Deplorable? I'll get to what's "deplorable" about all of this in just a second.
On War: Her position on whether we need active troops in one location may have changed, but her overall position has NOT. She was the New York Senator after 9/11 and voted with others in her party who now regret the decision; that's not changing position, that's recognizing that a bad call was made in reaction to the horrific attacks we suffered, and acknowledging that mistake. That's not poor character at all. Additionally, her position has been relatively stable for the last nine years on this issue.
Healthcare: that's bull. Straight up bull. She's been working for healthcare since before most of us in this thread were born, pushing for universal coverage for two and a half decades. She's not changed a bit on that. Like many Democrats she likely thinks of single payer as an ideal end, but acknowledges that it simply cannot happen. She's consistent and tough on this issue, don't lie.
Gay Marriage: not only has her position on the issue been exactly in line with the actual American people, and in some ways with Sanders as well since we all know about that time he voted against certain measures, but also, she's been a proven advocate for the community for years despite her opinions on marriage itself. This is a weak line of attack to either her character or her consistency.
Crime: if you pull back your focus from the two things that have repeatedly been peddled throughout this election season (the superpredators comment and the corresponding bill vs. her statements now that we need to reduce mass incarceration), you'd find she's remarkably consistent there as well.
Trade: Also essentially a myth. Her votes and emails on trade have been rather consistent in supporting attempts at trade deals, but responsibly acknowledging when they fail. This is also well-documented. I would say that expecting a blanket position on trade is economically and practically irresponsible.
Now, what's deplorable is your uninformed and irresponsible stance on Trump. His campaign might be "white noise" to you, but to those of us who have been paying attention, he is absolutely the worst possible choice. He is a racist. He is a misogynist. He advocates for violence and encourages it at his rallies. He's failed to put forth an actual plan for virtually any of his proposals. He talked about his penis size on national television, openly mocks and derides anyone with whom he comes into contact, and is generally the polar opposite of Bernie, both on most of the issues and in character. Supporting Bernie over Hillary on some nebulous and ill-informed perception of character is a problem in and of itself, but hopping over to Trump in response to Bernie's inviability? That's even worse.
Hillary believes what she has preached and has always stood for solid Democratic Party ideals, and has been a member of the party for 48 years. Holding her to an unreasonably and ridiculously high standard does not change this. Her character has not been successfully questioned: neither you nor any other person opposed to her can actually point to unethical behavior, to actual examples of pandering to any voters, to any actual reason why her character and record should be questioned. You say she's out of touch, but she curiously seems to be the candidate with the MOST support on either side, and with the best and most thorough plans. You say she's hated by millions for good reasons, but you have failed to provide a single one that's nearly good enough, or really that's good at all.
Hillary is a better candidate than any of the others; attacks on her as "untrustworthy" or "dishonest" simply do NOT hold up upon any measure of scrutiny; and she will be the next President. That's all there is to it.
Well damn, just pack it up, nothing else left to say.
At the end of the day, Trump isn't responsible for what any of his supporters do. He hasn't done so intentionally, but he has tapped into some bigoted sentiments. But it's not his fault that a FEW of his supporters hold those sentiments. He didn't hesitate to disavow David Duke. The mainstream media simply opted not to cover it. Anyone with half a brain knows they (the media) have been trying to thwart his support since he first announced his candidacy.
That said, I'm mystified as to all of this hate speech they speak of. Any receipts? All that comes to mind is a very pro-American message; prevention of illegal immigration, protecting Americans from potential ISIS threats by thoroughly vetting all who want to enter the country, etc.
I sympathize a little bit with illegal immigrants fears of mass deportation, although he's made it clear that self-deportation by enforcing laws, like E-Verify, is the method he's going with.
Other than that, he's not against LEGAL immigration. And people will still be welcome to the country. So people shouldn't have a problem with a wall, increased border security, a stop on all drugs and gang members flowing across the border (something that Chicago seems to like), and putting American citizens first, just like many other countries do for their citizens. Calling him racist is idiotic.
His positions are solid, if you'd go to his website and see them rather than only listening to what biased media tells you about him.
At the end of the day, Trump isn't responsible for what any of his supporters do. He hasn't done so intentionally, but he has tapped into some bigoted sentiments. But it's not his fault that a FEW of his supporters hold those sentiments. He didn't hesitate to disavow David Duke. The mainstream media simply opted not to cover it. Anyone with half a brain knows they've been trying to thwart his support since he first announced his candidacy.
