Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[Jeremy E.]

The main things a president actually does are as follows, I also believe people should vote based on how they believe the candidates will do these things.

1. Commander of the military.

I believe both Trump and Clinton will use the military more than necessary, and in a way that creates more enemies rather than defeating or making treaties with enemies. Also continuing the trend of spending more on the military than the next 3 biggest militaries combined. I believe Gary Johnson would do more defense than offense, and that he will stop increasing military spending.

2. Making appointments and nominations.

I believe this one will be fairly straightforward with Hillary choosing progressives, Trump picking conservatives and Johnson picking socially liberal fiscally conservative people.

3. Executive Orders

I liked Obama's executive orders for the most part, and if Hillary does similar, I'd be okay with that. But I like Johnson's strategy more, he says he will get rid of the NSA with an executive order, and leave the rest of the law making up to Congress the way it should be. I'm scared of Trump executive orders, I'd expect things like not allowing certain people into the country, more surveillance of muslim religious people/buildings etc.

4. Vetoing/passing bills

I believe Clinton would increase spending and decrease freedoms by passing bills, I believe Trump would increase spending and decrease freedoms by passing bills, and lastly, I believe Johnson would veto bills.

5. Submitting initial budget, approving or vetoing final budget

I believe Trump and Clinton would be okay with increasing spending, they'd both submit budgets with large spending increases and approve budgets with large spending increases.  While Johnson would submit a balanced budget and veto the crap out of spending increases.

6. Dealing with other countries and representing ours

I think Trump would be the worst president ever when it comes to this, he will get into arguments with other foreign leaders and drag our countries name through the mud some more. Clinton and Johnson would probably both be mediocre.

[dramaman]

The main things a president actually does are as follows, I also believe people should vote based on how they believe the candidates will do these things.

1. Commander of the military.

I believe both Trump and Clinton will use the military more than necessary, and in a way that creates more enemies rather than defeating or making treaties with enemies. Also continuing the trend of spending more on the military than the next 3 biggest militaries combined. I believe Gary Johnson would do more defense than offense, and that he will stop increasing military spending.

2. Making appointments and nominations.

I believe this one will be fairly straightforward with Hillary choosing progressives, Trump picking conservatives and Johnson picking socially liberal fiscally conservative people.

3. Executive Orders

I liked Obama's executive orders for the most part, and if Hillary does similar, I'd be okay with that. But I like Johnson's strategy more, he says he will get rid of the NSA with an executive order, and leave the rest of the law making up to Congress the way it should be. I'm scared of Trump executive orders, I'd expect things like not allowing certain people into the country, more surveillance of muslim religious people/buildings etc.

4. Vetoing/passing bills

I believe Clinton would increase spending and decrease freedoms by passing bills, I believe Trump would increase spending and decrease freedoms by passing bills, and lastly, I believe Johnson would veto bills.

5. Submitting initial budget, approving or vetoing final budget

I believe Trump and Clinton would be okay with increasing spending, they'd both submit budgets with large spending increases and approve budgets with large spending increases.  While Johnson would submit a balanced budget and veto the crap out of spending increases.

6. Dealing with other countries and representing ours

I think Trump would be the worst president ever when it comes to this, he will get into arguments with other foreign leaders and drag our countries name through the mud some more. Clinton and Johnson would probably both be mediocre.

Regarding Commander of the Military, you judge the possible impact that Clinton and Trump would have on our enemies, yet provide no analysis whatsoever on Johnson. It is very likely that if Johnson conducts the kind of defensive strategy that you predict on him that this will create a power vacuum that will embolden aggressive foreign powers such as Russian, North Korea, China, etc. to fill. I'm not sure that this outcome will be any less negative overall than what I could see from a somewhat hawkish Clinton military policy.

What worries me about Johnson running under the Libertarian ticket is the normalization of what I would consider extreme libertarian positions.  The libertarian party is extreme when it comes to economic and social policy and there is no way that Johnson can separate himself from that.

[nereo]

The main things a president actually does are as follows.

1. Commander of the military.
2. Making appointments and nominations.
3. Executive Orders
4. Vetoing/passing bills
5. Submitting initial budget, approving or vetoing final budget
countries and representing ours

Why not turn to the source when defining what a President does?  In this case, the US Constitution, Article II
Presidential Powers are:
1) Commander in Chief, Choosing of Cabinet and Pardons
2) Advice and Consent to make treaties and make federal-level appointements (with approval of Senate)
3) Recess appointments - may fill all vacancies, but their commission will expire after the next Senate session.

Presidential Responsibilities are:
1) State of the Union - annually
2) Making recommendations to Congress that he/she feels are "necessary and expedient"
3) Calling congress into extraordinary session (note: this hasn't happened since 1947)
4) Recieving foreign representatives and grant recognition to a foreign sovereign
5) Caring that laws be faithfully executed
6) Commisioning of all officers of the United States, both in Military and Foreign Service

[Papa Mustache]

It's always a "conspiracy theory" until it's actually confirmed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged

(Google link, choose whichever sources you think are reliable.)

How would you like to be the guy (maybe a draftee) that gets killed in a war that ought to be over already but is being extended for some political contest.

Fun fact:  The surrender of Germany in WWI was arranged days earlier and agreed upon on November 10th, but the brass thought it would by symbolic if the war ended "on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month".  Some field commanders insisted on carrying out assaults right up to the final minutes.  Partly because grunts didn't want to shlep heavy artillery shells back home (and the Germans didn't want their foes to get them) there were massive barrages of fire on both sides the morning of Nov 11th, often aimed at no one in particular, but nonetheless resulting in hundreds of casualties, even though everyone agreed that the war was imminently over.

