View Full Version : I'm Switching to the Sanders Camp
IMPress Polly
06-18-2015, 05:56 AM
As many of you know, I've sort of leaned in this and that direction vis-a-vis the 2016 presidential election for a while, but I have now officially made up my mind as to whom I will back: Drum roll please...ta daaaaaaaa! Bernie Sanders!
Probably not what you were expecting, I suppose, given my general support for Hillary Clinton of late. Well there's a reason why I've decided to go with Sanders instead. You may recall from my past discussions of their similarities and differences that, from what I could see, the two candidates largely agreed on the issues in principle, but simply differed in degrees with one crucial policy area exception: trade policy. On that they appeared to fundamentally disagree and, being an internationalist, I preferred what I thought was Hillary Clinton's more internationalist approach to trade policy over Sanders' relative isolationism. Now that Hillary Clinton has come out opposed to fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership herself though, I can no longer see any broad area of fundamental disagreement between the two candidates, which leaves me to decipher a preference based on degrees...and that's a contest Sanders wins by a mile because I very strongly prefer the policy ideas he's advancing vis-a-vis domestic economics and that's going to be the single most important policy area for me in this election cycle. Without any areas of fundamental disagreement between the two, I'm definitely going to have to go with Sanders. Sorry Hillary! I don't at all hate you and if you win the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for you for sure in the general election, but, you know, primaries are for principles! Sanders' politics are (broadly) where my heart is.
That said, Hillary Clinton still has her particular strengths. Namely, she's I think the strongest candidate (which for me means the most egalitarian candidate) on cultural issues like equal pay for women, paid family leave, de-militarizing the police, immigrant rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, etc. She's not only staked out some pretty principled positions on those sorts of things, but has specifically led other candidates on them. I think that's an area where she's the strongest candidate and as much may well prove decisive when it comes to winning the Democratic nomination, as I've pointed out before (e.g. Sanders' comparative difficulty so far in attracting a diverse audience for his message, which is a result of not generally discussing or prioritizing these issues despite taking rather principled positions on them himself. That remains a real weakness that Sanders needs to correct, IMO.). Lincoln Chafee also has his particular area of strength, which is foreign policy in general, both in terms of diplomatic relations (he's running on a pacifist platform that calls for reconciliation with countries like Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.) and in terms of trade policy (he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership). The problem I have with Chafee is...you know, everything else, on which he, unsurprisingly as a former Republican, takes up very weak and unprincipled stances. He's also made it clear that he'll be the negative campaigner in the bunch who relies substantially on personal rather than ideological attacks against his Democratic opponents and I don't really respect that. Now Martin O'Malley, by contrast, is a candidate with no area of particular strength, which begs the question of why he's running (I think it's called his ego) and makes him the least interesting of the Democratic candidates in my eyes.
Listing the Democratic candidates in order of my personal preference looks like this:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Lincoln Chafee
4. Martin O'Malley
5. Jim Webb (who says he'll announce "soon") <-- Sorry, not voting for any DLC-styled centrist aggressive war hawks.
On economic policy -- the most decisive policy area for me -- here's how I'd grade various Democrats in reverse order from worst to best:
Lincoln Chafee: D
1st Term Obama: C-
Today's Obama: C
Hillary Clinton: C+
Elizabeth Warren: B
Bernie Sanders: A
Maybe that'll help clear up why I'm making this switch. Anyway, Sanders is my official endorsement, so expect to see that fact represented in the election discussions we have going forward.
Mac-7
06-18-2015, 06:06 AM
On policy they are all equally bad.
Only Sanders' position on fast trade trade authority is agreeable to me.
Which is the one issue that our op does not like.
But I agree that Bernie is at least a person of character and Hillary certainly is not.
