@Smedley: Thanks for criticizing her for her political choices instead of slinging vague conspiracy accusations. In an era of unprecedented polarization, that's the kind of conversation we need to actually have while making sure we avoid falling for Disney villain caricatures about the other side and giving them an honest look (I mean, this is a site where a disproportionate number of people say we should give even Hitler a second chance- it can't be that hard).

I think her only bad choice there was Iraq, and that's understandable for a senator from New York. As long as she admits it was a bad decision and has learned from it. As far as Libya goes, yeah the current status ain't pretty but staying quiet while Gaddafi attacked his own people and guaranteeing destabilization is much worse than trying to act and just risking destabilization. Same for Serbia (where there is ample evidence of ethnic cleansing and other problems, just contested by Serbia the same way Turkey contests the Armenian genocide). I think her decisions on military actions- while probably too globalist and interventionist for you- were good decisions to protect and pursue American interests. I certainly don't think we should shrink back to our borders and essentially give up superpower status. Both Hillary's foreign policy speech and multiple think tanks' arguments that a globally involved, strong America is critical to our economic welfare (after all, I don't trust China, Russia, India, or even the EU to pursue our economic interests) help make that point.

However, given that the only other candidate with a chance of getting the presidency is Trump and that our voting system is screwy and penalizes you for voting for your top choice candidate by making your less preferred major candidate likely to win, Hillary is still preferable to a candidate who's proposed significant deviations from our nuclear policy (that would result in more deaths) and war crimes like killing families of accused terrorists- as well as restrictions on the global free market (for a businessman, Trump's suspiciously willing to buy into the failed ideology of protectionism, although then again it might be out of self-interest to protect his inferior domestic business against superior foreign competitors)- from a libertarian perspective. Again, the choice is between a hundred thousand deaths and a million (from a libertarian standpoint; I'm not voting for someone I think of as a mass murderer), at which point it's probably hella tempting to vote for Gary Johnson. But out voting system is terrible and often requires you to vote against your top choice just to avoid the absolute worst scenario.

It would really make sense to campaign for preferential voting at this point; libertarians and other political groups are getting especially shafted.

I think Hilary Clinton gets loads of unearned attacks thrown at her. She does lie, and she did some bad things, but unless you're supporting Sanders (or Johnson), you're quite fully not one to talk. Trump lies far more and has no politic bumping at all.

Edited 6/13/2016 03:55:59

@the conservative: Before "fuck[ing] shit up," I'd appreciate it if you at least read the linked article from my first comment. I know it's long, but hey democracy ain't easy.

Also, I said this before, but Americans, you are in duty to vote for the other 7k million folk on the Earth, most especially to Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Yemeni, Pakistani, and whoever will come next - to those tortured and killed for small crimes in Middle America, and for those in the CIA's "black sites" in a huge direct contradiction to the European Court of Human Rights. And ultimately, responsible for innocent Americans imprisoned, for in most states, the gaoled can not vote.

Of course kynte lol you know I did. I just don't wanna another fight. Either way, between her and Trump I will be voting Gary Johnson XD

As far as Libya goes, yeah the current status ain't pretty but staying quiet while Gaddafi attacked his own people and guaranteeing destabilization is much worse than trying to act and just risking destabilization.

His folk revolted. Now, Gadaffi's government wasn't the most pretty by far, and it was pretty anti-freedom, but the US government has no grounds to criticize it there. And of course he was attacking his own folk, when your folk rise up and start attacking your government, many say that the government has the choice to fight the rebels, and is moral in doing so. Considering the US would have no qualms doing so, it's not a strong case when you would do the same.

Same for Serbia (where there is ample evidence of ethnic cleansing and other problems, just contested by Serbia the same way Turkey contests the Armenian genocide)

There is a German intelligence report that says there was not enough evidence for the Serbian effort to be considered ethnic cleansing.

http://www.iraqwar.org/germanreport.htm

I think her decisions on military actions- while probably too globalist and interventionist for you- were good decisions to protect and pursue American interests

No amount of money is worth thousands of dead folk. I can go, kill a bunch of folk in a bank and take all the money, and that is me pursuing Butlertarian interests, but it's still immoral.

On Trump vs Clinton, they're both mixed bags. Trump wanting to get rid of NATO is a good thing, and they both are likely to increase the number of troops in Syria, Iraq and Yemen anyway. But the point is, when it's a mixed bag on both ends that would both result in thousands to tens of thousands of deaths, its immoral to choose either. This is also the best chance libertarians will likely get, with two hated candidates being the main contenders, and mass defections from the GOP.

he's a communist atheist Kenyan
Lol'd at this. It's literally impossible to be a communist and a Keynesian. Keynes is a capitalist, and if you accused him of being a communist, he would probably be willing to put a bullet in you.

It would really make sense to campaign for preferential voting at this point; libertarians and other political groups are getting especially shafted.
Something that should be heavily pursued, we also wouldn't have gotten bush 43, Gore would've won without a doubt, as the Ralph Nader votes most likely shift to Gore. Gore technically won anyway with full recount of all votes in florida(http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/) We should get rid of the electoral college.

Is #ClintonTrain even a thing? No, I'm not on the #ClintonTrain, I'm on the #TrumpTrain. Trump actually inspires enthusiasm in a lot of people, where those voting Clinton do it because they have always voted Democrat, or because they've been lied to by the media that Trump is a racist misogynist homophobe shitlord.

The Clinton presidency was one of the dirtiest in history. Bill raped lots of women, Hillary silenced them when she was not busy grandstanding as a women's rights advocate. Bill was impeached, he lost his law license. The Clintons should be in the Guinness book of world records for being the most crooked presidential couple. Yet, here we go again?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyI2okq4h1U

Lol'd at this. It's literally impossible to be a communist and a Keynesian. Keynes is a capitalist, and if you accused him of being a communist, he would probably be willing to put a bullet in you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/kenyan

Is #ClintonTrain even a thing?

It is now :)

But no, in general Clinton supporters keep a lower profile than Bern victims and Trumptards, especially online. For one, we know our candidate is going to be the next President, so there is on reason to make a huge display of it. We're just enjoying the theatrics until November. And second, most vocal supporters of other candidates hate Clinton so even revealing that we support her opens us up to all manner of trolls attacking her about emails and speeches and shit. Once again, better to just lay low and enjoy the show, knowing she's going to be the next President. Let me say that one more time, the next President of the United States will be Hillary Clinton. Doesn't matter how much you don't like her.

Hillary tries to keep it quiet because her history offer so many legitimate reasons to attack her. Case in point, she attacked Trump, calling him a sexist. Trump said she was an enabler. She shut up about the whole thing after that because continuing to talk about that would only emphasize her weak track record when it comes to women's rights. At the same time, the worst thing they can truthfully say about Trump and sexism is that he once told a woman she shouldn't eat too much cake to not get fat.

Edited 6/13/2016 06:00:35

It would really make sense to campaign for preferential voting at this point; libertarians and other political groups are getting especially shafted.
Something that should be heavily pursued, we also wouldn't have gotten bush 43, Gore would've won without a doubt, as the Ralph Nader votes most likely shift to Gore. Gore technically won anyway with full recount of all votes in florida(http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/) We should get rid of the electoral college.

I agree with what you both say, the system is bad, but this is the least of the problems. Voters aren't informed, and an easy way to fix this would be like so: have the candidates all put frains that they make, which can highlight what they support, and redflag what the other candidates support, and it wouldn't be biased since all candidates would be making it. This kind of thing would discourage casual voting, or voting on charisma (something that drives many Trump supporters, and I can see why, I agree that Trump has the most likeable attitude of them all. But what he says, and more weightily, what he plans to do, are full crap. And you'd assign weight to each frain, and then your 1 vote would be split into decims amongst each candidate by how much you agree with their policies.

I did a small analysis on Warlight, after several folk took an American presidential candidate quiz and posted what % matches they got. Results: (http://imgh.us/politchart_3.png). Though it's evidently a pretty small and biased sample size, Gary Johnson was on average most liked based on data of who posted their match. But if everyone voted the one they liked the most, Sanders would get the most votes, winning even though he has less of an average match than Johnson.

Trump actually inspires enthusiasm in a lot of people, where those voting Clinton do it because they have always voted Democrat, or because they've been lied to by the media that Trump is a racist misogynist homophobe shitlord.

This is irrevelant. His charisma is irrelevant (and he is against gay marriage, so I guess homophobic is a right word to say - and he is a shitlord, you'd be daft if you didn't think all the mainstream candidates were).

You do realize that candidates actually do that, right? You can literally go to any one of their websites and they all have an Issues section. If they've served in public office, you can also easily find their voting records- and they bring them up regularly in debates.

This is irrevelant. His charisma is irrelevant (and he is against gay marriage, so I guess homophobic is a right word to say - and he is a shitlord, you'd be daft if you didn't think all the mainstream candidates were).

He doesn't inspire enthusiasm because of his charisma but because he brings political stances on the table that were deliberately ignored by the establishment, like ending political correctness and stopping radical islamic terrorism.

Even Sanders inspires a lot more enthusiasm than Crooked Hillary, and he's a bore.

Trump isn't against gay marriage, he's for states deciding it for themselves.

Edited 6/13/2016 06:23:16

stopping radical islamic terrorism.

The entire war on terror was trying to do that, and nothing Trump proposes would actually stop a terrorist from going to Mexico, and going to the US that way.

You don't think reducing illegal immigration helps?

Given that second-generation immigrants are significantly more likely to commit terrorist acts than first-generation immigrants? Trump's Muslim ban + wall proposals won't have a big enough effect to justify their negatives.

You do realize that candidates actually do that, right? You can literally go to any one of their websites and they all have an Issues section. If they've served in public office, you can also easily find their voting records- and they bring them up regularly in debates.

I'm saying for them to make a quiz instead of a ballot, and this quiz would pick the candidate you really wanted, not the one you just liked the most.

He doesn't inspire enthusiasm because of his charisma but because he brings political stances on the table that were deliberately ignored by the establishment, like ending political correctness and stopping radical islamic terrorism.

My points still stands: don't vote any politician in just since they're charismatic and have an enthousiastic supportbase.

Also, really? Something that's not really weighty (and the way he plans to solve it is slashing speech freedom), and something that he didn't at at all bring up...you really think that Obama and the mythic conspiracy of "establishment" didn't talk about Islamic violent extremism? I wish this was the case, since all that's happening is fearmongering and ignoring of more pressing issues like environment, but no, I highly highly doubt that Trump brought up the talk of radic Islamic dreadknighthood in American policy. That crown more likely goes to the lovable wonderful fellow, George Bush.

You know how you can tell Clinton is the best candidate? The best thing anybody else can say about their candidate is an attack on Clinton. They have nothing good to say about their own guy other than 'but her emails'