Journal shanen's Journal: Why Hillary is better than the Donald 126
Based on a comment from one of Slashdot's typically transient discussions:
You [quite probably a troll, so I'll leave him nameless] are exaggerating each of your claims against Hillary to the point where is is not possible to distinguish between your claims and an outright lie. Notwithstanding, your last paragraph seems sane enough that some dialog might be possible, though I think I'm wasting keystrokes and time.
I think that Hillary is constrained by reality. Her decades of public service make that quite clear. She is not perfect and has an adequate number of flaws, though I don't count ambition as one of them. To fix the "ambition problem" with presidential politics would require a page-one rewrite of the Constitution. She has also made mistakes. So have you and I. She has even been foolish enough to acknowledge some of her mistakes in public, which is practically political suicide these days. However, I think you can only learn from your mistakes by first acknowledging them.
Trump is quite different. If you have studied his history, it is quite clear he is very greedy and heartless. He might even be a sociopath, though that is obviously not a disqualification for the presidency or even for "successful" corporate leadership these days. However my largest concern is that he is also stupid and easily manipulated, as was proven in all three debates (and in MANY of his business dealings over the decades, if you have looked into them). I have found extremely little evidence that he even understands his mistakes, though he sometimes appears to have gotten better at hiring smarter lawyers to protect him from himself.
I think that Hillary is probably a center right lawyer who doesn't much like change, but accepts that it will happen. She takes a gradualist, evolutionary approach to solving problems. I personally prefer evolutionary change over revolutionary change. The outcome of either approach is uncertain, but revolution leaves a lot of corpses behind, while evolution usually allows the losers to die off peaceably. The dead people don't care if things got better or worse.
I do not know what Trump really believes on ANY issue. He obviously panders to his audience, and he has made statements on every side of every issue. Because of the self-contradictions, it is absolutely certain that he is lying to many of his supporters, but each of them believes he is lying to the others. Though Trump frequently advocates revolution, I don't know if he believes that, but it is clear that many of his supporters want one (or more).
You raised the specific issue of war. As an honorably discharged veteran, the son of a 100% disabled veteran, and being named for an uncle who died fighting the fascists, I really don't like war. However, I do think there are some things you have to fight for, even at risk of an escalation to war. From the cowardly perspective, I suppose Trump is safer, because it would probably be easier to manipulate him so as to defeat America without any need for war.
Keep ignoring the lies and corruption (Score:1)
Hillary is corrupt on a grand scale.
This is not just my opinion, its very much backed up by a ton of evidence from reputable sources, that for whatever reason you have chosen to completely just blanket ignore out of your entire world view like it doens't exist at all. But you're clearly not alone.
I'm simply amazed at how many Americans are apparently happy to ignore even large scale corruption when choosing a candidate to vote for. Its like they have been brainwashed to think its necessarily all jus
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "pointless and closed" are you unable to understand?
Re: (Score:1)
As much as you and most other radical Dems want to completely silence anyone who doesn't 100% agree with every element of your peecee brainwashing agenda, we still for now have this thing called FREE SPEECH (although Hillary clearly wants to fix that if she gets elected).
http://thetruthdivision.com/20... [thetruthdivision.com]
Since you clearly don't like even seeing any opinions that differ from yours, then perhaps you shouldn't post yours in a public forum in the first place.
Public masterbation by 692889 (Score:2)
ZZ
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, he does that shit all the time. Look in his other JEs and you will find the same infantile responses throughout. Don't even bother to take him seriously.
Re:Public masterbation by 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^9
Your sexual fantasies are intriguing (Score:1)
Your mind is an orgy.
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^13
:-) Thank you (Score:1)
Just want more people to to see your infantile posts [deviantart.net]. Do you work for Trump?
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^14
The repulsive democrat (Score:1)
You must work for Trump.
I just love that you can't resist
Public masturbation of 163220 (Score:2)
Z^16
And you like to watch (Score:1)
I'll be "in and out" occasionally to keep your wet dreams alive.
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^17
:-) Thanks for your compliance (Score:1)
Were I so inclined I could keep your attention indefinitely.
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^19
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^21
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^26
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^29
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^34
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^43
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^44
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^45
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^46
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^47
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^48
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary is corrupt on a grand scale.