Peter1469
06-18-2015, 06:29 AM
I wouldn't be comfortable saying that Hillary was for anything- except saying whatever to get a vote. She is dishonest on the politician honesty scale.
zelmo1234
06-18-2015, 07:30 AM
I think that may liberals know that Hillary has some real issues that are going to come out in the General.
neither party can get elected without the swing or independent vote. Hillary is not a likeable person, She is clearly not honest and all of her positions that the left really likes? She was on the opposite side of, just a few months ago.
Even they can't trust her.
Captain Obvious
06-18-2015, 07:38 AM
I'm switching to Sanders too.
...no, not really.
donttread
06-18-2015, 07:39 AM
As many of you know, I've sort of leaned in this and that direction vis-a-vis the 2016 presidential election for a while, but I have now officially made up my mind as to whom I will back: Drum roll please...ta daaaaaaaa! Bernie Sanders!
Probably not what you were expecting, I suppose, given my general support for Hillary Clinton of late. Well there's a reason why I've decided to go with Sanders instead. You may recall from my past discussions of their similarities and differences that, from what I could see, the two candidates largely agreed on the issues in principle, but simply differed in degrees with one crucial policy area exception: trade policy. On that they appeared to fundamentally disagree and, being an internationalist, I preferred what I thought was Hillary Clinton's more internationalist approach to trade policy over Sanders' relative isolationism. Now that Hillary Clinton has come out opposed to fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership herself though, I can no longer see any broad area of fundamental disagreement between the two candidates, which leaves me to decipher a preference based on degrees...and that's a contest Sanders wins by a mile because I very strongly prefer the policy ideas he's advancing vis-a-vis domestic economics and that's going to be the single most important policy area for me in this election cycle. Without any areas of fundamental disagreement between the two, I'm definitely going to have to go with Sanders. Sorry Hillary! I don't at all hate you and if you win the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for you for sure in the general election, but, you know, primaries are for principles! Sanders' politics are (broadly) where my heart is.
That said, Hillary Clinton still has her particular strengths. Namely, she's I think the strongest candidate (which for me means the most egalitarian candidate) on cultural issues like equal pay for women, paid family leave, de-militarizing the police, immigrant rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, etc. She's not only staked out some pretty principled positions on those sorts of things, but has specifically led other candidates on them. I think that's an area where she's the strongest candidate and as much may well prove decisive when it comes to winning the Democratic nomination, as I've pointed out before (e.g. Sanders' comparative difficulty so far in attracting a diverse audience for his message, which is a result of not generally discussing or prioritizing these issues despite taking rather principled positions on them himself. That remains a real weakness that Sanders needs to correct, IMO.). Lincoln Chafee also has his particular area of strength, which is foreign policy in general, both in terms of diplomatic relations (he's running on a pacifist platform that calls for reconciliation with countries like Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.) and in terms of trade policy (he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership). The problem I have with Chafee is...you know, everything else, on which he, unsurprisingly as a former Republican, takes up very weak and unprincipled stances. He's also made it clear that he'll be the negative campaigner in the bunch who relies substantially on personal rather than ideological attacks against his Democratic opponents and I don't really respect that. Now Martin O'Malley, by contrast, is a candidate with no area of particular strength, which begs the question of why he's running (I think it's called his ego) and makes him the least interesting of the Democratic candidates in my eyes.
Listing the Democratic candidates in order of my personal preference looks like this:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Lincoln Chafee
4. Martin O'Malley
5. Jim Webb (who says he'll announce "soon") <-- Sorry, not voting for any DLC-styled centrist aggressive war hawks.
On economic policy -- the most decisive policy area for me -- here's how I'd grade various Democrats in reverse order from worst to best:
Lincoln Chafee: D
1st Term Obama: C-
Today's Obama: C
Hillary Clinton: C+
Elizabeth Warren: B
Bernie Sanders: A
Maybe that'll help clear up why I'm making this switch. Anyway, Sanders is my official endorsement, so expect to see that fact represented in the election discussions we have going forward.
Your a globalist? Why? We van only lose that game.
