The Hillary Clinton thread

[Smoove_B]

Your willingness to support a morally bankrupt individual doesn't make you stupid. It just describes your character. But if you can sleep at night, have at it.

Just as you admonish the masses for assuming you're a Trump lover, you also seem to assume that many of us here are in the tank for Hillary. I'm not actually aware of a single person here that's emphatically supported Hillary in any capacity, other than to suggest that she's a likely a better person to fill the role of President than Trump ever would be. I think the general concensus has been for a while, "Holy shit what is happening in November is ridiculous by all accounts." Not, "We love Hillary and she's the best candidate ever."

[hepcat]

Those are a little low to be nipple rings. Think Prince Charles.

[Smutly]

Hey, I'm not voting for Trump so I feel no need to make an argument for him. I do, however, feel more strongly that Hillary is morally and ethically challenged. You guys don't care about that, so you can't be moved away from supporting her. Your willingness to support a morally bankrupt individual doesn't make you stupid. It just describes your character. But if you can sleep at night, have at it.

Nice way to avoid the personal attack. Seize that high ground you keep saying you're after.

Few people here think Clinton has made no mistakes, and few think she hasn't bent the truth as politicians do. But 95% of the attacks made on her are without basis, and it has come to the point where, yes, we really don't believe it when Breitbart says she delighted in the deaths at Benghazi or WND says she's planning to put conservatives in concentration camps or Alex Jones says she's a space alien from a Satanic dimension.

Clinton is a politician who does politician things. She commits gaffes and she isn't overwhelmingly charismatic. But she's totally prepared, completely serious, overwhelmingly qualified, devoted to reasonable ideals with which most Americans agree, and heads a sane platform to do what's right for the country. None of that, not one bit of it, can be said of her opponent.

Sweet dreams.

[Smutly]

Your willingness to support a morally bankrupt individual doesn't make you stupid. It just describes your character. But if you can sleep at night, have at it.

Just as you admonish the masses for assuming you're a Trump lover, you also seem to assume that many of us here are in the tank for Hillary. I'm not actually aware of a single person here that's emphatically supported Hillary in any capacity, other than to suggest that she's a likely a better person to fill the role of President than Trump ever would be. I think the general concensus has been for a while, "Holy shit what is happening in November is ridiculous by all accounts." Not, "We love Hillary and she's the best candidate ever."

Well, then if everyone will just state that they hate Hillary but will vote for her anyway because they hate Trump then that will clear it up for me. ROLL CALL!

[hepcat]

Understanding anything but your own truth is not your strong point.

[Holman]

Smutly, you keep claiming that you don't support Trump.

Clinton or Trump, no one else, will be the next POTUS.

Which of those two should it be, and why?

[Smutly]

Smutly, you keep claiming that you don't support Trump.

Clinton or Trump, no one else, will be the next POTUS.

Which of those two should it be, and why?

I take it this means you aren't answering my roll call?

[Holman]

You were serious? I thought you were being juvenile.

I support Clinton and despise Trump for reasons I've stated many times.

You should answer my question, though. It will give you a chance to show whether you have a position or you're just masturbating here.

[Blackhawk]

Those are a little low to be nipple rings. Think Prince Charles.

...

Then why does he have two?

[Rip]

So I'm the asshole?

Right now, yes. IMHO of course. It's also why Rip is a master at this - he's unflappable. He has embraced the Tao of Dalton. He understands the rules.

How about you ask people not to call others cocksucker

We can do any number of things - asking people to act a certain way is certainly acceptable. But in truth, how we respond to whatever they say or do likely resonates more - certainly with the silent majority.

Incidentally, this is also why Hillary is a much better candidate than Trump. Because she's doesn't get provoked into acting like a goon.

Thank you.

I will also even give you the second point. If Trump would show even a smidgen of self control we would already be working on decorating ideas for the new wall.

[Rip]

So I'm the asshole?

Right now, yes. IMHO of course. It's also why Rip is a master at this - he's unflappable. He has embraced the Tao of Dalton. He understands the rules.

How about you ask people not to call others cocksucker

We can do any number of things - asking people to act a certain way is certainly acceptable. But in truth, how we respond to whatever they say or do likely resonates more - certainly with the silent majority.

Incidentally, this is also why Hillary is a much better candidate than Trump. Because she's doesn't get provoked into acting like a goon.

