~ The Clinton Victory Thread ~

[fantome profane]

Avoid another Trump?
No way!
All elections are so nauseating, but for once we have one which is interesting & entertaining.
Besides....I'd rather avoid another Clinton running for office.
(Rumor has it that Chelsea is preparing to run by playing Grand Theft Auto.)

Charlotte Clinton 2068!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All elections are so nauseating, but for once we have one which is interesting & entertaining.

It's not entertaining when one of the candidates picks a VP who has already spit on your rights. It's actually been rather stressful considering Pence has already once attacked the rights of many Hoosiers and other Indiana residents and visitors, and if Trump wins he will both be in a position to influence Trump and just a failed heart beat away from becoming president.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not entertaining when one of the candidates picks a VP who has already spit on your rights. It's actually been rather stressful considering Pence has already once attacked the rights of many Hoosiers and other Indiana residents and visitors, and if Trump wins he will both be in a position to influence Trump and just a failed heart beat away from becoming president.

They all (except for Johnson) would "spit" on one right or another.
So such a criticism against one side, while ignoring the other is meaningless.
Hilda's #2 also would abridge rights, particularly the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They all (except for Johnson) would "spit" on one right or another.
So such a criticism against one side, while ignoring the other is meaningless.
Hilda's #2 also would abridge rights, particularly the 2nd Amendment.

Restricting access to a device whose sole purpose is to intimidate, maim, and kill is nothing at all comparable to passing a bill that explicitly allows for people to legally discriminate so long as they have "sincerely held religious beliefs." And you don't hear Clinton or Kaine wanting to restrict Muslims, make Mexico pay for something they don't want and didn't ask for, or saying discrimination is ok just as long as you're religious about it. And they aren't denying science, unlike Pence who doesn't even accept evolution.

 

[sun rise]

Avoid another Trump?
No way!
All elections are so nauseating, but for once we have one which is interesting & entertaining.
Besides....I'd rather avoid another Clinton running for office.
(Rumor has it that Chelsea is preparing to run by playing Grand Theft Auto.)

Avoid? No, embrace:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Avoid? No, embrace:

I would like to say that we've had more than just Reagan in office who isn't a Bush, Clinton, or an Obama during my life. It's not a good thing for Democracy if we are reduced to what looks like Dynasty rule on paper.

 

[Revoltingest]

Restricting access to a device whose sole purpose is to intimidate, maim, and kill is nothing at all comparable to passing a bill that explicitly allows for people to legally discriminate so long as they have "sincerely held religious beliefs."

The difference is that you don't value the right to bear arms.
But I do, so this is a point in Trump's favor.
Another difference is that HIllary could stack the USSC to gut
the 2nd Amendment, whereas I don't see Trump being able
to abridge the First.

 

[Revoltingest]

Avoid? No, embrace:

Argch!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The difference is that you don't value the right to bear arms.

I do value it, but there is a huge difference between laws to restrict gun ownership and laws that allow for discrimination to be legal. There is just no comparison as one deals with an item, an object, and the other deals with legally allowing people to discriminate against, refuse access, refuse employment, refuse housing, and refuse education just because someone has a "sincerely held religious belief." Several democratic nations are doing just fine without guns, yet discrimination has no place in any society, as it leaves targeted groups lacking their basic human rights and dignity.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do value it.....

I mistakenly inferred otherwise from this.
"device whose sole purpose is to intimidate, maim, and kill...."

....but there is a huge difference between laws to restrict gun ownership and laws that allow for discrimination to be legal.

That is one perspective.
Another is that there is a huge difference between minor religious accommodation,
& severely restricting the right to own guns by making appropriate ones illegal, &
with punitive taxation of the rest.

There is just no comparison as one deals with an item, an object....

It isn't the "object" which has the right.
It's the right to possess the object.
The fact that it is about objects does not trivialize the constitutionally enumerated right.

....and the other deals with legally allowing people to discriminate against, refuse access, refuse employment, refuse housing, and refuse education just because someone has a "sincerely held religious belief." Several democratic nations are doing just fine without guns, yet discrimination has no place in any society, as it leaves targeted groups lacking their basic human rights and dignity.

I find it extraordinarily unlikely that this ability to discriminate would be so broad.
It would go against the 14th Amendment & a huge body of law on multiple levels.
I assess the risk of each loss of rights, & find gun rights to be most at risk.
Hillary's USSC nominees just might decide that only flintlock long guns are protected,
& that everything else is at government's pleasure.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I find it extraordinarily unlikely that this ability to discriminate would be so broad.

That's pretty much why I call Pence's RFRA the "gay Jim Crow." It's really no different, except it was hostility towards the LBGT community that fueled it, and it's OK to do so long as you have a "sincerely held religious belief."

