What's Aleppo?

[jclalor 12]

Put a fork In him, he's done, and this is great news for Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/gary-johnson-chris-matthews/

[DanG 1]

I would vote Libertarian if they could find a candidate who's not a joke.

So far no success.

- Dan G

[DJL 235]

jclalor

Put a fork In him, he's done, and this is great news for Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/gary-johnson-chris-matthews/

Yeah, you have to at least know a foreign leader's name.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

DanG

I would vote Libertarian if they could find a candidate who's not a joke.

So far no success.

As ridiculous and pathetic as he has been portrayed (IMO, not entirely fairly), he's still less of a joke than Trump.

And since there's no way I'm voting for HRC, then he's got my vote.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DanG 1]

Quote

As ridiculous and pathetic as he has been portrayed (IMO, not entirely fairly), he's still less of a joke than Trump.

Agreed. I don't think he's evil, I just think he's really spacey.

Quote

And since there's no way I'm voting for HRC, then he's got my vote.

I don't get the extreme dislike of Clinton. I have a mild dislike of her, but there's no arguing that she's intelligent, experienced, and qualified. I'd rather vote for an unlikeable qualified person than vote for a completely unqualified person.

- Dan G

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

DanG

Quote

And since there's no way I'm voting for HRC, then he's got my vote.

I don't get the extreme dislike of Clinton. I have a mild dislike of her, but there's no arguing that she's intelligent, experienced, and qualified. I'd rather vote for an unlikeable qualified person than vote for a completely unqualified person.

My dislike is cumulative and based on her behavior, not stupid rumors or the simple fact that she's a woman. Personally, I'm rather disgusted at the very blatant double standard being applied in this race.

Going way back:

Rose Law firm, Whitewater real estate, and cattle stock futures. Pretty clear, old school "crony corruption."

Lewinski crap, going on national TV and blaming it on a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."

Behavior (theft) both during the D-Day 50th (stole a lot of "souvenirs" from the ship they stayed on) and on exit from White House (stole furniture).

During the 08 primaries, Michigan held its primary election too early. DNC said that if it was held that early, delegates wouldn't be eligible to participate in convention. Obama withdrew from primary, HRC stayed in and won. Despite knowing that delegates wouldn't be allowed, tried very hard to get them to vote for her.

And of course, during latest primary, conspired with DNC to beat Sanders.

Her vitriolic stance against the NRA (calling for their banning) and guns ("Australian-style" gun control means banning and confiscating) is contrary to my beliefs as well.

Note that "Benghazi" or "E-mails" aren't on that list.

No doubt she is well qualified to be president. Probably the most qualified candidate in my lifetime. And she will almost certainly win Wisconsin. Like Wendy, if the race against Trump was fairly close, I'd seriously consider voting for her to keep Trump out.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DanG 1]

Fair enough. I still think Trump is worse.

I live in Virginia. A vote here for anyone but Clinton is a vote for Trump. I'm voting for Clinton.

- Dan G

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi Dan,

Quote

I still think Trump is worse.

Back in '08, I was strongly against Clinton for the nomination. I felt ( somewhat ) as Joe does. I also felt that she thought she deserved the nomination because of how far she had come.

Then she became Sec of State & IMO worked her butt off in that job. That got me to thinking more about her. I then looked into her record as a US senator. She worked her butt off there also; and had a lot of respect from her fellow senators for her hard work.

I think Obama is one of the brightest guys to ever sit in the Oval Office. However, I do not 100% agree with things that he has done. No politician meets my 100% plateau; and I do not expect any of them to.

One only has to see how not one down ballot Republican will even come close to mentioning Trump's name in their campaigns. The newspapers across this land are not endorsing Trump; some that have never, ever failed to endorse the Republican nominee.

IMO these things are very telling.

I live in Oregon & IMO there is absolutely no question that this state will go for Clinton. But I am going to send her campaign a check tomorrow; there are still some battleground states that I want to do what I can to see that she wins them. And then on to the presidency.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) Most of the things Joe brings up were long enough ago that I no longer consider them significant to vote for Trump or anyone else. I consider a 3rd party vote as a vote for Trump; unless is it totally on principle.

[rehmwa 2]

JerryBaumchen

I consider a 3rd party vote as a vote for Trump; unless is it totally on principle.

"NeverHillary/OHMYGODNOTTRUMP" is a principle

That said - I agree with the libertarian philosphy and would actually be voting FOR Gary instead of against either of those other clowns

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[headoverheels 333]

JerryBaumchen

But I am going to send her campaign a check tomorrow; there are still some battleground states that I want to do what I can to see that she wins them.

