Why (or why not) to vote for Hillary Clinton

wrath
716

America is not a police state under the current national security measures, that are in place to protect America from a major 911 type terrorist attack.

I am going to vote for Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, as well as vote for democrats up and down the ticket.

Why (** *** ***) to vote for Hillary Clinton

Because during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State there was no major 911 type terrorist attack carried out against the American homeland. Because Hillary will continue the current (and in place) national security measures under President Obama, that has kept America safe from a 911 type terrorist attack

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton has received more votes than any other presidential candidate, republican or democrat, seeking the office of President of the United States in 2016. Hillary’s record on national security is one of the reasons why she will be the 45th President of the United States.

I certainly do not hope you are not considering moving to another country, staying home on election day, or voting for Trump.

Vote Hillary in 2016!

717

In your previous post you discussed the need for monitoring of all modes of communication and privacy being obsolete. Have you read 1984?[quote=“khepra, post:716, topic:72574”]
Because during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State there was no major 911 type terrorist attack carried out against the American homeland.
[/quote]As has been pointed out upthread, this is a famously bad argument.

[quote=“khepra, post:716, topic:72574”]
I certainly do not hope you are not considering moving to another country, staying home on election day, or voting for Trump.[/quote]
I want to vote for a person who opposes the US becoming a police state. You seem to think your candidate HRC shares your un-American scopophilia, If I decide you are right then for sure I will not be voting for her. However, I would far rather our country remain free and that people who hate this freedom find a country more to their liking.

10 Likes
718

True of every Secretary of State except one.

This, absolutely. If Clinton supporters expect her to continue with all the Patriot Act and security theatre bullshit then I couldn’t ever support her even if she had Sanders or Warren as her Veep.

7 Likes
719

As I pointed out above, that analogy above, is not relevant nor does it apply to my comment.

Lets see, over 65 million people voted for President Obama in 2012. In 2016 probably over 70 million people will vote for Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. You want that many people to leave the country because you want to lessen the national security measures that have kept America safe from a 911 type terrorist attack. Wanting people to leave America sounds like Donald Trump.

You seem to also be channeling the foreign policy philosophy of tea bag party darling and failed republican presidential candidate, Rand Paul. Maybe you should write in his name and vote for Rand Paul.

720

Somebody here (@lolipop_jones?) was pondering how BBers would have voted if the election ended up being Clinton against Rand Paul. I suspect that on 4th Amendment issues (although probably little else, admittedly - drugs, like @d_r suggests), Paul would do rather well against her here.

3 Likes
721

[quote=“khepra, post:719, topic:72574”]
Wanting people to leave America sounds like Donald Trump.[/quote]
No. wanting America to turn into East Germany is what sounds like Donald Trump. I really hope that the surveillance state is one issue where Clinton disagrees with you and Trump.

Even a broken clock is right twice per day. Paul is 100% correct on two things: opposition to universal governmental surveillance of the population, and drug policy.

9 Likes
722

You posted this tonight:

“This, absolutely. If Clinton supporters expect her to continue with all the Patriot Act and security theatre bullshit then I couldn’t ever support her even if she had Sanders or Warren as her Veep.”

You posted this on March 30th: post #344

quote=“daneel, post:344, topic:72574”]
But don’t worry - I’m not a citizen yet anyway, so I don’t get a vote. Best I can do is donate.

Hope you can now exercise your franchise, if not you can still donate to your candidate of choice.

The 911 terrorist attack happened in 2001, not in 1891, 1901, 1921, 1941, 1961, 1971, 1981 1991 etc…it happened in 2001.

723

I just don’t see examples of millions of Americans being imprisoned or defecting because of the current national security measures that are in place in America. Maybe you do.

724

So, it’s not a police state until million are imprisoned or defect?

5 Likes
725

Eh? The US intelligence agencies are even more abusive towards US citizens living abroad.

You want to paint those of us who love freedom as tea-partiers, but your love for the surveillance state is a Republican characteristic. US security agencies monitor more than 250 million communications every year without getting a warrant; every single one of these is an abomination in the eyes of people who love the US. If you equate loving the principles on which the country was founded with being a tea party member, you weren’t paying attention in school.

[quote=“khepra, post:722, topic:72574”]
The 911 terrorist attack happened in 2001, not in 1891, 1901, 1921, 1941, 1961, 1971, 1981 1991 etc…it happened in 2001.[/quote]
So every secretary of state we’ve had except Colin Powell has kept us safe from terrorists? Would you therefore agree we shouldn’t be impressed by how well the person in this picture did their job?

Pasted image1024×648 836 KB

8 Likes
726

We are talking about foreign and domestic terrorism visited on the American homeland. Terrorism where thousands of lives were lost, similar to what happened on 911.