Chris
06-18-2015, 07:58 AM
I think for liberals Sanders is the only honest choice, meaning I think he's honest as a social democrat and liberals ought to be honest that's what they are as well.
How old is Sanders?
Tahuyaman
06-18-2015, 08:04 AM
As many of you know, I've sort of leaned in this and that direction vis-a-vis the 2016 presidential election for a while, but I have now officially made up my mind as to whom I will back: Drum roll please...ta daaaaaaaa! Bernie Sanders!
Probably not what you were expecting, I suppose, given my general support for Hillary Clinton of late. Well there's a reason why I've decided to go with Sanders instead. You may recall from my past discussions of their similarities and differences that, from what I could see, the two candidates largely agreed on the issues in principle, but simply differed in degrees with one crucial policy area exception: trade policy. On that they appeared to fundamentally disagree and, being an internationalist, I preferred what I thought was Hillary Clinton's more internationalist approach to trade policy over Sanders' relative isolationism. Now that Hillary Clinton has come out opposed to fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership herself though, I can no longer see any broad area of fundamental disagreement between the two candidates, which leaves me to decipher a preference based on degrees...and that's a contest Sanders wins by a mile because I very strongly prefer the policy ideas he's advancing vis-a-vis domestic economics and that's going to be the single most important policy area for me in this election cycle. Without any areas of fundamental disagreement between the two, I'm definitely going to have to go with Sanders. Sorry Hillary! I don't at all hate you and if you win the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for you for sure in the general election, but, you know, primaries are for principles! Sanders' politics are (broadly) where my heart is.
That said, Hillary Clinton still has her particular strengths. Namely, she's I think the strongest candidate (which for me means the most egalitarian candidate) on cultural issues like equal pay for women, paid family leave, de-militarizing the police, immigrant rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, etc. She's not only staked out some pretty principled positions on those sorts of things, but has specifically led other candidates on them. I think that's an area where she's the strongest candidate and as much may well prove decisive when it comes to winning the Democratic nomination, as I've pointed out before (e.g. Sanders' comparative difficulty so far in attracting a diverse audience for his message, which is a result of not generally discussing or prioritizing these issues despite taking rather principled positions on them himself. That remains a real weakness that Sanders needs to correct, IMO.). Lincoln Chafee also has his particular area of strength, which is foreign policy in general, both in terms of diplomatic relations (he's running on a pacifist platform that calls for reconciliation with countries like Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.) and in terms of trade policy (he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership). The problem I have with Chafee is...you know, everything else, on which he, unsurprisingly as a former Republican, takes up very weak and unprincipled stances. He's also made it clear that he'll be the negative campaigner in the bunch who relies substantially on personal rather than ideological attacks against his Democratic opponents and I don't really respect that. Now Martin O'Malley, by contrast, is a candidate with no area of particular strength, which begs the question of why he's running (I think it's called his ego) and makes him the least interesting of the Democratic candidates in my eyes.
Listing the Democratic candidates in order of my personal preference looks like this:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Lincoln Chafee
4. Martin O'Malley
5. Jim Webb (who says he'll announce "soon") <-- Sorry, not voting for any DLC-styled centrist aggressive war hawks.
On economic policy -- the most decisive policy area for me -- here's how I'd grade various Democrats in reverse order from worst to best:
Lincoln Chafee: D
1st Term Obama: C-
Today's Obama: C
Hillary Clinton: C+
Elizabeth Warren: B
Bernie Sanders: A
Maybe that'll help clear up why I'm making this switch. Anyway, Sanders is my official endorsement, so expect to see that fact represented in the election discussions we have going forward.
thats very funny
Professor Peabody
06-18-2015, 08:07 AM
Run McGovern run! OOooppss! i meant Bernie.
Mac-7
06-18-2015, 08:18 AM
After 40 years of socialist brainwashing in the schools and universities, the loss of our manufacturing base that has left many middle class Americans destitute, and the influx of foreigners from countries that do not have a strong capitalist or democratic tradition the country may be ripe for socialism.
