A thread full of liberals supporting Hillary?

Won't be just liberals that make the map the bluest it's ever been

I supported Bernie Sanders and liked his voting background and vision for America more, but since he lost and isn't who most Democratic voters want, I will vote for and support Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in November.

It's clear to me that Donald Trump would be a disaster as president of our country, and I feel it is my civic duty to support Hillary Clinton and help ensure Trump never becomes our Commander-in-Chief and occupy the same office as Washington and Lincoln.

I hope that Hillary will come around to support important Wall Street/big bank reforms, such as reinstating Glass-Steagal (something Elizabeth Warren has worked very hard to do), but I have my doubts.

That said, she is still a pretty decent presidential candidate overall on the issues. She's experienced in foreign policy, and if she can more or less continue the progress and effective administration that Obama accomplished during his 8 years, I'll be happy.

Democratic voters can only hope she does not receive an indictment from to her email/private server scandal, but it's certainly a small possibility. Even if she goes down, I'm fairly confident that someone like Joe Biden could beat Donald Trump in a general election.

A large concern I have with Hillary Clinton is her unfavorability ratings. They are historically low. Fortunately for her, Trump's are arguably the worst in history for any major party nominee. But favorability and approval ratings are the lifeblood of a President. If you have better approval ratings, you have more political leverage to help institute your ideas and agenda. If you have bad approval ratings, you don't have as much political leverage.

I am a little concerned that Hillary has the look of a one-term president and might lose to someone like Paul Ryan in 2020. She strikes me as the George H. W. Bush to Obama's Reagan, if you will. A poor man's one-term extension of a successful presidency (H.W. lost to Reagan in 1980 and HRC lost to Obama in 2008).

One of the biggest reasons I will almost always support the Democratic candidate over a Republican candidate is the role of the President in nominating Supreme Court justices. This is a heavily contested topic, but I feel as if the Constitution is more of a living document, and I typically agree more with that philosophy on most most issues than an originalist or texualist philosophy.

One can only wonder if Republicans will ever have a hearing on Merrick Garland, but I also have my doubts about that. I hope that if Hillary Clinton is elected she would nominate Garland or someone who is also as qualified to be a SCOTUS Justice. It's a very important job.

I also hope that if Hillary Clinton is elected, she has the benefit of at least one term or a half a term of Democrats controlling one or more chambers of Congress. The amount of Republican obstructionism Obama has faced in his second term is pretty absurd. With Donald Trump as the GOP's candidate, there are many Congressional races that could be up for grabs for Democrats in November. It's doubtful that the House will swing Left in 2016, but the Senate could.

This post was edited by ThatAlex on Jun 7 2016 07:45pm

The wall just got 10 feet higher.

^^^ speaking of a wall

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 7 2016 07:46pm

You're right. They should take a stand and vote Trump.

Hopefully this thread has more passion than this one: http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=74222973&f=119

For better or worse, there is a huge disparity in passion between Bernie/Trump supporters and Hillary supporters.

And it's not hard to see why. Americans want something different. Hillary represents the status quo and is the quintessential politician.

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald put how the DNC primary ended best:

"This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization — incredibly — conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that its nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward, and undemocratic sputter."

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/

David Axelrod made an interesting point on CNN(best political coverage btw). They are discussing the historical achievement of a major party candidate being a woman, and Axelrod brought up the fact that many young women voters(both Bernie and Trump supporters) don't seem to be overly concerned about voting for a woman candidate. They've expressed that they believe a woman candidate can compete just as well as a man, and thus they simply choose who they agree with the most.

And this is a huge sign of progress. Feminists and social activists have worked very hard over hundreds of years to make gender a non-issue. I don't even care Hillary Clinton is a woman. As a voter, all I strive to consider is your merits as a candidate and your vision for America.

That's why official HRC campaign ads such as "Are you man enough to vote for Hillary" are so discouraging. America is ready to make gender a non-issue, but she's bringing it back to the forefront for political gain.


In a previous debate, Bernie Sanders asked Hillary about her contributions from Wall Street: "Well, why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions?" "They expect to get something. Everybody knows that."

Hillary's response: "Oh, wait a minute, senator. You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors -- most of them small. And I'm very proud that for the first time a majority of my donors are women, 60 percent." So I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country."

So she defended her Wall Street contributions with saying she's been getting lots of donations from women and that she represented and helped New York during 9/11. How are these items relevant to campaign contributions?


Secondly, Sanders criticized her establishment politics and she responded with: “Honestly, Sen. Sanders is the only person who would characterize me -- a woman running to be the first woman resident -- as exemplifying the establishment.”

Why was that middle part necessary? We get it, you'd be the first female president ever. It would be an amazing accomplishment. But how is that relevant to the question or the topic at hand? It really is playing the gender card.

Could you imagine if Obama said something like this in 2008: “Honestly, Sen. Clinton is the only person who would characterize me -- a person running to be the first Black president -- as exemplifying the establishment."? There would be outrage. And justifiably so. It's awesome that Obama is the first Black president, but he never touted it around like HRC is using gender in her campaign. He hardly ever brings it up personally and when he does it's relevant to the question or the topic he is addressing.

This is a terribly unfortunate figure of speech. Theres plenty wrong with her.

No way dude. Pretty sure they're all vting Trump because nobody would ever vote for a woman.