Huh. So the rules of engagement are that I must be nice and turn the other cheek, while someone from the other side calls me a cocksucker. That's about as stupid as stupid gets.

Incidentally, this is why most conservatives think liberals are condescending smug assholes. See, I can't possibly care about people. Only liberals care about people. So, I have to prove that I am able to care about another human being. And then, I have to show that I'm civil because, you know, wingnuts like me spew hate and are racists. So, I have to do these things, but you don't. The burden of proof only runs one way. I have to prove that I am even worthy of being in the conversation because all of the relevant virtues are presumed on your behalf. Bullshit.

[Smoove_B]

Incidentally, this is why most conservatives think liberals are condescending smug assholes. See, I can't possibly care about people. Only liberals care about people. So, I have to prove that I am able to care about another human being. And then, I have to show that I'm civil because, you know, wingnuts like me spew hate and are racists. So, I have to do these things, but you don't. The burden of proof only runs one way. I have to prove that I am even worthy of being in the conversation because all of the relevant virtues are presumed on your behalf. Bullshit.

Sorry, I didn't see you added this commentary back into your original post with an edit. Well I guess if most conservatives want to make generalizations about liberals, then fuck 'em. (Did I do that right?)

I've made no assertions as to your feelings about other human beings, nor have I suggested that you're a wingnut or a racist. What I have said is this - when you respond to someone posting an emoticon by calling them an asshole (or resort to any type of name calling), you're a goon. Please, don't feel the need to prove anything to me (or anyone). You can just keep on doing your own thing and then act surprised at the response. It's seemingly working for you.

[em2nought]

If Trump would show even a smidgen of self control we would already be working on decorating ideas for the new wall.

I was hoping for that metal that rusts forming a protective coating on the wall, and requiring no painting. If not we might just paint the words "no graffiti" on it and let hoodlums take care of painting it for us. Ah, weathered steel, COR-TEN, U.S. Steel’s trade name for the corrosion-resistant low-alloy steel.

[Smutly]

You were serious? I thought you were being juvenile.

I support Clinton and despise Trump for reasons I've stated many times.

You should answer my question, though. It will give you a chance to show whether you have a position or you're just masturbating here.

All I have seen are arguments on hyperbole similar to what Smoove outlined. "Nobody really likes Hillary but we are voting for her anyway because of Trump."

Fine, I'll dance.

Despite his not immediately answering a question about Aleppo, I'm voting for Gary Johnson (as I have stated elsewhere on this forum). I read a lot of Ayn Rand growing up and appreciated the rugged individualism of the Objectivist philosophy. Her collection of essays in Philosophy: Who Needs It? were masterful in describing the evils of Collectivism and the benefits of Capitalism. 30 years removed from my initial readings of her essays, I do not support her extreme position of zero regulation. I believe that monopolies are detrimental to society and that businesses and corporations have the moral compass of those that lead them -- which mean they can be led by evil men who can take advantage of others (note, I'm not saying that men running corporations have a tendency to be evil, but we have all seen examples of such). I do, however, still believe strongly in personal responsibility in all things. So, if you were to try to define me it would be a conservative with libertarian leanings or a libertarian with conservative leanings.

I believe in a limited Federal government. I support States' rights on several issues and believe it to be a strength that States can have different laws which reflect the differences of people in different regions. It provides choice for those who can move elsewhere on political grounds. There is no need for a Federal entity to force everyone to abide by the same law when there can be honest disagreement.

I believe in having a strong defense but less global intervention. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were embarrassments. Note that I had family members fighting in these wars. I'm proud of their service, but disappointed in our leadership that sent them there. I also believe that the instability American created in world led to the rise of ISIS and other extremists. We need a strong military, but not to solve the world's problems. "No nation building. No policing the world. More security at home."

Much like the possibility of monopolies being bad actors for society, I believe that government needs to be involved in monitoring corporations to thwart unethical behavior to protect our environment. Protecting our air and water is one thing, but having politicians acting on behalf of lobbyists to determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.

I support the FairTax (Neal Boortz) and believe that it helps those living in poverty, closes a loop hole for undocumented and black market workers, and taxes 'fairly' by employing a consumption tax. The rich will pay more because they spend more. Better yet, it abolishes the waste of resources known as the IRS and tax lawyers. The tax rate is also truly transparent. Gary Johnson supports the FairTax.

