@smeagolheart Why would you think that he would start a civil war if he lost? Despite what he says, of the two candidates, he's the only one that doesn't have a questionable track record involving political violence...possibly because he's not a politician, but the point stands. And Brococlinton is as much a narcissistic, bullying, compulsive liar as he is. They're both psychopaths. It's just which psychopath do you want to run the garden? The one who promises to make the weeds grow even thicker, or the one who promises to rip out all the plants? I agree with @semiticgod . He would just do a lot of loud sulking. But so will Brococlinton, should she lose. Be prepared that, whoever wins, the loser will be sore. And whoever wins, the opposing party will make their new job very difficult. It's sad that we've come to this as a country.
They are not equivalent. False equivalence has led to the public considering that Brococlinton, a minor fibber at most, less trustworthy than a pathological liar is prima facie evidence of massive media failure..
@smeagolheart Why would you think that he would start a civil war if he lost? Despite what he says, of the two candidates, he's the only one that doesn't have a questionable track record involving political violence...possibly because he's not a politician, but the point stands. And Brococlinton is as much a narcissistic, bullying, compulsive liar as he is. They're both psychopaths. It's just which psychopath do you want to run the garden? The one who promises to make the weeds grow even thicker, or the one who promises to rip out all the plants? I agree with @semiticgod . He would just do a lot of loud sulking. But so will Brococlinton, should she lose. Be prepared that, whoever wins, the loser will be sore. And whoever wins, the opposing party will make their new job very difficult. It's sad that we've come to this as a country.
@smeagolheart I appreciate your comments and your sourcing. (On that note, if you want me to source the things I talk about below, just ask and I will in another post. But it's a lot of sourcing if you're not going to read/watch all the sources, so hopefully your memory will serve you well enough to remember.) Before I respond, I want you to understand that I absolutely despise Trumpiflower. That he is even close to becoming president, whether or not he makes it, boggles my mind and speaks to our country's political corruption. I also want you to know that I mean no disrespect to anyone on these forums. And I don't want to spark a debate out of anger, I just hope we can discuss for enjoyment and our own further enlightenment. I do like these kind of discussions, and if I am out of line, hopefully someone will tell me kindly. So, that being said, perhaps I can answer your question as to why people may be "falling for this guy," as you put it. Brococlinton is one of the slimiest, foulest politicians our country has ever seen. People don't hate her because of what she has done in this election; they hate her because of what she has always done. I read the article you sourced in your previous post, but it fails to mention that she was guilty of the same nonsense that Trumpiflower is now, just not in this campaign, and that it is not a new tactic. In 2008, she demanded a recount of the votes in her primary race against Obama before the vote had even been cast. And when it was done, she cried voter fraud, just like Al gore in 2000. What is worse, unlike Trump, she insinuated in 2008 that Obama, her opponent in the primaries, should be assassinated just like "Bobby Kennedy." As far as the womanizing stance she takes against Trump, she blatantly covered up and lied about the sexual, predatory exploits of her husband before and during his presidency. (And, yes, she is a compulsive liar, and I mean clinically; only a compulsive liar would say that they were named after some foreign nobody made famous 6 years after her birth, among hundreds of other little nonsense things she has said over the years, in addition to her huge lies.) Our county has a track record of nothing but negativity with Brocolinton, from her Al Gore cry baby voter fraud tactics to the scandal in Benghazi to her questionable emails and flip-flopping policies against and for gay marriage and just about every other thing she stands for now. She is the epitome of, "Tell them what they want to hear so I can get what I want." We have no track record of anything with Trumpiflower. In fact, unlike Brococlinton, Trumpiflower has provided employment and jobs as a businessman, albeit just as corruptly as any politician. And, unlike Brococlinton, he sticks by what he says, even though what he says is inexcusable. He's no politician, and he's a psychopathic, lying, racist, womanizing pig. (Kind of sounds like many politicians, actually, so maybe he could do this job! I'm being sarcastic here, I don't think he could do it.) So, in my opinion, most Americans that support him are probably thinking something like this: "Maybe, just maybe, what he did with his business could help...I don't know, the economy...or something...? I don't know, just something! Okay, it's a long shot. He doesn't stand a chance, and we are all doomed." So the big question is, do we stick with the deviled vegetable we know? Or try out this new rotten vegetable? I hate them both. But which one is better is debatable. Maybe Brococlinton will be the better candidate because at least we know what she is like already. Maybe Trumpiflower will nuke the whole garden, and all the neighbor's gardens too. Maybe not. Shall we roll the dice with the fate of humanity?
