CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I agree that I wouldn't call Hillary principled, but I don't think she is malicious or criminal. She is a normal, overly pragmatic politician.
I think she gets it worse than others because there has been a concerted effort by republicans to smear her reputation and it has worked. If you heard that any politician had been investigated 7 times by congress in connection to the death of Americans abroad, you would begin to have a suspicious feeling towards that person regardless of the findings.
We also have to remember that there are certain stereotypes about women that could be affecting the way we evaluate her record. When Trump takes six different positions on an issue in a week or deceitfully denies his own statements or actions people like to say that he is just learning or just trying to gain attention. When Hillary changes a position or denies her statements we call to "lock her up". I think that her being a woman has a lot to do with the perception of her being a liar while Trump gets away with almost everything. I very well could be wrong on this though.
Finally, she is a very mediocre speaker. Holy cow. Of all the major speakers at the DNC only her daughter was worse (she looked like she was speaking at gunpoint lol). She has very little charisma to get people to give her the benefit of the doubt.
The response has certainly been disproportionate and probably prejudiced, but I think in your eagerness to identify that you have neglected that there are certainly valid objections and concerns surrounding her. For instance, not only is she a pragmatic politician but her pragmatics have repeatedly led her to throw marginalized people under the bus for personal gain until supporting them became feasible through the political work of others.
I never said that it was different, and I don't think that it is (at least on the federal scale). I am contesting the notion that she is somehow different, because she isn't and that's a valid observation no matter how much smearing she's gotten.
I don't think she is different, I think she is very representative of the norm in D.C., and it is valid to observe the negatives implied there.
But I also think it's valid to note that the amount of criticism she receives due to those characteristics is disproportionate to the amount others with the same characteristics (and in similar positions) receive.
Pretty much this, although I don't know if I would call Trump worse. They're both different brands of terrible.
Probably won't be voting this election cycle. The two primary candidates are both shit, and of the third parties, the only people relevant are Jill Stein (who's nuclear energy stance is a major turnoff), and Gary Johnson, and I really don't think much of him anymore. And that's not even considering neither of them have any chance, regardless.
What you are saying is subjective opinion, not objective fact. She is not perfect, but she is a lot better than Trump who supports torture. I was tortured, so I cannot support someone who supports torture. Trump is also antichoice.
As Secretary of state she completely ignored all recommendations for making sure government secrets stayed secret and was caught. Then she completely lied about everything involved with the investigation. She will screw something up in office and have to lie just like her husband. How many times will she have to cover stuff up before it is proven that she is bad?
I don't think she is a great candidate but I do think she will be one of our most effective presidents. It's been a while since we have had a president with so much political capital going into the White House. If she has the vision, she could accomplish some big things.
Paid family leave, universal pre-k, and debt-free college would be a huge deal for our deadlocked country. Of course, even bigger deals would involve campaign finance reform (if you think that will solve anything), a new Glass-Steagall, and tax reform. Those last ones are less likely if you believe everything you hear from BernieBros but I am 65% sure she will at least a make an attempt to solve those problem though we are likely to see huge compromises.
She just needs a more democratic congress and everyone will be surprised what she accomplishes. But I could be just drinking the kool-aid from the convention.
Straying far from the status quo is almost always a dangerous misstep in politics. Clinton plays her politics safe, and goes with the flow rather than leading it. What change does happen will happen because others are pushing it forward, and will not be especially great in order of magnitude either.
Politics is generally a crock of kool-aid, especially on the federal level. Very little changed under Obama, and very little will change under Clinton. The real change happens at the state level, and that is also where people's votes and other political engagement have tangible effects. Yet state and local elections are routinely given less attention than federal elections, under the auspices that the latter will actually do something significant for the people.
I think you discount the power of federal government too much. The federal government is responsible for the expansion of state surveliance of American citizens. The federal government signs trade deals, goes to war, runs the drone program, deports illegal immigrants, determines Supreme Court justices, regulates banks, and tortures our enemies.
Imagine if John McCain had won instead of Obama, we would definitely have sent ground troops into Syria, possibly Lybia, we wouldn't have legalized same sex marriage in all 50 states thanks to Obama's appointments, and God knows what would have happened with Iran.
You could also take the example of Bill Clinton, NAFTA and his crime legislation have had very significant effects. The US now has the highest incarceration rate in the world. While NAFTA has made goods cheaper and high skilled workers more productive, it has contributed not insignificantly to the structural changes in our economy that have left many people, who used to be considered middle class, without good paying work.
Some policy can only be addressed at the federal level. So before anyone thinks of giving up in exasperation with federal politics they should consider that fact. In your defense, I agree that if democrats voted in non-presidential year elections and consequentially we had more democratic governors, this would be a very different country.
Read my remark more closely. My critique is about the power of the electorate, and that is greater at the state and local levels. I never said that the federal government had no power.
You need to acknowledge that, and quit attempting to make it sound any different. Apply the same tests for objectivity on your own posts as you do to others.
YES! I'm following the fast growing list of high ranking Republicans that are throwing "party" to the side and voting for HER! Anyone who votes for "Putin's Puppet" should look around and see what they will be throwing away .... like the "Free World"!
It's nice to see that SOME Republicans still put America first. Hopefully, they'll begin to realize that the MSM is exactly that, the media OF the "main stream" of Americans, the majority of "WE, THE PEOPLE"!
You do know the difference between an indictment and an investigation, right? An investigation is just that, an investigation into whether someone has done something criminal. Would you mind telling me what criminal activity the FBI, which is led by a Republican, found Hillary guilty of? That's right. They didn't find convincing evidence that she did anything criminal. Take off your tinfoil hat and join reality.
He wasn't ever under FBI investigation, he only let 9/11 happen, protected the Saudis after we found out they took part 9/11, started a pointless and ultimately self destructive war in Iraq, started a torture program, crashed the economy and exploded the deficit and the debt. What is your point?
Well this is the United States of America. In this country we elect a President every four years. Now, it just so happens that in 2012 we had one of those elections and Obama won. Thats why the investigation happened under the Obama DOJ. We elected him president almost 4 years ago.
Is this a trick question? No way! Hillary is like I Love Lucy, with malicious intent. She's always doing something she shouldn't be doing, not doing things she should be doing, lies and covers up everything and then expects you to believe her- every time! We don't need that in the WH.
Playing the sexist card does not sexism make just like a race baiter race baiting does not racism make. Put the cards away, it's the tired, same ole, same ole.
If someone says something sexist, and someone else points out it's sexist, that's not really name calling, it's observing.
It's also not "attacking the messenger", it is blatantly attacking the message. Go back and read the initial response: They said it was a misogynist comment. That is, by definition, attacking the message.
This is a common problem with the right. When people say something like "What you said was racist" or "What you said was sexist", they aren't saying "You are, on a fundamental level, a racist/sexist". They are saying that what you said at a given time was offensive for [blank] reason. You should learn to differentiate between them, as it is currently one of the right's largest problems regarding facing the very real public relations issues they have with women and racial minorities.
"[...] with malicious intent. She's always doing something she shouldn't be doing, not doing things she should be doing, lies and covers up everything and then expects you to believe her- every time! We don't need that in the WH.