That said, I'm mystified as to all of this hate speech they speak of. Any receipts? All that comes to mind is a very pro-American message; prevention of illegal immigration, protecting Americans from potential ISIS threats by thoroughly vetting all who want to enter the country, etc.
I sympathize a little bit with illegal immigrants fears of mass deportation, although he's made it clear that self-deportation by enforcing laws, like E-Verify, is the method he's going with.
Other than that, he's not against LEGAL immigration. And people will still be welcome to the country. So people shouldn't have a problem with a wall, increased border security, a stop on all drugs and gang members flowing across the border (something that Chicago seems to like), and putting American citizens first, just like many other countries do for their citizens. Calling him racist is idiotic.
Yes. He is. Everyone who isn't a moron sees it.
He baits the behavior constantly.
Illegal Immigration crackdown is "pro American"? Stupidest thing I have read all day. America was founded by illegal immigrants.
At the end of the day, Trump isn't responsible for what any of his supporters do. He hasn't done so intentionally, but he has tapped into some bigoted sentiments. But it's not his fault that a FEW of his supporters hold those sentiments. He didn't hesitate to disavow David Duke. The mainstream media simply opted not to cover it. Anyone with half a brain knows they've been trying to thwart his support since he first announced his candidacy.
That said, I'm mystified as to all of this hate speech they speak of. Any receipts? All that comes to mind is a very pro-American message; prevention of illegal immigration, protecting Americans from potential ISIS threats by thoroughly vetting all who want to enter the country, etc.
I sympathize a little bit with illegal immigrants fears of mass deportation, although he's made it clear that self-deportation by enforcing laws, like E-Verify, is the method he's going with.
Other than that, he's not against LEGAL immigration. And people will still be welcome to the country. So people shouldn't have a problem with a wall, increased border security, a stop on all drugs and gang members flowing across the border (something that Chicago seems to like), and putting American citizens first, just like many other countries do for their citizens. Calling him racist is idiotic.
"At the end of the day," he claims that more Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists in NEED of deportation than not - but "some" he "imagines" are "good people." Though Islam isn't a race, it's also worth noting that he opposes all Muslim entry into the US "until we get better vetting measures." If you then want to expand from xenophobia to general ignorance, you can analyze his consistent sexist remarks and his willingness to mock a disabled reporter during a rally.
This isn't just "oh, Trump wants to stop drugs and gang members, put US citizens first, and make America great!" There's a consistent, demonstrable pattern of xenophobia, ignorance, and yes, even hints of actual racism that come from Trump. He hasn't appealed to racists, sexists, the KKK, and others just out of the blue. They didn't just happen to all fall in line with him. His rhetoric suggests a clear and disturbing pattern and persona, and it is foolish to deny that.
Deplorable? I'll get to what's "deplorable" about all of this in just a second.
On War: Her position on whether we need active troops in one location may have changed, but her overall position has NOT. She was the New York Senator after 9/11 and voted with others in her party who now regret the decision; that's not changing position, that's recognizing that a bad call was made in reaction to the horrific attacks we suffered, and acknowledging that mistake. That's not poor character at all. Additionally, her position has been relatively stable for the last nine years on this issue.
Healthcare: that's bull. Straight up bull. She's been working for healthcare since before most of us in this thread were born, pushing for universal coverage for two and a half decades. She's not changed a bit on that. Like many Democrats she likely thinks of single payer as an ideal end, but acknowledges that it simply cannot happen. She's consistent and tough on this issue, don't lie.
Gay Marriage: not only has her position on the issue been exactly in line with the actual American people, and in some ways with Sanders as well since we all know about that time he voted against certain measures, but also, she's been a proven advocate for the community for years despite her opinions on marriage itself. This is a weak line of attack to either her character or her consistency.
Crime: if you pull back your focus from the two things that have repeatedly been peddled throughout this election season (the superpredators comment and the corresponding bill vs. her statements now that we need to reduce mass incarceration), you'd find she's remarkably consistent there as well.
Trade: Also essentially a myth. Her votes and emails on trade have been rather consistent in supporting attempts at trade deals, but responsibly acknowledging when they fail. This is also well-documented. I would say that expecting a blanket position on trade is economically and practically irresponsible.
Now, what's deplorable is your uninformed and irresponsible stance on Trump. His campaign might be "white noise" to you, but to those of us who have been paying attention, he is absolutely the worst possible choice. He is a racist. He is a misogynist. He advocates for violence and encourages it at his rallies. He's failed to put forth an actual plan for virtually any of his proposals. He talked about his penis size on national television, openly mocks and derides anyone with whom he comes into contact, and is generally the polar opposite of Bernie, both on most of the issues and in character. Supporting Bernie over Hillary on some nebulous and ill-informed perception of character is a problem in and of itself, but hopping over to Trump in response to Bernie's inviability? That's even worse.