Pile up all the shells in a field and detonate them at that 11 / 11 / 11 moment.

[nereo]

It's always a "conspiracy theory" until it's actually confirmed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged

(Google link, choose whichever sources you think are reliable.)

How would you like to be the guy (maybe a draftee) that gets killed in a war that ought to be over already but is being extended for some political contest.

Fun fact:  The surrender of Germany in WWI was arranged days earlier and agreed upon on November 10th, but the brass thought it would by symbolic if the war ended "on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month".  Some field commanders insisted on carrying out assaults right up to the final minutes.  Partly because grunts didn't want to shlep heavy artillery shells back home (and the Germans didn't want their foes to get them) there were massive barrages of fire on both sides the morning of Nov 11th, often aimed at no one in particular, but nonetheless resulting in hundreds of casualties, even though everyone agreed that the war was imminently over.

Pile up all the shells in a field and detonate them at that 11 / 11 / 11 moment.

You laugh, but here's an amusing family story.
My Grandfather was stationed in Italy circa 1948-49 as part of the post-war security and cleanup efforts.  His particular job was disposing of all the ordinance that was now outdated, expired and not needed.  His instructions were pretty simple; they used a small tractor to dig a 3ft deep hole, dropped in a shell and a small explosive detonator, covered it with dirt before exploding the whole thing, sending a spray of sand high into the air. Repeat. There were tens of thousands of these shells.

Well, after a few days of digging small holes and exploding the shells one by one, he and his team thought of a much better plan; "Let's dig a really big pit and explode a whole bunch of shells at all once!"  So they spent the morning digging with the tractor but only got about 8-9 feet down before they hit a rocky/clay layer that was hard as cement.  "No matter," they thought, "that should be deep enough!"  So they piled several truckloads of unexploded shells into the pit, put in a few dozen detonators wired together and covered the whole thing back up with sand.  They patted themselves on the back about how clever they were, before running some extra-long wires to the detonation charges and taking cover.

But then a funny thing happened; waves (including explosive shock waves) travel extraordinarily well along substances with a constant density.  IN this case, the hard bedrock... all the way to the small Italian village a couple miles away.  As my grandfather tells it, they blew up a few weeks worth of shells that day but then spent the next few months replacing every window that blew out in that Italian village, and the whole thing made relations with the locals very uncomfortable.

[dramaman]

It's always a "conspiracy theory" until it's actually confirmed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged

(Google link, choose whichever sources you think are reliable.)

How would you like to be the guy (maybe a draftee) that gets killed in a war that ought to be over already but is being extended for some political contest.

Fun fact:  The surrender of Germany in WWI was arranged days earlier and agreed upon on November 10th, but the brass thought it would by symbolic if the war ended "on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month".  Some field commanders insisted on carrying out assaults right up to the final minutes.  Partly because grunts didn't want to shlep heavy artillery shells back home (and the Germans didn't want their foes to get them) there were massive barrages of fire on both sides the morning of Nov 11th, often aimed at no one in particular, but nonetheless resulting in hundreds of casualties, even though everyone agreed that the war was imminently over.

Pile up all the shells in a field and detonate them at that 11 / 11 / 11 moment.

You laugh, but here's an amusing family story.
My Grandfather was stationed in Italy circa 1948-49 as part of the post-war security and cleanup efforts.  His particular job was disposing of all the ordinance that was now outdated, expired and not needed.  His instructions were pretty simple; they used a small tractor to dig a 3ft deep hole, dropped in a shell and a small explosive detonator, covered it with dirt before exploding the whole thing, sending a spray of sand high into the air. Repeat. There were tens of thousands of these shells.

Well, after a few days of digging small holes and exploding the shells one by one, he and his team thought of a much better plan; "Let's dig a really big pit and explode a whole bunch of shells at all once!"  So they spent the morning digging with the tractor but only got about 8-9 feet down before they hit a rocky/clay layer that was hard as cement.  "No matter," they thought, "that should be deep enough!"  So they piled several truckloads of unexploded shells into the pit, put in a few dozen detonators wired together and covered the whole thing back up with sand.  They patted themselves on the back about how clever they were, before running some extra-long wires to the detonation charges and taking cover.

But then a funny thing happened; waves (including explosive shock waves) travel extraordinarily well along substances with a constant density.  IN this case, the hard bedrock... all the way to the small Italian village a couple miles away.  As my grandfather tells it, they blew up a few weeks worth of shells that day but then spent the next few months replacing every window that blew out in that Italian village, and the whole thing made relations with the locals very uncomfortable.

Great story :)

[Yaeger]

Saying the mothers up there were all of people who were "violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully" seems like trolling, yes.

mothers of people who the government killed for no reason at all, like Eric Garner or Tamir Rice.

This exactly.

And Yaeger trying to group them together to cast shade on those murdered by the police so he can call them all "violent men violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully (Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and others)" by naming two of the egregious different ones and then grouping the rest under "and others" does seem like trolling, yes.

Really? I didn't group them, the DNC did when they put them up on a stage together on equal footing. The mother of a violent, adult attempted killer standing next to the mother of a child killed in a tragic misunderstanding by police in an attempt to paint them all as victims and solicit that emotional response, which I believe was to counter the emotional speech given at the RNC by Patricia Smith.

In my opinion, the fact that the mothers of Trayvon and Mike are even on that stage, that they were among the mothers cheered by thousands, says a lot about the willingness of the DNC to push a narrative to pander to minority voters.

