2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat are some compelling reasons to vote for Clinton?
Last edited Wed Mar 23, 2016, 08:49 AM - Edit history (3)
Hey guys and gals,
I've got a question which is probably pretty stupid to ask on DU, but it comes from a place of honesty. Those who have seen my posts in the past have noticed I've been a bit tough on Clinton for various reasons. I don't trust her and think she's taking the democratic party in the wrong direction. So... Why should I personally vote for Clinton if I feel she doesn't have my interests at heart?
This is your chance to pitch an argument to sway folks (liberals) like me.
Edit: best I've seen so far is controlling the Supreme Court. Thanks for that contribution.
Edit on the Cons side of the list: She is attracted to power more than most. We're thinking about handing her the presidency, a position of absolute power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, or so they say. As we've seen she sees herself above the law (playing loose with classified info on a private network). Additionally, she's also done plenty of shmoozing with the rich, including Trump.
Sometimes this all feels like an elaborate sham.
longship
(40,416 posts)I prefer a different path.
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)Shame.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Or maybe legalized marijuana.
longship
(40,416 posts)I thought we fought this battle years ago.
For those who haven't read the memo, when one puts a back door in strong encryption it is no longer strong encryption. One can kiss security bye-bye. Not only can the fucking FBI get in, but hackers, terrorists, other governments, etc. can get in. I am sure that the big banks, whose transactions depend on strong security will support the back doors... Or maybe not.
I thought we fought this battle during the first Clinton presidency, when strong encryption was actually illegal in the USA.
No more Clintons!!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There are a bajillion and one reasons- good, legitimate ones- why businesses and private individuals want strong encryption to protect their data- and on the other hand you have law enforcement peeved that they dont have the "special necessary tools" they claim they 'need to fight terror'- and which invariably, like the patriot act, will end up getting used primarialy for mundane shit like arresting drug users.
longship
(40,416 posts)When there is a back door, there is no security. None.
People just haven't figured that out yet, the blinkered idiots.
longship
(40,416 posts)The RSA trapdoor algorithm fits easily on a T-shirt. I have one around here some place with it on it. The thing is, some mathematical expressions are one-way. Like factoring a number. If the number is big enough, finding its prime factors becomes really, really difficult. That means so fucking difficult that there's no computer on Earth that can solve the problem in any reasonable amount of time, usually measured in centuries. And knowing the equations doesn't help one in solving the cypher.
One merely has to use a big enough number.
But these equations are pretty damned simple. It's just number theory. So hiding a back door just isn't possible. It would stick out like a sore thumb. Any evil person would see it, and exploit it.
The blinkered idiocy of people like the FBI who want an easy way out don't realize that it gives everybody an easy way out.
mahina
(17,502 posts)I hope you make this an OP.
Thank you for the information.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)If you want to see the kind of change Sanders is talking about (however "feasible" you may think it is), there is no compelling reason to vote for Clinton in a primary/caucus. There are compelling reasons to vote for Sanders in a primary/caucus, regardless of cumulative delegate numbers (e.g., http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511507143 )
The general election is a different matter. Here are my compelling reasons for voting for the nominee, whether it's Sanders or Clinton (and for working to turnout others to do the same):
1. I do not want to see more seats on the Supreme Court lost to the sort of people Trump/Cruz/Kasich would nominate. Such loses would have incredibly damaging consequences for decades to come, well beyond a president's four or eight years in office.
2. If those who are working to get Sanders to the White House continue to work to win back Congress and organize to advocate the sort of legislation he supports, we may actually succeed in getting some decent legislation through. I want the person in the White House that is more likely to sign such legislation into law. That is not Trump/Cruz/Kasich. The fact is, Sanders' agenda is not happening without some incredible support from "out here," so whether it's Sanders or Clinton in the White House, we have our work cut out for us.
For me, it's all about doing the best we can do for this broken nation. Right now, that's supporting Sanders. When we have a nominee, it means supporting that nominee.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and whoever might pop up at the convention come to mind. Also Charles Koch, representing not only the over 700 billionaires and megamillionaires working directly with him to overset democracy, continuing the transfer of wealth and power to them, but also many others of their ilk.
As for Hillary herself, https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/. More information can be found by googling issues you are particularly interested in. She has more detailed versions for pros who use them as kickoffs for examination. And, of course, their evaluations are out there.
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)I agree that a Republican presidency is a lousy proposition fir various reasons and that the Koch brothers need to go away. I'm not sure Clinton is that interested in getting money out if politics though.
I'd look at Clinton's website to see where she stands, but I've heard her enough in debates and town halls to know she'll say whatever is politically convenient at any given time. That lack of conviction rubs me the wrong way.
She supports frakking and war, both of which I believe a good Democratic candidate should do their best to avoid.
I'll keep an open mind, but I'm not even sure she'd net us dems seats in Congress due to low favorability ratings.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)positions anyway. If only to tell if she veers from them.
Fracking is creating grave problems -- so surprising!, yet it is eliminating major reasons for war and shifting world power away from the extremely troubled Middle East. We need another president who will use the breathing space it gives us to secure lasting energy independence via sustainable, renewable sources.
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)The energy aspect that Clinton and energy firms push happens to be extremely profitable to certain folks with deep coffers already, but I fear there's a great environmental cost that gets overlooked by those who aren't impacted.
