What specific things did Hillary do that make her more untrustworthy than any other candidate (and less qualified than Trump)

Personally, I feel she’s just as trustworthy as the rest (in other words, not at all.)

Trump. Lol. There may be few less quaified than him. I don’t like Hillary, but she’s WAY more qualified than Trump.

I’m afraid I don’t have a link. Just an overall dislike for the way she does things. I don’t like what I read in her eyes. Either she’s lying a lot, or she doesn’t believe what she’s saying sometimes.

Some people just hate Democrats, and hate Bill. Hated Obama, and will hate any nominee who isn’t Republican.

Most of the opposition is trying to misdirect voters from seeing what an intelligent, experienced, strong person she is by twisting her accomplishments and exaggerating her mistakes.

I run a chatroom with about 6 active members and one of them hates Hillary. Great guy except for the irrational hatred of her. I actively avoid the topic since once he goes off I eye the ban button.

The few times I have discussed it I got the non-answer given by MrGrimm888. It is like Truthiness but dumber.

So I finally got a response. She joked when asked about her server and she said, “with a cloth?”

For some reason that was his big gripe. Months of trying to get to the root and that is all he can come up with.

I have basically resigned to the fact that it isn’t that she is a cunt, it is that she has one. ducks

Sorry I’m not as smart as you @johnpowell. I’ll do my best not to try and answer the question to the best of my ability next time.

You never had a ‘gut feeling’ about a person or place?

I do with Hillary. But you shouldn’t worry. I don’t vote.

The question asked for specifics. You came up with the look in her eyes. (I’m not even sure how you make your eyes look different)

So yeah. Maybe not responding would be better.

@johnpowell, to me, and those in my profession, eyes are important. They tell you what the mouth doesn’t. I was as specific as I could be. I didn’t manufacture an answer, I told the OP what MY feelings were. I made it clear that I didn’t have specific moments in mind when I opined.

You seem to be attacking me for no reason. So thanks for making me feel unwelcome.

There were no answers when I came across this thread. So I threw my hat in to get it going.

Not an attack from me, @MrGrimm888, just an observation. Unless you are in her direct presence (not watching her on camera) unless the facial expressions are so exaggerated ad to be a caricature, the “look in her eyes” as virtually no meaning, as the entire image is affected by lighting, angle, distance, etc. Even quiet interviews, one on one, fairly fixed environment, are manipulated by lighting choices, etc.
If you are talking about your impressions from meeting her in person, that’s entirely different, of course.

May I ask what profession you allude to, please? (Just curious)

As for Hillary Clinton, I think her biggest mistake is having internal genitalia. The second biggest is being an insider. She is an experienced politico, which is unappealing in and of itself, but frankly, so is Sanders, he’s been inside the system longer than Clinton.

What baffles me about the Clinton haters is that unless you are in the 1%, meaning extremely wealthy, Trump is not your guy so…..

I enjoyed this article on the topic yesterday.

When the scandal about Bill started, she was asked if she thought there was any truth to the rumors. She said if she thought they were true she would leave him in a flash. The case went all the way to impeachment proceedings and she never got as far as the door. So she has not demonstrated good character.

Having a woman for a top office is not a problem. Having an American woman is. American women are raised to be mommies, not leaders. A woman in a position of leadership is often compared to a dragon.

I just asked this question about how important are the personal lives of political candidates to you, inspired by this question:

http://www.fluther.com/192547/how-important-are-the-personal-lives-of-political-candidates-to-you/

This question and @Mariah ‘s chart are examples of what’s been gnawing at me regarding Clinton. And that is whether I am actually in control of the dislike and suspicion I feel about her. I mean can you trust your objectivity on a person when you have lived in a 30 year environment of incessant muzak-like background music insisting that you should not? I too have tried to find anything distinguishing her from any other career politician, and the only thing I find exceptional is that she’s damned good at it! I mean when you actually think about it, in the face of relentless though clearly transparent political accusations, slanders, investigations, etc., the woman has acquitted herself well in each office achieved on her climb toward the throne. In view to the trip through the minefield sewn to prevent it, her arrival here is rather extraordinary. And despite all the stupid hype and bullshit about Benghazi, her email, etc. the only plausible PROVEN liability the woman carries is the fact that she is a skilled and VERY CAPABLE politician. And the ONLY asset the UNQUESTIONABLY DEFECTIVE Trump can present is that he is not!

@SmartAZ “Having a woman for a top office is not a problem. Having an American woman is. American women are raised to be mommies, not leaders.”

Are you fucking kidding me?

@Mariah YOU dispute @SmartAZ ‘s contention?

@Mariah One of the most bizarre, of many bizarre, statements I have read on Fluther. Thanks for calling it out before I got to it.

Being a mommy is a wonderful thing, but to say that as an American woman, I’ve been raised to be a mommy is quite an insult to both myself and my parents.

@SmartAZ You’re missing the point that the correct answer to the question when asked was “go fuck yourself” And leaving your husband based on a statement made to the press is more about stupidity than character.

@Mariah: @SmartAZ consistently demonstrates that he adheres to ideas that were popular in the 50s and early 60s. I, too, find that exasperating.

@stanleybmanly Despite the flaws in the way we raise and treat women in this country I would never say that one is not fit to be a leader due to her gender, yes.

So, no one has a specific, just, “I don’t like how she handled her marriage” and, “I just don’t feel comfortable with a strong woman.”

@zenvelo: And one Jelly doesn’t like the way the lighting and camera makes her eyes look.

And, @jca, I know a number of 1%ers who are intelligent and educated, and staunch conversatives, who are as appalled by the orange man as most of the rest of us. Let’s remember that his appeal rests largely with a poorly educated easily swayed, frightened white demographic.

She doesn’t come across as warm and fuzzy but I have never thought “I’d like to have a beer with [that candidate]” was a reason to vote for someone – man or woman. I think she’s strong and capable and while I wish she were more progressive, I think she’ll make a competent president. There’s no contest in my book.

She’s status quo. Most don’t like her because she comes off as abrasive, narcissistic and generally the type of person who think they have the knack for leadership but could not keep an hoa together. She scares me almost as bad as trump. I don’t get how so many see her as strong and cabable. She seems like a bratty kid in an adult body when I hear her speak. Absoloutly nothing about her screams I’m really a leader and not a hack of a politician.

WOW, NO here has given the asker what he asked for, as an outsider looking in I get most of the distrust of her comes from the email scandal, blown way out of proportion by the conservatives, and the something to do with Benghazi and how she handled that.
Those are not my feelings for her, that is what I get listening to people talk about their dislike of her.
I still think she would be a million times better than King Trump any day.

Um… @SQUEEKY2, there have been a number of on point posts.

Ok, so, to sum up…
She has a devious look in her eyes
She’s status quo
Her husband cheated on her

It’s the sense of entitlement that I hate. It was written in stone when she conceded to Obama in ‘08 that she would be the Democratic nominee in ‘16. The lack of Democratic candidates this election year is just one example. She also had the media on her side.

And deny it all you want, I will always believe she stole the nomination from Bernie. If you deny that any election fraud didn’t exist you need your head examined.

I should add that I don’t find her more untrustworthy than Trump or anyone else, but she lost my respect this election cycle and I do not trust her.

Disagree all you want. I am answering the OP and that’s it.

Okay, let’s make a list:

1. I learned the term “hispandering” because of her. Stuff like this post which prompted this hashtag.
2. Everything she says about Edward Snowden is wrong and she is pushing for less transparency in government.
3. Director Comey’s statements about Clinton’s email server directly contradicted her claims.
4. Whether she is a “moderate” or “progressive” depends on who she’s talking to.
5. Her biggest donors are big banks. She makes a lot of money in speaking fees as well, and they lobby her a lot.
6. She embellishes, like “under sniper fire in Bosnia” or “Chelsea was jogging around the towers during 9/11” or “broke after leaving the whitehouse”
7. The Cattle Futures Controversy
8. DNC officials colluded with Clinton to get her the nomination
9. Lying under oath

————
She is obviously more qualified than Trump.

Everything is so polarized in politics that I think your assumption is flawed. Both sides tear down the other with an unbridled passion that isn’t healthy (in my opinion) and unless you one up the other side’s insults, you’re not getting noticed. I think we exaggerate people’s flaws to the point where the middle ground has no air. You’re either with or against us. The problem with this is I think most people truly occupy the middle ground.

