Drumpf?

[PETE_ROSE]

Does anyone have anything substantial to offer as to my original question? What can we expect from a Clinton Presidency? Why should we vote for her? What are her meaningful accomplishments and qualifications for the position? I have only seen one or two tangible offerings.

Everyone seems very anti Trump and appears to have a concern for him having access to the nuclear arsenal and launch codes. I understand most everyone does not have a working knowledge of how that process works but it is definitely not as implied here. The President does not and cannot have his finger over the red button, it doesn't exist. He could not merely walk into the situation room and order the subsequent annihilation of another nation or a McDonald's hamburger stand. There is an authentication process that must be adhered to and I have no doubt the Admiral at STRATCOMM is going to launch so much as a spitball at anyone without following protocol.

So, does anyone, have any informative nuggets to share as to why we should vote for Mrs Clinton that is not because her opponent is untenable?

[Minimalist]

What can we expect from a Clinton Presidency?

You sound like one of those Stein/Johnson types:  All we have to do is elect a president and everything will be hunky-dory.  Does not work that way.  What are the parameters of your question?  Do the Dems retake the Senate?  The House?  Neither?  Both?

It makes a difference.  Do the republicunts remain the party of "no?"  Gladly sacrificing the good of the country for their petty political gains? 

When you have an answer to those questions we can consider what she will be able to accomplish.

And Drumpf is a racist moron who is probably insane.

[PETE_ROSE]

Min, when do you ever find time for sleep? You are the most prolific poster here! I wonder if the servers are in your basement...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Does anyone have anything substantial to offer as to my original question?  What can we expect from a Clinton Presidency?  Why should we vote for her?  What are her meaningful accomplishments and qualifications for the position? I have only seen one or two tangible offerings.

[...]

So, does anyone, have any informative nuggets to share as to why we should vote for Mrs Clinton that is not because her opponent is untenable?

She's certainly qualified on the world-stage, knowing many of the major players personally and having interacted with them over four years. She understands the language of diplomacy -- how to tell someone bad news without making a new enemy. She understands how to work the State Department bureaucracy. She's been in Congress for a long time and knows how to push a (ahem) bill through.

In short, she's actually worked inside the government and understands where the levers are and what they do.

What do I expect from such a Presidency? More of the same as we've had, I'm afraid. But I'd rather that than some assnugget who plumps his own virtues even as he's blind to his own failings. Trump couldn't guide a turd into a toilet without second-guessing the bowl and proclaiming his aim the reason for a successful flush. And yes, that is a remark about his incompetence for the office. If you don't think the incompetence of one candidate is reason enough to give the other honest consideration, I don't know what more to say except please stay home and don't vote for an incompetent fool.

You'd like to discuss her qualities without regard to her opponent, but that's disingenuous. We're not judging one person, we're judging two people. If you're honest, you'll address Trump's shortcomings.

We'll see how honest you are.

Choices aren't made in vacuums, and you'll have to answer for your vote. I hope your grandchildren won't rake you over the coals for the foolishness of being so partisan you cannot place your country first -- but if you're guilty of that charge, you will have earnt their calumny.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Min, when do you ever find time for sleep?  You are the most prolific poster here!  I wonder if the servers are in your basement...

You should probably answer his questions and avoid snide remarks about posting.

Choose substance, Pete. You can do it.

[PETE_ROSE]

Thump, how do you think our stock market will do under the two candidates? Thank you for your response, it was well formed and I did get a good laugh out of your Trump flushing the toilet remark.

[Kosh]

Does anyone have anything substantial to offer as to my original question?  What can we expect from a Clinton Presidency?  Why should we vote for her?  What are her meaningful accomplishments and qualifications for the position? I have only seen one or two tangible offerings.

Everyone seems very anti Trump and appears to have a concern for him having access to the nuclear arsenal and launch codes.   I understand most everyone does not have a working knowledge of how that process works but it is definitely not as implied here.  The President does not and cannot have his finger over the red button, it doesn't exist.  He could not merely walk into the situation room and order the subsequent annihilation of another nation or a McDonald's hamburger stand.  There is an authentication process that must be adhered to and I have no doubt the Admiral at STRATCOMM is going to launch so much as a spitball at anyone without following protocol.

So, does anyone, have any informative nuggets to share as to why we should vote for Mrs Clinton that is not because her opponent is untenable?

Lets be honest here.  Your not really interested in an answer of why "we the people" should vote for Hillary, and your definitely not interested in reasons why "you" should vote for her.  The question is obviously a poorly veiled attempt show people that there isn't a reason to vote for her (can't come up with a reason can you).  I'd be willing to bet that anyone reading this thread and plans on voting already has their mind made up.  This isn't an election where people get to choose between two qualified candidates and need to carefully weigh the minutiae to make a choice.  This is pretty fucking easy choice from where I stand.
 
I'll give you this. 
 
Part of Hillary's problem is that she's been in public office a very long time.  Republicans have know for decades that Hillary becoming the Democratic nominee was a real possibility, and so for decades they have been involved in tearing her down.  What we have now are the same old hyperbole repeated ad nauseam for so long that people believe it to be 
true.  Just like the bible.  Is Hillary perfect?  No way.  I would probably prefer any of the past Democratic losers; Al Gore, John Kerry, or Bernie Sanders over her.  Last I looked, they weren't options.  If the Republican candidate was remotely qualified (non tea party social moderate), I might consider voting for a third party.  I voted for Perot in 92 so it's not unprecedented for me.  Not this year though.  I can't in good continence throw my vote away with the possibility of Trump being president.  Sometime Democracy is keeping the greater of two evils from winning.

Why Hillary?

1) I believe she is infinitely more intelligent, empathetic, consistent, and in control vs Trump.  She will surround herself with other intelligent and qualified people.
2) I believe the economy will do much better under Clinton.  We live in a global economy.  Isolationist practices will tank the economy. 
3) I don't believe Clinton will advance progressive ideals, but I also don't think she will roll back recent gains.   Status quo isn't ideal, but it's better than going backwards.
4) The next president will pick at least one supreme court justice.  That is probably a bigger deal than the person who sits in the oval office.
 
I could go on.. but why bother.

[PETE_ROSE]

You'd like to discuss her qualities without regard to her opponent, but that's disingenuous. We're not judging one person, we're judging two people. If you're honest, you'll address Trump's shortcomings.

We'll see how honest you are.

I was looking to learn a bit more about Mrs Clinton and her running mate. As for Trump, you want honesty? I think he is a poor example of a leader, he is a divisive and polarizing individual in the negative sense. I do like that he is authentic and I actually think I am hearing his honest opinion; and not some well thought out precanned response that was penned to appeal to certain demographics.

I like his idea of questioning the US and our current level of involvement in NATO. I like that he wants to negotiate trade with other nations from a position of strength. It appears we give up much here. I would like to see American interests first, that means current citizens needs are at the forefront of our priority list, before all others. I don't particularly agree with what I understand to be his views on healthcare. I'm not a fan of Obamacare but it is a step in the right direction in some areas but needs improvement.

I am insulted by Mrs Clinton's condescending attitude and her air of being above the rules and our laws. I really dislike how she panders to minorities. She appears very disingenuous when speaking to African Amercian audiences. I was raised and still maintain very close, relationships (professional and personal) with persons of all races. Both candidates I doubt have any close, personal ties like this and come across as huge phonies in this area.
Honest enough?

[SteelCurtain]

Pfft only two options my ass. Sorry but Johnson is 2% away from getting into the debates. But you don't want to hear about good candidates you wanna hear about the lesser of two evils >.>

But still 35-40% behind nationally.

Sorry, but there are only two people who have a legitimate chance to be president. That's not to say that a third party vote can't be useful in certain states, but to think that there are more than two people who can be voted into the office is just naive.

---

For the OP, Clinton represents liberal values, yes. But she also represents stability. Trump, the man who cannot even back off grieving Muslim parents because they "attacked" him (like everyone else did at the DNC), the man who can't leave Twitter long enough to let a white supremacist tweet go un-retweeted, the man who scammed small business out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and military veterans out of tens of thousands of dollars and who had to be hounded to actually give the money to the VA charity that he promised it to---that man represents volatility.

He is an authoritarian---he doesn't in the least sense represent conservative government. His promises---literally everything he is talking about is anti-conservative and represents government reach into private lives. A religious test for entering into the country? Censoring private press? Telling people we'll all be saying "Merry Christmas" again? Abolishing Roe v. Wade? All of those things are government getting bigger and more restrictive to freedom. Reneging on national debt and forsaking NATO allies will be disastrous for European diplomacy, and his ties to Russia have to be scary. THAT will hurt your bottom line.

Lastly, if you like the Republican Party, I truly believe that voting for Hillary Clinton is the only way to save it. If Donald Trump wins or narrowly loses, he will have ignited that racist, bigoted, angry white base, and the GOP will be gone. It will fracture and who knows if they'll ever recover. If Hillary wins, the GOP will have another moratorium, learn nothing, and they'll change the party rules so that Donald Trump cannot happen again. Then they'll go about the business of obstructing in every way they can, blaming it on Democrats, and hyping it up for the next election.

[SteelCurtain]

I was looking to learn a bit more about Mrs Clinton and her running mate. As for Trump, you want honesty? I think he is a poor example of a leader, he is a divisive and polarizing individual in the negative sense. I do like that he is authentic and I actually think I am hearing his honest opinion; and not some well thought out precanned response that was penned to appeal to certain demographics.

So you are put off by someone who thinks about her audience before she speaks? I am confused by this rhetoric. How is it that being measured and thinking about how your words will affect others a negative thing? On the other side, how is it that you want the person who is essentially the worlds most important diplomat to just spout out whatever nonsense he feels like whenever he feels like it? How is this a positive thing?

I like his idea of questioning the US and our current level of involvement in NATO. I like that he wants to negotiate trade with other nations from a position of strength. It appears we give up much here. I would like to see American interests first, that means current citizens needs are at the forefront of our priority list, before all others. I don't particularly agree with what I understand to be his views on healthcare. I'm not a fan of Obamacare but it is a step in the right direction in some areas but needs improvement.

I agree with restructuring NATO, it's original use is far past, and European countries, by and large, take advantage of American military spending. But there's the double edged sword. In order to have a benefit from restructuring or leaving NATO, we would have to downsize our military presence in Europe. Otherwise we are just making ourselves more enemies. Now, if we were to leverage our military spending for better trade deals, that would be one thing. But if just one country called our bluff---you'd have a Republican trying to pass a reduction in military spending---that ain't gonna happen.

As far as immigrants go---we do take care of citizens before immigrants. I'm not sure why you think we don't. Well--I have an inkling why you'd think that. The party that deals in feelings rather than facts has touched you.

Trumps plan for Obamacare is "Get it outta here" and "We'll make something way better." In other words---no fucking plan. The better plan is to take the good things about ObamaCare and move towards a single payer plan, remove the profit motive in saving people's lives.

I am insulted by Mrs Clinton's condescending attitude and her air of being above the rules and our laws. I really dislike how she panders to minorities. She appears very disingenuous when speaking to African Amercian audiences. I was raised and still maintain very close, relationships (professional and personal) with persons of all races. Both candidates I doubt have any close, personal ties like this and come across as huge phonies in this area.
Honest enough?

Can you point to her condescending attitude? Other than her dismissal of most theocratic and divisive conservative platform ideas---what is it that she is condescending to you about? I'm not saying she isn't, I just don't know where you're coming from. I am African American, and I don't feel she's being disingenuous to me. I think she has a lot to make up for, seeing how her husband and her supported the War on Drugs and privatizing prisons. But she's been good to minority and underserved communities in the past. Her work as a young lawyer is proof enough for me.