Hillary loyalists tell us why people hate Hillary Clinton......
- Thread starter Lightbringer
- Start date
The Necromancer
Active member
Lightbringer
Active member
The Necromancer
Active member
It would be very very possible if people weren't so scared and ignorant of the facts.
The Democratic and Republican nominee's have roughly a 9% approval rate among voters. 9%. Imagine everyone who disapproves of them voting 3rd party.
Lightbringer
Active member
Well I blame the media for a lot of this because they don't cover the candidates like they should. Most people don't even know that there are other parties other than Republican and Democrat. Even I didn't know about Jill Stein or Gary Johnson until a few months ago.
That's one of the reasons why Bernie Sanders had a hard time gaining support in the first place because there was media blackout on him and how can people vote for someone they never heard of?
And it's almost impossible for third parties to gain momentum because of a rigged system which requires them to get 15% support in order to enter the debates. But how can they get 15% support if there is no coverage? It's a locked system to ensure no other parties stand in line with Republicans and Democrats.
And yeah I heard about the 9%. Trump and Hillary have the among the highest disapproval ratings I believe in all of U.S. history.
Last edited:
Lightbringer
Active member
Sanders is the farthest thing from a coward and a push over. He's the only one that genuinely challenged the corruption within politics and the influence of Wall Street. That takes balls, especially since he's not rich himself and staked his entire career on it.
Politics isn't black and white. First of all Sanders already stated since he started running that he would not run as an independent and that he would support the Democratic party. If he went back on his word, then people would have criticized him for being a coward either way.
Not only that, but he could have been pressured to support Hillary. If he didn't support her, then he'd lose all chance of getting his policies realized because he would lose the support of the Democratic Party.
There are many reasons why he endorsed Hillary. He is in a position where he had to make tough decisions that wound both his pride and his reputation.
Last edited:
demon of the leaf
Active member
What needs to be done is to force media attention on 3rd parties nothing extreme like burning down a building or tipping over a life guard tower
While few medias even mention 3rd parties i think so far fox news has mentioned jill and gary during this month about each getting in but other then that thats about all i know
demon of the leaf
Active member
There is a better chance but i highly doubt Hilary will all more then a few of his policies im not bashing the man i highly admired his audacity to fight the corrupt system he had an uphill battle since he started i wouldnt doubt some extreme dnc were probably even thinking of assassination
Uzumaki Macho
Active member
If Sanders became a third party candidate, he would basically be handing the election to Donald Trump since the left would be too divided. It's not that hard to understand dude...
SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO
Active member
Awards
No, that's just wasting votes which directly helps Trump.
Sanders already said last month that we're going to have either a Hillary or Trump Presidency, there is no third option because we're not a parliamentary system and that the choice is binary.
And Sen. Elizabeth Warren said that anything you do that helps Trump get closer to the White House is a danger to us all.
Lightbringer
Active member
That argument is deliberately misleading and not true at all. 9% of the U.S. voted for both Hillary and Trump. Only 9% of the population's vote was split between those two candidates.
Making a vote based off fear is the most irrational thing one can do.
SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO
Active member
Awards
Not primarily of fear but more of a matter of unity to achieve progress through pragmatism and incrementalism.
Lightbringer
Active member
Progress? Lmao. Clinton used to be for a single-payer healthcare system and argued that it was immoral for anyone to argue against it.
But once she started taking money from insurance companies, then she started defending privatized healthcare such as Obamacare and believed in making incremental change and not real change like Bernie Sanders.
That is one of many examples of her notorious flip-flops and you're telling me she's going to make progressive changes to our society? Yeah, no. Wake up buddy.
[video=youtube;hFOujExdPpw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=hFOujExdPpw[/video]
Last edited:
SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO
Active member
Awards
Sanders healthcare plan would've cost more than $20 trillion which would increase the deficit and raise taxes for the middle-class, HRC was just being cautious and wants to do things in a responsible way and paid for in ways that are affordable and she already said she's willing to lower the Medicare age allowing people who are 50/55 to buy in to the program because that'll lower the cost for Americans who have private insurances. Like I said, incrementalism over Sanders' unworkable idealism.
Lightbringer
Active member
You do realize you're just spouting right-wing rhetoric right? And what you said isn't true.
It raises taxes by about 6% but you won't have to pay monthly premiums anymore from the health insurance companies which save U.S. households thousands every year.
All that the single-payer option does is cut out the middle-man, which are the insurance companies.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
But don't take my word for it being cost-effective, take Hillary Clinton's word! LMAO
[video=youtube;GW0D7idte14]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW0D7idte14&feature=youtu.be[/video]
You must be registered for see images
So that's twice that your argument was debunked by Hillary's own words....
Last edited:
SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO
Active member
Awards
The Clinton Foundation already released way back in May the list of hundreds of paid speeches given by Hillary, Bill and Chelsea that were used for the foundation's philanthropic work, if you are trying to insinuate that it was for personal enrichment then you're just delving into conspiracy junk. Like HRC said there's a lot of smoke but no fire.
Lightbringer
Active member
And leaked emails prove that she grants special favors to wealthy donors.
Deny, deflect, deny, deflect.
So you're telling me that even though the math has been done and prove that single-payer is more cost effective than privatized insurance and that Hillary was a sound defender of that system her entire political career up until 8 years ago when she made the $2.8 million from the speeches given to the health industry has nothing to do with one another?
You must be either blind or just purposely deceitful. I honestly think it's the latter.
SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO
Active member
Awards
And you are indulging in confirmation bias, the experts already said that the emails confirm donors were gaining access to Clinton yet there is no evidence she granted them special favors, by law ingratiation and access are not corruption. You and the others can insinuate and mischaracterize information but it legally does not hold water, just like making malicious accusations that the Clintons were involved in Seth Rich's murder, or that there is a conspiracy between the Clintons and the Rockefellers concerning aliens, or that Bill Clinton is actually the illegitimate son of a Rothschild, that they're part of the Illuminati, NWO, etc.