2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Ivysaur]

I'd rather have a woman who keeps a private email server than a person who wakes up at 3 AM to send an insulting tweetstorm at a woman who dared suggest he ever did anything wrong because he cannot allow anybody to say such a thing and walk away undisturbed after that.

Anyway, here is a list of about 200 outrageous and disqualifying things he has said/done: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...to_be_president_here_are_141_reasons_why.html

To claim that "they are pretty much the same", then your image of what they are has to be preeeety distorted. Or maybe you think that (scrolls randomly) uhh... "Keeping a collection of Adolf Hitler's collected speeches in a cabinet by his bed" (what? what the fuck?) or "Attempting to seize and bulldoze the home of an Atlantic City, New Jersey, widow under eminent domain" is something normal for all politicians.

But thanks! I was mystified by the fact that any sane human being could possibly consider voting for this individual, now I kind of understand why. It's terribly sad, but at least I kinda get it.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Spoiler:

I'd rather have a woman who keeps a private email server than a person who wakes up at 3 AM to send an insulting tweetstorm at a woman who dared suggest he ever did anything wrong because he cannot allow anybody to say such a thing and walk away undisturbed after that.

Anyway, here is a list of about 200 outrageous and disqualifying things he has said/done: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...to_be_president_here_are_141_reasons_why.html

To claim that "they are pretty much the same", then your image of what they are has to be preeeety distorted. Or maybe you think that (scrolls randomly) uhh... "Keeping a collection of Adolf Hitler's collected speeches in a cabinet by his bed" (what? what the ****?) or "Attempting to seize and bulldoze the home of an Atlantic City, New Jersey, widow under eminent domain" is something normal for all politicians.

But thanks! I was mystified by the fact that any sane human being could possibly consider voting for this individual, now I kind of understand why. It's terribly sad, but at least I kinda get it.

I wouldn't bring up eminent domain. The Clinton library is a prime example of this. Not only that, but eminent domain has been utilized in over 41 states from 1998 to 2003 (clinton was in office during some of this, by the way) in over 10,000 cases of eminent domain. I advise you to read up on the institute for justice.

Eminent domain also has a few 'new' names that it has gone by as well, such as governmental condemnation and civil forfeiture. The Clinton administration is far from innocent on this one. To say that Trump is solely responsible for eminent domain and that Clinton is clean on this is naive, the IJ proves this. So getting all uppity about this issue is a bit strange considering the Clinton administration has done much of the same thing in the past.

Further more, I would be suspicious of the Condé Nast company, the very same company that publishes such fine rags such as Vogue, teen Vogue, Glamour, Brides, Golf Digest and Wired. None of which are politically rooted to dedicated world news. Further more, Wired alone was crafted by a self proclaimed 'radical libertarian' and Wired used to own Reddit as well, so I know how factual Reddit can be.

This also brings up Slate's reliability, which is notorious for liberal idealism. They have also been criticized for taking stances against wrong or incorrect positions in the past. Publishing an opinion article hardly counts towards factual realism anways. Being criticized on not knowing what Brexit meant is hardly a disqualifying factor. Brexit is a relatively knew term invented to refer to the British exit from the UN, so it would be the same as not knowing what lol or idk or smh means. Not knowing abbreviations and short hand slang as a criticism? So that's now a disqualifying factor for any job application now I guess. That's like me expecting you to know what New Jack means.

They also criticize him for saying 'good job' to Turkey for stopping a coup by the 'Peace at Home' council, a council that began its coup by shooting at police officers. Keep in mind that Turkey is a democratic state. So, they stopped radicals that wanted to cease operating as a democratic state and employed violence to get what they wanted under the guise of 'Peace at Home'. Further even, was that it seems that sole blame of civilian casualties lies on the government itself. Give me a break. Like I said, opinion pieces. That, and I can't find a comprehensive list of sourced from the Slate article you linked me to.

The Clinton administration has plenty of skeletons in the closet, of which have been strung up and used for personal gain under officially sanctioned governmental agency. So I weigh 'which is worse' based upon what I've experienced and what I've learned. Is it worse to have someone whose checkered history hasn't been in office before? Or do I vote for someone who is well versed in the ways of manipulating governmental power for one's own gain?

Like I said, a turkey is a turkey. Both of the candidates are equally poor choices despite what you may or may not believe. They both have bad sides, they both are not ideal candidates the only difference being that I know Clinton has been in office, she's been fired from a political position for incompetence, she's lobbied and used her office for political gain.