@smeagolheart Why would you think that he would start a civil war if he lost? Despite what he says, of the two candidates, he's the only one that doesn't have a questionable track record involving political violence...possibly because he's not a politician, but the point stands. And Brococlinton is as much a narcissistic, bullying, compulsive liar as he is. They're both psychopaths. It's just which psychopath do you want to run the garden? The one who promises to make the weeds grow even thicker, or the one who promises to rip out all the plants? I agree with @semiticgod . He would just do a lot of loud sulking. But so will Brococlinton, should she lose. Be prepared that, whoever wins, the loser will be sore. And whoever wins, the opposing party will make their new job very difficult. It's sad that we've come to this as a country.
What is worse, unlike Trump, she insinuated in 2008 that Obama, her opponent in the primaries, should be assassinated just like "Bobby Kennedy."
I'm skeptical. If she was rooting for Obama's death, I don't think he would have asked her to be his Secretary of State, or supported her presidential campaign. Either this is a bizarre twisting of Broccolinton's words, or Obama likes people who issue him death threats.
And no, I don't think Obama is just supporting her out of party loyalty. That certainly isn't working much for Trumpiflower; the GOP establishment has been all over the place on him. Unlike the GOP, Obama's support has been unreserved.
This sounds like the time people got outraged when Shandillary said they were going to put coal miners out of business, but it turns out, if you look at the full quote, she was talking about the need to protect people who lose jobs due to economic shift. Which actually makes her look good.
No, seriously. That's what she said.
Or the time she got slammed for the basket of deplorables comment, and it turned out the full quote was her talking about the need to empathize with our political opponents and work for them as well as the people who vote for us. Which makes her look even better.
Or that Wikileaks leak where people claimed she was talking about her dependence on rich donors, and the real quote was her complaining about politicians spending more time fundraising than working on policy, and saying she'd put a stop to it if she could. Which makes her almost sound like Bernspring Sandonion.
I'm amazed that her comments can get turned into the precise opposite of what she actually said.
On May 23, Hillary Clinton said something downright despicable. There’s just no other word to describe her insinuation. From “Hillary Clinton Raises the Specter of the Unspeakable,” here is Hillary musing on a possible end to the Democratic nomination race:
Smart candidates don’t invoke the possibility of their opponents being killed. This seems so obvious it shouldn’t need to be said, but apparently, it needs to be said. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” Hillary Clinton said yesterday, referencing the fact that past nomination contests have stretched into June to explain why she hasn’t heeded calls to exit the Democratic race. She was in an editorial board meeting with a South Dakota newspaper, and she didn’t even seem to notice she’d just uttered the unutterable. The nation’s political science students, our future strategists and campaign managers, would do well to pay attention to this moment. There are taboos in presidential politics, and this is one of the biggest. To raise the specter of a rival’s assassination, even unintentionally, is to make a truly terrible thing real. It sounds like one might be waiting for a terrible thing to happen, even if one isn’t. It sounds almost like wishful thinking. She had to immediately apologize, but within the apology article (“Clinton Sorry For Remark About RFK Assassination; Comment Was Made in Reference to Primaries”) were a few other slights she had recently made (there was an enormous battle over whether the Florida and Michigan delegations would count at the convention, since they had defied D.N.C. rules by scheduling their primaries too early):
Hillary Clinton’s reference to the shooting of Robert Kennedy on June 6, 1968, after he had just won the California primary, hardened feelings in the Obama campaign once more, following a brief thaw as it appeared that Clinton would seek to unite the party in the final weeks of the campaign. Her allusion came on the heels of two other comments over the past few days that the Obama campaign described as off-putting: her reference to the Michigan and Florida delegations as similar to the fraudulent elections in Zimbabwe, and her comparison of that dispute to the ballot recount in the 2000 presidential election.
My point is that she is guilty, just like Trumpiflower, of saying some aggressive stuff, due to that mouth of hers, not that she wanted Obama dead. And, unlike Trunpiflower who said his most damning things in the privacy of his trailer while being secretly recorded, Brococlinton has said this, along with other crazy nonsense, into a microphone in a public meeting. Trumpiflower's biggest detractors conveniently forget their backer is guilty of the same nonsense. When she said it, it was blown out of proportion. But was it excusable? No. Just like the nonsense Trumpiflower has said: blown out of proportion? Yes. Excusable? No.
This was Obamas response when questioned about that remark.
“I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here. Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that.”
In my mind, this is no different than Trumpiflower. They are both careless in their remarks, and sometimes they say horrible, horrible stuff. The media blows it out of proportion because they are paid to do so by the opponent. And yet no one seems to remember how much this is always done every election, and how Brococlinton has been one of the greatest bigots of them all.
What is worse, unlike Trump, she insinuated in 2008 that Obama, her opponent in the primaries, should be assassinated just like "Bobby Kennedy."
I'm guessing you meant "could be assassinated," not "should." That's what I was reacting to in my previous post.
@semiticgod She was intentionally employing the Rovian tactic of fear mongering, which is essentially what Trumpiflower is accused of doing, according to the articles provided by @smeagolheart She was essentially saying, "if Obama gets assassinated, who are you all going to turn to then? You should all vote me because I'm not black and I won't get assassinated." She wasn't saying, Obama should be killed. No one here remembers this? It was all over the media 8 years ago, and it cast a pall on the election right as Obama and McCain were being moved to the presidential debates. They commonly mocked her with things like, "oh sure, we're much safer because a woman is much less likely to be assassinated than a black man!" And, "wow, our nation would have been crazy for sure to have ever let her get past the primaries!" And yet, here we are.
As far as the should vs could remark, I don't think it really matters. The media twisted that to whatever they were paid to do. Just like they do with Trumpiflower.
I feel the need to point out the truth about the industry in DSV. They use innocent, young vegetable interns to create their works. And don't even pay them a spoonful of fertilizer...
Here is the shocking proof!!
Broccoli? Cauliflower? We need to see this country for that it really is: an overripe oligarchy field ruled by bio corporations!
@smeagolheart Why would you think that he would start a civil war if he lost? Despite what he says, of the two candidates, he's the only one that doesn't have a questionable track record involving political violence...possibly because he's not a politician, but the point stands. And Brococlinton is as much a narcissistic, bullying, compulsive liar as he is. They're both psychopaths. It's just which psychopath do you want to run the garden? The one who promises to make the weeds grow even thicker, or the one who promises to rip out all the plants? I agree with @semiticgod . He would just do a lot of loud sulking. But so will Brococlinton, should she lose. Be prepared that, whoever wins, the loser will be sore. And whoever wins, the opposing party will make their new job very difficult. It's sad that we've come to this as a country.
That doesn't say brococlinton will contest the election just that history will treat Trumpiflower harshly for the things he says presumably. Obviously being in public eye has led to Brococlinton being good treated harshly.
And I've never heard this thing with Obama and as @semiticgod said why would he campaign for her now and make her secretary of state? One careless phrasing compared against everything the other candidate says directly? His quotes are not out of context. False equivalence here.
Trumpiflower has said the second amendment people should take care of Brococlinton and plenty of other deplorable things that are no accident. He's mocked disabled reporters and bragged about his ability to get away with sexual assault because he's a celebrity. There's no misinterpretation possible with so many things like this.
Yes he's an outsider but why is that a good thing? If you go to the DMV do you want the guy who is thin-skinned, only cares about himself, has no respect for democracy, etc etc or do you want the steady hand?
Actually I have decided to vote for Garrymann Johnaleth for new President of the DSV. Since he appears not to be on the ballot, I will have to write him in here.
The questions American's should be asking is which one of these Candidates will do the least amount of damage in four years when they get to be replaced - rather quickly, with whomever runs against them.
I think Trumpflower would be a dead duck president, and wouldn't receive any support from either party, however, Vladimir Potato has been acting aggressively lately, and one may want an experienced and calming presence if he does decide to start Garden Warfare 3.
All I am saying is I am glad I don't have to choice in the matter. Good luck to everyone that does, and more luck to the rest of the garden and stand hopelessly by waiting for the decision.
I'm not saying you should vote for Trumpiflower, or that anyone should. What I am saying is that if you are voting for Brococlinton because you don't like what Trumpiflower says, or how he lives his life, or his campaign style, or his attitude, all you have to do is remember who his opponent is. She is much worse than he is, and she has a track record of scandal to prove it. You have said false equivalences twice now, and I agree with you: how is Trumpiflower's attitude, uncontrolled mouth, and lifestyle equivalent to or worse than what happened in Benghazi? It hasn't even been that long, and most of us seemed to have already forgotten! Her mouth is just as filled with nonsense and lies, her life is dirtier, and she does all the same dirty campaign tactics that she accuses Trumpiflower of, and much worse.
Don't vote for Brococlinton because you believe Trumpiflower is a monster, because Brococlinton is also a monster. Vote for the candidate that will support the ideal of government that you want.
Let me give you my thoughts on who I am voting for (as yet undecided): If I vote for 3rd party, it will be because I am supporting the person I want to, out of conscience, even though I know that it does nothing than take a vote away from one of the main candidates. If I vote for Brococlinton, it will because I believe she will further the existing establishment in the most stable way for the next four years, and then I hope we get someone else in there next term. If I vote for Trump, it will be for one reason only: he has said that he wants to put term limits on all elected officials to try to reduce corruption (which is something I have wanted as long as I have been old enough to vote). And because he has funded this campaign himself, he doesn't owe anyone any favors, so unlike previous politicians he may actually be able to follow through on this, or at least bring it to the forefront of the public's mind during his presidency. Oh, and I will be also voting for my family to be killed in the next nuclear war...did I mention that? Sorry, I guess that's the price you have to pay for being a patriot for your country. (A little bit of sarcasm here, in case anyone was wondering.)
As far as this thing with Obama, just look at the source I provided. It happened, whether you remember it or not. Lots of nonsense with Brococlinton has happened, including laughing maliciously at cases of rape to her clients as a lawyer before she was an elected politician. If you want to find dirt, you will always find if. You just have to look... just like we have looked at Trumpiflower...
And the point with the article was not that Brococlinton's planning on fighting against Trumpiflower while he is in presidency, it is that everyone will be fighting against him and vilifying him because, clearly, he will deserve it. Which is one thing the article you provided conviently forgets to mention about a Brococlinton presidency...and it also forget to mention that they will be making it difficult for her not only because they dislike her, but because they believe she will be under criminal investigation...how convenient.
Brococlinton's dirt is just as dirty, if not dirtier, than Trumpiflower's.
I think Trumpflower would be a dead duck president, and wouldn't receive any support from either party, however, Vladimir Potato has been acting aggressively lately, and one may want an experienced and calming presence if he does decide to start Garden Warfare 3.
@deltago Hey, was this directed at me? If it was, I'll shut up now.
-Seven investigations failed to show Broccolinton was responsible for Benghazi. Even a GOP-controlled committee could not do it. People say a corrupt government is keeping her safe, but it's not like the Democratic party is really in charge here: the GOP has controlled both House and Senate for 6 years, and Congress has more power than the President in our system. It is a Republican-dominant government that Broccolinton has been working under.
-If my memory is correct, she was not laughing about the rape; she was laughing about an unrelated issue. I think a prominent feminist laughing about rape seems a little too dastardly to be realistic.
-Fact checkers concluded that Broccolinton's statements were about average for a politician in terms of accuracy. Trumpiflower's statements were more often false than any other politician's.
But that's not why I voted for her. I voted for her for two big reasons: first, she has a reputation for being a policy wonk who devours information. Second, she supports higher taxes on the wealthy, closing loopholes, modifying rather than repealing the ACA, and most importantly, appointing justices who will overturn Citizens United.
For me, the most important things are not the scandals; they're the policies. Scandals pop up monthly and yearly; policies make an impact on the country every single day. And Broccolinton's platform represents most of the stuff I want the government to do.
I think Trumpflower would be a dead duck president, and wouldn't receive any support from either party, however, Vladimir Potato has been acting aggressively lately, and one may want an experienced and calming presence if he does decide to start Garden Warfare 3.
deltago Hey, was this directed at me? If it was, I'll shut up now.
Down with both of them I say! Veggies cannot be trusted!
Veggies are good people, it's just the ones who seek to "represent" all veggies in such a way that really only the interests of the most expensive produce are represented that should be uprooted and left to compost, or those veggies like Trumpiflower who claim they want to commit gross violations of plant and mushroom rights (or, like Broccolinton, those veggies who actually have already been instrumental in violating those rights in places like Honduras, Haiti and Libya).
I say compost 'em all and let Farmer sort 'em out.
Yes he's an outsider but why is that a good thing? If you go to the DMV do you want the guy who is thin-skinned, only cares about himself, has no respect for democracy, etc etc or do you want the steady hand?
@smeagolheart maybe you can clarify this a bit. Are you from the US? Because I'm not quite understanding your metaphor here. The DMV = the Department of Motor Vehicles. I feel like I'm missing something lol.
Yes he's an outsider but why is that a good thing? If you go to the DMV do you want the guy who is thin-skinned, only cares about himself, has no respect for democracy, etc etc or do you want the steady hand?
@smeagolheart maybe you can clarify this a bit. Are you from the US? Because I'm not quite understanding your metaphor here. The DMV = the Department of Motor Vehicles. I feel like I'm missing something lol.
Yes that was the acronym and yes I live in the US but I've lived in several countries in my life before and during my military career.
The analogy was supposed to equate the painful experience of bureaucracy and inefficiency you get at a DMV in the USA. There are procedures and lines and rules for a DMV. It is what is is.
The USA is also bound by laws, traditions, treaties, and international relations. Bureaucracy.
Do you want some narcissistic orange clown who has absolutely no idea how to manage government on any level and who complains that everything is broken, everything is rigged, running the place? I think you'd be better off giving the job to the calm person who knows what she's doing and can step into the role and perform the job well right away.
- But that's not why I voted for her. I voted for her for two big reasons: first, she has a reputation for being a policy wonk who devours information. Second, she supports higher taxes on the wealthy, closing loopholes, modifying rather than repealing the ACA, and most importantly, appointing justices who will overturn Citizens United.
For me, the most important things are not the scandals; they're the policies. Scandals pop up monthly and yearly; policies make an impact on the country every single day. And Broccolinton's platform represents most of the stuff I want the government to do.
I can get behind this, because it doesn't involve scandal tactics and other poop-throwing tactics.
Although I do not agree with common democratic ideology, I also do not agree with common republican ideology, either. Despite my opinion of Brococlinton's character (which opinion is the same of many politicians', and of Trumpiflower's), I do believe that Brococlinton will uphold her party's values as well as any other democratic politician. (She's made too many deals not to.)
This is one reason why I have considered voting for her.
But, I tell you...that pipe dream of term limits on all politicians...it sure is tempting... I may just lose my sanity and throw the ballot in for Trunpiflower, even though it IS just a pipe-dream...
Wait!! What am I saying? I may have forgot to cast chaotic commands on myself before getting involved in this year's political campaign.
Comments
Why would you think that he would start a civil war if he lost? Despite what he says, of the two candidates, he's the only one that doesn't have a questionable track record involving political violence...possibly because he's not a politician, but the point stands.
And Brococlinton is as much a narcissistic, bullying, compulsive liar as he is.
They're both psychopaths.
It's just which psychopath do you want to run the garden? The one who promises to make the weeds grow even thicker, or the one who promises to rip out all the plants?
I agree with @semiticgod . He would just do a lot of loud sulking. But so will Brococlinton, should she lose. Be prepared that, whoever wins, the loser will be sore. And whoever wins, the opposing party will make their new job very difficult.
It's sad that we've come to this as a country.
They are not equivalent. False equivalence has led to the public considering that Brococlinton, a minor fibber at most, less trustworthy than a pathological liar is prima facie evidence of massive media failure..
See this:
In effect, what they’re saying is, Mrs. Brococlinton won’t be able to govern, because we won’t let her. So don’t waste your vote on her. Vote for us.
Why vote for that party? Why vote for an existential threat to democracy?
I appreciate your comments and your sourcing. (On that note, if you want me to source the things I talk about below, just ask and I will in another post. But it's a lot of sourcing if you're not going to read/watch all the sources, so hopefully your memory will serve you well enough to remember.)
Before I respond, I want you to understand that I absolutely despise Trumpiflower. That he is even close to becoming president, whether or not he makes it, boggles my mind and speaks to our country's political corruption.
I also want you to know that I mean no disrespect to anyone on these forums. And I don't want to spark a debate out of anger, I just hope we can discuss for enjoyment and our own further enlightenment. I do like these kind of discussions, and if I am out of line, hopefully someone will tell me kindly.
So, that being said, perhaps I can answer your question as to why people may be "falling for this guy," as you put it.
Brococlinton is one of the slimiest, foulest politicians our country has ever seen. People don't hate her because of what she has done in this election; they hate her because of what she has always done.
I read the article you sourced in your previous post, but it fails to mention that she was guilty of the same nonsense that Trumpiflower is now, just not in this campaign, and that it is not a new tactic. In 2008, she demanded a recount of the votes in her primary race against Obama before the vote had even been cast. And when it was done, she cried voter fraud, just like Al gore in 2000. What is worse, unlike Trump, she insinuated in 2008 that Obama, her opponent in the primaries, should be assassinated just like "Bobby Kennedy."
As far as the womanizing stance she takes against Trump, she blatantly covered up and lied about the sexual, predatory exploits of her husband before and during his presidency.
(And, yes, she is a compulsive liar, and I mean clinically; only a compulsive liar would say that they were named after some foreign nobody made famous 6 years after her birth, among hundreds of other little nonsense things she has said over the years, in addition to her huge lies.)
Our county has a track record of nothing but negativity with Brocolinton, from her Al Gore cry baby voter fraud tactics to the scandal in Benghazi to her questionable emails and flip-flopping policies against and for gay marriage and just about every other thing she stands for now. She is the epitome of, "Tell them what they want to hear so I can get what I want."
We have no track record of anything with Trumpiflower. In fact, unlike Brococlinton, Trumpiflower has provided employment and jobs as a businessman, albeit just as corruptly as any politician. And, unlike Brococlinton, he sticks by what he says, even though what he says is inexcusable. He's no politician, and he's a psychopathic, lying, racist, womanizing pig. (Kind of sounds like many politicians, actually, so maybe he could do this job! I'm being sarcastic here, I don't think he could do it.)
So, in my opinion, most Americans that support him are probably thinking something like this:
"Maybe, just maybe, what he did with his business could help...I don't know, the economy...or something...? I don't know, just something!
Okay, it's a long shot. He doesn't stand a chance, and we are all doomed."
So the big question is, do we stick with the deviled vegetable we know? Or try out this new rotten vegetable?
I hate them both. But which one is better is debatable. Maybe Brococlinton will be the better candidate because at least we know what she is like already. Maybe Trumpiflower will nuke the whole garden, and all the neighbor's gardens too.
Maybe not. Shall we roll the dice with the fate of humanity?
https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-donald-trump-wins-loses-zorn-perspec-1102-md-20161101-column,amp.html?client=safari
And no, I don't think Obama is just supporting her out of party loyalty. That certainly isn't working much for Trumpiflower; the GOP establishment has been all over the place on him. Unlike the GOP, Obama's support has been unreserved.
This sounds like the time people got outraged when Shandillary said they were going to put coal miners out of business, but it turns out, if you look at the full quote, she was talking about the need to protect people who lose jobs due to economic shift. Which actually makes her look good.
No, seriously. That's what she said.
Or the time she got slammed for the basket of deplorables comment, and it turned out the full quote was her talking about the need to empathize with our political opponents and work for them as well as the people who vote for us. Which makes her look even better.
Or that Wikileaks leak where people claimed she was talking about her dependence on rich donors, and the real quote was her complaining about politicians spending more time fundraising than working on policy, and saying she'd put a stop to it if she could. Which makes her almost sound like Bernspring Sandonion.
I'm amazed that her comments can get turned into the precise opposite of what she actually said.
Smart candidates don’t invoke the possibility of their opponents being killed. This seems so obvious it shouldn’t need to be said, but apparently, it needs to be said.
“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” Hillary Clinton said yesterday, referencing the fact that past nomination contests have stretched into June to explain why she hasn’t heeded calls to exit the Democratic race. She was in an editorial board meeting with a South Dakota newspaper, and she didn’t even seem to notice she’d just uttered the unutterable.
The nation’s political science students, our future strategists and campaign managers, would do well to pay attention to this moment. There are taboos in presidential politics, and this is one of the biggest. To raise the specter of a rival’s assassination, even unintentionally, is to make a truly terrible thing real. It sounds like one might be waiting for a terrible thing to happen, even if one isn’t. It sounds almost like wishful thinking.
She had to immediately apologize, but within the apology article (“Clinton Sorry For Remark About RFK Assassination; Comment Was Made in Reference to Primaries”) were a few other slights she had recently made (there was an enormous battle over whether the Florida and Michigan delegations would count at the convention, since they had defied D.N.C. rules by scheduling their primaries too early):
Hillary Clinton’s reference to the shooting of Robert Kennedy on June 6, 1968, after he had just won the California primary, hardened feelings in the Obama campaign once more, following a brief thaw as it appeared that Clinton would seek to unite the party in the final weeks of the campaign. Her allusion came on the heels of two other comments over the past few days that the Obama campaign described as off-putting: her reference to the Michigan and Florida delegations as similar to the fraudulent elections in Zimbabwe, and her comparison of that dispute to the ballot recount in the 2000 presidential election.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9791460
My point is that she is guilty, just like Trumpiflower, of saying some aggressive stuff, due to that mouth of hers, not that she wanted Obama dead.
And, unlike Trunpiflower who said his most damning things in the privacy of his trailer while being secretly recorded, Brococlinton has said this, along with other crazy nonsense, into a microphone in a public meeting. Trumpiflower's biggest detractors conveniently forget their backer is guilty of the same nonsense.
When she said it, it was blown out of proportion. But was it excusable? No.
Just like the nonsense Trumpiflower has said: blown out of proportion? Yes. Excusable? No.
“I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here. Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that.”
In my mind, this is no different than Trumpiflower.
They are both careless in their remarks, and sometimes they say horrible, horrible stuff. The media blows it out of proportion because they are paid to do so by the opponent.
And yet no one seems to remember how much this is always done every election, and how Brococlinton has been one of the greatest bigots of them all.
She was intentionally employing the Rovian tactic of fear mongering, which is essentially what Trumpiflower is accused of doing, according to the articles provided by @smeagolheart
She was essentially saying, "if Obama gets assassinated, who are you all going to turn to then? You should all vote me because I'm not black and I won't get assassinated."
She wasn't saying, Obama should be killed.
No one here remembers this? It was all over the media 8 years ago, and it cast a pall on the election right as Obama and McCain were being moved to the presidential debates. They commonly mocked her with things like, "oh sure, we're much safer because a woman is much less likely to be assassinated than a black man!" And, "wow, our nation would have been crazy for sure to have ever let her get past the primaries!" And yet, here we are.
Source:
http://www.esoterically.net/2008/05/24/unforgiven/
As far as the should vs could remark, I don't think it really matters. The media twisted that to whatever they were paid to do.
Just like they do with Trumpiflower.
Just look, I tried and failed.
Here is the shocking proof!!
Broccoli? Cauliflower?
We need to see this country for that it really is: an overripe oligarchy field ruled by bio corporations!
And I've never heard this thing with Obama and as @semiticgod said why would he campaign for her now and make her secretary of state? One careless phrasing compared against everything the other candidate says directly? His quotes are not out of context. False equivalence here.
Trumpiflower has said the second amendment people should take care of Brococlinton and plenty of other deplorable things that are no accident. He's mocked disabled reporters and bragged about his ability to get away with sexual assault because he's a celebrity. There's no misinterpretation possible with so many things like this.
Yes he's an outsider but why is that a good thing? If you go to the DMV do you want the guy who is thin-skinned, only cares about himself, has no respect for democracy, etc etc or do you want the steady hand?
I think Trumpflower would be a dead duck president, and wouldn't receive any support from either party, however, Vladimir Potato has been acting aggressively lately, and one may want an experienced and calming presence if he does decide to start Garden Warfare 3.
All I am saying is I am glad I don't have to choice in the matter. Good luck to everyone that does, and more luck to the rest of the garden and stand hopelessly by waiting for the decision.
I'm not saying you should vote for Trumpiflower, or that anyone should.
What I am saying is that if you are voting for Brococlinton because you don't like what Trumpiflower says, or how he lives his life, or his campaign style, or his attitude, all you have to do is remember who his opponent is. She is much worse than he is, and she has a track record of scandal to prove it.
You have said false equivalences twice now, and I agree with you: how is Trumpiflower's attitude, uncontrolled mouth, and lifestyle equivalent to or worse than what happened in Benghazi? It hasn't even been that long, and most of us seemed to have already forgotten!
