Current Events > CE I want your opinion on this note I wrote on facebook about Clinton

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't understand why so many people want Bernie Sanders to run a second time. He got crushed by Hillary Clinton in 2016, why would he be any more successful against Joe Biden and so forth?

The reality is Sanders was an extremely flawed candidate and there were a lot of things dishonest about his campaign. I understand the significance of the repealing Glass-Steagal and the impact it had on the relationship between investment and commercial banks but it was comical of Sanders to blame this action by the Clinton administration for the entirety of the 2008 financial collapse. The fact of the matter is that the great recession occurred mainly because of actions that took place in the "shadow banking community;" collateral debt obligations for example flourished within the shadow banking community. Bernie or Busters don't understand what the shadow banking community is; most of them are low information voters.

Bernie Sanders was not a perfect candidate. His plan for defeating ISIS was building more windmills in Palm Desert. I don't think there has every been a weaker candidate on foreign policy who had a legitimate chance of winning the Presidency besides Donald Trump. Clinton on the other hand had been our previous SoS. It is clear which candidate was more qualified to be President.

I agree that the Democratic Party should move to the left, and given the fact that Hillary Clinton had a more liberal senate record than at the time senator Obama, I think it's safe we did in 2016.

Hillary Clinton was forced to become more moderate between the 80s and the 2000s in order to be electable. Using this against her now is a complete slap in the face to someone who has dedicated her life to public service. We've never been luckier to have someone actually want to dedicate this much time to serving in government, and it is possible we won't experience this luck a second time.

We do not build ourselves up by tearing our friends and allies down. We could of stopped Trump, but instead a group of spoiled entitled brats with a low amount of economic knowledge instead decided to either not vote or vote for Gary Johnson, a far right Republican.

If you stare into the abbess, it will always stare back. History will judge those who were Ready for Hillary kindly. Simultaneously it will mock those who decided to cling onto know-nothing politics. It always has.

At this point I no longer care if you are ready for Hillary, I just hope you are ready for the future. The future relies on cooperation. In a planet where world economies are becoming increasingly interdependent on each other, global cooperation is the only way forward. Don't stand in the way, we will run you over. (;
---

That's great and all but remember, her emails
---

Center_Right posted...

---

I want serious responses
---

this is a lame gimmick bro

0/10

needs more benghazi, leaking of classified info through private email, use of fbi to get dirt on competitors, clinton foundation being p2p into state department, theft of government property, and colluding with dnc and cnn to fix primary.


i am sure i missed some
---

When I think of the presidency, I think of two things:

1) Figure head for executive branch
2) Commander in Chief of the military

To be qualified for the position, someone should either be diplomatic, charismatic, or have some military experience.

Sanders was diplomatic, as was Clinton. Neither were particularly charismatic, but I'd say Sanders was more so than Clinton. None of them had a military background (or if they did it wasn't notable), but Clinton had SoS experience, which I consider military-esque. They are the face of foreign policy and do collaborate in the Situation Room.

Trump had none of the above in my opinion. He isn't charismatic, except to simple-minded people (I'll catch some flak for this, but he does not articulate himself well IMO). He certainly isn't diplomatic (quite the opposite), and doesn't really have the qualifications to be Commander in Chief.

Sanders likely wouldn't have been effective, especially with some of his more "radical" ideas, given the Republican Congress. But it would have marked a voice for America, an acknowledgement that the legislative branch has consistently been the thorn preventing progress or real change for the general public as opposed to business.

Clinton would have been the status quo. Sure, things could be better, but they could be *a lot* worse. People lose sight of this. I valued the stability of that idea.

Trump is a wildcard. A liability. A sort of disrespect to the qualifications of the office. I think he makes us look weak.

A President needs to be calm, cool, and collected. Trump is neither. He's egotistical and insecure. His presidency is surrounded by scandals not even a year in. Whether or not they are all true isn't the issue. He invites it in, and I don't value that. It distorts the ability to separate the signal from the noise. It's Machiavellian, and I don't trust that. I don't doubt politicians from either party act disingenuously to a degree, but there is something to be said about maintaining that image of it being above the books. One promotes the peace. The other instills possibilities that are bloody and dark. And it saddens me to see how willing people are to go into this kind of darkness.

This election cycle didn't have great options. It exemplified picking the "lesser of two evils" and it was an easy conclusion for me, but this cycle forced me to recognize how many people disagree with that.
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

When I think of the presidency, I think of two things:

1) Figure head for executive branch
2) Commander in Chief of the military

To be qualified for the position, someone should either be diplomatic, charismatic, or have some military experience.

Sanders was diplomatic, as was Clinton. Neither were particularly charismatic, but I'd say Sanders was more so than Clinton. None of them had a military background (or if they did it wasn't notable), but Clinton had SoS experience, which I consider military-esque. They are the face of foreign policy and do collaborate in the Situation Room.

Trump had none of the above in my opinion. He isn't charismatic, except to simple-minded people (I'll catch some flak for this, but he does not articulate himself well IMO). He certainly isn't diplomatic (quite the opposite), and doesn't really have the qualifications to be Commander in Chief.

Sanders likely wouldn't have been effective, especially with some of his more "radical" ideas, given the Republican Congress. But it would have marked a voice for America, an acknowledgement that the legislative branch has consistently been the thorn preventing progress or real change for the general public as opposed to business.

Clinton would have been the status quo. Sure, things could be better, but they could be *a lot* worse. People lose sight of this. I valued the stability of that idea.

Trump is a wildcard. A liability. A sort of disrespect to the qualifications of the office. I think he makes us look weak.

A President needs to be calm, cool, and collected. Trump is neither. He's egotistical and insecure. His presidency is surrounded by scandals not even a year in. Whether or not they are all true isn't the issue. He invites it in, and I don't value that. It distorts the ability to separate the signal from the noise. It's Machiavellian, and I don't trust that. I don't doubt politicians from either party act disingenuously to a degree, but there is something to be said about maintaining that image of it being above the books. One promotes the peace. The other instills possibilities that are bloody and dark. And it saddens me to see how willing people are to go into this kind of darkness.

This election cycle didn't have great options. It exemplified picking the "lesser of two evils" and it was an easy conclusion for me, but this cycle forced me to recognize how many people disagree with that.

I thought that was very thoughtful. The reality is I think most people wish we could of had a third term of Obama, who isn't perfect either but was a pretty great leader.
---