This is not just my opinion, its very much backed up by a ton of evidence from reputable sources
I hear that claim a lot and I doubt it means the same thing to every person who levels it. Could you please humor me and tell me what evidence you see as supporting your claim of "corrupt on a grand scale"? I see Hillary as falling far from ideal, but I rarely - if ever - have seen someone actually flesh out a meaningful case for her being "corrupt" or "crooked". I see plenty of people - including Donald himself - who claim that they want her thrown in jail, yet I haven't seen any of them - again, includ
Re: (Score:2)
As the ostensible host of this "journal" place, I would like to ask you not to feed the trolls here. While on one hand it is sort of reassuring to see additional evidence of the uncivility and rudeness, on the other hand there is no need of it. (Haven't I made that request of you before? But perhaps the troll's trollish nature was not yet sufficiently obvious?)
The post that started this entry in my journal was originally crafted in response to the small possibility that there was some intellectual integrity
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Enough with the lame attempts to limit free speech already. If anyone is a troll, its you.
Public masterbation of 692889 (Score:2)
Z^3
Re: (Score:2)
Ok I've done this many times already, here's how it plays out:
1) I post a bunch of links
2) Whoever needs me to spoon feed them discredits every source for multiple lame reasons, presumably just so they don;t have to deal with changing their rosy fake world view.
3) I try and reason, they put their fingers in their ears and go LALALALA
4) Nothing changes
So I'm presuming you're just like all the other fact-avoiding sheep because by now the probability is that if you weren't you would have already found the data
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> you base your calling of her as "corrupt as hell" primarily based on the email server.
Ok well firstly it was a whole lot more than just a bad idea, as where the lies she told to congress about it, the fact that she had all the evidence deleted etc etc.
But no its not true that I'm calling her corrupt as hell based on just the email server. Did you even watch the video or read all the way through what I posted above?
Re: (Score:2)
As for the youtube video you linked to, I consider a 20 minute youtube video to be an insult to my intelligence. If you have a tran
Re: (Score:2)
> If you have a transcript I will happily read it but I am not going to watch a 20 minute long..
So you will only consider something if it is convenient pre-packaged bite-sized pieces This is why you are uninformed.
Public masturbation of 692889 (Score:2)
Z^5
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lame. Trying to blame me as an excuse for why you wont get off your own arse and do your own research.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's something that took me about 30 seconds to both find and confirm:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
More on corruption of Clinton Foundation:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/... [fortune.com]
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/1... [salon.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new... [mcclatchydc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Public masturbation of 692889 (Score:2)
Z^6
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't I ask you not to feed the trolls here in so-called my journal?
You might want to look at this Samantha Bee video from her YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I can't figure out whether it is legit reporting or a joke, but she claims she managed to interview a couple of Russian "Thinkfluencers", which is a new word to me, but actually sounds plausible. One of the questions she asked involved the evaluation criteria for their work, and I remember that one of them was making people angry, wh
Public masturbation of 692889 (Score:2)
Z^8
Re: (Score:2)
> I did not see a single statement in your previous comment where you claimed your allegation of corruption to be based on anything beyond the email server
Wow really? 2 chances and you still cant see the sentences where I said about Clinton repeatedly lying or about the Clinton Foundation?
Public masterbation of 692889 (Score:2)
Z^4
Re: (Score:2)
The Clinton Foundation - as a source for allegations of corruption - is baseless. You are trying to claim that its mere existence somehow shows her as corrupt, which is asinine. If you have some factual data to show how it somehow makes her corrupt - which obviously you do not or you would have already provided a link to it - then show it. Otherwise it is no more of a smoking gun than Tru
Re: (Score:2)
>> The "repeatedly lying" is tied directly to the email server, is it not? Hence still the same worn out conspiracy.
Well firstly no, she;s been lying all her life so there's plenty of other topics to pick, and evidence to back it up if you could be bothered to look for yourself.
Secondly what "worn out conspiracy"? There is no conspiracy here, its all fact that she repeatedly perjured herself and deleted evidence contrary to a court order and congressional subpoena. hardly the sort of stuff you'd do if
Re: (Score:2)
The "repeatedly lying" is tied directly to the email server, is it not? Hence still the same worn out conspiracy.
