For Those Deciding Hillary Lets not Forget What Hillary Stands for...

Hillary Clinton as a senator has being a long anti-video game advocate. Whatever its BF, sims or shooters she was agaisnt the video games industry.

Here's a memory refresh.

Hillary Clinton's Old War on Video Games Resurfaces With This Video

“Hillary Clinton says ‘violent’ video games proven to cause violence in people. Demands they be regulated like alcohol and tobacco.”

“But we have 40 years of research to tell us that violent media is bad for our children,” Clinton continues. “According to the most comprehensive, statistical analysis yet conducted, video games increase aggressive behavior as much as lead exposure decreases children’s IQ scores.”

Clinton’s Long Shadow

Since the earthquake, a long over casting doubt has being placed among the people in Haiti over the reconstruction that never took place. And rebuilding in Haiti is still happening.

Tough Questions About Haiti for Hillary Clinton

Hillary is more and more sounding like Angela Merkel Chancellor of Germany when it comes to defining radical Islamic terrorists. In 2015.

"Hillary Clinton explained on Sunday that she won't use the term "radical Islam" because it "sounds like we are declaring war against a religion."

"It doesn't do justice to the vast number of Muslims in our country and around the world who are peaceful people," Clinton said in an appearance on ABC's "This Week."

Do we need another Angela Merkel?

Do you have any evidence she still holds on to that war on violent video game policies?

Because I havent seen anything that would convince me she still holds on to it. We all know how much Hillary Clinton likes to flip flop on her positions, and how frequently she changes her stance. She went from being pro-TPP, to anti-TPP back to pro-TPP.

"Do you have any evidence she still holds on to that war on violent video game policies?"

Her stance on video games have not changed since 2000s and mid 90s, the reason she hasn't discussed the topic on video games yet is because no major discussions have being held about video games as of yet but you can be sure. Once the news media will be talking about it Hillary will get onto it.

Even as far blaming the violent shootings on the video games.

I am shocked at how Hillary supporters completely forgotten the scanadl of Haiti.

So your argument is a decade old speech. A decade is a long time you know. Long enough to completely shift any policies one might have. Especially for someone like Hillary who today, would not see campaigning against video games to be a particulary wise move as she tries to appeal to millenials. Sorry, but I dont see any reason why Hillary Clinton would try to regulate violent video games today.

And while I am at it, I am not a Hillary Supporter. But she is greatly preferable to Donald Trump.

No one is going to claim Hillary is perfect but you do realize we have to compare her to Trump right?

The best argument for voting for Hillary is Donald Trump.

@CommandoAgent: Do you happen to know what Trumps stance on video games is?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/280812064539283457

@mark1974: Its amazing then with how bad Trump is that Hillary makes him look like a gift from the gods.

I don't care about her video game stances, that stuff is trivial. The reason Hillary Clinton should not win is because she is the most corrupt politician that has ever sought the presidency. If voters give her the nod then it's open season, a clear message will be sent to everyone in Washington that they are allowed to do absolutely anything they want and we will never care.

@Wickerman777: What makes Hillary Clinton a corrupt politician?

A candidate's stance on video games, pro or con, is at the VERY bottom of my list of important stances. If elected, I'm sure that video games is on the very bottom of her "to-do" list as well.

Video games being a reason to vote for someone....are you out of your damned mind?

So your argument that Trump is so bad is based upon what? Democrat Fear Mongering? so you and a few users here are willing to vote for a.

1.corrupt politician.

2.Wall street candidate.

3.War hawk. And whose being supported by the Saudis.

@Wickerman777:

How is she the most corrupt politician ever? Are you insane, or just too young to know about things?

We have the information age now people, everything is MAGNIFIED and bumped out of proportion. Previous presidents other than Obama (who is squeaky clean) haven't had to deal with this level of technology, and some of our greatest presidents were no doubt corrupt as hell.

Do you have any evidence she no longer believes that violent video games contribute to real world violence?

