The 7th big reason why liberal-progressives need to support Hillary In 2016 [added: This is an anti-Hillary thread.]

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2015 5:41 PM GMT
    Taking the liberty of quoting from metta8 in another thread, I will add a 7th reason.

    metta8 saidHillary-2016-708x350.jpg

    6 Big Reasons Why Liberal-Progressives Need To Support Hillary In 2016

    http://reverbpress.com/politics/6-big-reasons-liberal-progressives-need-support-hillary-2016/

    Reason #7:

    You hold your liberal-progressive ideology so strongly that you firmly believe the end justifies the means if that entails furthering your ideological beliefs. You overlook her conspiring with key aids at the start of her Secretary of State tenure to use a private server to conceal emails among them. You overlook her wiping the server clean upon requests to have a neutral arbitrator cut out the personal from official email. Furthermore, you completely support the actions of Harry Reid, who finally admitted he had not a shred of evidence of Romney not paying taxes when he made the accusation. He felt no regret lying because he thought it might have helped Romney lose.

    You don't mind public officials being willfully dishonest or even breaking laws because you convince yourself that everyone lies or is dishonest. That helps you justify your own dishonest actions when dealing with others in your personal life.

    So when talking with your friends who may be even less informed than you might be, tell them anything to convince them to support Hillary. Lie, make up facts, do anything. It's all for a good cause.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Apr 11, 2015 5:53 PM GMT
    This is why the liberal-progressives will be outvoted and the hapless Hillary ho will be defeated in 2016 regardless of what all these idiotic, meaningless polls claim. That bumbling bitch is totally unfit for President. The democrats need to push her aside and find a better more qualified candidate. The republicans need to stop pandering to the narrow minded bible thumping screwballs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2015 5:53 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidThis is why the liberal-progressives will be outvoted and the hapless Hillary ho will be defeated in 2016 regardless of what all these idiotic, meaningless polls claim. That bumbling bitch is totally unfit for President. The democrats need to push her aside and find a better more qualified candidate. The republicans need to stop pandering to the narrow minded bible thumping screwballs.


    ^+1!
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 11, 2015 5:56 PM GMT
    since when is Clinton a liberal-progressive? She's more of a Wall Street protecting neo-Con running around screaming about the glass ceiling - that's about the bottom line on her
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2015 6:05 PM GMT
    In the short time this thread was posted, I received a PM from someone I know leans left who I am on pretty good terms with. He was a bit put off by my post and wanted to know if I considered him dishonest. This is how I responded:

    1) I consider you a good guy and don't want to call names or make specific accusations.

    2) I know your general political leanings, but I don't know for a fact that you support Hillary, so I don't want to make a rash judgement.

    3) I do believe that overlooking or accepting dishonesty in others, whatever their politics might be, does reflect on the person.

    4) While we are not under any honor code, the code from the Air Force Academy website illustrates my point: "We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does." I believe rationalizing or tolerating dishonesty is a reflection on an individual's character.

    5) Pointing out any character flaws or actions of others serve to justify excusing it in the present. It still remains an excuse and still reflects on one's character.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2015 6:18 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    roadbikeRob saidThis is why the liberal-progressives will be outvoted and the hapless Hillary ho will be defeated in 2016 regardless of what all these idiotic, meaningless polls claim. That bumbling bitch is totally unfit for President. The democrats need to push her aside and find a better more qualified candidate. The republicans need to stop pandering to the narrow minded bible thumping screwballs.


    ^+1!

    I would really like to see someone like Joe Manchin compete for the Democratic Party nomination. He has experience both as Governor and US Senator. I don't know his past in detail or all his positions, but I have read enough to have a general sense. I'm using him as an example of someone with credentials who could be a formidable candidate. I suspect he is not left enough for some. If someone like him entered, it could motivate the Republicans to nominate someone also moderate to avoid giving up the center. Otherwise, they would likely lose.

    I'm also tired of hearing how wonderful it would be to have a female President. I would have no problems with a female President, but I think we need to ignore race and gender and decide who is most competent and honest.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Apr 11, 2015 6:34 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    MGINSD said
    roadbikeRob saidThis is why the liberal-progressives will be outvoted and the hapless Hillary ho will be defeated in 2016 regardless of what all these idiotic, meaningless polls claim. That bumbling bitch is totally unfit for President. The democrats need to push her aside and find a better more qualified candidate. The republicans need to stop pandering to the narrow minded bible thumping screwballs.


    ^+1!