Well firstly no, she;s been lying all her life so there's plenty of other topics to pick, and evidence to back it up if you could be bothered to look for yourself.
Then kindly pick one and share it. So far you have focused on the email server. If you have another case, tell me what it is. I'm not asking you again; if you keep this game up beyond this I'm not going to bother replying to you.
Secondly what "worn out conspiracy"? There is no conspiracy here
False. There most certainly is a conspiracy here. The name Clinton is a dog whistle to conservatives to dig for whatever they can to try to discredit the most successful presidency of the past 50 years. The email server is a conspiracy, period. It was a bad idea, for sure,
Re: (Score:2)
The troll is intellectually dishonest and you are just being provoked into wasting a lot of your time. The troll's time might be worthless, or might be paid for, as if the difference matters.
I don't even waste time on the feces of any recognized troll, and by extension, I barely glanced at your reply.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/polit... [bloomberg.com]
Here's something new that took me about 30 seconds to both find and confirm:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]
More on Clinton Foundation corruption
http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/... [fortune.com]
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/1... [salon.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new... [mcclatchydc.com] ... but I'm sure you will just find yet another lame excuse to stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALA
Re: (Score:1)
Just so you know, Jill Stein's mutual fund investments aren't exactly "socially responsible". Her excuses don't hold water [marketwatch.com].
What Hillary will do for us that Trump will never do is to honor her business contracts without a court fight. And our little economic/debt bubble will be stable for another eight years. In other words two more terms of Bill Clinton. This really isn't so much corruption as it is plain old gangsterism. They really do have a gun to their heads. You gotta think of the hookers [tumblr.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Now let's tally them up, eh?
You started your argument with the tired conspiracies involving the email server. Certainly your claims were well enough rooted in reality that you should have been able to find factual suppo
Re: (Score:2)
".. but I'm sure you will just find yet another lame excuse to stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALA"
Apparently I was exactly right.
Public masturbation of 692889 (Score:2)
Z^7
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^10
Re: (Score:2)
And yet somehow, you find a way to make your failings all my fault. You blame all this on me. I don't understand the rules to this strange game you are asking to play, and I don't expect you will be willing to explain them to me.
And wasn't your side the "party of personal responsibility"? Apparently that does not apply to all
Re: (Score:2)
> Do you even know what a fact is?
Do you? Ive given plenty of stuff but you will clearly do (or avoid doing) ANYTHING just to keep living in denial, your claim that some source I used like Washington Post, Bloomberg, Fox News, or the house of representatives itself aren't valid news sources clearly shows to what degree of crazy you will go to keep living in denial. I don;t know what you are expecting but If you still won't believe them then guess what, no problem, just go Google "Clinton corruption" and
Re: (Score:2)
Here's some more just today. Take your pick. Oh wait none of them are "valid" news sources right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
http://www.wsj.com/articles/se... [wsj.com]
http://insider.foxnews.com/201... [foxnews.com]
http://freebeacon.com/politics... [freebeacon.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
https://twitter.com/wikileaks [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It is no small wonder why you have been labeled a troll, as you are indeed just wasting my time. Do you even believe in what you are writing or are you just jerking me around because you get enjoyment from wasting
Re: (Score:2)
Go on, just admit it, You haven't actually researched anything for yourself, you're just believed whatever the media has told you to think, and honestly there's literally not a damn thing that anyone could say or show you that could make you honestly change your mind about Hillary, regardless of what she has done.
Public masturbation of 692889 (Score:2)
Z^11
Public masturbation of 692889 (Score:2)
Z^12
Re: (Score:1)
You gotta admit, she and the DNC did rig the primaries against Sanders. This cynical grooming for her presidency has been going on for 15 years at least.
And I admit she will be good for business and the nation's credit rating. It would be foolish to deal with Trump without demanding full payment up front.
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^15
Why Hillary is Better than the Donald (Score:2)
Can you still remember any of the original points of my original journal entry after all that?
Anyway, if I do notice a reply directly to me, I will try to look at it, though the only acknowledgement a trall [not sic, but to satisfy the filter we are not allowed to write about] deserves is some number of Zs once the handle has been recognized. Once I've forgotten the troll's identity again, which doesn't take long, I sometimes need to be reminded by reading one of the troll's posts.