There are also no set qualifications to be a leader. There are lots of ways to be a leader, some are through accomplishment, but it usually takes more.

I don’t particularly like her. I’m not angry at her, scared of her, nor do I think she’s evil. I joked when her husband was president that she was secretly running things for him, and I’m sure I wasn’t the only one. She’s extremely capable.

I also think she’s extremely accomplished and should be proud of what she’s done. I’d love to elect a strong woman, so I don’t think that’s it. I’d just like one that I’d vote for even if she was male. I don’t think Hillary would be a viable candidate at this point if she was male. I think being female and coming in second place last time has kept her going.

I suppose in summary my gripe is I don’t think she’s going to make a great leader. It’s really that simple, that doesn’t mean I hate her, I don’t think she’s going to be a bad president. I just think her big accomplishment will be that she’s female. Maybe that’s enough.

If I had to list specific gripes that make her appear untrustworthy they would be changing positions to follow polls over a long period of time with plenty of examples. In a more general way I’d cite not shining as a senator or secretary of state, and riding the presumption of her win rather than staking strong positions during the election to this point. She hasn’t really had to attach herself to much in the way of policy, so she hasn’t. She has everything covered, but nothing seems to really matter to her in the way we’ve seen from passionate leaders in the past.

I’d love to know what really matters to her other than accomplishment. That would make it easier to see her as a leader who can write her own script rather than follow established best practices.

We don’t get to elect that many presidents and I wish there were some better options. There aren’t, so she probably gets my vote.

But I’d be lying if I said I liked her, or trusted her.

@hornet about point 2, can you show me how she is pushing less transparency? That seems like something that is worthy of getting upset about.

@hornet: I have never heard Hillary saying (or read that Hillary has stated) that Chelsea was jogging around the towers during 9/11. Do you have a link from a legit source?

As far as Hillary getting money from speaking fees, @hornet, many former politicians from all political parties have made lots of money from speaking engagements.

@stanleybmanly You are missing the point: she promised an action and failed to perform it. She publicly claimed she was “not a stand-by-your-man woman”, and then stood by her man.

@canidmajor At last! Someone who understands! However, the topic is “What did she do”, not “What era are your knee-jerk reactions from”.

Everybody else: Please try to keep your insults on topic.

@jca – Seems the truth is somewhere in the middle from both sides…

Media Matters

From Clinton Interview -

CLINTON: She’d gone, what she thought would be just a great jog. She was going to go down to Battery Park, she was going to go around the towers. She went to get a cup of coffee and—and that’s when the plane hit.

Which doesn’t seem to be either what actually happened, or what conservative press was claiming she said. So everyone lies, Yay!

According to the interview linked, she was in a coffee shop, not “jogging around the towers” at the time the planes hit.

@canidmajor. I don’t agree. Yes, lighting can make people’s eyes appear different, especially if they’re bright. But that isn’t what I see. Otherwise I’d think everyone on TV is lying, or unsure about their rhetoric.

My profession, going back about 17 years , is currently Head of Security /cooler at a large music venue. I’l’ll not claim to be the greatest at much, but I’m an expert in reading people. Mostly of course people who aren’t accustomed to telling the truth are good at appearing to be truthful. But most can’t hide their thoughts in their eyes.

I simply offered my opinion. I’m not attempting to sway anyone into my viewpoint. Again, I was just trying to give the OP something to start the thread up. I don’t have a strong opinion about Hillary. I don’t intend to vote.

I feel like I’m the only one who tried to answer the question? This feels more like an opinion forum.

I don’t think I understand this Q&A site.

@hornet: We discuss back and forth. For example, I asked you some questions above which you have not yet answered.

Didn’t funkdaddy answer you?

Hmm, okay, so the question is just a discussion prompt and people are expected to probe at each other’s comments. Not what I was expecting, but I get it now.

Yes, @hornet, I see that she was in the Battery Park area getting coffee, at the time according to the interview, not “jogging around the towers.” When I googled it for more links, I find nothing from any legit source (NY Times, for example).

@hornet: The question prompts a discussion, and people state their opinions, agree, disagree, discuss.

The question worked as the OP intended. We are discussing her looks and if we wanted to have a beer with her. Just irrational hatred.

Both are things I don’t give a single fuck about.

43 seemed like a good drinking buddy but he fucked the country up.

@hornet: Sometimes someone will ask a question and then argue with everyone that disagrees. Check out the Social section, cell phone texting and walking question.

This has been edifying.

On a personal level, there is nothing Hillary is likely to prioritize during her reign that will benefit my family in any way. Likewise, there is nothing Trump is likely to prioritize that will benefit my family in any way.

Neither of them can be counted on to follow through with anything they’re saying on the campaign trail – Trump because he’s simply talking out of his ass, and Hillary because voters are irrelevant to her ambition. Her job is to get elected however possible. Not because she feels she’s in service to the public, but because it will personally benefit her.

And that is where she and I are at an impasse. I cannot afford to pay her what bankers and CEOs pay her to look after their interests.

As a poor white American, Trump or Hillary makes no appreciable difference to me. They’re both warmongers who only hear money, and I don’t have any.

I mostly hate that at this point it appears more and more that my vote is being held hostage, and that I’m going to have to vote for this person that I really really don’t want to vote for because the alternative is a literal return to 1940s Germany.

I hate that I’m forced to cast a vote that will do the least bad rather than the most good.

It really doesn’t feel like it was supposed to work this way and it is goddamn depressing.

Michael Moore on Clinton 3:50 onward

I hate that I’m forced to cast a vote that will do the least bad rather than the most good.

That’s the story of being on the left in the US. I’ve been voting since 1968, when my dad held me up to push the lever to keep Richard Nixon out of the White House (I was five).

The only candidate I’ve been enthusiastic about was Obama, because we had an eloquent smart guy replacing the gibbering idiot who brought wreck and ruin.

The liberals we’d really like can’t get elected. Yeah, it sucks. It sucks like a death in the family. You wish and wish and wish it were not true, but you can’t ignore reality and you push on, doing the best you can with the cards you’re dealt.

@Seek FTW. I couldn’t agree more. More and more I think @Coloma is right in just checking out and not voting.

She has domestic violence history against Bill as claimed in this book

It goes to show on outside she might be very warm / wecloming person but different in reality.

@imrainmaker see point 2 in my original post.

It seems like most of these answers are about things other than trustworthiness.

Here’s my take:

1. Experience: she has it in spades
2. Likability/charisma: so-so, especially contrasted against her husband
3. Trustworthiness: poor
4. Attractiveness: mediocre
5. Fashion sense: meh (although I do strongly suspect that she does have to wear and cover body armor)
6. Relatability: mediocre, she tries to fake commonalities with people and they call her on it

as claimed in this book

Just like the books claiming the Clinton White House Christmas tree was decorated with crack pipes.

Conservatives are ridiculously gullible.

@hornet. You don’t have to answer to anyone but the OP if you wish. We have users who never really answer a question but will question anyone they disagree with. The site is for seeking answers, but you can discuss with others if that’s what you want to do.

Welcome!

It is like spitting in the wind (that spit will come back and hit you in the face) to hate a woman for staying with her husband who was unfaithful. I will never understand it. There are women all around you who you love and respect who have done it, you just don’t know it.

FWIW I have never voted. I was too young to vote for Barry Goldwater, but I thought he would have been a splendid president. I could not believe how many Americans thought the opposite. It made me feel ashamed to be in the same country with such stupid people. No candidate after that was good enough for me even to register to vote, so I never did.

Is your refrigerator running? That would be better than those other two.

@hornet her attractiveness is “mediocre?” She’s almost 70 fucking years old!

@trolltoll LOL, that’s a “unattractive” from you then?

@Seek Now that is an accurate, non-partisan truthful and honest assessment that gets a gold star seal of approval from me. If things remain as they are I will not be wasting time at the presidential polls this go around.

Get ‘em @Seek…

I only disagree about the vote being held hostage. You don’t HAVE to vote. You don’t have to be part of the ‘big show’ each 4 years. We don’t control any of it at the presidential level anyway.

The only reason for ‘voting’ is to keep the public (wrongly) assuming that they have a say in what happens. They don’t really. But if the people overrun the Whitehouse and are about to capture the people in charge, they will say ‘you had a choice, ’ even though you really don’t.

Government works best and most efficient when at a grass roots level. But it doesn’t work like that at the highest levels.

The ‘vote’ a person casts is an illusion of choice. But the reality is different.

She has done nothing. It’s all typical political subterfuge.

I’d argue each vote counts way more than it should. Just over half of eligible people in the US vote in the biggest elections. So I get to vote for someone else too. Feel that voting power?

Not yet, ok.

From another angle, if I choose to vote third party, I can make an even bigger difference. If a third party reaches 5% of the total vote in the election, then they’re eligible for a large public grant (about $96 million this time around) to fund their general election campaign in addition to primary funding.

That means if only about 3% of the total eligible voters turn out for any party other than the leading two, they get a seat at the big boy’s table the next time. To my understanding, that’s a huge change for American politics and this may be the first time people are ready for more parties in a long time.

Let’s say Bernie attached to a party tomorrow – like the Green party tried to talk him into earlier – would that garner 5% of the vote? They know it would. Would they take the money? I’m not sure. But they’d have a lot more options.

These elections are also completely run by polling and polling gets very local. So your county may only have a couple thousand people that vote, and how those people vote will help define how people campaign and how they define their platform the next election. If you live in a low population area you should know that the best predictor of how an area votes is population density. Rural areas vote for conservative candidates, urban centers vote more progressive. That seems crazy to me, but it plays out across the country. Your vote in a low population area can have a huge impact.

So your vote does count. It might not be the one that decides the election from 150 million (I’m being hopeful) but it still counts more than some would have you think. Go vote, if you want to stick it to someone, vote third party just so they get a seat.

If the only people that vote are the people who like the current game, it will never change.

I wouldn’t despair quite yet. We know what we will get with Clinton, but I suspect that if she does get in, it will not be quite as easy to lick corporate boots as lavishly as before, and this goes for the whores in BOTH parties. Bernie has shown the way, and 4 years from now, either he or someone similar will be right there if Clinton dares to drop the ball. As for the Republicans,——-let the funeral commence. Whether Trump wins or loses, it’s certain and agonizing death for the GOP as a credible political movement, and the truth of this will become much more starkly apparent should Trump win.

@Seek, too bad none of this will affect you.

@canidmajor – That’s a fun list. Please outline exactly how Hillary Clinton is going to preserve all of those things, and how Trump is going to make them “gone”.

@funkdaddy. Your intellect would be better used on something else.
Every vote counts. No it doesn’t. When the chaos ensued in Florida with the confusion about weather Bush won or not, arguably the most important votes in the election were simply thrown out. The US government just told all those people who took time off from work or whatever, to make a change, that their opinion wasn’t relevant . In the end their votes literally didn’t matter.

The big wigs in Washington already had the candidate they wanted. They weren’t going to let a little thing like votes stop them.
When the mood suits the government, they do whatever they want.

A 3rd party. Uugh…It’s laughable now, how pathetic the government is with just 2. 3,4,5 parties wouldn’t help anything.
Still the same small amount of rich white men behind the curtain.

To make a real change, they need to modify or cap campaign contributions. Realistically.

Otherwise the uber wealthy will always buy every election, and every politician.

Anyone who thinks Trumpism and Republicanism run rampant is not a thousand times more evil than centrist, albeit very flawed, Democratic status quo, is either very naive or deliberately being obtuse.

If you want a viable third party, go out and build it. I would probably vote for it in the future if I thought they could win but I’m not going to waste my vote if there’s a chance that Trump and his down ticket will win.

I’m in a red state, the electoral college votes red. Tell me how a vote for the left counts here?

Parties matter because right now the only way to win an election is to become a part of one of the two parties. Otherwise you get no backing, you’re seen as a fringe candidate, and you don’t have the money to run a modern campaign. Exhibit A is making his speech tonight.

Imagine there were three, four, five, or six parties though. Suddenly someone can run on a principled campaign that doesn’t have to swallow the majority of the two platforms out there. If a third party suddenly has $96 million granted to their candidate, they’re going to get more candidates, they’re going to have meaningful primaries, and they’re going to have meaningful debates and outreach.

That’s more voices and more choices. Every year we hear it’s the lesser of two evils. What if it was the lesser of 5 evils. That’s incrementally better. What if people can run on a platform that isn’t put together strictly from polling and trying to get the most support from the party? That seems incrementally better. You get a few increments, maybe things will actually start to appear better.