[Glenstache]

It's always a "conspiracy theory" until it's actually confirmed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged

(Google link, choose whichever sources you think are reliable.)

How would you like to be the guy (maybe a draftee) that gets killed in a war that ought to be over already but is being extended for some political contest.

Fun fact:  The surrender of Germany in WWI was arranged days earlier and agreed upon on November 10th, but the brass thought it would by symbolic if the war ended "on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month".  Some field commanders insisted on carrying out assaults right up to the final minutes.  Partly because grunts didn't want to shlep heavy artillery shells back home (and the Germans didn't want their foes to get them) there were massive barrages of fire on both sides the morning of Nov 11th, often aimed at no one in particular, but nonetheless resulting in hundreds of casualties, even though everyone agreed that the war was imminently over.

Pile up all the shells in a field and detonate them at that 11 / 11 / 11 moment.

You laugh, but here's an amusing family story.
My Grandfather was stationed in Italy circa 1948-49 as part of the post-war security and cleanup efforts.  His particular job was disposing of all the ordinance that was now outdated, expired and not needed.  His instructions were pretty simple; they used a small tractor to dig a 3ft deep hole, dropped in a shell and a small explosive detonator, covered it with dirt before exploding the whole thing, sending a spray of sand high into the air. Repeat. There were tens of thousands of these shells.

Well, after a few days of digging small holes and exploding the shells one by one, he and his team thought of a much better plan; "Let's dig a really big pit and explode a whole bunch of shells at all once!"  So they spent the morning digging with the tractor but only got about 8-9 feet down before they hit a rocky/clay layer that was hard as cement.  "No matter," they thought, "that should be deep enough!"  So they piled several truckloads of unexploded shells into the pit, put in a few dozen detonators wired together and covered the whole thing back up with sand.  They patted themselves on the back about how clever they were, before running some extra-long wires to the detonation charges and taking cover.

But then a funny thing happened; waves (including explosive shock waves) travel extraordinarily well along substances with a constant density.  IN this case, the hard bedrock... all the way to the small Italian village a couple miles away.  As my grandfather tells it, they blew up a few weeks worth of shells that day but then spent the next few months replacing every window that blew out in that Italian village, and the whole thing made relations with the locals very uncomfortable.

The geologist in me loves a good story about earth materials acting as a wave guide.

[deadlymonkey]

It's always a "conspiracy theory" until it's actually confirmed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged

(Google link, choose whichever sources you think are reliable.)

How would you like to be the guy (maybe a draftee) that gets killed in a war that ought to be over already but is being extended for some political contest.

Fun fact:  The surrender of Germany in WWI was arranged days earlier and agreed upon on November 10th, but the brass thought it would by symbolic if the war ended "on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month".  Some field commanders insisted on carrying out assaults right up to the final minutes.  Partly because grunts didn't want to shlep heavy artillery shells back home (and the Germans didn't want their foes to get them) there were massive barrages of fire on both sides the morning of Nov 11th, often aimed at no one in particular, but nonetheless resulting in hundreds of casualties, even though everyone agreed that the war was imminently over.

Pile up all the shells in a field and detonate them at that 11 / 11 / 11 moment.

You laugh, but here's an amusing family story.
My Grandfather was stationed in Italy circa 1948-49 as part of the post-war security and cleanup efforts.  His particular job was disposing of all the ordinance that was now outdated, expired and not needed.  His instructions were pretty simple; they used a small tractor to dig a 3ft deep hole, dropped in a shell and a small explosive detonator, covered it with dirt before exploding the whole thing, sending a spray of sand high into the air. Repeat. There were tens of thousands of these shells.

Well, after a few days of digging small holes and exploding the shells one by one, he and his team thought of a much better plan; "Let's dig a really big pit and explode a whole bunch of shells at all once!"  So they spent the morning digging with the tractor but only got about 8-9 feet down before they hit a rocky/clay layer that was hard as cement.  "No matter," they thought, "that should be deep enough!"  So they piled several truckloads of unexploded shells into the pit, put in a few dozen detonators wired together and covered the whole thing back up with sand.  They patted themselves on the back about how clever they were, before running some extra-long wires to the detonation charges and taking cover.

But then a funny thing happened; waves (including explosive shock waves) travel extraordinarily well along substances with a constant density.  IN this case, the hard bedrock... all the way to the small Italian village a couple miles away.  As my grandfather tells it, they blew up a few weeks worth of shells that day but then spent the next few months replacing every window that blew out in that Italian village, and the whole thing made relations with the locals very uncomfortable.

LOL and Physics was learned that day.  Just like when the dead whale washed up on the beach and it was too hard to bury or tow out to sea, so lets just blow it up and be done with it. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vmnq5dBF7Y

[nereo]

LOL and Physics was learned that day.  Just like when the dead whale washed up on the beach and it was too hard to bury or tow out to sea, so lets just blow it up and be done with it. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vmnq5dBF7Y

As a marine scientist, this is another one of my most favorite stories about the misuse of explosives.  The reporter on scene wrote about the whole thing in his book titled Exploding Whale.

[arebelspy]

I was expecting the above story to end in earthquake.  It was almost as good.

I do love the exploding whale story.

[jrhampt]

Saying the mothers up there were all of people who were "violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully" seems like trolling, yes.

mothers of people who the government killed for no reason at all, like Eric Garner or Tamir Rice.

This exactly.

And Yaeger trying to group them together to cast shade on those murdered by the police so he can call them all "violent men violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully (Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and others)" by naming two of the egregious different ones and then grouping the rest under "and others" does seem like trolling, yes.

