The debate "Hillary Clinton is a good candidate for president." was started by
June 17, 2016, 10:55 am.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 12 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
dalton7532 posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, citizenzero and 5 visitors agree.
historybuff, Bman192837465, KushagraMishra, Bodaciouslady16, fadi, TheC16, moneybagboyz and 5 visitors disagree.
who owns corporations?
who are these friends who are under investigation? how is collin powell different? please explain yourself cause these statements mean absolutely nothing.
can you explain what you mean by tool of the system specifically?
is she a complete puppet who never cared?
was she brainwashed by the system?
what is the goal of this "system" besides protecting it's existence?
the Democratic "system" at the least is trying to roll back citizens United which is stealing voice from the people. it may be composed of people interested in money, what government wouldn't be full of those people? but the Democrats do seem to be fighting a dangerous shift in the status quo to an even worse direction.
I really think your spouting conspiracy theories with undefined actors and unspecified damages. yes she dirtied her hands with money, but how else are you supposed to get elected in a national race? explain that? if you don't win, you can't do shit, and to win, you have to shake some dirty hands.
I'm not denying that but that doesn't mean they are a complete puppet and advance only the moneyed agenda. this has been the case for every democratic president and hopeful, and is the system Democrats want to change, but hell no not unilaterally.
bernie did it, but he's the exception and hopefully a model going forward.
you demanded these answers specifically. you even laughed that I didn't respond promptly enough. please don't try to call them irrelevant after all that!!!
besides, like you said, Trump is still "learning" and reserves the right to change policy as he sees fit.
maybe he should finish learning BEFORE running for the top job in the country!
sure we can discuss his policies at the moment... but that wont solve the fact that i don't believe a single promise he makes.
the argument that we should elect people who don't want serious change in order to make change, doesn't make any sense.
she is as guilty as trump of using the system to enrich herself. she is a tool of the broken system whereas trump is one of the ones trying to break it further. neither one deserves to be President.
Let's talk about her policies because that is what makes the Candidate. Are you up for that? Because we all can say stuff about Trump vs Clinton.
Everyone of Hillary's friends are under investigation, wall street, or has been impeached.
-Here we go with the fallacies. It was not the same as Powell. She clealrly broke the rules, and the new FBI report confirmed that. It is not just Benghazi. There are numerous more scandals!
-I did not know Trump is kissing ass. He said he would go lone wolf on the GOP, and I believed he insulted every elite in the GOP. He is trying to unify the party to win. He has to. That is not kissing ass.
-You never did answer about Hillary was yelling at an interviewer for saying she supported gay marriage and Hillary said "You are twisting my words and I saying I never supported gay marriage" She lies about every single she supported and changes her views to get a vote.
-Bernie and Trump were the only two fighting against big money in politics. Hillary does not. She is beholden to it. Hillary is served herself when she was working for the people. Trump served himself when he was working for himself. Big difference!
-Hillary has no accomplishments in her life. Everything she has done failed. Her leadership qualities and how she performs under stress has been well proven. She is unfit to be president. She is in no way shape or form a good candidate.
-Trump does not hire people based on money. He hires people based on experience.
-If you cannot say vote for me because I am a male, you should not be able to say vote for me because I am a women. Hillary continuosly does this for her own gain, and it is setting us backwards.
Bernie brought special interests into the front of democratic conversation. if she doesn't do something she will have a tough challenge next reelection again, and if she does eliminate it she won't have to worry about kissing their asses next time anyway.
chances are she will do small changes to limit but not eliminate their influence. it won't be huge, but it will move us slowly in the right direction.
revolutionary change often doesn't work out the way the revolutionaries want it to. slow and steady may be the better path. (may is key, I'm not fully against revolutionary action either, just throwing out all the possibilities)
"What makes you think Hillary won't be surrounded by people involved in corruption anymore? What makes you think her foundation won't give too jobs based on money the donated political experiences?"
are you talking about contributers to her campaign? how is that any different from EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE.
even Trump's self funded campaign is kissing a** for any politician taking his side. he criticized Christie for hiring stupid people in bridgegate, then appoints him as the guy who hires his entire administration... that's either corrupt or stupid, take your pick.
"What makes you think she will quit lying about her policies and what she supported? What makes you think she will quit being involved in numerous scandals?"
numerous non scandals. I have repeatedly asked people to explain to me how the top diplomat in the nation would be directly responsible for the security detail a specific embassy. just like with my money is not speech thread, only rogue American chose to engage me, and even then abandoned the debate after a bit.
her email use was the same as her predecessor secretary Powell. It was a bad decision but hardly a disqualifying "scandal"
"What makes you think she has the temperment to be president after her SS agent says she has a yelling issue? What makes you think she will be different after being a yelling self serving filth, and has chosen people like her to be around her?"
So bosses are not allowed to yell at their employees now? and what is wrong with her temperment? she yells? big deal. people need to yell some times and your bringing up 1 instance like it's a regular occurrence. Trump is known and praised for his yelling.
"Don't get why I said self serving? She put her convenience before national security? All without invoking Trump. What makes you think she will not bow down to big money and special interest, and she will, quit lying about them and what she has done for them."
I totally do not, especially considering her opponent. sorry for invoking him, but self serving is a universal quality that only makes sense relative to others, and in this category trump is king.
as for the special interests, your acting like Koch industries don't own most of the republican party. just to remind you, Democrats are the ones fighting the special interests and money in politics, not the traitors in the Republican party. But if you expect them to disarm unilaterally then you are delusional.
she stands for the status quo. she is a quintessential plutocrat. she will do some cosmetic changes to make it look like she isn't a complete sell out, but in the end the lobbyists and special interests groups will still be calling the shots.
she is better than trump, but she isn't a "good" candidate.