Which means sanders would stand a chance in the general election.
Captain Obvious
06-18-2015, 08:21 AM
After 40 years of socialist brainwashing in the schools and universities, the loss of our manufacturing base that has left many middle class Americans destitute, and the influx of foreigners from countries that do not have a strong capitalist or democratic tradition the country may be ripe for socialism.
Which means sanders would stand a chance in the general election.
Tell us more about brainwashing, el dittohead.
Chris
06-18-2015, 08:23 AM
After 40 years of socialist brainwashing in the schools and universities, the loss of our manufacturing base that has left many middle class Americans destitute, and the influx of foreigners from countries that do not have a strong capitalist or democratic tradition the country may be ripe for socialism.
Which means sanders would stand a chance in the general election.
Sanders is not a socialist but a social democrat. Most Democrats and Republicans for that matter are social democrats.
Cigar
06-18-2015, 08:25 AM
As many of you know, I've sort of leaned in this and that direction vis-a-vis the 2016 presidential election for a while, but I have now officially made up my mind as to whom I will back: Drum roll please...ta daaaaaaaa! Bernie Sanders!
Probably not what you were expecting, I suppose, given my general support for Hillary Clinton of late. Well there's a reason why I've decided to go with Sanders instead. You may recall from my past discussions of their similarities and differences that, from what I could see, the two candidates largely agreed on the issues in principle, but simply differed in degrees with one crucial policy area exception: trade policy. On that they appeared to fundamentally disagree and, being an internationalist, I preferred what I thought was Hillary Clinton's more internationalist approach to trade policy over Sanders' relative isolationism. Now that Hillary Clinton has come out opposed to fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership herself though, I can no longer see any broad area of fundamental disagreement between the two candidates, which leaves me to decipher a preference based on degrees...and that's a contest Sanders wins by a mile because I very strongly prefer the policy ideas he's advancing vis-a-vis domestic economics and that's going to be the single most important policy area for me in this election cycle. Without any areas of fundamental disagreement between the two, I'm definitely going to have to go with Sanders. Sorry Hillary! I don't at all hate you and if you win the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for you for sure in the general election, but, you know, primaries are for principles! Sanders' politics are (broadly) where my heart is.
That said, Hillary Clinton still has her particular strengths. Namely, she's I think the strongest candidate (which for me means the most egalitarian candidate) on cultural issues like equal pay for women, paid family leave, de-militarizing the police, immigrant rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, etc. She's not only staked out some pretty principled positions on those sorts of things, but has specifically led other candidates on them. I think that's an area where she's the strongest candidate and as much may well prove decisive when it comes to winning the Democratic nomination, as I've pointed out before (e.g. Sanders' comparative difficulty so far in attracting a diverse audience for his message, which is a result of not generally discussing or prioritizing these issues despite taking rather principled positions on them himself. That remains a real weakness that Sanders needs to correct, IMO.). Lincoln Chafee also has his particular area of strength, which is foreign policy in general, both in terms of diplomatic relations (he's running on a pacifist platform that calls for reconciliation with countries like Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.) and in terms of trade policy (he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership). The problem I have with Chafee is...you know, everything else, on which he, unsurprisingly as a former Republican, takes up very weak and unprincipled stances. He's also made it clear that he'll be the negative campaigner in the bunch who relies substantially on personal rather than ideological attacks against his Democratic opponents and I don't really respect that. Now Martin O'Malley, by contrast, is a candidate with no area of particular strength, which begs the question of why he's running (I think it's called his ego) and makes him the least interesting of the Democratic candidates in my eyes.
Listing the Democratic candidates in order of my personal preference looks like this:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Lincoln Chafee
4. Martin O'Malley
5. Jim Webb (who says he'll announce "soon") <-- Sorry, not voting for any DLC-styled centrist aggressive war hawks.
On economic policy -- the most decisive policy area for me -- here's how I'd grade various Democrats in reverse order from worst to best:
Lincoln Chafee: D
1st Term Obama: C-
Today's Obama: C
Hillary Clinton: C+
Elizabeth Warren: B
Bernie Sanders: A
Maybe that'll help clear up why I'm making this switch. Anyway, Sanders is my official endorsement, so expect to see that fact represented in the election discussions we have going forward.