Take Congress, imagine everything couldn’t be blocked by one party or the other. Would a congress split 5 ways be able to block a Supreme Court Justice that would otherwise be confirmed? I don’t think so.

We’ll never have 5 parties if we don’t get 3, and we’ll never have 3 if we keep choosing the lesser of two evils.

The fact that the Republican party will be unviable as it currently exists within the next 10 years is proof that white men behind the curtain don’t run things. They have to change their message and how big that change will be depends on how big a margin they lose by in November.

It all does count, because none of these people are dumb, even if they seem that way.

@janbb – I’ve already said how I’m probably voting. But if someone isn’t going to vote because they want to stick it to these candidates, I’m saying a better option would be to pick any third party and try to get their number as high as possible. That’s the best chance to take the power away from the current party system. Not voting just makes the people you dislike stronger.

@Seek: Clinton has held public office for years. To my knowledge, she has not tried to destroy any of these things. Trump has declared plans to work against a number of them.

That is a very incomplete answer, @canidmajor

I grew up alongside the Internet. My opinions will not be changed by unsourced, unexplained memes.

@Seek I bitch a lot about the state of the country and its politics, but @RedDeerGuy1 ‘s Michael Moore clip showed me the Hillary that was, and the primary reason for the relentless vendetta that followed and lasts to the present day. What she attempted there showed a level of either courage or arrogance born of naivety. She clearly underestimated the extent to which the Congress was being pimped by the AMA and pharmaceutical corporations. But she DID it. She actually made the push for single payer universal health care. I think it was the recognition in the extent and fury expended on crushing her healthcare initiative that put the brakes on her idealism. And she has been amply rewarded for applying those brakes, and not attempting anything nearly so rash in the interim. Nevertheless, I’ll vote for Clinton and the party that cheated Bernie. I’ll vote for her because she’s smart, tough, a combat veteran and absolutely despised by the right.

@ARE_you_kidding_me – I don’t know your location off hand, so I’ll speak from mine. I would imagine the same applies.

I live in Travis County, Texas. You may have heard of some of our famous Republicans.

Most of the Austin area lands inside Travis County. Presidential elections aren’t exactly an unknown here for most of my voting time. Texas hasn’t voted Democratic in a presidential election since I’ve been alive.

Here’s 2012, 2008, and before that, it was “one of our own” in GW, so results were even more lopsided 2004, 2000. There’s no chance our electoral votes are ever going Democratic in the next two or three elections at least.

But look at 2012 on the map provided. Travis county is the bright blue dot in the middle. Look at in 2000, it was pale red. That’s enough to effect strategy and where people spend their time and money. You also get to vote for a number of other things on the ballot, if everyone who thought they weren’t going to win the presidential election stayed home, my local political scene would look a lot different.

You won’t change this election, but you might make it close enough that people who think their vote doesn’t count now will decide it’s worth an hour to at least raise their hand next time. A thousand people like that can change most counties.

As a Bernie supporter in Illinois I can vote my conscience. We are a solid blue state. Hillary is not getting my vote and I will be leaving the Democratic Party.

@funkdaddy Interesting information about the third party vote and the money.

I don’t know why it surprises you that rural tends to go conservative and urban liberal? Urban centers tend to be more diverse, so it seems insane to most people in diverse areas to think about legislating one religion or marginalizing one group. They know people from many groups and don’t want to hurt their friends and neighbor’s, and because they understand today that group, tomorrow my group. Out in rural, 90% of the community is Christian and white America, they still perceive the country as white and Christian, because their world is, and they don’t feel they need to accommodate people who are “different” and they don’t want their freedom taken away, which for them is to practice their religion as they see fit where they see fit.

The above is mostly about social issues. Fiscally, they don’t see the benefit of taxes like the urban centers do. Or, I should say they don’t perceive the benefit easily, even though many of the states with large rural areas benefit disproportionately from federal taxes. Locally, they live off their own land, so they don’t perceive much benefit from local taxes either.

@SmartAZ I have never heard that before, that she said _to the press _ that she’d leave Bill. I don’t believe it. That would be a singularly dumb thing to say especially since she probably knew it was true. But you know…these silly airheaded American mommy-women.

@Dutchess_III: With statements like that, since I’m cynical, I don’t believe them unless I see a link to a legitimate news source (i.e. Washington Post, NY Times) with an article where the person makes that direct statement.

Yes @jca. I am hoping he’ll provide us with exactly that. But he probably won’t.

Nothing that Clinton has done is more or makes her more untrustworthy than any other politician that usually gets foisted on me. She is infinitely more qualified than Trump.

That doesn’t mean I like her, what she stands for or those who actually pull her strings; only that she is better than the alternative offered by the Republicans.

I would like to vote for Jill Stein (or Bernie) but I am not voting for President this election, I am voting for at least one and possibly three Supreme Court Justices and I don’t want to see us take a giant step backwards.

@JLeslie – I don’t know why it surprises you that rural tends to go conservative and urban liberal?

It’s not surprising that it’s a tendency, it’s surprising that it’s often the most reliable indicator of how an area will vote. That means the things that we think really matter, like income for an area, racial demographics, age, etc, can be smoothed out in a relatively small area and in a shocking (to me) number of cases you’re left with population density as the best indicator. That it’s a factor isn’t surprising, that it’s so tightly tied to results is really surprising.

Looking at it today, it seems the 2012 election numbers really clicked with the theory, so there was a lot of discussion about it.

Here’s a good surviving example.

So the reasons you list and possibly more add up to a bigger difference in people’s collective experience and perception of political parties than the differences in individuals we traditionally point to.

That’s fascinating and unexpected to me.

@Dutchess_III Here ya go: https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+tammy+wynette

@funkdaddy When I moved to the Deep South it became apparent to me that I had more in common with northern Republicans than Southern Democrats, and I have always been a Democrat. The biggest difference was religion. Suddenly, I was in a place where there was a bunch of Democrats around me who were socially conservative. I had never before been in a place where the density of people against gay rights, who want religion in school, where politicians actually talk about their Christianity to get elected, I really thought to myself where am I? In the bigger cities even in the Bible Belt you still find people who are socially liberal, but I’m just talking the ratios are way different than most northern places I have lived. That’s my experience.

Certainly, there are small towns up north that are similar to how I describe the South. We see it in IL, NY, and others where the big city is blue, but the lesser populated parts of the state tend to be red.

Another difference I will point out was in the South Democrats are mostly black people. There is an identity thing I think that is part of the whole thing.

@SmartAZ I’ll have to listen to it to hear it in context. I will check it out when i get back to my lap top or desk top.

I listened to it just now and I didn’t hear her say she’d leave Bill. I heard her say “I’m not sitting here like some little “Stand By My Man” like Tammy Wynette.” She then goes on to talk about his good points as a politician.

I suspected as much. I can’t imagine either her or Michelle meekly standing by their husbands when they f up. They’d let them hear about it!

@JLeslie There is a reason for the discrepancy in political party demographics, or at least why it is so wide and that is called The Southern Strategy. Pre-War of Northern Aggression the South was heavily Democratic and remained that way for many, many years. Texas was controlled by the Democrats until the, what?, late 1970’s and I believe it was around that time that the South started shifting.

@rojo The Southern Strategy took hold in 1968 when Nixon used it to take the South after the Voting Rights Act was passed.

And, the “War of Northern Aggression” is a Southern euphemism to deny that the South committed treason against the Union. After all, the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter to start the War.

@zenvelo correct on the Southern Strategy, while it had been ongoing to a degree that is when it was embraced wholeheartedly by the Republican party and when the solid Southern Democratic voting block began to crumble at an accelerated rate and was totally devastated by the rise of the Moral Majority as a power block in the Republican party that orchestrated the rise and election of Ronald Reagan.

On the other point, not so much. The only reason that it is not called by its proper name as shown above is that the victors got to name it. You forget that the war was caused because the Federal Government, controlled by Republicans, violated the 10th Amendment by refusing to allow the free market to operate in new territories. Also Sumner was only fired upon when Lincoln provoked a fight by choosing to re-provision it after the State of South Carolina had asked that the fort, one of two used by the North to terrorize and control the South and located on their property, be turned back over to the State.