Really? I didn't group them, the DNC did when they put them up on a stage together on equal footing. The mother of a violent, adult attempted killer standing next to the mother of a child killed in a tragic misunderstanding by police in an attempt to paint them all as victims and solicit that emotional response, which I believe was to counter the emotional speech given at the RNC by Patricia Smith.

In my opinion, the fact that the mothers of Trayvon and Mike are even on that stage, that they were among the mothers cheered by thousands, says a lot about the willingness of the DNC to push a narrative to pander to minority voters.

I think this is a valid criticism.  I personally wouldn't lump Trayvon Martin in with Mike Brown, but I do think that including Mike Brown in the grouping was problematic. 

[mrpercentage]

So... This guy I know was ramming Trump down everyones throat and I was finding the whole thing like a geography lecture with a side of offensive. Anyways, the most unbelievable thing happened during the encounter. Without thinking I blurted out: "I am voting for Hillary". I didn't see that coming.

[nereo]

So... This guy I know was ramming Trump down everyones throat and I was finding the whole thing like a geography lecture with a side of offensive. Anyways, the most unbelievable thing happened during the encounter. Without thinking I blurted out: "I am voting for Hillary". I didn't see that coming.

[thd7t]

So... This guy I know was ramming Trump down everyones throat and I was finding the whole thing like a geography lecture with a side of offensive. Anyways, the most unbelievable thing happened during the encounter. Without thinking I blurted out: "I am voting for Hillary". I didn't see that coming.

Was it just his "lecture" or are there other things that influenced you?

[dramaman]

Okay, this is not a criticism; exactly the opposite...

Ignored the DNC most of the week but did sit down and watch/listen to Clinton's speech. Up until this time, I've been pro-Clinton based merely on the progressive issues she supports, her vast experience and that she seemed to be the best, most electable candidate against the GOP. The fact that the GOP nominated Trump made that last point even more important. I thought Clinton made a good speech and came away feeling even more confident in my choice. The particular points that stood out to me:

1. Clinton dedicated her life to helping those less fortunate, from right out of law school working to make sure that special needs kids would be guaranteed an education. She promoted women's rights as First Lady and as Senator worked hard to make sure that the 9/11 first responders were properly cared for. This is a core of who she is. This is a big deal to me. I want a President whose inner compass is pointed towards helping others.
2. Clinton is a wonk who cares about the details of public policy. I want a President who is willing to dive into the minutiae and won't simply off load the heavy thinking to somebody else.
3. Clinton has shown the ability to take the long road, working behind the scenes, building coalitions to address issues bit by bit.
4. Clinton is stable, no-nonsense, person. One pundit described her as coming across in the speech as a stern teacher. I'm perfectly down with that. That remark kind of reminded me of a certain no-nonsense history teacher I had who worked hard to make sure that even the least capable of her students got the attention they needed.

I don't pretend to think that Clinton is perfect. She's made mistakes and years in the political arena have tainted her, no doubt. Politics is a dirty business and there is no way you can operate in that world without getting some of that stink on you. I would love it if I had another choice, someone with all her good qualities and none of her bad, but that candidate doesn't exist.

I know that Hillary has a trust problem. No doubt. But here's the deal, if I have to choose WHO I'm going to trust with the future of America - my daughters' future as well as my own - I would rather place that trust with Hillary Clinton KNOWING the kind of woman she is (warts and all) over Donald Trump KNOWING the kind of man he is (God help us all).

[deadlymonkey]

Okay, this is not a criticism; exactly the opposite...

Ignored the DNC most of the week but did sit down and watch/listen to Clinton's speech. Up until this time, I've been pro-Clinton based merely on the progressive issues she supports, her vast experience and that she seemed to be the best, most electable candidate against the GOP. The fact that the GOP nominated Trump made that last point even more important. I thought Clinton made a good speech and came away feeling even more confident in my choice. The particular points that stood out to me:

1. Clinton dedicated her life to helping those less fortunate, from right out of law school working to make sure that special needs kids would be guaranteed an education. She promoted women's rights as First Lady and as Senator worked hard to make sure that the 9/11 first responders were properly cared for. This is a core of who she is. This is a big deal to me. I want a President whose inner compass is pointed towards helping others.
2. Clinton is a wonk who cares about the details of public policy. I want a President who is willing to dive into the minutiae and won't simply off load the heavy thinking to somebody else.
3. Clinton has shown the ability to take the long road, working behind the scenes, building coalitions to address issues bit by bit.
4. Clinton is stable, no-nonsense, person. One pundit described her as coming across in the speech as a stern teacher. I'm perfectly down with that. That remark kind of reminded me of a certain no-nonsense history teacher I had who worked hard to make sure that even the least capable of her students got the attention they needed.

I don't pretend to think that Clinton is perfect. She's made mistakes and years in the political arena have tainted her, no doubt. Politics is a dirty business and there is no way you can operate in that world without getting some of that stink on you. I would love it if I had another choice, someone with all her good qualities and none of her bad, but that candidate doesn't exist.

I know that Hillary has a trust problem. No doubt. But here's the deal, if I have to choose WHO I'm going to trust with the future of America - my daughters' future as well as my own - I would rather place that trust with Hillary Clinton KNOWING the kind of woman she is (warts and all) over Donald Trump KNOWING the kind of man he is (God help us all).

QFT

[Gin1984]

Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if Donald Trump wins, Mike Pence says
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html
There go my rights to bodily autonomy, the rights of my daughter, the rights my grandmother and great-grandmother fought for.  This is my issue with the Pence.