I really like Bernie, and I'd love to see him in a open Debate on Facts.
Mac-7
06-18-2015, 08:27 AM
Tell us more about brainwashing, el dittohead.
And NPR weenie has no reason to feel superior to anyone.
Common
06-18-2015, 08:28 AM
The problem with being for Sanders is that he is too far left for the country and cannot win the general election. That of course is just my opinion.
The country doesnt like the extremes whether its left or right. Keep in mind democrats nor republicans win general elections its always the independents.
PolWatch
06-18-2015, 08:28 AM
I can see that the idea that a voter might actually have reasons for supporting a candidate is difficult for some to understand. Someone who posts positives about why they are voting for someone instead of negatives against the other guy is refreshing around here.
Mac-7
06-18-2015, 08:29 AM
Sanders is not a socialist but a social democrat. .
Sanders was openly socialist most of his adult life.
Now he obscures his true self for political reasons.
Common
06-18-2015, 09:20 AM
I can see that the idea that a voter might actually have reasons for supporting a candidate is difficult for some to understand. Someone who posts positives about why they are voting for someone instead of negatives against the other guy is refreshing around here.
That is absolutely the truth, thats why I admire polly theres no BS with her she just tells you like she sees it
Common
06-18-2015, 09:21 AM
Sanders was openly socialist most of his adult life.
Now he obscures his true self for political reasons.
Sounds like republican far right candidates that shoot to the center during campaigns
Mac-7
06-18-2015, 09:32 AM
Sounds like republican far right candidates that shoot to the center during campaigns
I wish we could find a far right candidate for president.
But for liberals anyone to the right of obumer is considered a radical.
The Xl
06-18-2015, 09:35 AM
I still never got the support for Hilary. She's establishment and has been so for over 20 years, her record sucks, she isn't a real liberal, and more importantly, she's been pandering to your base to win the election.
Bernie Sanders takes positions far more in step with your ideology, and isn't bought by the people Hilary is.
Common
06-18-2015, 09:36 AM
I wish we could find a far right candidate for president.
But for liberals anyone to the right of obumer is considered a radical.
Mac why dont you be realistic for a change. Republicans dont call Mcain a liberal and lyndsey graham and jeb bush or anyone else that isnt a right wing flaming loon.
Progressive liberals do the same thing but you keep saying thats it ONLY liberals that do it.
Obama is extremely unpopular with the far left, with labor and moderate independents.
Mac-7
06-18-2015, 09:43 AM
Mac why dont you be realistic for a change. Republicans dont call Mcain a liberal and lyndsey graham and jeb bush or anyone else that isnt a right wing flaming loon.
Progressive liberals do the same thing but you keep saying thats it ONLY liberals that do it.
Obama is extremely unpopular with the far left, with labor and moderate independents.
On a thread about socialist Bernie sanders you try to change the subject to republicans
Chris
06-18-2015, 09:45 AM
The problem with being for Sanders is that he is too far left for the country and cannot win the general election. That of course is just my opinion.
The country doesnt like the extremes whether its left or right. Keep in mind democrats nor republicans win general elections its always the independents.
Disagree. I think he's your standard centrist social democrat but is just too unknown.
Common
06-18-2015, 10:01 AM
Disagree. I think he's your standard centrist social democrat but is just too unknown.
I in turn disagree, that he cant win general election. I fervently disagree that hes the standard centrist democrat, he is much further to the progressive left than any centrist democrat.
Ransom
06-18-2015, 10:04 AM
As many of you know, I've sort of leaned in this and that direction vis-a-vis the 2016 presidential election for a while, but I have now officially made up my mind as to whom I will back: Drum roll please...ta daaaaaaaa! Bernie Sanders!