I know all about the Southern strategy. I see it more as a Bible Belt strategy. I just got through lecturing a Southerner about how he probably was a Democrat also in the past, or for sure his right wing parents were, I don’t know why he bothers to criticize Trump and Bloomberg for it. Then I mention Hillary was a very active “young Republican” back in her youth.

It’s stupid when the Republicans try to sell that their party was the party of civil rights back in the day. Drives me crazy.

Edit: the religious right being proud they belong to the Republucan party citing what the part was like 50+ years ago is, and criticizing politicians for changing parties is the same as the right wingers telling me we should leave God in the pledge, because we shouldn’t change how it was originally written.

@rojo turned back over to the state? Sumter was Federal property erected at the expense of ALL the states.

NY Times Opinion pages from today: Dems would rather lose than compromise.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/26/opinion/campaign-stops/Hillary-Clinton-Convention-Day-2.html?list_item=hecklers-for-trump&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

@rojo that fort was constructed to defend the coastline of the United States. THAT was its function on the day it was fired upon. “Terrorize and control the South” is revisionist bullshit and you should know better. And I find it particularly interesting that you regard the conflict as a FREE market issue.

Defend the coastline from what? Kraken? That is bull, it was built solely to ensure federal control the harbor to the port and regulate who did and did not gain entry; something that was not constitutionally granted to the federal government and so should have been the responsibility of the State. The fort was a blatant slap in the face to the citizens and sovereignty of South Carolina

The conflict was not in itself a free market issue @stanleybmanly but the decision of whether or not to be a slave state was. Allow the market to determine whether or not new States are or are not slaveholding States, not the feds.

I want to be sure I understand you. Is it your contention that the coastal and harbor fortifications throughout the United States were designed and constructed to “terrorize and control” the regions in which they are erected? Do you actually believe that?

The idea that Fort Sumter was a base to terrorize slave holders is a new piece of nonsense revisionism I haven’t heard before.

All large harbors had forts to protect against raiders and invaders from the sea. The US Army coastal artillery was active until 1950.

Was Fort Sumter Hillary’s fault too?

Fort Sumter is in the harbor. It was designed to cover the distance between Fort Moultrie on Sullivan’s Island and the Charleston peninsula, where there is a battery of cannon. Those three defenses were designed to protect the Charleston harbor. It was a important port city at the time.

I’ve lived here in Charleston SC for a long time. I worked as a deck hand on the Fort Sumter tour boats. I’ve never heard anything close to what @rojo is spouting.

And yes Dutchess. Hillary was at the core of the plot to make Ft. Sumter a slave mother ship. Microchips were implanted in the slaves to make them more athletic so they could work harder. Then Hillary lost the dam controller. If not for her part in history we’d be living in golden houses and sipping champagne.

She’s the antichrist. Deny it if you must. When her wings come out after she wins and she flies around breathing fire, then you’re going to feel quite foolish for liking her.

Good. Just making sure it wasn’t Obama this time. Or Michelle. (Did y’all know she has the blood of the white slave owner of her ancestors? Like, her great great gramma or something.)

We’re all the blood of someone we’d rather not be. Some have ‘better’ ancestors than others.

Yep. I figure that ALL of us have a rape or 50 in our ancestry which led to us individually. We just don’t normally know this bit of trivia.

Something like that Dutchess .

It’s interesting. Many of us are the product of rape at one time.

That’s awful. I have 3 sisters. They have all been raped. I couldn’t help because I was too young at the time. Or not born. (They DON’T get raped anymore. )
You can’t choose your lineage any more than your skin color.

@MrGrimm888 That “war of Northern aggression” “noble cause” narrative was pretty much the common portrayal of the Civil War from our Southern States for the majority of my life. There are consequently a whole slew of myths about the South being brutally wronged, and they are for the most part absurd on their face. This one about fort Sumter for example should be right at the top as an example of what can happen to History when romantic sentiments are given priority over facts.

I pretty much agree @stanleybmanly. But the Ft. Sumter thing was something I haven’t heard before. Not much surprises me these days, but that was wild.

I’ve heard that Trump plans to make his final stand against Clinton’s dark forces at Fort Sumter.

My old neighbors have a buck skin mule named Hilary Clinton. I lived next door to Hilary for 8 years. She was loud, obnoxious, not to be trusted. She broke into my yard and ate my flowers and then lied about it. Never vote for a mule. lol