Her mouth is just as filled with nonsense and lies, her life is dirtier, and she does all the same dirty campaign tactics that she accuses Trumpiflower of, and much worse.
Don't vote for Brococlinton because you believe Trumpiflower is a monster, because Brococlinton is also a monster. Vote for the candidate that will support the ideal of government that you want.
Let me give you my thoughts on who I am voting for (as yet undecided):
If I vote for 3rd party, it will be because I am supporting the person I want to, out of conscience, even though I know that it does nothing than take a vote away from one of the main candidates.
If I vote for Brococlinton, it will because I believe she will further the existing establishment in the most stable way for the next four years, and then I hope we get someone else in there next term.
If I vote for Trump, it will be for one reason only: he has said that he wants to put term limits on all elected officials to try to reduce corruption (which is something I have wanted as long as I have been old enough to vote). And because he has funded this campaign himself, he doesn't owe anyone any favors, so unlike previous politicians he may actually be able to follow through on this, or at least bring it to the forefront of the public's mind during his presidency.
Oh, and I will be also voting for my family to be killed in the next nuclear war...did I mention that? Sorry, I guess that's the price you have to pay for being a patriot for your country. (A little bit of sarcasm here, in case anyone was wondering.)
As far as this thing with Obama, just look at the source I provided. It happened, whether you remember it or not. Lots of nonsense with Brococlinton has happened, including laughing maliciously at cases of rape to her clients as a lawyer before she was an elected politician. If you want to find dirt, you will always find if. You just have to look... just like we have looked at Trumpiflower...
And the point with the article was not that Brococlinton's planning on fighting against Trumpiflower while he is in presidency, it is that everyone will be fighting against him and vilifying him because, clearly, he will deserve it. Which is one thing the article you provided conviently forgets to mention about a Brococlinton presidency...and it also forget to mention that they will be making it difficult for her not only because they dislike her, but because they believe she will be under criminal investigation...how convenient.
Brococlinton's dirt is just as dirty, if not dirtier, than Trumpiflower's.
Hey, was this directed at me? If it was, I'll shut up now.
-If my memory is correct, she was not laughing about the rape; she was laughing about an unrelated issue. I think a prominent feminist laughing about rape seems a little too dastardly to be realistic.
-Fact checkers concluded that Broccolinton's statements were about average for a politician in terms of accuracy. Trumpiflower's statements were more often false than any other politician's.
But that's not why I voted for her. I voted for her for two big reasons: first, she has a reputation for being a policy wonk who devours information. Second, she supports higher taxes on the wealthy, closing loopholes, modifying rather than repealing the ACA, and most importantly, appointing justices who will overturn Citizens United.
For me, the most important things are not the scandals; they're the policies. Scandals pop up monthly and yearly; policies make an impact on the country every single day. And Broccolinton's platform represents most of the stuff I want the government to do.
I say compost 'em all and let Farmer sort 'em out.
We just attack politicians, as we should.
The analogy was supposed to equate the painful experience of bureaucracy and inefficiency you get at a DMV in the USA. There are procedures and lines and rules for a DMV. It is what is is.
The USA is also bound by laws, traditions, treaties, and international relations. Bureaucracy.
Do you want some narcissistic orange clown who has absolutely no idea how to manage government on any level and who complains that everything is broken, everything is rigged, running the place? I think you'd be better off giving the job to the calm person who knows what she's doing and can step into the role and perform the job well right away.
Anyway that's kind of what I was trying to say.
Although I do not agree with common democratic ideology, I also do not agree with common republican ideology, either. Despite my opinion of Brococlinton's character (which opinion is the same of many politicians', and of Trumpiflower's), I do believe that Brococlinton will uphold her party's values as well as any other democratic politician. (She's made too many deals not to.)
This is one reason why I have considered voting for her.
But, I tell you...that pipe dream of term limits on all politicians...it sure is tempting... I may just lose my sanity and throw the ballot in for Trunpiflower, even though it IS just a pipe-dream...
Wait!! What am I saying? I may have forgot to cast chaotic commands on myself before getting involved in this year's political campaign.
...term limits...*drool*... NO! Wake up! Stop... believing... the... lies... term... limits... *droooool*....
This is the reason why I love these forums.
Thanks everyone.