Probably not what you were expecting, I suppose, given my general support for Hillary Clinton of late. Well there's a reason why I've decided to go with Sanders instead. You may recall from my past discussions of their similarities and differences that, from what I could see, the two candidates largely agreed on the issues in principle, but simply differed in degrees with one crucial policy area exception: trade policy. On that they appeared to fundamentally disagree and, being an internationalist, I preferred what I thought was Hillary Clinton's more internationalist approach to trade policy over Sanders' relative isolationism. Now that Hillary Clinton has come out opposed to fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership herself though, I can no longer see any broad area of fundamental disagreement between the two candidates, which leaves me to decipher a preference based on degrees...and that's a contest Sanders wins by a mile because I very strongly prefer the policy ideas he's advancing vis-a-vis domestic economics and that's going to be the single most important policy area for me in this election cycle. Without any areas of fundamental disagreement between the two, I'm definitely going to have to go with Sanders. Sorry Hillary! I don't at all hate you and if you win the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for you for sure in the general election, but, you know, primaries are for principles! Sanders' politics are (broadly) where my heart is.
That said, Hillary Clinton still has her particular strengths. Namely, she's I think the strongest candidate (which for me means the most egalitarian candidate) on cultural issues like equal pay for women, paid family leave, de-militarizing the police, immigrant rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, etc. She's not only staked out some pretty principled positions on those sorts of things, but has specifically led other candidates on them. I think that's an area where she's the strongest candidate and as much may well prove decisive when it comes to winning the Democratic nomination, as I've pointed out before (e.g. Sanders' comparative difficulty so far in attracting a diverse audience for his message, which is a result of not generally discussing or prioritizing these issues despite taking rather principled positions on them himself. That remains a real weakness that Sanders needs to correct, IMO.). Lincoln Chafee also has his particular area of strength, which is foreign policy in general, both in terms of diplomatic relations (he's running on a pacifist platform that calls for reconciliation with countries like Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.) and in terms of trade policy (he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership). The problem I have with Chafee is...you know, everything else, on which he, unsurprisingly as a former Republican, takes up very weak and unprincipled stances. He's also made it clear that he'll be the negative campaigner in the bunch who relies substantially on personal rather than ideological attacks against his Democratic opponents and I don't really respect that. Now Martin O'Malley, by contrast, is a candidate with no area of particular strength, which begs the question of why he's running (I think it's called his ego) and makes him the least interesting of the Democratic candidates in my eyes.
Listing the Democratic candidates in order of my personal preference looks like this:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Lincoln Chafee
4. Martin O'Malley
5. Jim Webb (who says he'll announce "soon") <-- Sorry, not voting for any DLC-styled centrist aggressive war hawks.
On economic policy -- the most decisive policy area for me -- here's how I'd grade various Democrats in reverse order from worst to best:
Lincoln Chafee: D
1st Term Obama: C-
Today's Obama: C
Hillary Clinton: C+
Elizabeth Warren: B
Bernie Sanders: A
Maybe that'll help clear up why I'm making this switch. Anyway, Sanders is my official endorsement, so expect to see that fact represented in the election discussions we have going forward.
I see. Yer...uh...."switching" to the Sanders camp.......and yer giving Hillary a "C+" on economic policy.....that is and I quote "the most decisive policy area" for you?
Cause, I remember just months ago.........you wrote "my instinct is to favor Hillary this time around mainly because she has stated that, were she to run, her primary aim would be to improve the plight of women, which is in serious need of improvement in this country."
The "plight" of women?:rolleyes:
and of course it's because you're "very offended by the manifest direction of our culture and policies on this subject. I think the defense of women's rights and interests needs to be made a top priority at this point."
Here's what I think has happened and I'll give you kudos Polly. You're less focused these days on the 'plight of women'.....and as you just admitted......economic policies are now your higher priority. So Hillary......that you once thought was focused on the top priority......the 'plight of women'......actually isn't focused appropriately, she should be focused on the economy?