You for some reason seem to be either unaware or dismissive of the lives of thousands and millions of Africans, Native Americans, African-Americans…etc…

You may want to rethink your assertion and c!aim, because it is only true if a person is trivializing and believes the lives of African slaves, Native Americans and African-Americans don’t count. Your assertion and claim is true only if a person has a narrow and blinded view of what terrorism is.

Slavery was terrorism, lynchings were terrorism, brutal and racist race riots from the late 1800’s through the 1940’s were terrorism, the genocide perpetrated against Native Americans was terrorism, the thousands of black men who came up missing; where many bodies were found floating down rivers like the Mississippi River was terrorism.

Maybe someone should post pictures and documented accounts of the different types of sadistic and barbaric ways African-Americans, including pregnant women, children and teens were lynched I.e. being hung, burned alive, pregnant women being cut open, mutilations etc…

There were anti-slavery, anti-lynching, anti-genocide, anti-race riots and civil rights groups, organizations and individuals, that advocated against and fought to end slavery, the genocide of Native Americans, lynchings and race riots.

What Secretary of State are you citing that intervened and kept Americans safe during slavery, the genocide against Native Americans, lynchings, Jm Crow, race riots etc…?—I can list many Secretary of States who did nothing. :scream:

727

Hell, if we’re just going to exchange non sequiturs, we could talk about the disproportionate number of African-Americans in the US prison system, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.

10 Likes
728

The historical and ongoing treatment by our government towards native Americans, and the systematic abuse by American citizens towards people of color, are certainly horrific actions we need to acknowledge and address. If you want to label them as terrorism, I have no problem with that. They don’t have anything at all to do with this discussion. You claimed that we should vote for HRC because of her great success as Secretary of State in keeping terrorism at bay. It is completely unambiguous from your posts that you were referring to foreign terrorism of the 9-11 variety, plus of course domestic terrorism wouldn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.

Posters in this thread have pointed out that your argument that because there was no 9-11 style terrorism under HRC’s watch therefore she did her job well is an instance of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. If they are wrong, if the Secretary of State can be credited with terrorism or its absence, then the same evidence of effectiveness applies to every Secretary of State under whom we had no foreign terrorism, conversely any SoS under whom there was an incursion of this sort should be liable. By this logic, which is your logic, every SoS since the Cordell Hull era should get credit for warding off terrorism, with the exception of Colin Powell as we were attacked under his watch.

The way you happily embrace encroaching governmental tyranny, your unwillingness to own your own arguments and their consequences, your habit of raising what @ChuckV rightly identifies as non-sequiturs, makes you a very sorry spokesrobot for Clinton. While you might like her more as a person than Trump, your style of argumenting and the policies you embrace locate you right smack in the middle of the latter’s base.

8 Likes
729

@ChuckV @daneel @d_r
Why are you guys continuing to reply to this… person?

@khepra
I’ll give you one thing, I’ve never seen anybody continue so far without a single like. So, good on you for that, at least - if likes are the only payment in the offing for your efforts, that is.

4 Likes
730

Don’t forget Brave New World!

2 Likes
731

Just flirting…

9 Likes
732

Actually, s/he has over 100 likes, though not on posts where s/he accuses people of being racist because they oppose a police state. For example, back before people pointed out to khepra that her idol Clinton supported the war in Iraq, s/he had some anti-war posts that got many likes.

5 Likes
733

You can read ‘so far without a single like’ to refer to the huge volume of unliked posts that just keep on coming.

I just wish folks would quit replying, so this thread could totally look like the complete farce it is.

1 Like
734

You posted:

You claimed that we should vote for HRC because of her great success as Secretary of State in keeping terrorism at bay. It is completely unambiguous from your posts that you were referring to foreign terrorism of the 9-11 variety, plus of course domestic terrorism wouldn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.

I have clearly posted that during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State there were no 911 type terrorist attacks where thousands of lives were lost or forever changed. There is nothing unambiguous or in doubt, as to what I referenced regarding this.

I posted this 16 hours ago.

“We are talking about foreign and domestic terrorism visited on the American homeland. Terrorism where thousands of lives were lost, similar to what happened on 911.”

I posted these two posts one day ago.

“I support the security measures that are in place now to protect America. There has been no major 911 type terrorist attack on American soil (where thousands of lives have been lost or forever altered), since the current security measures have been in place.”

“Because during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State there was no major 911 type terrorist attack carried out against the American homeland. Because Hillary will continue the current (and in place) national security measures under President Obama, that has kept America safe from a 911 type terrorist attack.”

735

 

7 Likes