(November 5, 2016 at 2:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Hillary doesn't have a stellar record on civil rights...and think about how shitty all the other things, we're not thinking about..must have been, to tank her ratings on that built up by her constant, very public and very successful devotion to minorities, women, and children?I'm not talking about Hillary, didn't you read the post? This isn't about how the president personally thinks, but about how they will shape the SCOTUS for the next generation. I don't care if Hillary personally calls people the N word and thinks Mexicans are rapists, as long as shee finds it politically positive for her voter base to appoint a socially liberal or at least moderate judge, then THAT is what matters.
Her stance on special interests isn't enough to outweigh the fact that she has been an enemy of the general interest, at a federal level, the entire time. Let that sink in. People think she;s going to support civil liberties..she's not, she's going to say what you want to hear, and then nullify what she's said at the general level, where you're not looking...which is what she's -always- done. That's how she maintains her unearned "centrist" cred. Giving a useful special interest "more rights" within a reduced overall bubble of "all rights" is -not- being a defender or promoter of civil rights. It's the exploitation of civil rights....to destroy them.
Honestly, the same goes for Trump. His personal opinions matter less than what actions he will take. In this case he's shown he will pander to his base and appoint/ nominate a socially conservative judge. if I thought he'd appoint even a moderate one, I wouldn't be half as worried about the prospect of his presidency.
Stupid autocorrect, I need to fix my original post.
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead