Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And if we are going on temperament, it was clear from Hitchen's writings that he believed Clinton could not be trusted. How could the guy actually vote for a candidate who he actually thought was corrupt to the core? I mean he made the "vast right wing conspiracy" against the Clintons seem tame by comparison. So he was just going to go back on all that he wrote about them just because Trump may be a fraud in his business ventures to Hitch?
Get real. Again, you don't know anything.
Yeah, sure. You are the one who wrote this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
I can guarantee you that Hitchens would have voted for Trump.
As I stated earlier in the thread, Hitchens might have held his nose and voted for Clinton or he might not have voted at all. But to say he would have for certain voted for Trump as you did is ludicrous.
Here is a Hitchens quote in 2009 illustrating his disdain for Palin and populism,
"But the problem with populism is not just that it stirs prejudice against the "big cities" where most Americans actually live, or against the academies where many of them would like to send their children. No, the difficulty with populism is that it exploits the very "people" to whose grievances it claims to give vent."
As I stated earlier in the thread, Hitchens might have held his nose and voted for Clinton or he might not have voted at all. But to say he would have for certain voted for Trump as you did is ludicrous.
Here is a Hitchens quote in 2009 illustrating his disdain for Palin and populism,
"But the problem with populism is not just that it stirs prejudice against the "big cities" where most Americans actually live, or against the academies where many of them would like to send their children. No, the difficulty with populism is that it exploits the very "people" to whose grievances it claims to give vent."
You keep inferring things about what hitch might have said about Trump in order to prove your theory about him "holding his nose" and voting for Clinton, but I'm actually telling you what he said and wrote about Clinton. You cannot even compare the two. This still considering what Hitch may have written about the leaked emails, the state dept emails, the Clinton Foundation and the wars in Libya and Syria.
He wouldn't have thrown that all away because of Trumps populism and business ventures. You clearly are downplaying what he wrote about Clinton. Why? Hitch voted for Bush over Kerry even while Bush was vilified for being a crypto fascist
You keep inferring things about what hitch might have said about Trump in order to prove your theory about him "holding his nose" and voting for Clinton, but I'm actually telling you what he said and wrote about Clinton. You cannot even compare the two. This still considering what Hitch may have written about the leaked emails, the state dept emails, the Clinton Foundation and the wars in Libya and Syria.
He wouldn't have thrown that all away because of Trumps populism and business ventures. You clearly are downplaying what he wrote about Clinton. Why? Hitch voted for Bush over Kerry even while Bush was vilified for being a crypto fascist
And you have "guaranteed" Hitchens would have voted for Trump in 2016!
If you had a clue you'd know that Trump represents everything that Hitchens detested.
Here is Hitchens in his OWN WORDS stating that he would under certain circumstances VOTE for Hillary in 2008:
So you are wrong to assert as you have that given his knowledge and outrage about the crimes and misdemeanors of the Clintons that somehow this would have prevented Hitchens from considering a vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
So you are wrong to assert as you have that given his knowledge and outrage about the crimes and misdemeanors of the Clintons that somehow this would have prevented Hitchens from considering a vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Everything Hitchens detested was also in the religious right of the Bush administration. So yes he even sided with an administration that was lambasted for being a religious right wing crypto-fascist cabal. I already brought this up in an earlier post where I said that he would draw the line on a candidate who wouldn't give up on the war on terror and leave the Middle East to Islamic terrorists. Clinton did not do that. She was part of the group arming the "moderate" rebels in Libya and Syria and the former fell into Jihadist hands and the Syrian regime is just now taking the country back from the radicals there too.
Again, you're seriously underplaying what he wrote about Clinton in the first place because you think he was all about exposing frauds and whatnot. Your grasping at straws here. You're haphazardly tying things together to infer that he would not have voted for Trump when I noted that he probably wouldn't have voted for Clinton based on the volumes of his writings against her and her husband.
And I still guarantee that despite your video post because Clinton would not have been the candidate to affirm the War on Terror. Hitchens was postulating that if Clinton were to affirm the war on terror in the manner he described that he would yes, under special circumstance, even vote for her. So what evidence from this past campaign or her time as Secretary of State can you gather that Hitch would have gotten that affirmation from her and that it would've trumped what ever Trump would've said about the same topic? Hitch would not have thought that she was best candidate against Islamism.
Again, your logic is flimsy. You clearly haven't read the bulk of his work and probably started liking him, like most people, when he began to debate Christians. Just give it up already.
He thinks the Clintons are bigger frauds. Hitchens didn't have much to say about Trump but wrote a whole book about how low he thought of the Clintons.
He voted for Bush as a one issue voter, he would've voted for Trump along the same logic.
He had nothing to say about Trump because Trump was insubstantial at the time. Not that he has much substance now.
He had nothing to say about Trump because Trump was insubstantial at the time. Not that he has much substance now.
So let's analyze this since you've failed to do so. At best Hitchens would've said, "Trump is a buffoon, a loathsome figure who is stoking populist flames due to the ills of rampant globalization. He is a nativist, a charlatan of the highest order who attaches his name to whatever odious business venture he manages to conjure up in that dark tower of his on 5th Ave. But I'd still vote for him over Clinton's horrible record on prosecuting the war on terror as Secretary of State, and her continued trail of corruption unraveled by WikiLeaks. The fact that she escaped prosecution from the FBI by summoning her rapist husband to do her bidding is not only loathsome but speaks volumes about how low DC will sink to protect this criminal family."
There I just put words into a dead man's mouth. It sounds more plausible than anything you guys have so far turned up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