Yeah, that is scary! lol

@bmanva:

I don't think video games are high on her priority list, she cares about children and reducing violence, so, ok, she may have gone slightly overboard, but I doubt that will amount to anything when she's dealing with Isis, Russia, and China.

I don't vote based on gaming.

Woodrow Wilson would get my vote as worst President, he help create the Federal Reserve! If you look a most of Americas economic problems, they all can be linked to it.

@CommandoAgent: 1)Again, how is she corrupt? By the way, Trump has bragged about being corrupt.

2) How does speaking at Goldman Sachs make her a 'Wall Street' candidate? The same companies who paid her for her speech (which is common for a lot of out of work politicians) also fund the American Crossroads Super PAC, a Super PAC that backs Trump.

3) Trump has already announced plans to commit war crimes and bring back torture. He's been endorsed by Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un.

It will be high on her list next time a gamer goes crazy and go on a massacre. It's not so much as it's about children and reducing violence (there are no definitive evidence that suggest a causative relationship between violent games and real world violence) as it is about her creating an appearance of "doing something" regardless of whether that action produce any tangible result.

No I dont.

But the thing is, going by something she said 11 years ago and using that as ammunition against her TODAY or to assume those will be her policies today is completely asinine.

Especially a flip floper like Hillary

• She has changed her stance on Same Sex marriage, changed her mind in 2013.
• She voted for the Iraq war, defends it for a long time and only in 2014 admits it was wrong.
• HShe attacked Obama for not fully supporting universal coverage. Eventually she buckled down and supported Obama care instead. Later on in 2016 she seemingly backtracked a bit.
• She cosponsored a bill funding stricter sentencing back in 2001. She later admitted her error. And after the Ferguson crisis, she changed her stance even furhter.
• She supported TPP up until 2015 as secretary of state. Then she opposed it. Up until recently when she supported on it again. Same goes with the Keystone pipeline, which she opposed until 2015.
• She supported the cuban embargo up until 2008, until she gradually started to oppose it and support a lift of it.
• She supported no child left behind, then flipped on it. She bashed bernie sanders for some of his policies, and now adopted some of them into her platform.

Considering how often she changes positions, I would argue it is safe to say that her position on violent video games is now unclear. Until we hear any new statements from her.

If she still actively spoke against violent video games. You might have had a point. But if your best argument is a 11 year old speech. Then you have nothing.

Argument from 11 years ago is still relevant since you can't provide ANY contradicting evidence at all. So you tell me who's the one with no substance in this debate.

I don't understand - why is any of this a bad thing? Don't we WANT politicians to change their opinions so they're more in line with the electorate and present day views? I would be against Clinton if she was an inflexible ideologue like Ted Cruz, and that would deserve derision not this. Clinton's "flip flopping" gets talked about way too much when just about every politician does it. Those examples you listed are pretty tame anyway. You're drinking up and repeating the Republican-made propaganda kool-aid and don't even realize, smh.

The Federal Reserve helped save the Great Recession from becoming a depression. From which esteemed university did you earn your economics degree?

@Aljosa23:

Well said! clap clap

Yeah, seriously.

I'm not a childish moron. Even if these old politicians harbored ill will towards my hobby, none of them have the power to actually make any changes at this point. And even if they could, I still consider their policies on everything else to be far more important.

Well, if you need a degree to figure out that the Federal Reserve works against the best interest of the average American, I guess that says a lot about your economic expertise analysis. You say that it helped out with the recession, well some economist believe it was responsible for it. The Federal Reserve is a perpetual debt machine, the more money it creates, the more debt the American people are enslaved by it.

If Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and JFK had issues with a private banking system and they all fought against it in one way or another, I think you need to dust off those history books and hear what the real experts have to say about the subject.

I am not saying it is a bad thing.

