1602 posts 10/20/2016 9:10 pm
Last Read:
10/14/2018 10:38 pm
|
Why Would You Vote For Hillary?
Given Hillary's "alleged" past and her known positions on issues such as gun control why would you vote for her?
Vive La Difference
|
609 posts 6/29/2018 5:34 am |
This hasn't aged well either.
|
32404 posts 10/24/2016 10:45 am |
because, in this case, she is the more qualified and less disgusting choice
You cannot conceive the many without the one.
tickles4us replies on 10/26/2016 8:28 am:
If only we could all organize a write in for Bernie like BobsHere talks about below it would be great. A slap in the face for both Hillary and Trump and the GOP and DNC.  |
|
25831 posts 10/21/2016 7:13 pm |
I haven't voted for ANY Republican in years. Need a reason? Ann Coulter. That's as good a reason as any. Trump is Ann Coulter with smaller hands.
Become a member now and get a free tote bag.
tickles4us replies on 10/22/2016 7:23 pm:
I think Trump is even worse than Ann Coulter though I can't say as I like her at all either but he's probably more dangerous. |
|
5468 posts 10/21/2016 5:05 pm |
But seriously ... even if we look past her .... indiscretions .... she is a big government liberal. She wants more power seated in Washington DC. That comes with the price of more government control over our lives.
Some folks are perfectly ok with the government telling them what kind of light bulbs ... toilets ... healthcare insurance ... etc ... they can buy. I am not. And for those reasons alone I would never vote for her.
AB
No Bozos
tickles4us replies on 10/22/2016 7:22 pm:
I can understand that. There are many reasons I don't care to vote for her but when the other choice is Trump those reasons don't seem so important. |
|
5468 posts 10/21/2016 4:28 pm |
Because I got a hummer from Madonna.  But seeing as that ain't happen'n ....
AB
No Bozos
|
81699 posts 10/21/2016 9:26 am |
It is going to be a very interesting thing to see after this election is done. Two evils don't make it right! I am unsure who I would vote for if I could vote. hugss V
Become a blog watcher sweet_vm
tickles4us replies on 10/22/2016 7:19 pm:
Oh come on... how could you even entertain the thought of voting for Trump? Even if he is entertaining!  |
|
41171 posts 10/21/2016 9:19 am |
Voting for Hillary makes it more likely to get Bill back in the White House. That will make cigar-smoking interns happy!
tickles4us replies on 10/22/2016 7:17 pm:
 That's all we need is another cigar incident....  |
|
20051 posts 10/21/2016 6:08 am |
I appreciate having this conversation-
In full disclosure, I am a prior gun owner.
I am fully trained for certain weapons by a stunt coordinator for film and tv. (Which sounds stupid but it is a category of training)
I love target shooting, my weapon of choice being a 9 MM. and I happen to be good at it.
More than likely, I will own guns again, after my kids move out.
While there are problems with the no-fly list (as well as the sexual offenders list) the vast majority of that list are on there for a reason. I would rather have those people on that list not be able to buy guns. As to the list, a legal path should be created for people put on the list because of similar names (which I think that is the reason that most of those names are put on that list by accident). There is none at present. And that problem affects less that .01 of our population.
Laws are made for the majority of us, but no law will be perfect.
And I love polite discourse on subjects like this.
BTW congress frequently passes laws but not the corollary necessary one which include money TO PAY FOR enforcing the laws. Something to take in consideration,
Kk
The observant make the best lovers, I may not do right, but I do write, I have bliss, joy, and happiness in my life, Kitkat Come check out my blog KItkat1415check out this post by me Adventures In Body Grooming#39 April Topic Link: What Lies BeneathIf April Showers Oh Bloody Hell What Kind Of Weather Turns Me On Bloggers Symposium 40
tickles4us replies on 10/22/2016 7:16 pm:
I agree. |
|
|
10/21/2016 1:21 am
|
I DESPERATELY did not want to vote for Hillary, nor do I think she deserves the honor of first female president, but the only realistic alternative offered was a 6 time bankrupt, failed casino starting, reality TV hosting, zero political experience having, tax hiding, thrice married, fake university founding, pedantic twitter whiner with an inferiority complex...
There WERE Republicans I would have voted for, but the demagogue won out on that side.
 ~Sarah~
tickles4us replies on 10/22/2016 7:03 pm:
I agree this election was decided by the media as much as anything. They gave that ass tons of free advertising and mislabeled Bernie. Trump played upon the masses aggravation with the system and the economic conditions to his great advantage. The problem being that he got a bunch of ignorant fools to come out and support him when he should have been locked up for inciting riots and making threats toward other nominees and or candidates. He has made a mockery of the United States political system. |
|
18571 posts 10/20/2016 11:23 pm |
I'm not going to write a campaign ad for her on a social media site. .. I am so sick of this campaign. Comparing her to Drumph is apples and oranges. .. It's over.
Read my diary Journal of a Taxi Driver for taxi stories and pictures of flowers and trees.
tickles4us replies on 10/22/2016 6:56 pm:
I understand... |
|
1021 posts 10/20/2016 10:15 pm |
Isn't bad enough that Hollywood remade the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
People are strange when you're a stranger."
tickles4us replies on 10/22/2016 3:21 pm:
I take that to mean you don't want a Clinton remake... |
|
20051 posts 10/20/2016 10:05 pm |
I would vote for Hillary because I want sensible gun laws regarding people on the no-fly list should not be able to buy more guns, I want people to lock their guns up away from their toddlers/underage children and be held accountable for negligence should their toddler or underage children hurt themselves or others, and mentally ill patients with certain conditions should not have access to firearms.
I don't want to take guns away from sane and normal gun enthusiasts.
Kk
The observant make the best lovers, I may not do right, but I do write, I have bliss, joy, and happiness in my life, Kitkat Come check out my blog KItkat1415check out this post by me Adventures In Body Grooming#39 April Topic Link: What Lies BeneathIf April Showers Oh Bloody Hell What Kind Of Weather Turns Me On Bloggers Symposium 40
tickles4us replies on 10/22/2016 3:19 pm:
Just so you know I am voting for Hillary but...
I agree with you that we need "some" reasonable gun laws such as you mentioned, but they must be reasonable. To say that all guns have to be locked up at all times in a home where the people living there feel a need to be able to defend themselves is not reasonable. But it is absolutely unacceptable to have loaded firearms lying around unsecured either by a trigger lock or in a quick access type gun safe with children in the house or even visiting the house. A compromise needs to be reached.
I have very little problem with keeping the mentally ill from owning weapons though it may be difficult to keep them from getting them as we found out in the Newtown, Connecticut case. One of the biggest problems with mental illness and guns is that lots of people are undiagnosed.
I do have a problem with Hillary's way of thinking and her long history of the blind support for total gun control as has been evident by her positions and actions over time such as was made clear by her attack on Bernie's position on the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." She made claims during the campaign to smear Bernie by saying that he was for the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." She said it was a law that protected the manufacturers and businesses associated with the gun industry wholly from prosecution.
This was a false claim and was used by her to make Bernie look bad as she did with a good many lies through out the process. Hillary has been a strong advocate for gun control laws for a long time and I don't expect that she has changed her intentions but whether she will pursue them or not is the question? If you just review what she has said on these issues I'm sure you will see that she will push for as much as she can get when it comes to gun control. Below is a link just copy and past to get the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" and if you want to bore yourself with reading it through, you will see it doesn't provide any extra protections to the firearms industry it is to keep people like Clinton from trying to sue the firearms industry out of business with frivolous laws suits as they have said they would in the past. I don't think that laws that protect businesses or people from frivolous law suits is a bad thing do you?
govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text
Quoted from politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/16/hillary-clinton/clinton-gun-industry-wholly-protected-all-lawsuits/
Clinton: Gun industry is 'wholly protected' from all lawsuits
By Lauren Carroll on Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 11:22 a.m.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks Oct. 7, 2015, during a campaign stop in Council Bluffs, Iowa. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)
At the first Democratic debate of the 2016 presidential race, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for supporting a 2005 law that shields the gun industry from certain lawsuits.
Clinton voted against this law when she was a senator, and she has lambasted it several times on the campaign trail this month.
"Probably one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress when it comes to this issue is to protect gun sellers and gun makers from liability," she said in Iowa Oct. 7. "They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn't, and they won't be sued. There will be no consequences."
Is Clinton right? Are gun makers and dealers "wholly protected" against any kind of lawsuit, and do no other industries have similar immunities? Short answer: No. The gun industry is susceptible to some lawsuits, and there are federal laws restricting liability for a number of other types of businesses.
As support, Clinton’s staff sent us a public health journal article that argues the gun industry’s "broad immunity" against litigation inhibits safe manufacturing and distribution of firearms, though it does not directly address her claim.
Exceptions
The law at issue is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush and seen as a victory for gun rights advocates. The purpose of the law is to protect gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits when their products are misused. For example, if a person buys a gun legally and then uses the gun to intentionally kill someone, the gun dealer and manufacturer cannot be held liable for the crime under the law.
While opponents argue that the law stops some victims from having their day in court, supporters say the law protects gun dealers and manufacturers from frivolous and expensive legal proceedings. In any case, Clinton goes too far in saying the gun industry is "wholly protected from any kind of liability."
The law lists several situations that are not protected from liability. It does not protect gun dealers who transfer a gun knowing it would be used for criminal purposes, nor those who knowingly break state or federal law if the violation results in harm. Gun manufacturers can also be sued if the gun, when used properly, causes injury because the product is defective.
"The statement is incorrect insofar as it suggests that gun makers are totally free from liability," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles who specializes in gun law.
Some opponents of the law argue that the liability protection is so broad and ambiguous, and the exceptions so narrow, that some legitimate lawsuits won’t have a chance to appear in court. But this is different from saying the gun industry is wholly immune to all lawsuits.
Clinton also said the gun industry is the "only" business in America with this total liability protection. We know that it doesn’t have total protection, but do other sectors have something similar?
Not the only one
The act "is not the first federal law to grant a particular industry immunity from tort liability," said Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University, who edited a book on gun industry litigation.
Possibly the most analogous rule -- in that it protects a specific group of potential defendants from a specific liability theory -- is one that offers some immunity to online service providers, said John Goldberg, a law professor at Harvard University and an expert in tort law, in an email to PolitiFact. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act blocks victims of online defamation from suing service providers (like Comcast) and content providers (like YouTube) for failing to monitor or remove defamatory posts uploaded by customers.
In a prior interview with NPR, Goldberg called the gun industry law particularly "aggressive" in terms of the liability protections granted.
Most of the experts we surveyed also mentioned a vaccine manufacturer liability law passed in the 1980s. Under the law, victims of injuries that they say were caused by defective vaccines are not allowed to sue vaccine manufacturers. This differs from the gun legislation, however, because it established the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, through which alleged victims can make a claim and receive compensation.
"By contrast, (the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) simply prohibits certain kinds of tort claims against the gun industry without providing plaintiffs any alternative means of pursuing their claims," Lytton said.
There’s also some liability protection in the medical devices and airline industries, noted Walter Olson, senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and expert in tort law. For example,the 1994 General Aviation Revitalization Act said small aircraft manufacturers cannot be sued for accidents involving aircraft more than 18 years old.
"It’s not at all unique to the gun industry. It’s a version (of liability law) Congress developed for an industry that was under very heavy attack," Olson said, referring to the slew of litigation against gun sellers and makers that prompted Congress to pass the law.
Our ruling
Clinton said the gun industry is "the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability."
Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits.
Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry.
We rate Clinton’s claim False. |
|
609 posts 10/20/2016 9:59 pm |
So... You think Trump is "authoritarian" but clinton is not?
Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Juan Linz's influential 1964 description of authoritarianism[1] characterized authoritarian political systems by four qualities:
limited political pluralism; that is, such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups;
a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency;
minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity;
informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.[2]
So, Clinton is already on record for having destroyed evidence, collusion between her and the media is already undeniable, her entire campaign is about her vagina and the horror that Trump used the word "pussy" - emotive negative campaigning to shock and mobilize the female voter, her time as Secretary of State blurred the lines between was good for the clinton foundation and what was good for the US/rest of the world...
Sorry, but it looks like clinton's more likely to use the powers of the state to suppress any and all objections to her activities.
tickles4us replies on 10/22/2016 1:56 pm:
I'd say they both have an authoritarian nature but Trumps is much worse and has been encouraged by the fact that he has been wealthy all his life and has kept himself surrounded by yes men. He really thinks he knows what is the best way to do anything including using nukes and sending troops to fight in places they shouldn't be not to mention he thinks he knows all there is to know about anything. which is laughable as long as he isn't the president of any country.
I know quite well what authoritarianism is and how it works and the problems it causes in the near and long term. The last thing this country needs is an egomaniac authoritarian idiot that thinks he can do whatever he wants because he is the president. You see Trump doesn't really understand the difference between being president of the United States and being the president of a company. |
|
21063 posts 10/20/2016 9:49 pm |
Leading the sheep to slaughter following her !!
tickles4us replies on 10/22/2016 1:47 pm:
I think the slaughter is something that Trump has advocated... along with letting many countries have nukes even while he cry's out about the Iran deal "giving" Iran nukes.  |
|
51906 posts 10/20/2016 9:39 pm |
If I could vote, I would vote Hillary for all the same reasons you will.
tickles4us replies on 10/22/2016 1:45 pm:
Well come on down, I'm sure I can find a name for you to vote under... |
|
7262 posts 10/20/2016 9:14 pm |
I'm voting for Hillary not because I want her as president but because I sure as hell don't want that authoritarian Trump as president.
Full disclosure I voted for Reagan, both Bush's and Obama.
Vive La Difference
|