Hillary believes what she has preached and has always stood for solid Democratic Party ideals, and has been a member of the party for 48 years. Holding her to an unreasonably and ridiculously high standard does not change this. Her character has not been successfully questioned: neither you nor any other person opposed to her can actually point to unethical behavior, to actual examples of pandering to any voters, to any actual reason why her character and record should be questioned. You say she's out of touch, but she curiously seems to be the candidate with the MOST support on either side, and with the best and most thorough plans. You say she's hated by millions for good reasons, but you have failed to provide a single one that's nearly good enough, or really that's good at all.
Hillary is a better candidate than any of the others; attacks on her as "untrustworthy" or "dishonest" simply do NOT hold up upon any measure of scrutiny; and she will be the next President. That's all there is to it.
How long you had this drafted?
Nonetheless, I agree. Coming for Hillary has only become a thing because you have to ignore all these facts and create memes, buzz word-y articles to insult her, and support your respective candidate.
"At the end of the day," he claims that more Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists in NEED of deportation than not - but "some" he "imagines" are "good people." Though Islam isn't a race, it's also worth noting that he opposes all Muslim entry into the US "until we get better vetting measures." If you then want to expand from xenophobia to general ignorance, you can analyze his consistent sexist remarks and his willingness to mock a disabled reporter during a rally.
This isn't just "oh, Trump wants to stop drugs and gang members, put US citizens first, and make America great!" There's a consistent, demonstrable pattern of xenophobia, ignorance, and yes, even hints of actual racism that come from Trump. He hasn't appealed to racists, sexists, the KKK, and others just out of the blue. They didn't just happen to all fall in line with him. His rhetoric suggests a clear and disturbing pattern and persona, and it is foolish to deny that.
Fair point. It's unfortunate. But they still don't make up the majority of his base support. He appeals to many demographics. Unfortunately, that includes some racists. Reality is some racists will always exist. They're delusional to think that Trump is trying to do them any favors.
As for his style, it's not politically-correct. But people like it. They feel like they've been nice for long enough while government has failed them. you could say he is voicing their outrage. But if that's what the electorate is feeling,
Nonetheless, I agree. Coming for Hillary has only become a thing because you have to ignore all these facts and create memes and buzz word-y articles to insult her and support your respective candidate.
I have about a hundred ready to fire off for the appropriate occasion, all sitting just up in my brain, which is stamped with a beautiful red and blue H.
Also, I don't have blood cells - just very tiny Hillary Clintons in red pantsuits.
Not to invoke Godwin's Law but the people of Germany were also feeling outrage over their government and blamed it on a rising Jewish population and other minorities (am not comparing Trump to Hitler here - just this specific comparison). Sometimes the electorate is wrong and anyone pandering to it should be shamed.
Votes determine what is the truth now? Laughably stupid.
Well, what's laughable is how everyone was laughing at him when he made his announcement. Now he's the clear GOP front-runner and may very well go up against Hillary. He's attracted the most attention to this election cycle, regardless of who wants to give him credit or not. 20+ million ratings for debates that would usually get 5 million at best? 20,000+ at rallies, where most candidates might get 5,000 at best? 2 Billion in free advertisement because the media, though they dislike him, can't deny that he brings them ratings? And despite being a billionaire, he's very frugal. Even if he isn't elected, his campaign is already legendary. People in their 60s and 70s who have follow politics all their lives say they have never seen something like this before: a complete outsider come and shake things up the way he has. He's a phenomenon.
I've already come to terms with Hillary being a one-term president. She'll win this time, but her time as president will be hellish, and people will be wanting a party change because that's just how things naturally go.
I think all of us need to accept that at some point a republican will take office again. Thankfully it shouldn't be this year. However, Bernie is a harbinger of what's to come on the democratic side in the future though and that's why Hillary needs to quit playing moderate. It's not going to excite the base and get them to come out again in 4 years. She'll win this year (if only because of Trump) but it'll be much harder in 4 years if she disappoints the left like Obama has. She has to find a way to win over the far left.
Thankfully it shouldn't be this year. However, Bernie is a harbinger of what's to come on the democratic side in the future though and that's why Hillary needs to quit playing moderate. It's not going to excite the base and get them to come out again in 4 years. She'll win this year (if only because of Trump) but it'll be much harder in 4 years if she disappoints the left like Obama has. She has to find a way to win over the far left.