All I am arguing for is that is that she changes positions so often, so that using a 11 year old speech against her (when she has done nothing to reinforce that view later on, despite having a lot of opportunities to) is completely idiotic. And yes, she adapts to new evidence and a changing moral and political landscape, that is great. I am defending Hillary Clinton, not attacking her.

Ted Cruz is cancer. Somehow he is even worse than Donald Trump.

Haven't Americans learnt anything from Brexit? This shit is Brexit all over again. A big reason why Brexit got so many votes is because Brits hated David Cameron and wanted to give him a big "F U" with a "protest vote"... that has led to the UK economy sinking down the toilet.

The brand of far-right, anti-immigration, isolationist polices promoted by the likes of Trump and Brexit are extremely damaging to any modern economy. It doesn't matter how shit you think the status quo is, or how much you hate David Cameron or Hillary Clinton... the alternative is far, far worse.

No it isnt.

The fact that she hasnt since reinforced this view, may very well imply that she has changed her mind. If she was still reinforcing that view, she would probably have blamed video games alongside the masses during the Connecticut shooting.

Of course, I am not saying she now believes that violent video games do not cause people to be violent. What I am arguing for is that using a 11 year old video is absolutely asinine and is nothing more than grasping for straws. She definately used to believe it, but now she has moved on to other targets, namely current gun laws. Her stance on violent video games is uncertain.

This is the case not only with hillary but anyone else. I will not make assumptions on policies that Trump or Ted Cruz stands for, based on things they said over 5 years ago. They have to have reaffirm them or contradict them. Until then, their stances are uncertain.

The irony here is...

...And this was in 2012, not in the '90s (when Hillary made her statements on video games).

...Not to mention the facts that Donald Trump is a known racist (with a history of discrimination and fear-mongering against Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Arabs, and Japanese) and an alleged rapist (with a history of alleged rapes against women).

Rekt

If you are going to use it against one, you got to use it against the other. And Donald Trump's tweet is a hell lot more recent than Hillary Clinton's speech.

DORAL, Fla. — Donald J. Trump said Wednesday that he hoped Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, essentially encouraging an adversarial foreign power to cyberspy on a secretary of state’s correspondence.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, staring directly into the cameras during a news conference. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Mr. Trump’s call was an extraordinary moment at a time when Russia is being accused of meddling in the United States’ presidential election. His comments came amid questions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers, which American intelligence agencies have told the White House they have “high confidence” was the work of the Russian government.

Trump has today advocated a foreign nation commit espionage on a fellow American. I don't care how a person feels about her politically. Advocating Russia get involved in any way so as to benefit his own campaign is a treasonous act.

At a town hall in 2008, Sen McCain politely interrupted a woman who had taken the mic and called then Sen. Obama "an Arab", by taking the mic from her and saying "No maam, no. We differ on policy but he is an American and a good family man." McCain understood that running against his opponent did not justify slander because he is a fellow American. Trump today has advocated Russia engage in espionage on a fellow American. There is no defense for this.

With the TC's logic... thread over.

Yup, its been posted. There is no defending this or what Trump said today.

They kind of already are, M rating, T for Teen, etc.

Hilary will go wherever the wind blows her. Trump will try to eliminate the wind because it did not blow solely on him. I think that is an important difference, especially with him straight up telling Russia to continue hacking the US.

As if John Oliver showing that DVD extra from "The Apprentice" couldn't be anymore haunting.

Putting aside the problems with the argument, I'm just baffled that the deciding factor for your presidential pick is their stance on video games.

Bolded: I'm honestly stunned that he said this. I mean holy shit.

@nintendoboy16: You should check out this article from Glenn Beck. He's someone I typically disagree with a lot but this article point out some scary red flags. I was surprised that this was coming from a right winger.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/07/22/please-proceed-with-caution-you-dont-always-get-what-you-want-or-need/

Violence in the media actually can influence some people. Not that I'd advocate anything other than the current rating system and that parents need to be involved in their children's life.....but that isn't a false statement TC.