The positive case for voting Hillary Clinton for president.

[Whateverist]

Tailoring a message is a generous way to describe her many competing, duplicitous, and sometimes mutually exclusive positions.  

I appreciate the value of political expediency and capital, but at some point you're playing the game solely for the sake of the game.  We've had about enough of that shit, haven't we?

(@ Vor, that's what I'm talkin about, have somebody else bust his shit fixing your fields,  I got some poor schmuck to fucking -destroy- his disks on a little 20 acre patch for what amounted to barely more than the cost of fuel )

Oh to be so pure at heart.  It would be touching if the result wasn't so sad.

[Whateverist]

I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but if next week you guys decide to entrust nuclear launch codes to the bigoted orange f*ck-muppet, I'm accepting Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior...

In a world where this odious blob of rectal puss can be the President of USA, reason has clearly failed - might as well give superstition a whirl.

Come on all you soft hearted pussies!  Hold your nose and vote for Hillary.  Do it for the nutter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Tailoring a message is a generous way to describe her many competing, duplicitous, and sometimes mutually exclusive positions.  

I appreciate the value of political expediency and capital, but at some point you're playing the game solely for the sake of the game.  We've had about enough of that shit, haven't we?

(@ Vor, that's what I'm talkin about, have somebody else bust his shit fixing your fields,  I got some poor schmuck to fucking -destroy- his disks on a little 20 acre patch for what amounted to barely more than the cost of fuel )

Oh to be so pure at heart.  It would be touching if the result wasn't so sad.

Pure of heart, lol.......no ones ever accused me of that.  I'm thinking of shit like having cosponsored a bill to criminalize flag burning - a year in jail and a 100k fine, which was obviously dropped, and then not a year later voting against an amendment to -precisely- the same effect.

So is she a civil rights bashing statist or is she just a panderer?  Which is worse, actually thinking it;s a good idea to criminalize flag burning, or thinking it;s a good idea to pander by pretending to be interested in criminalizing flag burning?  I mean, she could have pandered over something else, surely?  

Or, maybe espousing the position that we need nuclear, while simultaneously supporting the scuttling of our only nuclear waste storage facility...something the obama administration was keen on, ofc, so it was the party line, while they simultaneously convened a committee to see what needed to be done about the nuclear waste issue and - surprise surprise, yucca was our best bet.  

That's not just simple duplicity or even cronyism, it's fucking incompetence, and it doesn't really support the notion that she's a smart lady, so..if we want to assume that she is,..we have to appeal to something other than a mistake or general ignorance. In just those two examples we've discussed civil rights and energy/tech policy, two issues near and dear to me, and probably having nothing to do with any purity of heart on my part (and clearly not on hers, lol).

Owing to her long history in politics (taken by some to be a pro and others a con), I could go on, and on, and on....so while I could easily agree that she has the smarts, she doesn;t have the policies..and what policies she does have have..historically, been policies of convenience and popularity, not policies of determination or substance - the ones she -does- genuinely seem to be interested in advancing run the range of "wtf" to "fuck you", imo.

Before anyone objects, she has her flagship stuff..but even that is the political equivalent of the softest pitch ever thrown by anyone...so while that work is impressive, it doesn't make me think that she'll suddenly turn into something other than a lukewarm conservative in a liberal pantsuit.

[Minimalist]

goofed.

[Whateverist]

Oh to be so pure at heart.  It would be touching if the result wasn't so sad.

Pure of heart, lol.......no ones ever accused me of that.  I'm thinking of shit like having cosponsored a bill to criminalize flag burning - a year in jail and a 100k fine, which was obviously dropped, and then not a year later voting against an amendment to -precisely- the same effect.

So is she a civil rights bashing statist or is she just a panderer?  Which is worse, actually thinking it;s a good idea to criminalize flag burning, or thinking it;s a good idea to pander by pretending to be interested in criminalizing flag burning?  I mean, she could have pandered over something else, surely?  

Or, maybe espousing the position that we need nuclear, while simultaneously supporting the scuttling of our only nuclear waste storage facility...something the obama administration was keen on, ofc, so it was the party line, while they simultaneously convened a committee to see what needed to be done about the nuclear waste issue and - surprise surprise, yucca was our best bet.  

That's not just simple duplicity or even cronyism, it's fucking incompetence, and it doesn't really support the notion that she's a smart lady, so..if we want to assume that she is,..we have to appeal to something other than a mistake or general ignorance.  In just those two examples we've discussed civil rights and energy/tech policy, two issues near and dear to me, and probably having nothing to do with any purity of heart on my part (and clearly not on hers, lol).

Owing to her long history in politics (taken by some to be a pro and others a con), I could go on, and on, and on....so while I could easily agree that she has the smarts, she doesn;t have the policies..and what policies she does have have..historically, been policies of convenience and popularity, not policies of determination or substance - the ones she -does- genuinely seem to be interested in advancing run the range of "wtf" to "fuck you", imo.  

Before anyone objects, she has her flagship stuff..but even that is the political equivalent of the softest pitch ever thrown by anyone...so while that work is impressive, it doesn't make me think that she'll suddenly turn into something other than a lukewarm conservative in a liberal pantsuit.

Thanks.  Sometimes I need to be reminded just how grimy the politicians I'm in bed with really are.  It is what I suspect going in but, you know, there are natural filtering processes which dampen the cognitive dissonance.  Still I don't expect politics to be anything other than practical, involving many compromises with many devils.  Now to refocus on the good she is also trying to bring about if she can and my gratitude to her for making all those faustian bargains and taking on what to me seems the most odious of jobs.  There, that's better.

[Whateverist]

Oh to be so pure at heart.  It would be touching if the result wasn't so sad.

Pure of heart, lol.......no ones ever accused me of that.  

Got your cherry, dude.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, I can't allow you that out.  Everyone who can do anything about it will share an equal responsibility for either doing that little something they could have done or for holding out for pie in the sky (assholes) or for falling for Trump's totalitarian fantasies (suckers).  If Clinton goes on an imperialist military crusade I'm more than ready to own my bad.  You boys just be ready to do the same.

What would I be responsible for, not voting for clinton before she went on an imperialist rampage?  Not voting for trump before he goes full hitler? Not sure how that works.  Look, it's your game, you feel compelled to play.  You're satisfied with the rules and the players.  You are complicit and cooperating.  I am not.  

Thanks.  Sometimes I need to be reminded just how grimy the politicians I'm in bed with really are.  It is what I suspect going in but, you know, there are natural filtering processes which dampen the cognitive dissonance.  Still I don't expect politics to be anything other than practical, involving many compromises with many devils.  Now to refocus on the good she is also trying to bring about if she can and my gratitude to her for making all those faustian bargains and taking on what to me seems the most odious of jobs.  There, that's better.

See, you think she's made a faustian bargain in an odious job.  I propose to you that the good she's done, loudly, was the bargain she made..so that she could do the far greater sum of things that she -doesn't- like to harp about in a taped interview...and that she likes the job very, very much.

I do appreciate that you agree with some policies of hers and think shes a credible candidate whose done good - you should vote for her. I won't because I don't actually attribute "the good she's done" to her anymore than I attribute all the labor in the field to myself...I'm just the public face. Meanwhile...I -don't- agree with her policies, and on more than a few issues I don't think she actually has one - just ad copy that tested well.

Surely we can both stand on our relative principles and assessments...which aren't beyond the pale of reasonable expectations in either case, not examples of starry eyed dreaming -or- rampant cynicism. You want her to continue doing the sorts of things she's been doing. I don't. I won't blame you if trump gets elected, you can extend the courtesy to me. The worst I'll accuse you of if hillary gets elected is being swindled,and cmon, we've all been swindled once or twice. No sweat off our sacks..it;s not like you're going to throw yourself off a bridge if she doesn't live up to your expectations...and I won't be doing that either if she -does- live up to mine. I'll just wait four more years to see if the next batch of corpses they prop up are even remotely acceptable ( )....and so will you.

[Tiberius]

As a farmer, I pay much more to the county I live in for property taxes than I do in federal income tax (by more than 2X) so I have quite an interest in the local races.

-however-

I'm almost 60, my health insurance premiums are in the 5 figures, my coverage was just canceled, I'm looking for new coverage, I have to find a physician that's covered by the plan and isn't put off by some 'lifestyle' concerns and has some experience with 12 Steppers and [sigh] geriatric medicine.  And I think it's clear I ain't been too fucking happy about changes to the health care system . . . . .

But was it really so peachy before Obama care?  Where you living?

Exactly, and I feel like people miss the point when they look at Obamacare's failures. The original law as it was proposed was not what got passed. Instead, we got a watered down version thanks to the Republicans. The Republicans destroyed Obamacare, nobody else. They are ultimately responsible for the state of healthcare in this country.

Look, Clinton gave a decent summary of the successes of Obamacare in the 2nd debate, despite what the Republicans tried to do to stop it:

1) Insurers aren't allowed to charge women more for health insurance just because they are women.
2) Insurers aren't allowed to discriminate against people for pre-existing health conditions.
3) People under the age of 26 are allowed to stay on their parents' plans.

In addition to this, over 20 million people who didn't have insurance now have it.

The Republicans want to totally destroy that progress and give power back to the insurance companies. Millions will lose insurance.

The Democrats want to fix Obamacare by patching the holes left by the Republicans.

[Whateverist]

Thank you! Can I ask what you think about socialized medical care in general. I know you lean libertarian and come from a country with nationalized medical care so I'd be interested to hear your views on what the best fix for this country would be. I tend to think single payer is needed. I don't prefer Obamacare as is, but I prefer it over the old status quo until we can get something better.

[Tiberius]

Healthcare should be free from the point of use, period. It needs to be seen more as a basic human right more than a luxury.

Besides, contributing taxes to pay for healthcare is no different to paying premiums, apart from the fact that when the government pays for medical expenses they can set reasonable costs for services, rather than the ridiculous dance that hospitals and insurance companies currently do.

The best way forward for America is Clinton's plan: let the government create their own insurance plan. That should at least force other insurance companies to get in line.