    I would really like to see someone like Joe Manchin compete for the Democratic Party nomination. He has experience both as Governor and US Senator. I don't know his past in detail or all his positions, but I have read enough to have a general sense. I'm using him as an example of someone with credentials who could be a formidable candidate. I suspect he is not left enough for some. If someone like him entered, it could motivate the Republicans to nominate someone also moderate to avoid giving up the center. Otherwise, they would likely lose.

    I'm also tired of hearing how wonderful it would be to have a female President. I would have no problems with a female President, but I think we need to ignore race and gender and decide who is most competent and honest.
    Thank you. +200,000.
  • TheBaise

    Posts: 363

    Apr 11, 2015 7:19 PM GMT
    th?id=JN.y5HVRrmOPhLrdxhElvUMWw&pid=15.1

    I think we need a strong Latina, like Sonia / or a good dedicated black woman. It's also time for an Asian man or woman. Man / the essential thing is that it be someone who will carry forward Barak's plans and dreams. Sonia will do that. Hillary might, but we can't count on her. She may go in and dismantle some of Barak's programs just out of spite. Instead of Hillary this time, I'm thinking we need Somebody Else.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 11, 2015 7:48 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidsince when is Clinton a liberal-progressive? She's more of a Wall Street protecting neo-Con running around screaming about the glass ceiling - that's about the bottom line on her


    Since 1969 at Wellesley College, when she presented her senior thesis on Saul Alinsky. It's a more accurate term to define her as a Radical Progressive Socialist who has, over four decades, attained an indisputable well documented history of Alinsky style radicalism.

    And of all the people in the world, next to the current president who is also an Alinsky style radical progressive socialist Hillary Clinton's words are less than meaningless. Words to Radical Progressive Socialists are only malleable, disposable tools with no greater purpose than to manipulate the opinions of people by any form of dishonesty required. In others words, "they never say what they mean or mean what they say."

    But you're almost right about her being a Wall Street protecting neo-Con. It would be more accurate to define her as an unscrupulous power hungry merchant of the "fool's bait" of socialism to the masses that is really designed to serve the greater needs and purposes of the uber wealthy.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 11, 2015 8:00 PM GMT
    TheBaise saidth?id=JN.y5HVRrmOPhLrdxhElvUMWw&pid=15.1

    I think we need a strong Latina, like Sonia / or a good dedicated black woman. It's also time for an Asian man or woman. Man / the essential thing is that it be someone who will carry forward Barak's plans and dreams. Sonia will do that. Hillary might, but we can't count on her. She may go in and dismantle some of Barak's programs just out of spite. Instead of Hillary this time, I'm thinking we need Somebody Else.


    Go back and smoke some more dope and watch a Jennifer Lopez movie.

    Placing a higher value on emotional appeal, gender, ethnic origins or race than competence, integrity and experience is what elected both Jimmy Carter and Obama.
  • TheBaise

    Posts: 363

    Apr 11, 2015 10:06 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    TheBaise saidth?id=JN.y5HVRrmOPhLrdxhElvUMWw&pid=15.1

    I think we need a strong Latina, like Sonia / or a good dedicated black woman. It's also time for an Asian man or woman. Man / the essential thing is that it be someone who will carry forward Barak's plans and dreams. Sonia will do that. Hillary might, but we can't count on her. She may go in and dismantle some of Barak's programs just out of spite. Instead of Hillary this time, I'm thinking we need Somebody Else.


    Go ahead and smoke some more dope and have a Jennifer Lopez movie marathon.

    Putting a higher value on emotional appeal, gender, or race rather than competence, integrity and experience has already given the US the two worst presidents in its history.




    Dude, you're partially right on here about placing a high value on gender, race and appeal. But don't you see / we owe that to all our Latinos, blacks and Asians / and even Indians / because it is us who have held them back and kept them down all these years! We've got to right the wrongs of our forefathers. So what if some of these people haven't made the best presidents and other things? There is a learning curve - duh! They don't maybe have all the experience and integrity - but they're going to get there. Give 'em a break and a pass on those few things they aren't strong on! Those things will come as they learn!
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 11, 2015 11:23 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    tj85016 saidsince when is Clinton a liberal-progressive? She's more of a Wall Street protecting neo-Con running around screaming about the glass ceiling - that's about the bottom line on her


    Since 1969 at Wellesley College, when she presented her senior thesis on Saul Alinsky. It's a more accurate term to define her as a Radical Progressive Socialist who has, over four decades, attained an indisputable well documented history of Alinsky style radicalism.

    And of all the people in the world, next to the current president who is also an Alinsky style radical progressive socialist Hillary Clinton's words are less than meaningless. Words to Radical Progressive Socialists are only malleable, disposable tools with no greater purpose than to manipulate the opinions of people by any form of dishonesty required. In others words, "they never say what they mean or mean what they say."