She's already abused my trust for years, and I don't feel like voting for her. There's no reason to be overly snide. I just don't feel like voting for someone that has abused their governmental position previously and has shown such disregard to that effect. So what's to say what else that individual might do? I just don't want to find out. Feel free to disagree, but just don't want you to go believing that the Clinton's are squeaky clean.

 

[Ivysaur]

I know that Clinton is not squeaky-clean, that she has a ton of skeletons and that she might be pretty uninspiring to anybody looking for someone "different". But this is a matter of symbolism. Clinton represents politics as usual. Sanders represented an idealistic, clean, principled change looking for equality and redistribution of wealth. Trump represents change too, but a different kind of "chamge": white nationalism, racial profiling, "winner-takes-all" economics, "not paying taxes makes me smart", a very strong personalistic narcissism (which is a very desirable trait in any ruler) and an utter disregard for the basic etiquette of politics.

Between Clinton's éminence grise politics and Sanders' "revolution", the latter is far more inspiring. But between Clinton's blandness and Trump's alt-right takeover, I'd very much prefer the porridge, thank you.

Plus honestly, how can you trust a businessman who manages to make a $916,000,000 loss in a single year?

 

[CoffeeDrink]

To be fair, a 'winner takes all' attitude might have been needed during '08 when the car companies tanked as well as the banks. She voted to assist the sleazy, greasy business men/car sales persons that failed, horrendously so.

Was it because a fluke? Did these businesses fail due to someone else's fault? No, they were wholly responsible for their own take down. The bailout saw billions sunk into an industry that failed to check itself and passed the buck to you and I. Haven't seen a dime, have you? Clinton also stated she voted for the bailout because she was asked to. Regardless on whether or not Trump backed the bailout or not, she voted in favor of aiding a decaying industry that hasn't paid anyone back fully for their troubles.

Besides, trusting someone who lost money over someone on the take is a bad bet I will not take. For me, it's not really up to much debate, because I'd trust a tinfoil hat wearing homeless man over the well dressed confidence artist any day. I said before, Hillary has proven to me that she's willing to take the bad guy's money so I doubt I'll trust her over another candidate.

Also, as a side note, I do hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a survey-analysis spanning from '96 to '00 found that over 94% of corporate entities owned by US based companies paid 0% of 4% income tax, according to the Wallstreet Journal (Feb '04. GAO-04-358. McKinnon, John D.) So, in hindsight I think that it's still fair to say that the vast majority of all US companies pay little or no federal income tax or any taxes at all for that matter.

So why, out of all the mass of the ocean, should I support a morally corrupt individual that has abused her power of office. She received funds from the banks to lobby for them, she voted to give my money, and your money to a company that failed because their product was inferior to other competitors. Did Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Aston Martin, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, BMW go limping back to their country asking for handouts? No. She's a known acquaintance to the very same crooks that she claims she's against. I'm still going to stick with the untested candidate. Trump may have lied to me, but he sure as hell didn't lie to me for 30 odd years with the ability to cause serious harm. So again, Clinton is a damn lying liar and I won't have it. I'm through with her and her husband's bullshit. She represents everything I vehemently despise. She cheats, lies, steals (you brought up ED, so...), takes money from big business, money from pharmaceutical corporations and wants me to think everything is all fine and dandy. So yeah, I feel justified voting the opposite way around this time. I've been burned time and again by their administration and I'm fed up. I may not know what's in store with Trump, but I can imagine what's in store with Hillary, and that's enough for me. Between the two, I dislike one of them so much that despite warnings against it I'm voting for the newbie.

That and Clinton supports terrorism. How, you ask? Well, by taking money from them of course! Why should I trust some greedy troll that accepts cash, cheque or charge from governments that punish homosexuality with death? Isn't that enough for me to warrant a turn in the other direction? She did say she'd help the gay community out right? So why take money from the same people that would lop the heads of the community you said you'd protect? Doesn't make sense to me. Imagine it was me who'd promise to help the Jews, but instead turn around and accept cash from the SS to not help the Jews I said I'd protect. I hope the picture is a tad clearer on my viewpoint on that.

Clinton is seasoned and experienced politician, but an old snake is just as venomous. So yeah, the deals she's made with these people sickens me and I'm not going to vote for someone that has proven to me that she's not afraid to abuse her power of office for personal gain.

Also, fun fact. George Washington embezzled governmental funds.