Do I about have that right, or can you explain you flip flop here with more clarity. thanks.
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/10813-Predictions-for-2016?highlight=Hillary+Clinton
Chris
06-18-2015, 10:06 AM
I in turn disagree, that he cant win general election. I fervently disagree that hes the standard centrist democrat, he is much further to the progressive left than any centrist democrat.
Centrist social democrat. He's a Democrat, yes, but many Republicans are also social democrats, and they all race to the center to win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy defines social democracy as "Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods."
I agree he can't win.
Perhaps you're right, but more because he's so vocal about being a social democrat while most other politicians keep it in the closet, so to speak.
Ransom
06-18-2015, 10:08 AM
And as far as an "unknown" an all the other struggles a Sander's candidacy would face......he don't have enough money is a fact you neglect to mention. As everyone knows, but only few will admit, any Dem candidate who wants to take Hillary on in the Primary...best have a war chest handy. Hillary is the money candidate and if she wins the Dem nomination........GOP.......listen up....you'll need a 1 billion $....at least......campaign fund. At least. Course...when it's a Dem, no one likes to discuss money.......but a Sanders stands little chance....not enough $'s to compete.
Common
06-18-2015, 10:08 AM
On a thread about socialist Bernie sanders you try to change the subject to republicans
No im trying to get you to be honest for once
Common
06-18-2015, 10:09 AM
And as far as an "unknown" an all the other struggles a Sander's candidacy would face......he don't have enough money is a fact you neglect to mention. As everyone knows, but only few will admit, any Dem candidate who wants to take Hillary on in the Primary...best have a war chest handy. Hillary is the money candidate and if she wins the Dem nomination........GOP.......listen up....you'll need a 1 billion $....at least......campaign fund. At least. Course...when it's a Dem, no one likes to discuss money.......but a Sanders stands little chance....not enough $'s to compete.
I agree and thats a point that was never mentioned, MONEY, bernie will never get the backing and support hillary has for obvious reasons.
Mac-7
06-18-2015, 10:12 AM
No im trying to get you to be honest for once
On a thread about Bernie sanders you prefer to discuss repubs.
Chris
06-18-2015, 10:20 AM
And as far as an "unknown" an all the other struggles a Sander's candidacy would face......he don't have enough money is a fact you neglect to mention. As everyone knows, but only few will admit, any Dem candidate who wants to take Hillary on in the Primary...best have a war chest handy. Hillary is the money candidate and if she wins the Dem nomination........GOP.......listen up....you'll need a 1 billion $....at least......campaign fund. At least. Course...when it's a Dem, no one likes to discuss money.......but a Sanders stands little chance....not enough $'s to compete.
He should ask the Donald who likes to contribute to Democrats, starting with Hillary.
Common
06-18-2015, 10:30 AM
On a thread about Bernie sanders you prefer to discuss repubs.
I got it like that
PattyHill
06-18-2015, 10:56 AM
I can see that the idea that a voter might actually have reasons for supporting a candidate is difficult for some to understand. Someone who posts positives about why they are voting for someone instead of negatives against the other guy is refreshing around here.
I agree. Personally, it's too early for me to choose a candidate. I do like both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders; but I haven't heard enough about/from Mr. O'Malley to know yet. Mr. Webb - I agree with IMPressPolly, he's too militaristic. I also don't like that he only served one term in Senate and then left; I don't think he can do much good for his constituents in just one term. Would have been one thing if he lost, but to walk away - I don't like that.
IMPress Polly
06-19-2015, 06:02 AM
Lots of people are like "What did you ever see in Hillary? You can't trust her!" You people are too cynical, IMO. Many people seem to believe that if one should ever adopt a new outlook on the world, they must have an ulterior motive. It's as if consistency is a virtue unto itself regardless of its contents.