[thd7t]

Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if Donald Trump wins, Mike Pence says
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html
There go my rights to bodily autonomy, the rights of my daughter, the rights my grandmother and great-grandmother fought for.  This is my issue with the Pence.

It's clearly your issue with Trump, too. Then again, listening to how he talks about women, you probably didn't need another issue with Trump.

[Glenstache]

Just for fun, Trump saying how much he likes Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs

[jrhampt]

Okay, this is not a criticism; exactly the opposite...

Ignored the DNC most of the week but did sit down and watch/listen to Clinton's speech. Up until this time, I've been pro-Clinton based merely on the progressive issues she supports, her vast experience and that she seemed to be the best, most electable candidate against the GOP. The fact that the GOP nominated Trump made that last point even more important. I thought Clinton made a good speech and came away feeling even more confident in my choice. The particular points that stood out to me:

1. Clinton dedicated her life to helping those less fortunate, from right out of law school working to make sure that special needs kids would be guaranteed an education. She promoted women's rights as First Lady and as Senator worked hard to make sure that the 9/11 first responders were properly cared for. This is a core of who she is. This is a big deal to me. I want a President whose inner compass is pointed towards helping others.
2. Clinton is a wonk who cares about the details of public policy. I want a President who is willing to dive into the minutiae and won't simply off load the heavy thinking to somebody else.
3. Clinton has shown the ability to take the long road, working behind the scenes, building coalitions to address issues bit by bit.
4. Clinton is stable, no-nonsense, person. One pundit described her as coming across in the speech as a stern teacher. I'm perfectly down with that. That remark kind of reminded me of a certain no-nonsense history teacher I had who worked hard to make sure that even the least capable of her students got the attention they needed.

I don't pretend to think that Clinton is perfect. She's made mistakes and years in the political arena have tainted her, no doubt. Politics is a dirty business and there is no way you can operate in that world without getting some of that stink on you. I would love it if I had another choice, someone with all her good qualities and none of her bad, but that candidate doesn't exist.

I know that Hillary has a trust problem. No doubt. But here's the deal, if I have to choose WHO I'm going to trust with the future of America - my daughters' future as well as my own - I would rather place that trust with Hillary Clinton KNOWING the kind of woman she is (warts and all) over Donald Trump KNOWING the kind of man he is (God help us all).

QFT

I agree with all of the above, but in addition to watching Clinton's speech, I also watched most of the convention and was very favorably impressed with how positive and optimistic it was in contrast to the RNC (which I watched a good portion of as well).  I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.

[Midwest]

I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.

Take this from the mind of someone who despises Hiilary, but how does getting rich through their connections equate to a lifetime of service?  Hillary and Bill have become enormously powerful and wealthy due to holding public office.  I could make that argument for Biden or Sanders, but the Clintons?

[arebelspy]

I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.

Take this from the mind of someone who despises Hiilary, but how does getting rich through their connections equate to a lifetime of service?  Hillary and Bill have become enormously powerful and wealthy due to holding public office.  I could make that argument for Biden or Sanders, but the Clintons?

Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone."  They aren't mutually exclusive.  In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.

IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.

[Jack]

Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone."  They aren't mutually exclusive.  In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.

IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.

Possible, but IMO very unlikely. The well-paying "connections" tend to be such precisely because they're compensating for things that "public servants" would not otherwise be inclined to do, such as clandestinely fuck over their constituents.

[Midwest]

I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.

Take this from the mind of someone who despises Hiilary, but how does getting rich through their connections equate to a lifetime of service?  Hillary and Bill have become enormously powerful and wealthy due to holding public office.  I could make that argument for Biden or Sanders, but the Clintons?

Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone."  They aren't mutually exclusive.  In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.

IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.

If they said a lifetime in politics I would have no beef with that.  Public service should mean service to the public without personal enrichment (I don't mean uncompensated service, but rather building huge wealth through the office both during and after.

FYI - I mentioned Biden and Sanders because although I disagree with their politics, their bank accounts don't appear to support the sale of influence.

[dramaman]

I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.

Take this from the mind of someone who despises Hiilary, but how does getting rich through their connections equate to a lifetime of service?  Hillary and Bill have become enormously powerful and wealthy due to holding public office.  I could make that argument for Biden or Sanders, but the Clintons?

No, getting rich does not equate to a lifetime of serve. What equates to a lifetime of service IS a lifetime of service such as...

- out of law school going door to door meeting families with special need kids to gather evidence needed to help pass legislation guaranteeing their children's right to education
- cofounding Arkansas Advocates for Children and Family
- working on a task force to reform Arkansas public schools as First Lady of Arkansas
- working on healthcare reform and promoting womens' rights around the world as First Lady
- making sure 9/11 first responders got needed assistance as NY Senator

The fact that the Clintons actually managed to get rich doesn't discount any of what she had done. It may bring up other issues, but it doesn't change the fact that she has consistently devoted herself to helping people have better lives.

[arebelspy]

I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.

Take this from the mind of someone who despises Hiilary, but how does getting rich through their connections equate to a lifetime of service?  Hillary and Bill have become enormously powerful and wealthy due to holding public office.  I could make that argument for Biden or Sanders, but the Clintons?

Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone."  They aren't mutually exclusive.  In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.

IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.

If they said a lifetime in politics I would have no beef with that.  Public service should mean service to the public without personal enrichment (I don't mean uncompensated service, but rather building huge wealth through the office both during and after.

Okay, if your definition of public service includes no wealth gained, then obviously you're excluding her by definition, and there's no way to argue it, other than saying I don't think that definition is universal.