Gary Johnson is not hung up on if you are black, white, yellow, purple, gay, straight, male, female, or hermaphrodite. He is an inclusive candidate. He believes in personal freedoms which don't infringe on others' rights. Legalize marijuana. Treat drug use as a health issue, not a criminal one. Drug rehabilitation and harm-reduction programs are more productive for society than arrests. Johnson stumbled when answering a question about legalizing prostitution, but ultimzately he supports it as a States' right to choose. I think legalizing prostitution would positively impact sex trafficking and reduce the risk that sex workers currently live under current law.

Gary Johnson believes in a balanced budget. Bringing spending in line with revenues and dealing with the national debt is arguably the greatest threat to our national security. The sacred cows of both Republicans (military spending) and Democrats (entitlements) would be impacted.

Johnson supports term limits. If a politician's first priority is getting re-elected then they are less likely to compromise or vote their conscience.

Okay, my hands are getting tired so I'll stop here. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

[Smutly]

Incidentally, this is why most conservatives think liberals are condescending smug assholes. See, I can't possibly care about people. Only liberals care about people. So, I have to prove that I am able to care about another human being. And then, I have to show that I'm civil because, you know, wingnuts like me spew hate and are racists. So, I have to do these things, but you don't. The burden of proof only runs one way. I have to prove that I am even worthy of being in the conversation because all of the relevant virtues are presumed on your behalf. Bullshit.

Sorry, I didn't see you added this commentary back into your original post with an edit. Well I guess if most conservatives want to make generalizations about liberals, then fuck 'em. (Did I do that right?)

I've made no assertions as to your feelings about other human beings, nor have I suggested that you're a wingnut or a racist. What I have said is this - when you respond to someone posting an emoticon by calling them an asshole (or resort to any type of name calling), you're a goon. Please, don't feel the need to prove anything to me (or anyone). You can just keep on doing your own thing and then act surprised at the response. It's seemingly working for you.

You did not, Smoove, however the emoticon you reference was doing just that. Surely you see that?

[em2nought]

You were serious? I thought you were being juvenile.

I support Clinton and despise Trump for reasons I've stated many times.

You should answer my question, though. It will give you a chance to show whether you have a position or you're just masturbating here.

All I have seen are arguments on hyperbole similar to what Smoove outlined. "Nobody really likes Hillary but we are voting for her anyway because of Trump."

Fine, I'll dance.

Despite his not immediately answering a question about Aleppo, I'm voting for Gary Johnson (as I have stated elsewhere on this forum). I read a lot of Ayn Rand growing up and appreciated the rugged individualism of the Objectivist philosophy. Her collection of essays in Philosophy: Who Needs It? were masterful in describing the evils of Collectivism and the benefits of Capitalism. 30 years removed from my initial readings of her essays, I do not support her extreme position of zero regulation. I believe that monopolies are detrimental to society and that businesses and corporations have the moral compass of those that lead them -- which mean they can be led by evil men who can take advantage of others (note, I'm not saying that men running corporations have a tendency to be evil, but we have all seen examples of such). I do, however, still believe strongly in personal responsibility in all things. So, if you were to try to define me it would be a conservative with libertarian leanings or a libertarian with conservative leanings.

I believe in a limited Federal government. I support States' rights on several issues and believe it to be a strength that States can have different laws which reflect the differences of people in different regions. It provides choice for those who can move elsewhere on political grounds. There is no need for a Federal entity to force everyone to abide by the same law when there can be honest disagreement.

I believe in having a strong defense but less global intervention. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were embarrassments. Note that I had family members fighting in these wars. I'm proud of their service, but disappointed in our leadership that sent them there. I also believe that the instability American created in world led to the rise of ISIS and other extremists. We need a strong military, but not to solve the world's problems. "No nation building. No policing the world. More security at home."

Much like the possibility of monopolies being bad actors for society, I believe that government needs to be involved in monitoring corporations to thwart unethical behavior to protect our environment. Protecting our air and water is one thing, but having politicians acting on behalf of lobbyists to determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.

I support the FairTax (Neal Boortz) and believe that it helps those living in poverty, closes a loop hole for undocumented and black market workers, and taxes 'fairly' by employing a consumption tax. The rich will pay more because they spend more. Better yet, it abolishes the waste of resources known as the IRS and tax lawyers. The tax rate is also truly transparent. Gary Johnson supports the FairTax.

Gary Johnson is not hung up on if you are black, white, yellow, purple, gay, straight, male, female, or hermaphrodite. He is an inclusive candidate. He believes in personal freedoms which don't infringe on others' rights. Legalize marijuana. Treat drug use as a health issue, not a criminal one. Drug rehabilitation and harm-reduction programs are more productive for society than arrests. Johnson stumbled when answering a question about legalizing prostitution, but ultimzately he supports it as a States' right to choose. I think legalizing prostitution would positively impact sex trafficking and reduce the risk that sex workers currently live under current law.

Gary Johnson believes in a balanced budget. Bringing spending in line with revenues and dealing with the national debt is arguably the greatest threat to our national security. The sacred cows of both Republicans (military spending) and Democrats (entitlements) would be impacted.

Johnson supports term limits. If a politician's first priority is getting re-elected then they are less likely to compromise or vote their conscience.

Okay, my hands are getting tired so I'll stop here. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

Have you actually signed up for the balanced rebellion? Is there a way to ensure that the democrat follows through, or wasn't a Sanders voter planning on sitting Nov 8th out on mom's couch?

[Holman]

You were serious? I thought you were being juvenile.

I support Clinton and despise Trump for reasons I've stated many times.

You should answer my question, though. It will give you a chance to show whether you have a position or you're just masturbating here.

All I have seen are arguments on hyperbole similar to what Smoove outlined. "Nobody really likes Hillary but we are voting for her anyway because of Trump."

Fine, I'll dance.

...

Okay, my hands are getting tired so I'll stop here. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

Thanks for the long answer, but I wasn't asking why you support Johnson. Johnson isn't going to be president.

It's going to be Clinton or Trump. Which of those two would be be better?

[Smutly]

You were serious? I thought you were being juvenile.

I support Clinton and despise Trump for reasons I've stated many times.

You should answer my question, though. It will give you a chance to show whether you have a position or you're just masturbating here.

All I have seen are arguments on hyperbole similar to what Smoove outlined. "Nobody really likes Hillary but we are voting for her anyway because of Trump."

Fine, I'll dance.

Despite his not immediately answering a question about Aleppo, I'm voting for Gary Johnson (as I have stated elsewhere on this forum). I read a lot of Ayn Rand growing up and appreciated the rugged individualism of the Objectivist philosophy. Her collection of essays in Philosophy: Who Needs It? were masterful in describing the evils of Collectivism and the benefits of Capitalism. 30 years removed from my initial readings of her essays, I do not support her extreme position of zero regulation. I believe that monopolies are detrimental to society and that businesses and corporations have the moral compass of those that lead them -- which mean they can be led by evil men who can take advantage of others (note, I'm not saying that men running corporations have a tendency to be evil, but we have all seen examples of such). I do, however, still believe strongly in personal responsibility in all things. So, if you were to try to define me it would be a conservative with libertarian leanings or a libertarian with conservative leanings.

I believe in a limited Federal government. I support States' rights on several issues and believe it to be a strength that States can have different laws which reflect the differences of people in different regions. It provides choice for those who can move elsewhere on political grounds. There is no need for a Federal entity to force everyone to abide by the same law when there can be honest disagreement.

I believe in having a strong defense but less global intervention. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were embarrassments. Note that I had family members fighting in these wars. I'm proud of their service, but disappointed in our leadership that sent them there. I also believe that the instability American created in world led to the rise of ISIS and other extremists. We need a strong military, but not to solve the world's problems. "No nation building. No policing the world. More security at home."

Much like the possibility of monopolies being bad actors for society, I believe that government needs to be involved in monitoring corporations to thwart unethical behavior to protect our environment. Protecting our air and water is one thing, but having politicians acting on behalf of lobbyists to determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.

I support the FairTax (Neal Boortz) and believe that it helps those living in poverty, closes a loop hole for undocumented and black market workers, and taxes 'fairly' by employing a consumption tax. The rich will pay more because they spend more. Better yet, it abolishes the waste of resources known as the IRS and tax lawyers. The tax rate is also truly transparent. Gary Johnson supports the FairTax.

Gary Johnson is not hung up on if you are black, white, yellow, purple, gay, straight, male, female, or hermaphrodite. He is an inclusive candidate. He believes in personal freedoms which don't infringe on others' rights. Legalize marijuana. Treat drug use as a health issue, not a criminal one. Drug rehabilitation and harm-reduction programs are more productive for society than arrests. Johnson stumbled when answering a question about legalizing prostitution, but ultimzately he supports it as a States' right to choose. I think legalizing prostitution would positively impact sex trafficking and reduce the risk that sex workers currently live under current law.

Gary Johnson believes in a balanced budget. Bringing spending in line with revenues and dealing with the national debt is arguably the greatest threat to our national security. The sacred cows of both Republicans (military spending) and Democrats (entitlements) would be impacted.

Johnson supports term limits. If a politician's first priority is getting re-elected then they are less likely to compromise or vote their conscience.

Okay, my hands are getting tired so I'll stop here. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

Have you actually signed up for the balanced rebellion? Is there a way to ensure that the democrat follows through, or wasn't a Sanders voter planning on sitting Nov 8th out on mom's couch?

Yes, I signed up but it choked when 'matching me' with someone. As far as I know there is no way to enforce it, but I can't control what anyone else does. While I don't think Gary will win, I think that if he were to participate in the debates that he could be an attractive 'third party' candidate. I think he would be attractive to fiscally conservative / socially liberal voters.

[Smutly]

You were serious? I thought you were being juvenile.

I support Clinton and despise Trump for reasons I've stated many times.

You should answer my question, though. It will give you a chance to show whether you have a position or you're just masturbating here.

All I have seen are arguments on hyperbole similar to what Smoove outlined. "Nobody really likes Hillary but we are voting for her anyway because of Trump."

Fine, I'll dance.

...

Okay, my hands are getting tired so I'll stop here. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

Thanks for the long answer, but I wasn't asking why you support Johnson. Johnson isn't going to be president.

It's going to be Clinton or Trump. Which of those two would be be better?

I just pour my thoughts out for you and you want me to play a game. Who's masterbating now? I'd rather you address my actual thoughts instead of forcing me to pick vanilla or chocolate when I prefer strawberry.

They both are disqualified. Even if one of them is elected, they're both not qualified. You already know I despise HRC more than Trump. HRC is 'establishment' and a special kind of self-serving evil. Trump is just brash and stupid. I also despise the President for dividing the nation and the media for polarizing the American populace against itself. But, you know all of this already so....?

[Defiant]

There's a larger number of undecideds in this election than any other in recent memory - so it could have an impact. I think ultimately they'll break for Clinton, though.

Doctor is saying she has pneumonia. Was diagnosed on Friday and she's on antibiotics.

If I had to guess why her condition wasn't revealed on Friday, it's precisely due to fear of the "Hillary is sick" paranoia. Unfortunately her episode today backfired, since now it looks like they were trying to cover it up.

I do think she should have released a statement during the weekend stating she had pneumonia and minimized (as much as a presidential candidate reasonably can) her schedule to fully recover. That she waited can probably be blamed on: 1. In general (though not always) she's very careful in releasing information, presumably as a response to how the press and Republicans have treated her for decades. 2. That it's a presidential campaign, and you need to avoid showing signs of weakness (as Arnold Vinick can attest to) and 3. It plays into Trump's poop-flinging-monkey attacks*.

(* as in flinging it and seeing what sticks)

I'm not worried, though.

[geezer]

You were serious? I thought you were being juvenile.

I support Clinton and despise Trump for reasons I've stated many times.

You should answer my question, though. It will give you a chance to show whether you have a position or you're just masturbating here.

All I have seen are arguments on hyperbole similar to what Smoove outlined. "Nobody really likes Hillary but we are voting for her anyway because of Trump."

Fine, I'll dance.

...

Okay, my hands are getting tired so I'll stop here. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

Thanks for the long answer, but I wasn't asking why you support Johnson. Johnson isn't going to be president.

It's going to be Clinton or Trump. Which of those two would be be better?

I just pour my thoughts out for you and you want me to play a game. Who's masterbating now? I'd rather you address my actual thoughts instead of forcing me to pick vanilla or chocolate when I prefer strawberry.

They both are disqualified. Even if one of them is elected, they're both not qualified. You already know I despise HRC more than Trump. HRC is 'establishment' and a special kind of self-serving evil. Trump is just brash and stupid. I also despise the President for dividing the nation and the media for polarizing the American populace against itself. But, you know all of this already so....?

Wait.. You despise the sitting President for dividing the nation? And as an admitted Objectivist you feel HRC is evil for being self serving, (but Donald Trump gets a pass?) Are you serious with that nonsensical garbage?

[GreenGoo]

Huh. So the rules of engagement are that I must be nice and turn the other cheek, while someone from the other side calls me a cocksucker. That's about as stupid as stupid gets.

I'll just point out that you frequently refer to cock sucking. Whether it's "lick it" or "suck it" it's your go to anger management therapy.

No one expects you to turn the other cheek, because you're the first stone thrower and proud of it.

Some people genuinely like Hillary, and some people are voting for her out of necessity. No one here, not even Rip, his biggest supporter on OO, is voting for Drumpf because he's the right call. Any crimes Clinton may have committed, real or imagined, are inconsequential when viewed in light of who will be the next person in charge of leading the US of A.

Every single claim about Clinton with even an ounce of fact behind it can and does apply to Drumpf as well. As Hep has so frequently said, he'd rather the criminal who is and has shown she is qualified for the job than the criminal who only believes he's qualified and has shown repeatedly that he is not.

It's not a hard choice. Thanks to the Republicans this time around, it's not even a choice.

Drumpf's qualifications are that he made a profit on 3 buildings, a couple of golf courses and is a fairly successful reality tv star, like the real housewives of "x". Those are literally the totality of his perceived qualifications. I think that's countered by the sheer number of lawsuits he has been involved in, but even if it weren't, he's got nothing else.

Almost any other billionaire, including some foreign ones, are better qualified to be POTUS.

The entire world is embarrassed for you. Except maybe Russia, which seems to be chortling and rubbing its hands together, super villain style. I realize the American psyche is stubborn, and apt to keep doing what it's doing just because someone criticized it, but that's a character flaw, not a strength.

Whatever happens in November, it's gonna cause either a sigh of relief or 4 years of pure entertainment.

edit: Oops, I should have included a large number of Brexit supporters think non-ironically that Drumpf is the right choice. So you've got that going for you.

[gbasden]

When you rely on conspiracy theories to beat your opponents, this is what you get. Trumputin worshippers ain't got much else.

In multiple elections in the past health has been a MAJOR issue for both candidates. The media always makes a huge deal about age and health.

However, because you hate Trump so much, I guess this election is supposed to get a big assed pass on the same issue that other candidates were hammered on.

The hypocrisy of excuses, turning your head, and pretending things like this don't matter this election (from potential criminal matters, incompetence, and all the way to health of a candidate) is mind blowing.

Enjoy your "win at all cost" lifestyle. I guess that's what we have devolved into.

If she was weak and died in office, we'd get Kaine. Who I would prefer, actually. Her being "sick" should make me not vote for her why?

[Defiant]

Now that I think about it, Kool-Aid guy might be more qualified than Trump.

I think I'd need to see his long form brewed certificate.

[gbasden]

Fine, I'll dance.

...

Okay, my hands are getting tired so I'll stop here. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

Honestly, thanks for laying out your beliefs. I probably agree with about half, which is about my same match rate as with most libertarians. I always am attracted to parts of the platform, but I can't get past the amount of faith in privatization and corporate good required.

[Rip]

There's a larger number of undecideds in this election than any other in recent memory - so it could have an impact. I think ultimately they'll break for Clinton, though.

Doctor is saying she has pneumonia. Was diagnosed on Friday and she's on antibiotics.

If I had to guess why her condition wasn't revealed on Friday, it's precisely due to fear of the "Hillary is sick" paranoia. Unfortunately her episode today backfired, since now it looks like they were trying to cover it up.

I do think she should have released a statement during the weekend stating she had pneumonia and minimized (as much as a presidential candidate reasonably can) her schedule to fully recover. That she waited can probably be blamed on: 1. In general (though not always) she's very careful in releasing information, presumably as a response to how the press and Republicans have treated her for decades. 2. That it's a presidential campaign, and you need to avoid showing signs of weakness (as Arnold Vinick can attest to) and 3. It plays into Trump's poop-flinging-monkey attacks*.

(* as in flinging it and seeing what sticks)

I'm not worried, though.

But didn't minimize contact with the public. Who is her doctor, Dr. Who?

Anyway I found out what is going on. Herman Cain was getting worried about the election so he prayed to god............

[Blackhawk]

I always am attracted to parts of the platform, but I can't get past the amount of faith in privatization and corporate good required.

That's pretty close to my view. That and faith in the good will of man. As much as I wish that kind of world would work, I just don't think humanity is able to pull it off just yet.

[Defiant]

TIL that there is a strain of pneumonia known as "Walking pneumonia".

And what springs to my mind is... A cold, a flu and a pneumonia walk into a bar, and the bartender says "What is this, some kind of sick joke?"

My mind works in mysterious ways.

[Holman]

Thanks for the long answer, but I wasn't asking why you support Johnson. Johnson isn't going to be president.

It's going to be Clinton or Trump. Which of those two would be be better?

I just pour my thoughts out for you and you want me to play a game. Who's masterbating now? I'd rather you address my actual thoughts instead of forcing me to pick vanilla or chocolate when I prefer strawberry.

They both are disqualified. Even if one of them is elected, they're both not qualified. You already know I despise HRC more than Trump. HRC is 'establishment' and a special kind of self-serving evil. Trump is just brash and stupid. I also despise the President for dividing the nation and the media for polarizing the American populace against itself. But, you know all of this already so....?

There's no need to get pissy at me. I didn't trash your heartfelt platform summary, which was nicely detailed. (You lose human decency points for invoking Ayn Rand, but that's another matter.) Your answer just didn't relate to the question.

I see now that you're going with "Trump is better than Clinton." Thanks for clarifying that, although I think most people here would agree with me that it's based on a caricature of Clinton and a willful blindness about Trump.

[hepcat]

The claims that Obama has divided the nation are ridiculous. Unless the bar for that complaint has been lowered to the point that we can claim every president who has sat in the Oval Office can be accused of such because they did something that pissed off someone.

[Smutly]

Wait.. You despise the sitting President for dividing the nation? And as an admitted Objectivist you feel HRC is evil for being self serving, (but Donald Trump gets a pass?) Are you serious with that nonsensical garbage?

As a 15 year old, I read some Ayn Rand. That is not who I am today in my mid-40s. So, let's not jump to conclusions about how Objectivist I am. I have already mentioned some of its failings, however a lot of that philosophy has served me well in life.

Donald Trump is a private citizen in private industry working for himself for profit. That is, of course, self-serving and how Capitalism works. Hillary Clinton is working as a public servant and is using that to enrich herself and her friends. When public servants aren't, that's called an ethics violation. So yes, I am dead serious.

So, are there others here who do not draw a distinction between a public servant enriching themselves and private citizen participating in Capitalism? That would be eye-opening. And if your answer is that "everybody in public service does it", then that is also very telling.

[Smutly]

Thanks for the long answer, but I wasn't asking why you support Johnson. Johnson isn't going to be president.

It's going to be Clinton or Trump. Which of those two would be be better?

I just pour my thoughts out for you and you want me to play a game. Who's masterbating now? I'd rather you address my actual thoughts instead of forcing me to pick vanilla or chocolate when I prefer strawberry.

They both are disqualified. Even if one of them is elected, they're both not qualified. You already know I despise HRC more than Trump. HRC is 'establishment' and a special kind of self-serving evil. Trump is just brash and stupid. I also despise the President for dividing the nation and the media for polarizing the American populace against itself. But, you know all of this already so....?

There's no need to get pissy at me. I didn't trash your heartfelt platform summary, which was nicely detailed. (You lose human decency points for invoking Ayn Rand, but that's another matter.) Your answer just didn't relate to the question.

I see now that you're going with "Trump is better than Clinton." Thanks for clarifying that, although I think most people here would agree with me that it's based on a caricature of Clinton and a willful blindness about Trump.

Again, the double-standard of posting is mind boggling. You can imply that I'm just here masterbating online but if I do it I'm 'pissy'.

I have a basis for disliking Clinton moreso than any other politician in my lifetime. It is not a caricature, but your dismissal of me and my thoughts is expected. You want to tuck me away neatly into a group of 'people who just can't understand and who are foolishly being led down a dismal path'. So, if I'm blinded about Trump then of my two statements, is he not brash or stupid?

[hepcat]

Don't fool yourself. The only reason he hasn't lined his pockets like most politicians is because he hasn't been a politician up until now. He's already shown that he'll cheat and finagle his way into wealth. What makes you so sure he'll suddenly become a beacon of political purity if he wins?

