes. Obviously, if you have an opportunity to to turn voters who would normally be out of your reach, you do it. I'm sure she'll reach out to primary voters who voted for Bernie as well but exit polls have indicated they will be an easy sell. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like 85% of Sanders voters who said they would support Clinton while only 65% of Republican voters would support Trump if he was the nominee. What she's doing makes perfect sense.

3. Calling Henry Kissinger a war criminal makes it hard for me to even take you seriously.You could use your type of argument to label any leader who has ever supported a military action a war criminal. People who fight wars are often not nice people. There are almost always things that go that shouldn't. That's not an argument to avoid war if there is no acceptable alternative.

[ReptilianPeon]

I wouldn't vote for somebody endorsed by Charles Koch.

But she's not really going after Republican voters. You appear to be conflating mega donors and regular voters. When Hilary attacks Trump, she doesn't do it with policy substance; it's like she's preaching to the converted (many people already agree he is hateful, and those that don't aren't going to be swayed by some lame Hilary advert).

All Trump has to do to be beat Hilary is repeat the following things:

1. Hilary cannot be trusted; she's crooked e.g. e-mails and other scandals.
2. Hillary is controlled by the donors.
3. The Clintons came to my wedding.
4. I donated to Hilary's senate campaign.
5. I donated to the Clinton Foundation.
6. I played golf with Bill Clinton.

Not, not everyone who goes to war is a war criminal . But here's the thing: Kissinger gave his support to Pakistan whilst it killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions by some estimates, of people in Bangladesh. He worked with Islamists who played their part in the genocide of the people of Bangladesh. If even Kissinger is not a war criminal then who is? Somebody who turns a blind eye to genocide is not somebody I can take seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpfVEaLAmA

[AFTT47]

I wouldn't vote for somebody endorsed by Charles Koch.

But she's not really going after Republican voters. You appear to be conflating mega donors and regular voters. When Hilary attacks Trump, she doesn't do it with policy substance; it's like she's preaching to the converted (many people already agree he is hateful, and those that don't aren't going to be swayed by some lame Hilary advert).

All Trump has to do to be beat Hilary is repeat the following things:

1. Hilary cannot be trusted; she's crooked e.g. e-mails and other scandals.
2. Hillary is controlled by the donors.
3. The Clintons came to my wedding.
4. I donated to Hilary's senate campaign.
5. I donated to the Clinton Foundation.
6. I played golf with Bill Clinton.

That would only work if there were enough gullible people like you who believed it AND if Trump's own baggage wasn't perceived as worse. I don't think either of those conditions will be true.

In any event, the time to make these arguments was at the start of the primary season. They're irrelevant now because for better or worse, Hilary Clinton will be the nominee. She wasn't coronated. We went through the primary process and the voters chose her over Bernie Sanders. You don't have to like it and I won't rub it in your face but that's the way it is. You now have a choice between voting for the lesser of evils (from your point of view), voting for a 3rd party candidate or staying home. It doesn't look like there will be any kind of 3rd party liberal candidate with any name recognition at all so you won't be advancing anyone's cause by doing that. So voting 3rd party or staying home will only increase the likelihood of a President far worse than Hillary Clinton could possibly be - even if you do believe the lies about her. I don't think you'll have to agonize over it though. Come November, I think the polls will make it clear that Hillary Clinton will win.

By the way, I went through this same thing in 2008. While I like Obama's policies, I feared he would be a weak President so I favored Hillary in the primary. I was pissed when Obama won but I held my nose and voted for him in the general elections of 2008 and 2012.

[ReptilianPeon]

In terms of third part candidates, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party was included in a poll against Trump and Clinton and he got 11%. That's pretty good. And, as such, he's pitching himself as an alternative.