 

[Hands]

That and Clinton supports terrorism. How, you ask? Well, by taking money from them of course! Why should I trust some greedy troll that accepts cash, cheque or charge from governments that punish homosexuality with death? Isn't that enough for me to warrant a turn in the other direction? She did say she'd help the gay community out right? So why take money from the same people that would lop the heads of the community you said you'd protect? Doesn't make sense to me. Imagine it was me who'd promise to help the Jews, but instead turn around and accept cash from the SS to not help the Jews I said I'd protect. I hope the picture is a tad clearer on my viewpoint on that..

I don't know if you can call Saudi Arabia and Bahrain terrorist groups, I mean their track records are absolutely awful but they're closer to dictatorships than terrorist cells.

Although she has directly supported terrorist cells in the past in Libya, but that's business as usual for the US State Dept now I guess.

I (and I know this sounds strange given our usual relationship) actually agree with you over her behavior, especially when it comes to, as you said, her apparent self championing of LBGT causes and groups. Her piggybacking and prostituting of minority groups and their struggles really annoys me considering her toxic legacy against poc and the lbgt community. A snake in a wig is still a snake.

 

[gimmepie]

I don't know if you can call Saudi Arabia and Bahrain terrorist groups, I mean their track records are absolutely awful but they're closer to dictatorships than terrorist cells.

Although she has directly supported terrorist cells in the past in Libya, but that's business as usual for the US State Dept now I guess.

I (and I know this sounds strange given our usual relationship) actually agree with you over her behavior, especially when it comes to, as you said, her apparent self championing of LBGT causes and groups. Her piggybacking and prostituting of minority groups and their struggles really annoys me considering her toxic legacy against poc and the lbgt community. A snake in a wig is still a snake.

A snake in a wig might still be a snake but it's also still safer than a loaded gun and that's what Trump is. Hillary obviously has flaws but she at least knows how to be a politician and isn't going to embaress your country on the international stage.

 

[Esper]

So there's a really interesting piece from The Atlantic I read. Basically, it says that just by being a major party candidate, Clinton is going to trigger lots of people to a sexist backlash whether she wins or not, and it suggests that, her scandals aside, the anger that people have for her is way higher than is normally warranted of political candidates.

Over the past few years, political scientists have suggested that, counterintuitively, Barack Obama?s election may have led to greater acceptance by whites of racist rhetoric. Something similar is now happening with gender. Hillary Clinton?s candidacy is sparking the kind of sexist backlash that decades of research would predict. If she becomes president, that backlash could convulse American politics for years to come.

It cites several studies about the attitudes men have regarding women in positions of power and/or positions traditionally held by men, which it says are

relevant because the Americans who dislike [Clinton] most are those who most fear emasculation. According to the Public Religion Research Institute, Americans who ?completely agree? that society is becoming ?too soft and feminine? were more than four times as likely to have a ?very unfavorable? view of Clinton as those who ?completely disagree.? And the presidential-primary candidate whose supporters were most likely to believe that America is becoming feminized?more likely by double digits than supporters of Ted Cruz?was Donald Trump.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/fear-of-a-female-president/497564/

 

[CoffeeDrink]

A snake in a wig might still be a snake but it's also still safer than a loaded gun and that's what Trump is. Hillary obviously has flaws but she at least knows how to be a politician and isn't going to embaress your country on the international stage.

We're already the laughing stock of the world. I don't see how much of a difference Trump or Clinton would make. Remember, this is the country that went other the UN to complain about Internet bullies (see: trolls), where most people that are part of the UN wished their only problem was Internet bullies. You see, we aren't ever viewed in a favorable light, and with our two faced stance on what is going down in Syria, it isn't hard to see why.

We like to back terrorists, evidently. Reagan did it, Bush did it, Clinton backed em, Bush Jr did it, Obama does it. It just never seems to end. We back the bad guy, and I hate it. We have people that have denounced duly elected officials and have even backed war criminals over the collective power of the people because, you know, communism.

Besides, a loaded gun by itself isn't inherently dangerous. I have a loaded shotgun under my couch in fact. You don't have to keep an eye on a gun because without people (i.e. power) it can do no damage. Clinton on the other hand, has embezzled millions from their aid foundation. So forgive me if I get confused as to why you'd choose a guaranteed death with a venomous snake over potentially shooting yourself in the foot.

Her foreign policy is a mess. We've seen her lie through her teeth, and she's a duly elected official. You see, the difference I see is a business man and a politician. She has a duty to hold herself up and above that of her opponent. She is supposed to do what is best for the American people, but has failed time and again to do so.

She had the chance, she had the power but has done nothing to better the country or help those under her purview. Clinton has had 3 decades to fix things and she has squandered 3 decades. She lies, she cheats, she steals, she supports bad practices, two faced, sick, scheming, and a shill (some of these are personal opinions).

Sum: I don't think Trump will make us look any worse for wear.

Clinton is a known (everything bad that corruption does insert here take your pick, place your bets, step right up ladies and gentlemen.) and does it under the banner of an elected official. You and I would probably be jailed if those were our emails (that's not the only bad thing she's done).

Loaded guns are safer than venomous snakes, and I'd rather have a gun than deal with a lethal snake. I'd rather play russian roulette than play with an inlaid taipan, and I'd rather shoot myself in the foot than get bit by a cobra.

Although I'm just playing at this point. The analogy is a poor one but I do understand the point you were trying to make. I just think that the rest of the world sees us as the clowns across the sea and we can't do much worse. Some Europeans actually prefer Clinton's opponent, but that could just be a coincidence.

 

[Ivysaur]

We're already the laughing stock of the world. I don't see how much of a difference Trump or Clinton would make. Remember, this is the country that went other the UN to complain about Internet bullies (see: trolls), where most people that are part of the UN wished their only problem was Internet bullies. You see, we aren't ever viewed in a favorable light, and with our two faced stance on what is going down in Syria, it isn't hard to see why.

Actually, most of the world sees the US in a positive light (at least since a certain B. Obama is leading it) AND most of the world is very supportive of the US's actions in Syria! Man, it's as if your entire image of your country is based on a misrepresentation of reality.

We like to back terrorists, evidently. Reagan did it, Bush did it, Clinton backed em, Bush Jr did it, Obama does it. It just never seems to end. We back the bad guy, and I hate it. We have people that have denounced duly elected officials and have even backed war criminals over the collective power of the people because, you know, communism.

Wait, who is the "bad guy" Obama is supporting? I missed that. Funnily enough, when both of the candidates met the Egyptian dictator, only one of them was exceedingly happy to make the acquaintance of a "bad guy"- and his name wasn't Hillary.

Besides, a loaded gun by itself isn't inherently dangerous. I have a loaded shotgun under my couch in fact. You don't have to keep an eye on a gun because without people (i.e. power) it can do no damage. Clinton on the other hand, has embezzled millions from their aid foundation.

No, no. I think you got it wrong again- that was the Donald.

She had the chance, she had the power but has done nothing to better the country or help those under her purview. Clinton has had 3 decades to fix things and she has squandered 3 decades. She lies, she cheats, she steals, she supports bad practices, two faced, sick, scheming, and a shill (some of these are personal opinions).

So would you say that the US is currently worse than it was 30 years ago?

You and I would probably be jailed if those were our emails (that's not the only bad thing she's done).

Actually, you wouldn't- at least, the previous people who did similar things weren't.

Some Europeans actually prefer Clinton's opponent, but that could just be a coincidence.

Yes. Exactly 9% of us. More or less the same amount of people who believe that the moon landings were faked. Probably the same ones as well.

So, in short: you really, really, really, really hate Hillary Clinton and you'd be ready to elect a monkey holding a crossbow if it were her political opponent just because of how much you hate her. At least I'm slightly comforted by the fact that you don't really think Trump is that good.

What I'm worried about is the fact that essentially every claim you have made in your post happens to be exactly 180? wrong. I'm not sure how good a judgement you can have when all your facts are upside-down. I guess that's the reason why people can vote for Trump- complete, utter misinformation that "feels right".

 

[Netto Azure]

The battle of the bland vanilla pols should be an interesting watch

 

[Somewhere_]

Someone let us know how it goes here; I would watch myself, but since I took a nap and woke up late, I've kinda lost interest rip.

^ yes! ^

I can't watch it either- I got homework. :/

 

[Crizzle]

Have we had the official PC election poll yet, or is just not worth having this year?

 

[Esper]

Let's congratulate Pence on winning the debate before it even started. Amazing.

God, this has just started and I'm already bored to tears.

 

[Kanzler]

Mike Pence is infinitely more electable than Donald Trump.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Spoiler:

Actually, most of the world sees the US in a positive light (at least since a certain B. Obama is leading it) AND most of the world is very supportive of the US's actions in Syria! Man, it's as if your entire image of your country is based on a misrepresentation of reality.



Wait, who is the "bad guy" Obama is supporting? I missed that. Funnily enough, when both of the candidates met the Egyptian dictator, only one of them was exceedingly happy to make the acquaintance of a "bad guy"- and his name wasn't Hillary.



