Main Reason NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY

I have given this a lot of thought lately but the main reason not to vote for Hillary is because we are a Democracy not a Monarchy. The Founding Fathers hated the British Monarchy and there abuse of Power.

The whole point of a Democracy is to elect DIFFERENT PEOPLE. In a Democracy people are held accountable for there abuses of power or corruption. And for the MOST part this is true in America. If Politicians abuse there power there will be an investigation and if found guilty will be removed.
However this only applies to LOWER POLITICIANS and 1 case of the Presidency.

I studied Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement in College and have my Associates degree in this field closely follows Politics. Most of the classes my Professors stated that this class is not Politically Correct and were open minded in discussing these things.
When I heard the FBI director's speech I was dumbfounded as to how she was able to get away with no charges being RECOMMENDED as she was labeled "Extremely Careless" in handling National Security and that she had no "intent". I can assure you with my studies in this field EVERYONE else if found guilty like that would have been charged immediately and bail set by a judge end of story.
This just goes to show you that we are moving towards a Monarchy. In the old days Monarchs WERE ABOVE THE LAW.  
Even with obvious abuses of Power. If Hillary gets elected she will be America's 1st "Queen", and Bill Clinton America's 1st "King". 

The 1st four years I look at it like being a normal Presidency.
Now if the President wins again you mind as well call him "King" instead of "Mr. President". Bill Clinton was a 2 term President. And Hillary is now trying to become Queen. I was never a fan of Bernie Sanders but he has never held the title of "Mr. President".

But Hillary has held the title of "First Lady". The Founding Fathers did not want Elitism in this country. If Hillary gets elected you will have 2 sitting Presidents at the White House which will be a Conflict of interest. Whos calling the shots? Bill or Hillary? No matter how radical a person's ideas are if they have enough support of the People then by all means they should have the nomination.

It was also pretty obvious that Obama told Bernie to stand down as he already choose Hillary as his successor. In my personal Opinion Bernie was a Puppet candidate designed by the Democrats to make it look like she had any real competition. If you guys remember there were 2 others at the beginning who dropped out within a MONTH of each other.
I mean if he really wanted to become President he would have went after her Achilles heel the email scandal. But he didnt and thats why he lost. It was a obvious weakness and he didn't exploit it.
I personally believe if he grilled her as hard on the email scandal as the Republicans did he WOULD HAVE WON.

Hillary claims that the Email Scandal is just some Right Wing Conspiracy but Bernie had enough support where his claims would have been viewed as Legitimate and not some far Right Wing Conspiracy as Bernie had enough support to claim the nomination.  

a reply to: Stevemagegod

yessir I agree! My man Trump got this!

a reply to: Stevemagegod

Ok. Using your very same logic. It would appear that the Republican party is more guilty.

Bush Sr. - Vice President and President - Continued length of reign: 1981-1993
Bush Jr. - 2 term - 2001-2009

Where's the outrage for that? Oh yeah. None.

If you were truly concerned about such a "Monarchy" you would have called the 2 above gentleman out. But since you didn't, it is obvious that this is yet another one-sided dog and pony show that has polluted ATS recently by those on the right.

A tip - if you want to "awaken" the people, start using facts. Not aimed solely at you, BTW. All these people that spend their lives posting pure B.S. (that henhouse guy, for one) - do nothing for their cause. Except perhaps provide much needed laughter for the majority. Sadly, hate has made most on the right not care if facts are involved. Nine times out of ten, they are not - and said claims become gospel to these folks.. This has been shown time and time again.

Anyway.. Carry on.

***This post has been brought to you be the council of rational thinkers of America. A subsidy of denying ignorance Inc.***

a reply to: Stevemagegod

Even with dynasties, of which the US has already had it still isn't anything like royalty.

3 terms maximum in one period of time isn't it? Then you have a few ways to remove a president from office, including the democratic voting system. In no way is being president of the USA a monarchy, presidency in no way is owed, inherited or otherwise bargained with other than by democratic vote or extreme circumstances where as the elected president cannot stand in office.

Even then if by some far off comparison you could compare the leader of the USA to British monarchy, a fact remains on our own laws on which a monarch would be accountable for... The Magna Carter was the bedrock of this. Point being, even those pesky monarchs were made to be accountable.

As for Hillary Clinton committing illegal acts, I don't know maybe she did. The US still has an effective law system right? surely if anything was good enough to stick the bi-partisan nature of your politics would be like Gorilla Glue all over that sticky turd.

Heck, what do I know... We could have King Bush III in the next 25 years when the UK becomes the next 4 states

a reply to: justme2

***This post has been brought to you be the council of rational thinkers of America. A subsidy of denying ignorance Inc.***

I hope those subsidies are cost effective, we are still at the back-end of a recession after all!

a reply to: Stevemagegod

High level members of every administration are above the law. That's the power you're voting to give them when you vote for them. It may not seem fair but it's a necessity for government to function. Otherwise politics would devolve into prosecuting previous administrations. For that reason we have something of an understanding in place in government that we won't actually charge people with crimes for things they did as an elected official.

a reply to: Aazadan

I don't know a great deal about US law but I've always had the simplistic view that only a select view can have the law restricted in terms of a person, I always guessed it was similar to the UK too. Legal proceedings against soldiers for instance on crimes committed during the act of war or the legality of prosecuting a diplomat and of course the most obvious one being national security.

If your congressmen and other elected officials are seen to be held in regard as higher than the law or "untouchable" by means of laws set out for every American, then you need to ask yourself who the hell are you being governed by.

American citizens?

No, they are not untouchable. If they are then maybe the US needs to totally rethink how it is governed and the transparency of said governing. Saying if it was any other way it would create an idealism of witch hunting the past administrations is a cop out. I mean you have to start somewhere right?

Keep dreaming. I am all in for Hillary. Trump is scary as heck, whereas Hillary is experienced, knowlegeable, competent, mentally stable and has been working to improve peoples lives her entire career. I am not making a choice for the lesser of two evils, I think Hillary is wonderful and will make an excellent president. Can't wait for the debate tomorrow.

a reply to: Stevemagegod

Hillary is going to raise taxes.

Don't vote for her based on that.

a reply to: RAY1990

Untouchable may be the wrong word. An elected official is not personally responsible for the actions of their office. If Obama went out and shot an American citizen, he could be prosecuted for attempted murder because he chose to do it. If his office on the other hand chooses to drone strike an American citizen, it's an action of his office and you correct it by suing the government.

What this ultimately means is that as Secretary of State, if Hillary leaks classified information it's a matter of the office holder choosing to do that and you could sue her office (but since that office holder has changed, your lawsuit is basically DOA). If she however took some information and sold it to the Russians for personal gain she would be guilty of a crime.

The "crimes' she has committed were actions of her office, not personal actions of hers even if she made the decision to carry something out.

Voting only entertains your delusions that the US is a democracy. If Trump and Hillary belong to the same camp that will continue privatising the entire public sector, de-unionise the labour force, and empowering banks then US is a a fascist society. Send a message that you sick of their shenanigans, don't vote at all.

originally posted by: justme2
a reply to: Stevemagegod

Ok. Using your very same logic. It would appear that the Republican party is more guilty.

Bush Sr. - Vice President and President - Continued length of reign: 1981-1993
Bush Jr. - 2 term - 2001-2009

Where's the outrage for that? Oh yeah. None.

If you were truly concerned about such a "Monarchy" you would have called the 2 above gentleman out. But since you didn't, it is obvious that this is yet another one-sided dog and pony show that has polluted ATS recently by those on the right.

A tip - if you want to "awaken" the people, start using facts. Not aimed solely at you, BTW. All these people that spend their lives posting pure B.S. (that henhouse guy, for one) - do nothing for their cause. Except perhaps provide much needed laughter for the majority. Sadly, hate has made most on the right not care if facts are involved. Nine times out of ten, they are not - and said claims become gospel to these folks.. This has been shown time and time again.

Anyway.. Carry on.

***This post has been brought to you be the council of rational thinkers of America. A subsidy of denying ignorance Inc.***

Actually I did think about the above 2 just forgot to mention them in my post. The big difference between the Bushes and Clintons in my Monarchy argument is that Bush Sr. was not living in the White House at the same time.(I may need to double check that). You can call your dad and ask for advice but as long as they aren't living in the white house therefore there is no conflict of interest. Not to mention Prince Jeb lost to Donald J Trump in the primaries. And everyone knows that the Elite hate Trump, just as much as they hate Bernie. So the fact that Trump beat a "Heavyweight" like Jeb with 2 former Presidents supporting him tells me that the GOP is fair and Balanced. Unlike the Democrats who after certain emails were released the person in charge gets fired but then magically goes to work for Hillary.

Note: I also call the Bushs the "Other Royal Family".

a reply to: Aazadan

Reminds me of the power of corporations, culpability can be an awful thing to work out when applying it to groups and/or organisations.

I always like that Adam Smith quote

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

I've probably said this for a long time now, the world needs a newer and more ideal way of looking at things and it would work best if the world sang to a similar or the same choon. Yes, a new world order. An order of law.

Whether it's culpability within politics or economics, I think most rational minded people can agree that at the very least immoral acts are actively being perpetrated. As pessimistic as things are right now, the world is generally waking up to the idea incarceration isn't the clear answer to criminality. The world is waking up and seeing things for what they are, diseases of the mind.

We still jump on the band-wagons though, we wilfully help sacrifice the odd lamb so the flock can carry on grazing and never treat the disease. It can be paedophile scandals or email scandals, it really doesn't matter. The disease still exists and we never address the actual cause.

originally posted by: Stevemagegod
The whole point of a Democracy is to elect DIFFERENT PEOPLE. In a Democracy people are held accountable for there abuses of power or corruption.

But the USA is not a democracy. Franklin hated democracy, and was openly critical of it.

The US legal system is pay-to-play, if you have enough resources, like Hillary, even murder and treason are allowed. The rules are only enforced on the peasants, same as it ever was.

Personally, I don't need anymore reasons but I will add this one to the list.
Thanks!