Also consider sending money to the Congressional battleground states. I've sent funds to several. I also sent some to the FL primary, to try to get rid of Wasserman Shultz. I'll be voting for Clinton, but I will not be sending her campaign any money.

[kelpdiver 2]

wolfriverjoe

Note that "Benghazi" or "E-mails" aren't on that list.

E-mails should be. It's part of a long pattern of disdain for rules and transparency. I'd also include the shameless carpetbagging in NY, but that's a personal peeve of mine.

No question she's got the experience and intelligence for the position. It's the character bits....if the GOP had put up a non crazy person, I wouldn't be voting for her.

(Of course, in living in California, it doesn't really matter. Shrub pissed on the state so badly that the GOP is unlikely to ever win here again, despite dominating it up until the Clinton win in 92.)

[kelpdiver 2]

jclalor

Put a fork In him, he's done, and this is great news for Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/gary-johnson-chris-matthews/

was he ever really in it? Didn't even meet the 15% threshold to join the debates.

And honestly, if you're voting Libertarian for its polices and not just because you hate the two primary party choices, well their policies around foreign policy is basically "ignore." Can't be surprised that their candidate doesn't think about it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

DanG

Fair enough. I still think Trump is worse.

I live in Virginia. A vote here for anyone but Clinton is a vote for Trump. I'm voting for Clinton.

Oh HELL YES, Trump is worse by at least an order of magnitude, probably several.

But a 3rd party vote isn't a vote for Trump in my case. I've voted for the Republican candidate for pres since Reagan's 2nd term, except for the last one. Romney & Obama were indistinguishable to me, so I voted Libertarain.

So in my case, a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Clinton, because it's one less that would have otherwise gone for Trump.

kelpdiver

***
Note that "Benghazi" or "E-mails" aren't on that list.

E-mails should be. It's part of a long pattern of disdain for rules and transparency. I'd also include the shameless carpetbagging in NY, but that's a personal peeve of mine.

No question she's got the experience and intelligence for the position. It's the character bits....if the GOP had put up a non crazy person, I wouldn't be voting for her.

(Of course, in living in California, it doesn't really matter. Shrub pissed on the state so badly that the GOP is unlikely to ever win here again, despite dominating it up until the Clinton win in 92.)

I don't have a problem with the E-mails. Both Powell and Rice did the exact same thing, and have received zero criticism.
Everyone at that level picks and chooses which rules they follow. Stuff that would get a lower level staffer fired with enough black marks on their record that they would never hold a clearance or a civil service job again get a pass once above a certain level.

As Jerry noted, some of this stuff goes back a while. But what I see is that she feels entitled to what she wants. I don't dispute that she has worked very hard as First Lady with Bill, as Senator (reverse-carpetbagger overtones there) and as SecState. But the fact that she does just about anything to get what she wants overshadows the good that she has done.

I see a "pattern of behavior" that, as Jerry put it, seems to say she feels entitled to the nomination and election. And that she will pull every trick in the book to get elected.
That's one of the main reasons I rejected the "birther" crap almost immediately (other than the fact that it was stupid).
If there was any good evidence that BHO was not a citizen, HRC would have been over that like (insert favorite "A on B" metaphor here).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

wolfriverjoe

I don't have a problem with the E-mails. Both Powell and Rice did the exact same thing, and have received zero criticism.
Everyone at that level picks and chooses which rules they follow. Stuff that would get a lower level staffer fired with enough black marks on their record that they would never hold a clearance or a civil service job again get a pass once above a certain level.

They deserve criticism for it, though they can get a bit of cover in that the regulations and standards were looser in their time.

And similar to the way her husband got in more trouble for the cover up than the actual 'crime,' HC lied prolifically trying to avoid responsibility, and it again speaks to character.

Or it would if she weren't running against Trump. I can't evaluate her in absolute terms, I have to do it relative to him.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi Joe,

Quote

as Jerry put it, seems to say she feels entitled to the nomination and election.

Just to be clear, my post was about ( IMO ) how she felt in '08. I, today, feel that she has earned the nomination due to her hard work as Sec of State.

Jerry Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Joe,

Quote

as Jerry put it, seems to say she feels entitled to the nomination and election.

Just to be clear, my post was about ( IMO ) how she felt in '08. I, today, feel that she has earned the nomination due to her hard work as Sec of State.

Jerry Baumchen

Apologies for the lack of clarity.

Even if she did earn the nomination this time, she still cheated.

She conspired with the DNC (against their own rules) to beat Sanders.

Either she didn't think she could do it fairly, or she felt that all the work she has done entitles her to the nomination.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo