WWTBAM Bored

I like analogies. No analogy is perfect, however, I find Hitler vs Stalin to be remarkably similar to my position this election cycle.

Early on Hitler and Stalin were on the same side. They signed a pact. Clinton and Trump were on the same side.

Now they are fighting each other. I don't like either of them. In fact, I think both are evil and both must be defeated. But which one first? I can only fight (vote) and defeat them one at a time, fight the the first one while the second is also fighting the first one. Then once the first one is defeated focus my resources (my vote) on defeating the other.

Which one is Hitler and which one is Stalin? Which one must be defeated now and which one can wait? That is what I feel my decision is.

I am not explicitly or implicitly trying to match Clinton and Trump to either despot.

I think Cruz thinks similarly. While he wishes to defeat Hitler he cannot and will not endorse Stalin. (Assuming Cruz matches Clinton to Hitler..but you never know.)

Funny you should bring up Stalin....

Asked about Russia’s threatening activities, which have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing if those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.”

“If they fulfill their obligations to us,” he added, “the answer is yes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/po ... .html?_r=0

I'm sure his good buddy Putin is enjoying this. But this is probably a lesson Trump learned in business as a way to get recalcitrant tenants to pay the rent by refusing to make needed repairs to the buildings unless they did so.

Or Godzilla vs Smog Monster

Vandal wrote:Or Godzilla vs Smog Monster

I thought about that, but those two share too much physical resemblance to the candidates that it would appear I'm taking sides.

BackInTex wrote:I like analogies. No analogy is perfect, however, I find Hitler vs Stalin to be remarkably similar to my position this election cycle.

Early on Hitler and Stalin were on the same side. They signed a pact. Clinton and Trump were on the same side.

Now they are fighting each other. I don't like either of them. In fact, I think both are evil and both must be defeated. But which one first? I can only fight (vote) and defeat them one at a time, fight the the first one while the second is also fighting the first one. Then once the first one is defeated focus my resources (my vote) on defeating the other.

Which one is Hitler and which one is Stalin? Which one must be defeated now and which one can wait? That is what I feel my decision is.

I am not explicitly or implicitly trying to match Clinton and Trump to either despot.

I think Cruz thinks similarly. While he wishes to defeat Hitler he cannot and will not endorse Stalin. (Assuming Cruz matches Clinton to Hitler..but you never know.)

I honestly don't get the level of vitriol directed at Secretary Clinton, either now or throughout her career. I understand vigorous political disagreement. But if Senator Sanders had won the nomination, I don't think you'd be calling him "evil."

From where I sit, Secretary Clinton's flaws are fairly typical of politicians in general. She's certainly not perfect (leaving aside policy disagreements). But I see her as a mainstream politician who is demonstrably being held to a very different standard than pretty much anyone else.

Why do I say "demonstrably"? I've seen Secretary Clinton criticized for supposedly "enabling" her husband to cheat on her, while those very same people don't seem to care that Donald Trump admittedly cheated on at least one of his prior wives during the marriage. It's not fair to tar any candidate with her spouse's actions, particularly when giving the opposing candidate a "hall pass" on precisely that conduct.

And is there anyone who thinks that Donald Trump will be more careful with classified information than Secretary Clinton was? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:I honestly don't get the level of vitriol directed at Secretary Clinton, either now or throughout her career. I understand vigorous political disagreement. But if Senator Sanders had won the nomination, I don't think you'd be calling him "evil."

You are correct. He is inept and an idiot. But probably truly thinks he is right about things.

Bob78164 wrote:Why do I say "demonstrably"? I've seen Secretary Clinton criticized for supposedly "enabling" her husband to cheat on her, while those very same people don't seem to care that Donald Trump admittedly cheated on at least one of his prior wives during the marriage.

She has ignored, and denied, not only the allegations of affairs (one which was proven), but ignored and denied many allegations of sexual assault or the attempts. There are too many allegations, spanning across too long a time for some of it to not be credible. It is not a single "Anita Hill". It was a long line of women. And I for one, thinks she knows, but keeps denying it to then further his career, therefore furthering hers.

There are also too many allegations of inappropriateness of the Clinton foundation and other things she and Bill have been involved with. And then there is Benghazi.

Bob78164 wrote:It's not fair to tar any candidate with her spouse's actions, particularly when giving the opposing candidate a "hall pass" on precisely that conduct.

Speaking of "hall passes", see the above about sexual assault.

Bob78164 wrote:And is there anyone who thinks that Donald Trump will be more careful with classified information than Secretary Clinton was? --Bob

It would be hard not to.


Trump is not the only politician running for President that could walk into Times Square and shoot somebody and still have their supporters' full support.

Bob78164 wrote:And is there anyone who thinks that Donald Trump will be more careful with classified information than Secretary Clinton was?

My fucking dog would be more careful with classified information than Secretary Clinton was.

BackInTex wrote:
There are also too many allegations of inappropriateness of the Clinton foundation and other things she and Bill have been involved with. And then there is Benghazi.

And out of all the allegations over a quarter of a century, nothing.

That should tell you about the type of people who have been making these allegations for the last 25 years.

If "questionable" donations to a politician were a reason for disqualification, Bernie Sanders might be running unopposed in either party.