I know admittedly little about fracking, but there are stories out there about contaminated water supplies and increased Earthquake activity (due to new faults being created?). Oklahoma has supposedly seen a hhhhuuuge increase in Earthquakes, which is interesting and a bit scary. We as humans are capable of really fucking up the environment in the name of the all mighty dollar.
While energy may help stave off war, lack of drinkable water is one of the things that starts war. That's why global warming is a big deal, but that's a story for another time.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)so they're not my concern. The power went off the other day, though, on a lovely, balmy Florida day, and it was such an inconvenience. Only imagine if we'd really needed it? Here's my view.
Yes, energy is absolutely at the top of our list of needs. From energy come food and water. We take it for granted, but for 10,000 years world population barely, barely grew, and those little leaps with things like the agricultural revolution, which allowed those who lived to reproduce themselves to rise slightly in number. Then came the Industrial Revolution, which was built on coal and steam. Cities were able to grow because they had the additional energy needed to be able to grow. World production and world population graphs can be laid over each other and those almost vertical growth spikes seen to be virtually identical. Thanks to new sources and uses of energy.
Take a significant portion of that energy away, and average lifespans would plummet, hundreds of millions would die in poor countries, wars would break out everywhere, and the rest of us would be learning very bitter lessons. The planet is running out of petroleum fast, and literally criminal levels of stupidity and irresponsibility, mostly conservative, almost brought us to that point.
Those new technologies (very much including fracking) are what has saved us from major wars over the remaining supplies and personally learning what it is to live in far, far less energy-luxurious ways. Fracking's baaad and unsustainable, but without it it is quite possible that most of us would already be learning what it is to bike, bus and carpool to work (those of us who had jobs because severe depression would be an inevitable result also) and perhaps to have the lights turned off for us an hour or two after dark.
Fracking has bought us time, which Obama is trying to make the most of, and the knuckle-draggers on the right are determined to squander.
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)Thank you.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Bernie is in a position to DEMAND some of your issues get addressed. That is how I think it will happen for you to think about Hillary. IF she is the nominee she will have to offer Bernie a pretty important place where he/she know many of his issues wikl have to be addressed. IMO.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)TowneshipRebellion
(92 posts)than the opposition's rich benefactors. Since this is the best you're going to get, you might as well get with the program and vote for the candidate the party has chosen.
_________________________________
I don't personally agree with this line of thinking but many people believe in the least worst option. They aren't bad people but they have simply given up on real change.
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)on the fact that "Marriage is between a man and a woman"
Response to PoliticalMalcontent (Original post)
Post removed
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)My feeling is that Clinton is a symptom or cause of something wrong in the Democratic party. It feels wrong to reward such a thing especially if I won't be happy with the final result.
I have a feeling there would be a lot of blowback on a Clinton presidency from independents.
greymouse
(872 posts)That's about the best I can come up with.
We have no idea who she'd appoint to the Supreme Court. She is so far to the right that it could be someone totally unacceptable to traditional Democrats.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)you don't vote for her. That's pretty compelling.
[link:|
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Bank on it...
reddread
(6,896 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Have you contributed to Hillary's campaign and the Clinton Foundation in anticipation of getting a good return on your investments?
Those are the only reasons I can come up with why anybody would vote for her.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Lone_Wolf
(1,603 posts)However, that difference will be negligible if she moves any further to the right.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)then GD-P is not the place to go to. Try her website or her supporters groups. At least it will give you the other side of the picture, and then perhaps you can end up somewhere in the middle.
One critical questions about your OP: on what do you base your assertion that she is attracted to power more than most? Is it because she is a woman and women are not supposed to be attracted to power? I'm not accusing you of sexism, but there is actually historical precedent fora skewed evaluation of women when it comes to power. So be mindful of it.
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)You're right. The, 'attracted to power more than most' may be baseless and without merit. It does take a certain type of person to want to run for president, though. The Donald Trump's, Mitt Romney's, etc of the world don't get there by being satisfied by small potatoes.
We know she enjoys rubbing elbows and networking with those in power. That's a big part of the reason that she has done so well with Superdelegates. Additionally, there's tons of photos of her out there with former presidents and Trumps just living it up.
Perhaps I have assessed the situation wrong, and she's only playing the part, but a lot of it seems cold and calculating; particularly since she has had presidential ambitions for so long.
I'm sorry if you took that as sexist initially.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)I can't think of one
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)...
MisterP
(23,730 posts)since the late 70s or have business interests in war
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,282 posts)Well, for those of us who have them, anyway.
PufPuf23
(8,687 posts)I am against Hillary Clinton for POTUS.
Agony
(2,605 posts)maybe that second one isn't all that compelling she knows HK pretty well.
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)Gender doesn't really influence my vote so much as policy. Knowing the big time players is something I know she does well with, and I'll keep that in mind.
Agony
(2,605 posts)it is a sham
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)But the SCOTUS is #1.
She is much more likely than trump to be on our side on issues like:
1. Immigration
2. Police brutality
3. Prisons (though I do know the history)
4. Education
5. Anything to help the poor and working poor. For instance, Trump thinks there should be time limits on food stamps, and that teen moms should rely on charity rather than be elgible for public assistance.
6. He is a raging misogynist
7. He is a raging racist
I voted for Bernie in the primary and I'm glad he at least got Michigan. But in the general election I will be the biggest anti-Trump voter out there.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)And you may as well vote for the winner, right . . . . and she's awesome besides (did I already say that?)
Whatever!