Not because I think she's some sort of evil genius looking to overthrow democracy as some would suggest, but simply for the fact that all of her policy prescriptions (that I've heard at least) don't sound like anything other than trying some of the same old things and expecting different results.
What's wrong with "more of the same"?
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/obamas-numbers-april-2016-update/
"The same" has been pretty darn good lately. I mean, yeah, it could be better, but things are gradually improving. There's nothing wrong with "the same old things". Honestly, I feel like that's the strongest thing that really needs to be said in favor of Clinton. The last 8 years have been a pretty consistent trek upwards. The country has, by the numbers, gotten better. You can complain about police getting shot and terrorist attacks, but terrorist attacks are an extreme rarity that it's unlikely any policy we make could do much about, and police deaths are actually
down from the last year - which was already pretty darn low. The economy is better, and if the republicans hadn't blocked a further job bill and then proceeded to make brinkmanship over the economy the order of the day with things like the sequester, the debt ceiling, and the shutdown, we'd be in an even
better place.
Fundamentally, Hillary Clinton proposes rational, sensible,
carefully thought-out policies that are largely a continuation of the successful policies of her predecessor. She changes her position based on the available information, she has a deep, working understanding of two of the three branches of government based on personal experience, and she was extremely popular pretty much whenever she wasn't running for office (her in-state approval rating as senator of New York got up to 70% - that's pretty good). Oh, and she'd make history by shattering the glass ceiling, but that's not as important. I'm not sure what else you really want in a presidential candidate. I see no problem with this. And that's independent of any competition.
...Of course, talking about basic competency in rational decision-making and statescraft wouldn't be worth mentioning in most cases. Fact is, the best reason to vote for Clinton is because it would be pretty hard to find a presidential candidate who did more harm to the USA's image in the world on the campaign trail than Donald Trump has. All those things about being rational and carefully considered? It doesn't apply to her opposition. Trump
doesn't seem to do much thinking. His ideas are half-baked nonsense, with very little thought behind them, and he lies so often that talk of a "post-truth" candidacy is not out of line.
Absolutely not. She is one of the most morally void and corrupt people walking the earth today.
She can't be trusted to speak the simple truth.
Really. "One of the most morally void and corrupt people walking the earth today".
Really.
This is what we talk about when we refer to CDS. I mean, yeah, Trump is bad, but you don't see a whole lot of people saying, "He needs to be in jail for his crimes, he's the worst person in the history of the world". And yet, somehow, Clinton belongs to the most immoral and corrupt people in the world? She's a politician, not a Goldman Sachs executive. Yeesh.
But case in point:
These charges would have a touch more validity if they weren't coming from people fawning over Hillary Clinton a woman who makes things up as she goes and lies through her teeth on a continual basis. This is why so many of us think you guys are crazy and incapable of making a fair judgment.
You try to turn this around, but it really doesn't work. Like, just for example, let's compare the fact-checking on Hillary's DNC speech to Trump's RNC speech.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-hillary-clintons-acceptance-democrat/
Two statements below "mostly true": one a misleading jobs figure, and one a slightly out-of-date figure on inequality.
By comparison, here's Trump's RNC speech:
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/122544...eptance-speech-republican-convention-rnc-2016
The key elements of his speech, the whole "Crime and lawlessness" business? Misleading and
wrong. He makes numerous substantial errors that would be hard to make if they weren't on purpose. And this is one of his
more accurate speeches. Politico compiled and fact-checked 4.6 hours of his stump speeches while still in the midst of the republican primaries. The results?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730
With the GOP front-runner scooping up delegates in a march toward the Republican nomination, POLITICO subjected a week’s worth of his words to our magazine’s fact-checking process. We chronicled 4.6 hours of stump speeches and press conferences, from a rally in Concord, N.C., on Monday to a rally on Friday in St. Louis.
The result: more than five dozen statements deemed mischaracterizations, exaggerations, or simply false – the kind of stuff that would have been stripped from one of our stories, or made the whole thing worthy of the spike. It equates to roughly one misstatement every five minutes on average.
That's a
really big difference. Yeah, you can pull out one of two lies Hillary has made. Of course you can. She's a politician who's been in Washington for decades; at some point she's going to say something that is untrue or misleading. It happens - yes, even to Gary Johnson. But to say something untrue or misleading every five minutes? That's
nuts. It's blatantly obvious that Trump either doesn't know very much and is just making it up as he goes along, or he
does know and simply lies. That's a big difference from Hillary, who tends to make it her business to know stuff. It's not the same thing. The same claims simply do not apply. You might as well try to claim Clinton is an authoritarian or a demagogue - she isn't. Trump is.
Does not speak well for dealing with real life face to face meetings with leaders.
Good news: we don't have to rely on the proxy of her record dealing with the press corps, because Clinton, unlike Trump,
has actually met with foreign leaders in an official capacity. It was part of her job, remember? A job that, by all accounts,
she didn't do all that badly in.