No, no. I think you got it wrong again- that was the Donald.



So would you say that the US is currently worse than it was 30 years ago?



Actually, you wouldn't- at least, the previous people who did similar things weren't.



Yes. Exactly 9% of us. More or less the same amount of people who believe that the moon landings were faked. Probably the same ones as well.

So, in short: you really, really, really, really hate Hillary Clinton and you'd be ready to elect a monkey holding a crossbow if it were her political opponent just because of how much you hate her. At least I'm slightly comforted by the fact that you don't really think Trump is that good.

What I'm worried about is the fact that essentially every claim you have made in your post happens to be exactly 180? wrong. I'm not sure how good a judgement you can have when all your facts are upside-down. I guess that's the reason why people can vote for Trump- complete, utter misinformation that "feels right".

In terms of inherent lethality? Live Snakes.

Besides, she kept a private server at her private residence, so regardless of that fact, another politico article contradicts the other. It also doesn't change the fact that she lied about it at least once. Then stated 'my predecessors did it' which isn't true. They did not have private servers at their home or under their direct control. It's also one of those cases where it hasn't happened often, so saying that we could do the same thing and get away with it is a tad hopeful in my opinion.

Further more, attacking Syrian Troops doesn't get an 'Oops, thought they were ISIS' pass from me. Bombing an airbase without all the Intel is idiotic don't you think? So that is what I mean when I say the US is making mistakes. Not working with Russia is another mistake. Confusing ones allies with one's enemies is a bad misstep if you ask me.

There seems to be some disconnect with embezzlement and it's definitions. So, the article you positioned was filled on the basis of a licensing dispute, or more in line with failing to license. Also, if I ate an apple and someone said I didn't and showed someone a picture of my neighbor eating an apple does not negate the former. I don't know where the train stopped with that one, but I'll go with it.

Opinion polls aren't always the best source, but a decent enough basis. But, you know, opinions.

Better or worse off than 30 years ago? Well, on the basis of if my opinion matters? Yes, worse off, but you should also note that what I said does not correlate with 'Clinton breathes oxygen, therefore the US is worse than ever'. Economically, the country is okay but it isn't like it used to be. The dollar value has seen itself plummet, manufacturing positions have moved overseas partly because of terribly laid tax plans (thanks Reagan, great job).

So off the top of my head, has Clinton made the country better, or worse? No, on both. She hasn't made anything better and she couldn't stop Nike moving away if she tried. I'm not gullible enough to lay the blame of 30 years of economic turmoil at the foot of one person. So handing me loaded questions is kind of low. I just note that what she has done (or not done) wouldn't have made much of a difference if she wasn't there. Does that make sense?

It isn't a matter of 'here's how bad Trump is' for me so much as 'What has Clinton done'? Does that make sense? Has she squandered her political position? Yes. Has she used her seat for personal gain? Yes. Has she failed the American people? I'll call letting Americans die as a yes.

You see, for me it's like I hold people who hold office to higher standards. I hold cops to higher standards than I do the average joe. Cops are supposed to know the law and rules of their precinct. Now if all they did was use their position to drink all the donuts and eat all the coffee you'd say that they failed in their duty as well, no?

I feel there is a disconnect with 'here's a character'. Hillary is already elected, albeit in a different seat. She has abused this power multiple times. Which seat has trump held? That's the point I'm trying to make. Hillary, abuse of power, known failure of held power. Trump, dork, has had no obligation to hold to a political seat before.

Making snide remarks about how wrong I am and all 'misconceptiony' or what else makes a total of 0 people that would probably legitimately value your opinion. 'Worrying' about me is downright insulting, when issued with loaded connotations. So, cheers I guess.

Pence is pretty well spoken. More than decent vp nominee

 

[gimmepie]

"What has Clinton done?" is a terrible response when you can also ask the same of Trump. What has Trump done that has benefited anyone ever?

I think a more important questions is "What will Trump/Clinton" do? Clinton will change nothing. She'll continue the moderate-leftist policies of Obama and continue to support equal rights etc etc. Why she's making positive moves doesn't matter because ultimately those are still better for your country than having a lunatic like Trump as your head of state.

Trump will continue to weigh in on things that he doesn't understand - that I doubt he is intelligent enough to even learn to understand and will continue to reinforce negative stigmas and encourage people to take steps back when it comes to social issues. Not to mention he's not going to fix your economy or anything either. If anything he'll blow money on stupid shit.