Most of us dislike Hillary, but we understand that Trump is far more dangerous. There are only two options this election: Trump or Clinton. You keep railing at everyone for understanding that. And those you insult and ridicule keep trying to help you grasp this simple concept in increasingly frustrated tones.

[Zarathud]

The wolf isn't going to change once you invite him into the henhouse.

Trump can't even run his charity without using other people's money illegally for his own benefit. That's not just an ethics violation, but in contempt of the law. And he would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those reporters.

[Rip]

Don't fool yourself. The only reason he hasn't lined his pockets like most politicians is because he hasn't been a politician up until now. He's already shown that he'll cheat and finagle his way into wealth. What makes you so sure he'll suddenly become a beacon of political purity if he wins?

Most of us dislike Hillary, but we understand that Trump is far more dangerous. There are only two options this election: Trump or Clinton. You keep railing at everyone for understanding that. And those you insult and ridicule keep trying to help you grasp this simple concept in increasingly frustrated tones.

I don't buy into that. He doesn't have the time that would be needed to build a network of other rich crooks and despots that could help him shield it. The Clintons have pockets full of them. Yhe kind of pilfering they do takes decades to build up and he simply doesn't have the time. Most of the filthy rich don't care for him, and neither do the money grubbers at the UN. The media will be so far up his ass that if he farts they will know what he had for lunch (assuming he hasn't already made a stupid tweet about it). The worst he can do is make some bad decisions and most of those will be checked by the other branches.

The only way I would vote for Hillary Clinton is if she were running against Bill Clinton.

[LordMortis]

The worst he can do is put a nut in the Supreme Court as a follow up to Congress bullshit blockade of Obama, as CiC, use the military to respond to attacks on his ego, and use the justice department/federal level policing efforts to act as a sort of mafia.

Congress will abdicate their check on the first, they already have done so with the second, and a favorable supreme court won't abdicate the third.

[hepcat]

I don't buy into that. He doesn't have the time that would be needed to build a network of other rich crooks and despots

He's been building one for over 40 years. This is a guy who befriends known mob figures, and has shown that he has no problem selling his morals if the price is right.

Also, he's going to have nothing BUT time. He's already told one potential VP running mate that he plans on letting them take care of all the foreign and domestic stuff , while he "makes American great again".

[Anonymous Bosch]

HRC apparently has one foot in the grave, while the other was left unshod after being "thrown in a van like a sack of meat" at the 9/11 memorial according to Betsy Woodruff of The Daily Beast:

Hillary Clinton abruptly left the 9/11 ceremony at Ground Zero on Sunday morning. Initially, her campaign said it was because she “felt overheated.” Later, Clinton’s team released a statement from the candidate’s doctor, saying that Clinton “was diagnosed with pneumonia.” The doctor, who put Clinton on antibiotics and advised Clinton to rest, added that the former secretary of state became “dehydrated” during Sunday morning’s events.

A senior law enforcement official told The Daily Beast that Clinton looked pale when she arrived at the ceremony. She left the ceremony at about 9:30 a.m., according to pool reports. As she walked away from the ceremony, according to numerous law enforcement officials, she slumped and appeared to faint. Then, according to the sources, her detail put her into a waiting vehicle.

“They threw her in like she was a side of beef,” a senior law enforcement official told The Daily Beast.

Video taken by Zdenek Gazda of New Jersey shows Clinton unstable before she was put inside the van.

Gazda told Buzzfeed News that Clinton “looked like everything was fine and everything was good” before she reached the van.

Officials also said she left behind a shoe.

About 90 minutes after Clinton’s departure, campaign spokesman Nick Merrill told reporters that the candidate left the ceremony prematurely to go to her daughter’s apartment because she was feeling poorly. He added that she now feels much better. Clinton left Chelsea’s apartment slightly before noon, according to ABC’s Liz Kreutz. She smiled and waved at reporters, and said, "I'm feeling great."

[hepcat]

Obviously I don't want to see her die, but even were she to have some life threatening ailment that resulted in her death while in office, the result would be a Tim Kaine presidency for the remainder of the term.

Still a far better scenario than a Trumputin/Pence office.

[LordMortis]

Maybe she's a better person than I give her credit for and this is a ruse to have her step down at the last minute for the good of the country and throw her support at someone I can at least have a small amount of faith in.

Sell me on Tim Kaine.