Why would Hillary have been not as scary for America?

Post Reply New Topic

In June it was 42% for, today it's 49% for.

That's why I said it skyrocketed. I'm actually surprised it has jumped by that many points that fast.

There are undoubtably people who think Trump impeachment means that a Democrat, or Hillary, takes his place.

I think people underestimate Pence which is what makes him scarier. They have the same ideology, just Pence comes off like a boy scout in delivering it.

Because they are less scary it makes it easier for them to get away with dangourous stuff or ar least get away with it until it is too late.

In Nixon’s time we had just ended the imperial presidency and cold war consensus. In the post WWII era the popular idea that the president knows best because he has the most information. It took years of Vietnam and Watergate to change that. During a lot of Watergate a lot of people thought it was his aides that let him down because the idea of any President would be guilty of basic skulduggery was unfathomable to many. Watergate transcripts were released in April 1974 and people were legitamatly shocked and offended that a president would curse and act like a crude character from the movie the Godfather. All those explative deleted’s sealed his fate.

The above seems downright bizarre today. When Trump came into to office we were cynical about politicians and knew full well who Trump is and were certainly not shocked by the idea a president can curse and behave crudly. Any Trump revelations just confirm what people believe anyway.

We have the precedent of Nixon bieng forced to resign in the face of certain impeachment and conviction and Clinton’s impeachment that did not exist at the beginning of 1974.

As for Pence dispite all of his problems he does not give off the Trump vibe of we may not wake up tommorrow because he threw a tantrum. Preventing the end of the world is more important than any Trump policy or bigotry to me.

From what I've read about impeachment, it seems like it's very unlikely that Trump will be removed from office. He would be THE FIRST ever.

Well, there's a first time for everything. His affiliation with Russia, whether it's as strong as the media claims or not, could be seen as entirely treasonous or close enough to it that it's disturbing.

Though regarding Nixon, he stepped down before he could become impeached. From what I've heard, it seems very likely that he would have been forcibly removed had he not removed himself from office prior. If Trump does this, I would just assume both things are one in the same.

When I was a kid my parents had lead me to feel that strongly about Clinton needing to go - ie. that he'd had interactions with an employee that most employers would go to jail for, that he'd also lied under oath in a way that was clear to all and thus pergered himself, it looked really open and shut to me at least with what little I new of the world - but then it made its way through the house, got stopped at the senate, and the Republicans had a lot of egg in their faces. I also learned that it would take some really bad or unusual stuff for a party not to say 'he has my letter (D or R) by his name so I've got his back'. The only difference with Trump is he is an outsider, establishment Republicans for a long time couldn't stand him, so it's possible that he could just get kicked out on failing the popularity contest rather than anything that he concretely did.

The Republicans came to Nixon and said you have at most 5 or 10 votes for acquittal in the Senate. Nixon had approval ratings of about 25 percent compared to Trump’s 42. Nixon never had the cult of personality Trump has, Republicans of 1974 did not have nearly the reasons to fear thier base in as they do now. The Democrats controlled both houses of congress.

I can not see congress removing Trump, it is up to the voters in 2020 and possibly the military and secret service to drag him out if he refuses to conceed on the basis the election was “rigged”.

Trump's stacking the courts with sycophants, leading the most corrupt administration in the nation's history and deregulating with impunity. Hilary would have been much better by the standing of having standards. Much better, that much isn't of debate to me. Hillary wouldn't have and didn't get my first vote but comparing her to Trump's laughable.

To paraphrase a famous athlete, the dude's a bum

https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen/stat ... 4359967745

In sheer buffoonery Trump has her beat, but I'm pretty sure she and her general entourage has him beat when it comes to level of corruption. I think the Dems made a huge mistake putting her forward as their candidate, because I honestly can't think of anyone else Trump might go up against and win.

I don't think there's any reason to think that Hillary would have started a war with Russia. The world would be much safer, and certainly Americans would all be much better off, with her as President. Trump has made the situations in Korea and Iran much worse and has conceded a lot of ground to the Russians in Europe, which makes war more likely in the long run.

It's a fact that the Russians meddled in the election. The companies who were hacked have admitted it, at great expense to their public credibility and bottom lines. The intelligence services have confirmed it. World leaders have confirmed it. Even Donald Trump has confirmed it, again, at great personal embarrassment; he wouldn't have made that transparent "I forgot to use a double negative" u-turn unless he was absolutely sure he'd made a huge mistake and the Russians had meddled.

The question is whether it affected the result. When I look at the Rust Belt and see Trump winning crucial states by tiny margins, I am forced to concede that it's entirely possible that it did. I am reasonably confident that Michigan was swung by them, for example, but it's harder to say about Pennsylvania.

I have naively said that I feel Trump is more socially liberal than Pence and therefore a better choice. In practice I think the difference in that regard is minimal. Trump has rolled back LGBT+ rights and done his best to restrict abortion rights. I don't think Pence could actually be much worse.

On the other hand, Pence has a much, much better temperament than Trump. He's less impulsive, less reckless, less easily upset. He's a proper statesman.

Pence is someone whose politics I disagree with, rather strongly. Trump is someone who I disagree with just as strongly and is also a petulant manchild completely unfit for positions of responsibility.

The "dream" would be both of them going down and Paul Ryan getting the post, but he's a man of too few principles - I think he'd quite readily adopt a lot of Pence's positions to keep the Republican base on side.

First a quick lol with the exchange you had with Sabbra, this is part of why I've never felt like counterfactuals would get very far in a debate or in disagreements. They're fine when you have a small group of people who agree on most of the facts, it inevitably becomes dueling projections when that gulf is wider.

As far as the whole Trump/Pence/Ryan line of procession though - if it looks that bad, and if there were actually intelligent voices behind the urge to impeach Trump who had any say over the unintelligent ones, you'd really think they'd take stock in just how grim that lineup is and instead maybe spend more time trying to find ways to limit executive power. That's actually something I'd be all for and they might make something useful of the situation that safeguards the country for generations. Instead it seems like what we're dealing with is a very lymbic political point-scoring game and they're trying to figure out just how thoroughly they can push the dopamine centers of their supporters.

I can’t think of anyone else either but I would not be at all surprised if the Dems find that person.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 02 Sep 2018, 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Clinton should been arrested as soon as they found out she setup a private sever to send classified information through.

Twenty-six year old, Reality Winner recently got sentenced to 5 years and 3 months for distributing a single classified document.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/us/r ... tence.html

Arguably, Clinton should of done more time.

What are you talking about?

She wanted to enforce a no fly zone in Syria and would have kept up the "Assad must go" rhetoric. Russia would not let that happen. If she had her way Al Qaeda, ISIS and the alphabet soup of Jihadi groups would be running wild and ruling Syria, which would be just like Libya now. Trump was the candidate by a county mile by that alone. He cut off funding for Al Qaeda last July.

What? The neocons are trying to make the situation worse with Korea. They would still be on the same path if Hillary was in charge. The only thing you are right about is Iran. But that could have fallen through because of their involvement in Syria.

Those companies have been blackmailed by the government. A few thousand dollars by some random Russians didn't have anything to do with the election result. A few handpicked people from different intelligence agencies said it. Intelligence agencies can't be believed though. Neither can politicians.

Further ...

Clinton knowingly transmitted at least 110 documents marked as classified.

"The FBI investigation found that 110 messages contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. Sixty-five of those emails were found to contain information classified as "Secret"; more than 20 contained "Top-Secret" information".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_C ... ontroversy

Reality Winner recently got sentenced to 5 years and 3 months for distributing a single classified document.

How is Clinton not in prison ?