    But you're almost right about her being a Wall Street protecting neo-Con. It would be more accurate to define her as an unscrupulous power hungry merchant of the "fool's bait" of socialism to the masses that is really designed to serve the greater needs and purposes of the uber wealthy.


    yeah well unrestricted capitalism or socialism you wind up with the same result eventually, 95% of the wealth in 2% of the hands - which he have
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2015 2:26 AM GMT
    TheBaise saidDude, you're partially right on here about placing a high value on gender, race and appeal. But don't you see / we owe that to all our Latinos, blacks and Asians / and even Indians / because it is us who have held them back and kept them down all these years! We've got to right the wrongs of our forefathers. So what if some of these people haven't made the best presidents and other things? There is a learning curve - duh! They don't maybe have all the experience and integrity - but they're going to get there. Give 'em a break and a pass on those few things they aren't strong on! Those things will come as they learn!

    If it were possible to ignore the Constitution and law, oh wait, that happens all the time with this administration - but just asking - Since we want every variety of human in the White House, how bout considering illegal oops undocumented aliens oops immigrants? They should be able to be president even if they don't speak English. Hey man, English is only one of many languages. Why should they be stuck picking fruit or cleaning toilets? Give em a chance in the White House for a change. It's only fair. What do you say, man?
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 12, 2015 2:47 AM GMT
    TheBaise said
    bobbobbob said
    TheBaise saidth?id=JN.y5HVRrmOPhLrdxhElvUMWw&pid=15.1

    I think we need a strong Latina, like Sonia / or a good dedicated black woman. It's also time for an Asian man or woman. Man / the essential thing is that it be someone who will carry forward Barak's plans and dreams. Sonia will do that. Hillary might, but we can't count on her. She may go in and dismantle some of Barak's programs just out of spite. Instead of Hillary this time, I'm thinking we need Somebody Else.


    Go ahead and smoke some more dope and have a Jennifer Lopez movie marathon.

    Putting a higher value on emotional appeal, gender, or race rather than competence, integrity and experience has already given the US the two worst presidents in its history.




    Dude, you're partially right on here about placing a high value on gender, race and appeal. But don't you see / we owe that to all our Latinos, blacks and Asians / and even Indians / because it is us who have held them back and kept them down all these years! We've got to right the wrongs of our forefathers. So what if some of these people haven't made the best presidents and other things? There is a learning curve - duh! They don't maybe have all the experience and integrity - but they're going to get there. Give 'em a break and a pass on those few things they aren't strong on! Those things will come as they learn!


    No offense intended but you really are one Fumb Ducker if you actually believe that shit. You're talking about on-the-job training for fucking presidents!!!! Listen, DUDE, that is the stupidest dame idea I've ever heard from a stoned irresponsible half wit liberal... oh,.. no.... it's number 638 on my list now that I think about it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2015 2:55 AM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    TheBaise said
    bobbobbob said
    TheBaise saidth?id=JN.y5HVRrmOPhLrdxhElvUMWw&pid=15.1

    I think we need a strong Latina, like Sonia / or a good dedicated black woman. It's also time for an Asian man or woman. Man / the essential thing is that it be someone who will carry forward Barak's plans and dreams. Sonia will do that. Hillary might, but we can't count on her. She may go in and dismantle some of Barak's programs just out of spite. Instead of Hillary this time, I'm thinking we need Somebody Else.


    Go ahead and smoke some more dope and have a Jennifer Lopez movie marathon.

    Putting a higher value on emotional appeal, gender, or race rather than competence, integrity and experience has already given the US the two worst presidents in its history.




    Dude, you're partially right on here about placing a high value on gender, race and appeal. But don't you see / we owe that to all our Latinos, blacks and Asians / and even Indians / because it is us who have held them back and kept them down all these years! We've got to right the wrongs of our forefathers. So what if some of these people haven't made the best presidents and other things? There is a learning curve - duh! They don't maybe have all the experience and integrity - but they're going to get there. Give 'em a break and a pass on those few things they aren't strong on! Those things will come as they learn!


    No offense intended but you really are one Fumb Ducker if you actually believe that shit. You're talking about on-the-job training for fucking presidents!!!! Listen, DUDE, that is the stupidest dame idea I've ever heard from a stoned irresponsible half wit liberal... oh,.. no.... it's number 638 on my list now that I think about it.