As noted repeatedly, if th
Re: (Score:2)
It should be no secret here that I am a big Bernie supporter (which makes me, in the eyes of >>99% of active slashdot users, a raging gaddammed commie or some such thing). I caucused for him and I followed the process all the way through as far as I could in my area.
Was it rigged? Not as far as I could tell. My precinct caucus was literally split right down the middle (I think the ballot count was 49:49)
Why Hillary is better than the Donald (Score:2)
Oh, wait. I see you weren't talking to me.
Sorry for the intrusion, but I do have to predict the actual response will be a diversion. Remember the original topic? I didn't think so, and therefore I'm not going to mention why I also preferred Bernie Sanders in spite of some of his rhetoric--but I accept the outcome, as Bernie did and as the Trump threatens not to.
However, I think I have figured out Trump's only actual qualification for the presidency. No, it's not the money. He is lying about that or he'd sho
Re: (Score:1)
why would they pick her?
Same reason they picked Humphrey over McCarthy in '68, and that was a really big rig there, with 19 to 1 voter ratio in favor of McCarthy. True liberals will get nowhere with the democrats, and they are suckers to believe otherwise. Far as I'm concerned the primaries were totally fraudulent, then and now. Can't rock the boat against the big money that finances the institution. And here again they don't want a lopsided congress that can disrupt the phony blame game (rotating villain)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As noted repeatedly, if they had a better financial model at Slashdot, one that was more responsive to the members, then I think that the members who want intelligent discussions would agree with me and support features to make the trolls less visible.
As noted repeatedly, subscribers [slashdot.org] have the option to restrict posting [slashdot.org] access on their journals based on their Friends & Foes list.
In Soviet Slashdot the troll is you!
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^18
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^20
Re: (Score:2)
I have to strongly disagree with that claim. I would certainly agree that there are stronger and weaker Democratic candidates in various ways, but there is absolutely no way the so-called Republican Party would have "not bothered" to go against the Democrat, no matter who the candidate was. Even stronger than "absolutely", it is clear that Trump would attack anyone, and actually has a long track record of personal attacks. Truth and the actual characteristics of the opposing candidate are clearly irrelevant
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^22
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^23
Re: (Score:2)
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^28
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^27
Re: (Score:2)
I think my disagreement there is because bullies are cowards. I've even had some firsthand experience there, and amusingly enough it involved a bully's accusation of lying. When confronted with a real threat, bullies back down or fight weakly, perhaps because they are actually insecure on the inside. I think that almost all of Trump's noisiest and most rabid supporters will just get real quiet after the election, though the worst of them may take out their frustrations on their helpless wives or children.
Th
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^30
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^31
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^32
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^33
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^35
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^36
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^37
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^38
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^39
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^40
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^41
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^42
Get Real (Score:2)
You spoil your boy rotten cause you've only got small hands.
Don't tell us 'bout your daughter, how you'd love to do her too
Cause your wife's a visa cheat with a resume as fake as you.
Only your ghostwriter knows you, and he says he faked your book.
So you abuse your pageant winner like your grandpa's got you on a hook.
You're a four time bankrupt even when you fake a school. Crash that casino, no one loses money like the way you do.
You hate our Cons
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of amusing, but I don't think it's gong to win any literary prizes. I'd like to check up on a few of the details, but as a bit of doggerel I guess it has a parody license of some sort. Trying to imagine if it could be put to music... I've seen a couple of amusing song parodies on YouTube.
I guess the summary might be "rich man's privilege" meets its practical limits?
Re: (Score:2)
Those little hands go groping, can’t keep them off of us.
It’s the kind of thing you brag of for charming Billy on the bus.
Got to wonder why you said it, did you want to grope him too?
They only like your money, there’s no one that ever liked you.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you work in something about the FBI? I've been trying to figure out why they wanted to intervene so actively in this election. Right now I have two hypotheses:
(1) It's really a turf war thing. The FBI wants Email-Inquisition parity with the NSA and the CIA.
(2) They were afraid that an overwhelming Democratic victory would allow for some real change. I think a lot of them sincerely believe that their job is to oppose every change, but more so with the ones that came on board under Dubya.
One thing you hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)