Another is that there is a huge difference between minor religious accommodation,

Except with Pence it was no "minor religious accommodation" as he cleared the way for religious Conservatives to trample on those they have "religious objections" towards. And with Clinton's Supreme Court appointees, I don't see them enacting severe restrictions against guns.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's pretty much why I call Pence's RFRA the "gay Jim Crow." It's really no different, except it was hostility towards the LBGT community that fueled it, and it's OK to do so long as you have a "sincerely held religious belief."

Except with Pence it was no "minor religious accommodation" as he cleared the way for religious Conservatives to trample on those they have "religious objections" towards. And with Clinton's Supreme Court appointees, I don't see them enacting severe restrictions against guns.

As with all agendas, what politicians advocate, & what actually becomes enforceable law are often 2 different things.
I guesstimate that the 2nd Amendment risk with Hillary is greater than the gay rights risk with Trump.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As with all agendas, what politicians advocate, & what actually becomes enforceable law are often 2 different things.

Pence's RFRA did become law and he didn't back down until it came down to either defending Conservative hatred as a right or preventing the state from loosing a ton of money. As much as I loathe money, it is pretty much the only reason Pence's RFRA was struck because so many businesses threatened to pull out of the state.

I guesstimate that the 2nd Amendment risk with Hillary is greater than the gay rights risk with Trump.

That is very doubtful. The most in regards to the 2nd Hillary might do is stricter background checks, continuing to close seller loopholes, and maybe better enforcement of the laws we already have. Trump has someone behind him who has already told me, and thousands of others, that I am beneath their religion and do not deserve the same protections and entitlements they do because my very existence is an abomination to their religion.

 

[Milton Platt]

I am not especially fond of Hillary Clinton. But she is running a superb campaign. Her opposition is Donald Trump. She is going to win.

And the Democrats will almost undoubtedly retake the Senate. She won't have to deal with such an obstructive Capitol Hill. If the Republican party keeps going as they are, the Democrats could even get the Congress back.


I'm good with this. I'm not fond of one party dominating the government. But Hillary seems to have realized that many USA voters aren't willing to support the same old same old. Sanders and his leftist agenda are the future. She is quite expedient enough to grasp that and get on board the train. She is perfectly capable of throwing old supporters under the bus and pretending that her current position has always been what she meant to say.

So, given the choices, I am glad that Hillary is so far ahead of Donald. And I don't see much likelihood of that changing between now and November.

What I do think is that if those of us who want her kind of change, instead of Trump's, need to make it clear that the support is contingent upon her keeping the campaign promises. And if she and the Dems do, showing up again to vote in 2018.

Tom

If Donald Duck had the money Trump has, even he could beat Trump. Like many folks, Hillary is getting my vote as the lesser of two evils. Why can't we have a third lever in the booth labeled "none of the above"?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

If Donald Duck had the money Trump has, even he could beat Trump. Like many folks, Hillary is getting my vote as the lesser of two evils. Why can't we have a third lever in the booth labeled "none of the above"?

We do. But if you look closely, the bottom of that lever says "Trump anyways".

 

[columbus]

If Donald Duck had the money Trump has, even he could beat Trump.

Don't you wonder about that though?
When Trump was first announcing his candidacy, one of his braggin/talking points was "I am so rich I will finance myself!"

Now this doesn't seem to be the case. You hear more about his campaign paying him for stuff and his fund raising successes. Not that I have a problem with those things exactly. Only that they don't seem to match what he was saying this time last year.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Pence's RFRA did become law and he didn't back down until it came down to either defending Conservative hatred as a right or preventing the state from loosing a ton of money. As much as I loathe money, it is pretty much the only reason Pence's RFRA was struck because so many businesses threatened to pull out of the state.

That is very doubtful. The most in regards to the 2nd Hillary might do is stricter background checks, continuing to close seller loopholes, and maybe better enforcement of the laws we already have. Trump has someone behind him who has already told me, and thousands of others, that I am beneath their religion and do not deserve the same protections and entitlements they do because my very existence is an abomination to their religion.

We each must weigh the import & the risks of the rights which would be either protected or attacked.

 

[Milton Platt]

Nevertheless, I can't help but notice that you and a hardcore Muslim that doesn't believe sperm cells are alive are supporting the same candidate.
Tom

Relevance?

 

[Revoltingest]

Relevance?

Pssssst......he thinks I'm backward.
How else could I favor Trump.

 

[columbus]

Relevance?

@Revoltingest started it!
He said I was an abomination. Not because I have sex with guys, but because I am smart enough to support Clinton.
Tom