    Hey man, go easy on TheBaise. Everyone learns on the job. Take Barack Hussein [yes please take him]. He didn't have much experience, community organizer, State Senator who always voted present when he was present, Freshman US Senator who spent most of his first term running for president. So you see he had no experience and look how he turned out. He even said he was one of the great ones, up there with Lincoln. So man, cut TheBaise some slack. We need newcomers with no experience. It's only fair to give em a chance.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 12, 2015 4:27 AM GMT
    tj85016 said
    bobbobbob said
    tj85016 saidsince when is Clinton a liberal-progressive? She's more of a Wall Street protecting neo-Con running around screaming about the glass ceiling - that's about the bottom line on her


    Since 1969 at Wellesley College, when she presented her senior thesis on Saul Alinsky. It's a more accurate term to define her as a Radical Progressive Socialist who has, over four decades, attained an indisputable well documented history of Alinsky style radicalism.

    And of all the people in the world, next to the current president who is also an Alinsky style radical progressive socialist Hillary Clinton's words are less than meaningless. Words to Radical Progressive Socialists are only malleable, disposable tools with no greater purpose than to manipulate the opinions of people by any form of dishonesty required. In others words, "they never say what they mean or mean what they say."

    But you're almost right about her being a Wall Street protecting neo-Con. It would be more accurate to define her as an unscrupulous power hungry merchant of the "fool's bait" of socialism to the masses that is really designed to serve the greater needs and purposes of the uber wealthy.


    yeah well unrestricted capitalism or socialism you wind up with the same result eventually, 95% of the wealth in 2% of the hands - which he have


    Yeah well, there are some very big differences.

    The first is (in spite of liberal mantra to the contrary) is that under free market capitalism price gouging monopolies cannot exist for very long because they will create greater opportunities for competition by people who are willing and able to deliver the same commodities at lower prices. Monopolies since the Roman Empire have never existed without the protection and complicity of government power. Under socialism the unstated long range goal is always to work with the "preferred class" of uber wealthy to create monopolies that are mutually beneficial and profitable for both.

    As has been learned under socialist regimes in the USSR, China, N. Korea, Nicaragua, Cuba, and all, the concept of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" eradicates all incentives for innovation, efficiency and entrepreneurship.
    (and please don't try to argue that I'm pointing out communist countries as socialist. None of those nations refers to itself as "communist." They called themselves socialists.)  Under free market capitalism innovation, efficiency and entrepreneurship can completely roll over and alter the rosters of billionaires and millionaires in less than 50 years instead of making the rich a protected class in league with government.

    In the US, half the people who are millionaires now will not be in twenty years. They'll be replaced with the innovators and the more efficient.

    I'll never forget an magazine article from the 1970s about the Moskvitch auto factory in the USSR. They stopped producing autos on their assembly line that were complete? Why? Because they could not compete with the efficiency of the black market's manufacturers in auto parts. You bought your new Moskvitch from the dealer, hauled it to a black market mechanic to have him finish the work for less than the state monopoly factory could do it. In the article was a great quote from one of the workers in the Moskvitch factory:

    "They pretend to pay us: We pretend to work."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2015 8:12 PM GMT
    I hope the Democrats get some alternatives for the nomination even if it means a good, honest candidate who could defeat the Republican nominee.

    But whatever, whether it be Hillary in primaries or in the general election, I think trustworthiness will remain a factor. Based on the Quinnipiac poll http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4034811 that may be the case.

    I think it is important to go further than just assessing the candidates. Specifically, if someone is aware of her actions as listed in the OP and continues to support her, then I think the finger should be pointed at them, questioning their character. The phrase might be "If you accept dishonesty in others, then you accept dishonesty in yourself." I'm certain there are many shameless people who don't care, but maybe enough have sufficient self-respect that it does matter.

    Time for an in-your-face approach.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Apr 12, 2015 10:46 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidI hope the Democrats get some alternatives for the nomination even if it means a good, honest candidate who could defeat the Republican nominee.

    But whatever, whether it be Hillary in primaries or in the general election, I think trustworthiness will remain a factor. Based on the Quinnipiac poll http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4034811 that may be the case.

    I think it is important to go further than just assessing the candidates. Specifically, if someone is aware of her actions as listed in the OP and continues to support her, then I think the finger should be pointed at them, questioning their character. The phrase might be "If you accept dishonesty in others, then you accept dishonesty in yourself." I'm certain there are many shameless people who don't care, but maybe enough have sufficient self-respect that it does matter.

    Time for an in-your-face approach.
    Hopefully the democratic voters will smarten up during the campaign and vote for someone other than the hapless Hillary ho. That bumbling bitch is totally untrustworthy and is a great bullshit and distortion artist. She does not belong in the White House.