I'm not saying Clinton is great. She's very much doing the right thing for selfish reasons but I'd rather take no steps forward than two steps back when it comes to politics.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

"What has Clinton done?" is a terrible response when you can also ask the same of Trump. What has Trump done that has benefited anyone ever?

I think a more important questions is "What will Trump/Clinton" do? Clinton will change nothing. She'll continue the moderate-leftist policies of Obama and continue to support equal rights etc etc. Why she's making positive moves doesn't matter because ultimately those are still better for your country than having a lunatic like Trump as your head of state.

Trump will continue to weigh in on things that he doesn't understand - that I doubt he is intelligent enough to even learn to understand and will continue to reinforce negative stigmas and encourage people to take steps back when it comes to social issues. Not to mention he's not going to fix your economy or anything either. If anything he'll blow money on stupid ****.

I'm not saying Clinton is great. She's very much doing the right thing for selfish reasons but I'd rather take no steps forward than two steps back when it comes to politics.

I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe any one person can fix an entire economic downturn that began decades ago, so I don't know why that is even an issue. At best, the vehicle can be steered but the brakes went out a long time ago.

No, I dont believe it's fair to levy the same expectations on a new politician as opposed to a 30+ politician, I think it's ridiculous and I don't feel like delving into it further aside from asking why a two year old didn't take the trash out as opposed to the 33 year old whose job it is in the first place. It's about as ridiculous. You might think differently, but that's your prerogative.

Also, what 'stupid shit' will he attempt to 'blow money' on? Just curious.

 

[gimmepie]

I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe any one person can fix an entire economic downturn that began decades ago, so I don't know why that is even an issue. At best, the vehicle can be steered but the brakes went out a long time ago.

No, I dont believe it's fair to levy the same expectations on a new politician as opposed to a 30+ politician, I think it's ridiculous and I don't feel like delving into it further aside from asking why a two year old didn't take the trash out as opposed to the 33 year old whose job it is in the first place. It's about as ridiculous. You might think differently, but that's your prerogative.

Also, what 'stupid shit' will he attempt to 'blow money' on? Just curious.

Like a wall.
Not that I think that'd ever actually be allowed to happen, but it speaks volumes to his credibility.

 

[Hands]

A snake in a wig might still be a snake but it's also still safer than a loaded gun and that's what Trump is. Hillary obviously has flaws but she at least knows how to be a politician and isn't going to embaress your country on the international stage.

Neither of them will embarrass my country ;)

But i would be embarrassed if my head of state pretended they didn't understand basic shorthand for confidential and lied about coming under sniper fire.

The thing is Trump isn't going to win, there's little point calling him out for saying stupid things when we have a dead cert for president who's voting and political record is absolute trash. A candidate who legitimately said she'd nuke Iran if Iran and Israel went to war, regardless of non aggression against the US. A candidate who's own website said all rape victims have the right to be believed despite her calling the legitimate reported rape of Kathy Shelton (12 at the time of the attack) the fantasy of a young girl who "sought out" older men, A twelve year old girl. This doesn't even touch on her awful antics with nefarious individuals and Governments. As someone on the left (the same side of the spectrum Clinton apparently resides on) I cannot overlook any of this, and she cannot be allowed to just sweep it away and continue business as usual.

So there's a really interesting piece from The Atlantic I read. Basically, it says that just by being a major party candidate, Clinton is going to trigger lots of people to a sexist backlash whether she wins or not, and it suggests that, her scandals aside, the anger that people have for her is way higher than is normally warranted of political candidates.

It cites several studies about the attitudes men have regarding women in positions of power and/or positions traditionally held by men, which it says are

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/fear-of-a-female-president/497564/

Would it make you feel better if I told you I'm just as negative about the other President Clinton?

 

[Hands]

Clinton further clarified that she didn't even want to do the trial, but when you're an attourney, you gotta do what you're hired to do. She even tried to get out of it, but was turned down.

It's best to understand the context of why she did what she did before passing along judgements. It made her sick to defend a rapist, but she was essentially forced to.

I'm not criticizing her for doing her job, no matter how awfully she behaved during it, I'm criticizing her barefaced cheek to claim all victims should be believed when she deliberately misrepresented and in turn, delegitimized the truthful claims of a 12 year old rape victim by painting her as a lustful bunny boiler who was essentially lying.

I would rather lose my job than defend someone I knew was guilty for being a child rapist, anyone with even a shred, a shred of moral decency would.