Libertarian Paumanok wrote:Strange that none of you are mentioning Hillary's corruption.
Source please? Twenty years of Republican & media scandalmongering haven't turned up anything prosecuteable yet. And they've tried....how they've tried. They've done everything but dig into her trashcans. And what have they come up with? Improper storage of emails - which, incidentally, her Republican predecessor advised her in writing on the logistics of how to do it.
If it's about the Clinton Foundation, please be very careful and check your facts very thoroughly - I've learned a lot about the Foundation and how/where it works, most of it through my own digging because the mainstream media can't be arsed to actually present nuance.
or her terrible health.
Meet the doctor behind the myth of Clinton frailty - Dr. Jane Orient. Dr. Orient heads the AAPS, which is generally considered an ultra-conservative "medical group" that's more about politics than medicine. Among other explicitly political stances, the AAPS:
- Considers Medicare and Medicaid intrinsically evil, and requires its members to sign an oath stating that they will never work with either program;
- Are anti-vaxxers to a significant degree, opposing compulsory vaccination for public-school students as well as publishing debunked "articles" in their journal linking vaccines to various maladies;
- Considers abortion to be linked to breast-cancer (a zombie lie which has been debunked many times, in many ways, yet still continues trying to shuffle its way into respectable circles);
- Retains Andrew Schlafy (yes, that Andrew Schlafly) as its general counsel; and
- Claimed in 2008 that then-Senator Obama used neuro-linguistic programming to mind-control attendees at his rallies.
Frankly, I'll take their "diagnosis" (which itself is specious - no specialist would ever diagnose by remote-viewing a few minutes of a prospective patient's public actions. It's just too random and too superficial.) with an immense grain of salt. The fact that Hillary Clinton came out of an eleven-hour-straight hearing at the
Of the two, I'm more willing to believe that Clinton is medically fit for the grueling duties of the Presidency than Trump is. Much more willing - and that's leaving aside entirely the high probability that Trump is a low-functioning sociopath.
Donald may not be perfect, but at leas he's not controlled by the big banks and special interest groups.
No, he's just got Putin pulling his strings, via the fact that he's so wrecked his credit in the US that US banks won't lend to him anymore. He's in hock to various Russian oligarchs to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't know about you, but I don't see why any American would be comfortable with the idea that their leader's strings are being pulled by foreign bankers.
Incidentally, what makes you say that Clinton is "controlled by the big banks"? Like it or hate it, her financial-regulatory policy proposals do seem to be quite tough on the large banks.
Hillary also has no respect for free speech. she vowed to go after Breitbart for criticizing her
1. Source pl0x. All I found on Google were right-wing op-eds hyperventilating about "an email" (without ever producing the email) which made the claim.
2. Trump has explicitly stated that he plans to have the libel laws amended so that he can sue any news organization out of existence for criticizing him - not for maliciously attacking him, but for criticizing him. How does that gel with "free speech"?
Libertarian Paumanok wrote:Many have denied Hillary's disrespect for the first ammendment, however it is well documented.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08 ... tbart-com/
http://wearechange.org/no-right-to-exis ... poses-her/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/hilla ... n-website/
https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comme ... ive_media/
Now I am fully aware that many of the more leftist nations here are not exactly diehard fans of Breitbart, but before you guys drop me into Hillary's basket of deplorable and label me a bitter clinger, I'd like to remind you all that free speech is designed to protect unpopular speech. [snips] I don't care if you are a liberal or a conservative, or whatever.
I admire and share your sentiment - but you've linked to three right-wing blogs (all of which have a poor track record on accuracy) and a Reddit thread.
The fundraising email that they cited (one of which was at least good enough to actually reproduce so I could read it) didn't say what they said it did, it didn't "vow to go after Breitbart" and it didn't express any legislative preference. All it stated was that they have to be "beaten so decisively that they never rise again". Given the malicious race-baiting that is the main course at Breitbart, I also want them to be beaten so decisively this election that they slink back under the rocks from which they've crawled out.
But that's not a First Amendment issue - that's an expression of political desire to see a repugnant opponent beaten so heavily at the ballot box that their ideas lose credibility as "mainstream" ideas. You, and they, are taking a fairly innocuous (if very emphatic) fundraising email and turning it into an attack on the First Amendment, I suspect by viewing it through the Clinton Lenses. I'm willing to ascribe it to an honest mistake on your part, but not on theirs. It's malicious misinterpretation of what was actually said, otherwise called "twisting their words".
Incidentally, stating that you believe that the First Amendment applies equally to everyone doesn't make you "bitter", "deplorable" or anything else nasty. You simply mis-identified this issue. When she said that, Clinton explicitly indicated that she was referring to the alt-right - the people who believe, many of them explicitly, that the Constitution cannot or should not afford its rights equally to all Americans. They are "deplorable" - and more to the point, they're hostile to the concept of liberal democracy. You're not one of those; you and I simply disagree on how best liberal democracy can be preserved and improved.