(I also think it's problematic... your examples of Biden and Sanders were politicians, and didn't get rich and thus "served the public"... but if they had been Mustachian and saved 50% of their income for decades and now were multimillionaires, they now, by your definition WOULDN'T have "served the public"?  Even though they'd have done the exact same thing service-wise?  That's a broken definition, IMO.)

I do agree with Jack that it's unlikely (and don't necessarily think it's even true, for Hillary), I'm just pointing out that they're not mutually exclusive.

[dramaman]

Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone."  They aren't mutually exclusive.  In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.

IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.

Possible, but IMO very unlikely. The well-paying "connections" tend to be such precisely because they're compensating for things that "public servants" would not otherwise be inclined to do, such as clandestinely fuck over their constituents.

Yes, because a politician can't be considered a public servant unless they are a saint who took a vow of poverty?

As I was just telling my daughter, it is one thing to objectively grade a candidate on a scale of 1 to 10, but in an election, the is NO objective grading. The grading scale is on a curve. So, I'll take the politician who has spent her whole life working to help people and got rich in the process over the guy who started out rich, devoted his life to getting richer and decided that the best way to do it was by not honoring his agreements and scamming poor people with broken promises.

[Midwest]

I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.

Take this from the mind of someone who despises Hiilary, but how does getting rich through their connections equate to a lifetime of service?  Hillary and Bill have become enormously powerful and wealthy due to holding public office.  I could make that argument for Biden or Sanders, but the Clintons?

Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone."  They aren't mutually exclusive.  In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.

IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.

If they said a lifetime in politics I would have no beef with that.  Public service should mean service to the public without personal enrichment (I don't mean uncompensated service, but rather building huge wealth through the office both during and after.

Okay, if your definition of public service includes no wealth gained, then obviously you're excluding her by definition, and there's no way to argue it, other than saying I don't think that definition is universal.

(I also think it's problematic... your examples of Biden and Sanders were politicians, and didn't get rich and thus "served the public"... but if they had been Mustachian and saved 50% of their income for decades and now were multimillionaires, they now, by your definition WOULDN'T have "served the public"?  Even though they'd have done the exact same thing service-wise?  That's a broken definition, IMO.)

I do agree with Jack that it's unlikely (and don't necessarily think it's even true, for Hillary), I'm just pointing out that they're not mutually exclusive.

My definition could have have been clearer.  If Sanders/Biden had saved their money and built wealth under mustachian principles, I'd still consider them public servants.  if they built a business after leaving office that didn't involve influence pedaling, I'd still consider them public servants.  I don't fault people for honest wealth. 

The Clinton's, however, claimed to be poor upon leaving office and are now enormously wealthy.    The Clinton's current financial situation is directly related to their political office and influence.  Those speech fees had as much to do with influence as wanting to hear their views.  Much of that occurred while Hillary was in office.  That, to me, is problematic.

[Glenstache]

As I was just telling my daughter, it is one thing to objectively grade a candidate on a scale of 1 to 10, but in an election, the is NO objective grading. The grading scale is on a curve. So, I'll take the politician who has spent her whole life working to help people and got rich in the process over the guy who started out rich, devoted his life to getting richer and decided that the best way to do it was by not honoring his agreements and scamming poor people with broken promises.

Well said.

[Midwest]

Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone."  They aren't mutually exclusive.  In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.

IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.

Possible, but IMO very unlikely. The well-paying "connections" tend to be such precisely because they're compensating for things that "public servants" would not otherwise be inclined to do, such as clandestinely fuck over their constituents.

Yes, because a politician can't be considered a public servant unless they are a saint who took a vow of poverty?

As I was just telling my daughter, it is one thing to objectively grade a candidate on a scale of 1 to 10, but in an election, the is NO objective grading. The grading scale is on a curve. So, I'll take the politician who has spent her whole life working to help people and got rich in the process over the guy who started out rich, devoted his life to getting richer and decided that the best way to do it was by not honoring his agreements and scamming poor people with broken promises.

Clinton didn't get rich helping the poor.  She got rich selling influence or the appearance of accessability. 

Saying Trump is worse, doesn't make Clinton a public servant.  I'm not defending Trump.  We have 2 bad choices.

Let's take this a step further, if Obama wants to get rich giving speeches after he's out of office I'm fine with that.  I do however have a problem with fees and donations that seem that create a conflict of interest while Mrs. Obama is in office.

[dramaman]

Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone."  They aren't mutually exclusive.  In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.

IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.

Possible, but IMO very unlikely. The well-paying "connections" tend to be such precisely because they're compensating for things that "public servants" would not otherwise be inclined to do, such as clandestinely fuck over their constituents.

Yes, because a politician can't be considered a public servant unless they are a saint who took a vow of poverty?

As I was just telling my daughter, it is one thing to objectively grade a candidate on a scale of 1 to 10, but in an election, the is NO objective grading. The grading scale is on a curve. So, I'll take the politician who has spent her whole life working to help people and got rich in the process over the guy who started out rich, devoted his life to getting richer and decided that the best way to do it was by not honoring his agreements and scamming poor people with broken promises.

Clinton didn't get rich helping the poor.  She got rich selling influence or the appearance of accessability. 

Saying Trump is worse, doesn't make Clinton a public servant.  I'm not defending Trump.  We have 2 bad choices.

Let's take this a step further, if Obama wants to get rich giving speeches after he's out of office I'm fine with that.  I do however have a problem with fees and donations that seem that create a conflict of interest while Mrs. Obama is in office.

Clinton has a long record of working to help others in the public sphere. The charge that she leveraged connections that she made over the years to get rich since Bill Clinton left the presidency is disappointing, but it does not erase the good she did nor what I suspect were her original motives years and years ago for beginning what would become a lifetime of public service. And compared to Trump....? Yes, Clinton is MOST DEFINITELY a public servant.

[nereo]

Let's take this a step further, if Obama wants to get rich giving speeches after he's out of office I'm fine with that.  I do however have a problem with fees and donations that seem that create a conflict of interest while Mrs. Obama is in office.

I share some of your concerns, I honestly do, but I think it's a very difficult and unrealistic standard that you are setting up here. 
Literally every single person a past president meets could be considered part of a group of constituents or a 'foreign entity'.  So if we accept that the spouse, son or daughter of a president can also run to be president, any contact the former president has with any group for any reason can be viewed as politically suspicious and a conflict of interest.  The fact that Bill Clinton received $MM for speaking to an extremely broad array of groups is a reason to take a very close look, but unless the money is exchanged for favorable treatment how is it fundamentally different from that same group donating an equal amount to her campaign or holding a fundraiser?

To put this in more concrete terms, is receiving $875k for several paid speeches given to Goldman Sachs in 2013 a bigger conflict of interest for Clinton than the corporate donation of $1.1MM that Goldman Sachs gave to its PAC to support Mitt Romney in 2012?

[Yaeger]

Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if Donald Trump wins, Mike Pence says
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html
There go my rights to bodily autonomy, the rights of my daughter, the rights my grandmother and great-grandmother fought for.  This is my issue with the Pence.

I'll support a candidate that wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I think it's worth doing. Hypothetically if I give a pregnant woman an abortion pill without her realizing it, I can be charged with murder. Yet the mother has the right to kill a human being during the pregnancy at any point during the first 28 weeks. Again, just like the father, the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.

I've always thought of abortion as murder, a blatant disregarding of the human rights of the unborn child. I'm even more appalled that we defend providing public funding to an organization that violates basic human rights and kills the unborn. The abortion debate isn't about women's rights and it never has been, the rights of the mother are only part of the equation, and not the whole. It's about at what point do you recognize the unborn as a human being and at what point do we need to respect those basic human rights. That's why people will never, ever, give up the fight to stop abortions.

The right to abortion isn't a a super-right. When you compare the deaths due to abortion (1,058,490 in 2014) vs. the number killed by guns (33,599) it's clear that abortion kills far more people every year than guns, yet it's a protected right more than any other Constitutional right. It boggles the mind. Here's a statement from the dissenting opinion in the latest Supreme Court abortion case:

Eighty years on, the Court has come full circle. The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate.

[Midwest]

Let's take this a step further, if Obama wants to get rich giving speeches after he's out of office I'm fine with that.  I do however have a problem with fees and donations that seem that create a conflict of interest while Mrs. Obama is in office.

I share some of your concerns, I honestly do, but I think it's a very difficult and unrealistic standard that you are setting up here. 
Literally every single person a past president meets could be considered part of a group of constituents or a 'foreign entity'.  So if we accept that the spouse, son or daughter of a president can also run to be president, any contact the former president has with any group for any reason can be viewed as politically suspicious and a conflict of interest.  The fact that Bill Clinton received $MM for speaking to an extremely broad array of groups is a reason to take a very close look, but unless the money is exchanged for favorable treatment how is it fundamentally different from that same group donating an equal amount to her campaign or holding a fundraiser?

To put this in more concrete terms, is receiving $875k for several paid speeches given to Goldman Sachs in 2013 a bigger conflict of interest for Clinton than the corporate donation of $1.1MM that Goldman Sachs gave to its PAC to support Mitt Romney in 2012?

Actually I do.  That donation to support a PAC doesn't go to Mitt Romney personally (Mitt didn't need the money, but the point stands).  His control over that PAC is limited at best.

The donations to the Clintons and their foundation on the other hand, do enrich them personally.  Personal enrichment is a much bigger motivator than a political contribution and the Clintons have been enriched to an incredible degree.

[Gin1984]

Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if Donald Trump wins, Mike Pence says
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html
There go my rights to bodily autonomy, the rights of my daughter, the rights my grandmother and great-grandmother fought for.  This is my issue with the Pence.

I'll support a candidate that wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I think it's worth doing. Hypothetically if I give a pregnant woman an abortion pill without her realizing it, I can be charged with murder. Yet the mother has the right to kill a human being during the pregnancy at any point during the first 28 weeks. Again, just like the father, the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.

I've always thought of abortion as murder, a blatant disregarding of the human rights of the unborn child. I'm even more appalled that we defend providing public funding to an organization that violates basic human rights and kills the unborn. The abortion debate isn't about women's rights and it never has been, the rights of the mother are only part of the equation, and not the whole. It's about at what point do you recognize the unborn as a human being and at what point do we need to respect those basic human rights. That's why people will never, ever, give up the fight to stop abortions.

The right to abortion isn't a a super-right. When you compare the deaths due to abortion (1,058,490 in 2014) vs. the number killed by guns (33,599) it's clear that abortion kills far more people every year than guns, yet it's a protected right more than any other Constitutional right. It boggles the mind. Here's a statement from the dissenting opinion in the latest Supreme Court abortion case:

Eighty years on, the Court has come full circle. The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate.

Yaeger you seem to not understand the concept of bodily autonomy.  I'm not going to derail the thread the explain it to you again.  But that is the difference between the mother and you.

[arebelspy]

the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.

What in the..?

How is your whole post not just a troll?

[Yaeger]

Yaeger you seem to not understand the concept of bodily autonomy.  I'm not going to derail the thread the explain it to you again.  But that is the difference between the mother and you.

You don't have a right to avoid the repercussions of an informed decision by claiming 'bodily autonomy', i.e. engaging in consensual sex that may result in a pregnancy. I'm sorry, you're an adult and you need to act like one and that includes taking responsibility for your actions.

[Yaeger]

the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.

What in the..?

How is your whole post not just a troll?

Odd, as a man and possible father, I thought it'd be apparent that that's the reasoning behind why fathers are forced to provide support for their child under the law. They accepted that potential responsibility when they engaged in the sexual act. That statement was applying that same standard to mothers.

[Jack]

When you compare the deaths due to abortion (1,058,490 in 2014) ...

You are factually incorrect. The number of deaths due to abortion was precisely zero* in 2014, the same as it has been every other year.

(* not including deaths of the pregnant women themselves)

[arebelspy]

the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.

What in the..?

How is your whole post not just a troll?

Odd, as a man and possible father, I thought it'd be apparent that that's the reasoning behind why fathers are forced to provide support for their child under the law. They accepted that potential responsibility when they engaged in the sexual act. That statement was applying that same standard to mothers.

(Potential) fathers don't get pregnant.  Their body doesn't have to do anything post-conception. 

[Midwest]

the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.

What in the..?

How is your whole post not just a troll?

Odd, as a man and possible father, I thought it'd be apparent that that's the reasoning behind why fathers are forced to provide support for their child under the law. They accepted that potential responsibility when they engaged in the sexual act. That statement was applying that same standard to mothers.

(Potential) fathers don't get pregnant.  Their body doesn't have to do anything post-conception.

They have a legal obligation to support the child.  Their body has to earn that money.

[arebelspy]

They have a legal obligation to support the child.

Oh definitely.  A moral one too, IMO.  It's nice when legality and morality align.

[Yaeger]

When you compare the deaths due to abortion (1,058,490 in 2014) ...

You are factually incorrect. The number of deaths due to abortion was precisely zero* in 2014, the same as it has been every other year.

(* not including deaths of the pregnant women themselves)

Nah, it's 1,058,490 human beings. You're forgetting the human life killed as it's being flushed away or scrambled and vacuumed out.

[Yaeger]

the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.

What in the..?

How is your whole post not just a troll?

Odd, as a man and possible father, I thought it'd be apparent that that's the reasoning behind why fathers are forced to provide support for their child under the law. They accepted that potential responsibility when they engaged in the sexual act. That statement was applying that same standard to mothers.

(Potential) fathers don't get pregnant.  Their body doesn't have to do anything post-conception.

Gotcha, moral standards are different for your role in the creation of a human life. At least they are for people that don't mind killing a human being in the womb to avoid the responsibility of their actions. I don't think we'll ever agree on this but hopefully you can see why some people would have moral problems funding organizations that do this with public dollars.

[thd7t]

Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if Donald Trump wins, Mike Pence says
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html
There go my rights to bodily autonomy, the rights of my daughter, the rights my grandmother and great-grandmother fought for.  This is my issue with the Pence.

I'll support a candidate that wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I think it's worth doing. Hypothetically if I give a pregnant woman an abortion pill without her realizing it, I can be charged with murder. Yet the mother has the right to kill a human being during the pregnancy at any point during the first 28 weeks.

I'm going to address your statement that you can be charged with murder for giving a woman an abortifacient. This is only true in certain states. The laws are proposed and championed by pro-life groups specifically to help them try to validate the argument that you are making. It isn't universally adopted or agreed upon within the United States. Obviously, the definition of the beginning of life is a major argument in the abortion debate. Currently, viability is the federal standard, though.

[arebelspy]

the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.

What in the..?

How is your whole post not just a troll?

Odd, as a man and possible father, I thought it'd be apparent that that's the reasoning behind why fathers are forced to provide support for their child under the law. They accepted that potential responsibility when they engaged in the sexual act. That statement was applying that same standard to mothers.

(Potential) fathers don't get pregnant.  Their body doesn't have to do anything post-conception.

Gotcha, moral standards are different for your role in the creation of a human life.

Nope, I think women should be responsible for supporting the child too, if it is born.  Same standard.

[Yaeger]

Nope, I think women should be responsible for supporting the child too, if it is born.  Same standard.

But no moral imperative towards supporting the separate, thinking, feeling human life inside of them, that they made a conscious decision to create? I'd argue that it's a moral role of the father, to support the mother during pregnancy, and after, for the betterment of their child.

[arebelspy]

Nope, I think women should be responsible for supporting the child too, if it is born.  Same standard.

But no moral imperative towards supporting the separate, thinking, feeling human life inside of them, that they made a conscious decision to create?

Nope!  :)

[Gin1984]

Nope, I think women should be responsible for supporting the child too, if it is born.  Same standard.

But no moral imperative towards supporting the separate, thinking, feeling human life inside of them, that they made a conscious decision to create?

Nope!  :)

Just a side note, the fetus is not separate, thinking or feeling.  At times when you can abort the CNS is not developed enough to do any of those.  The neuronal system needs to finish connecting enough to process the stimuli required to think or feel.  Also, the reason why bodily autonomy is important here is that the fetus is not separate, it requires the mother/host to survive.  If people really cared about the fetus, there would be funding for autonomous wombs, there is not.  If the fetus is separate and therefore can be removed from me and live, sure let's do that.  Except at that point women can't legally have the fetus removed.