I just don't think many people get Hillary. I do. Hillary and I have somewhat similar personalities, I think. She's a cerebral, logic-oriented person and I don't think most people understand that type of person, being more emotionally-driven and impulsive themselves. She's not an Elizabeth Warren type. She's just not an excitable, fire-breathing kind of person. When she wants to make a point, she'll raffle off statistics and stuff like that rather than yelling. That's kind of like me. I understand that. You may have noticed that I'm not all that excitable a person myself. I get pissed off sometimes, but even when I am, I tend to respond by trying to make the offending person or persons look really stupid and walk off. It's telling to me that emotionally charged speeches with lots of yelling and anger and fiery rhetoric are like society's definition of relatable. Think about that for a minute. What does that imply about society?
One characteristic of more logic-oriented people like Hillary (or Obama, as another prominent example) is that such people tend to change their outlook from time to time rather than always just digging into their pre-existing views whenever challenged. That's because such people have the ability to learn and grow. I think other people are often too controlled by pride to ever admit to being wrong about something. Logic-oriented people are often more willing to take the plunge and adapt when confronted with new information that discredits their previous line of thinking. I'm that kind of person. A lot of aspects of my own political thinking have changed even just since I've joined this message board. I joined as a Marxist, but today consider myself a futurist for example. While that for me still remains within the ideological framework of communism and what I consider scientific socialism, it is a major change of outlook and strategic orientation. Hillary is somebody who likewise displays an ability to learn and adapt to new knowledge, starting out as a conservative and gradually evolving into the progressive she is today. That doesn't mean she's dishonest, it just means that she has the ability to learn.
As to "the party establishment", like I've explained before, the old corporate establishment that dominated the Democratic Party from the 1980s through half the 2000s really doesn't exist today. The remnants of corporate support for the Democratic Party really are just that because the more Wall Street-friendly Democrats are the ones losing the seats in the government in these wave elections. The definition of the Democratic Party's "establishment has changed over the years. From the 1930s into the '70s, basically it was organized labor and that's what McGovern's New Left reorganization challenged to a substantial degree. But after the 1984 Reagan landslide, right wing politics seemed established as the order of the day and the Democrats thereafter let Wall Street in and corporate America subsequently held major sway in the Democratic Party for decades. That then became the new "party establishment". Then the crash of 2008 happened and the party's politics shifted leftward on economics again in what very much appears to be a profound and lasting way. Though not my favorite example as a supporter of the TPP, this TPP issue and vote is actually an example of how union influence is now once again a more significant and decisive factor in which way Democrats vote than what corporate America may want. The debate we're seeing unfold between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in many ways is a debate over what coalition of forces the party should go forward with: should the party seek to revive Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition (Sanders) or go with the McGovern coalition (Hillary)? Here in white, agrarian Vermont, the Democrats rely on the former and it works, but nationally I actually think the latter is the correct path for the party because it corresponds to the demographic changes the country is undergoing. To that end, while I like Sanders' economics better (hence why I'm backing him), I still think he should put more effort into keeping the whole McGovern coalition (youth, women, people of color) together rather than JUST relying on a kind of worker-farmer coalition.
Anyway, again, trade policy was the main difference I thought existed between the two candidates and it turned out that it doesn't exist as a fundamental difference, so that's why I've decided to go with Sanders.
Mac-7
06-19-2015, 06:38 AM
Hillary is stiff, unlikable and lacking in imagination.
The public sees her as incompetent and dishonest.
But she is a woman and that may earn her a few votes.
I don't know how Marxist sanders is but I'm not sure the country is as capitalist as it once was.
A socialist like Bernie or a fascist like Hillary can appeal to many uninformed voters by promising them more free stuff from the government that republicans are offering.
maineman
06-19-2015, 07:05 AM
He should ask the Donald who likes to contribute to Democrats, starting with Hillary.
yeah... if Bernie had the money that Trump gave to Hillary, he could buy, maybe, a nanosecond long political ad on MSNBC.
It's a start.
PattyHill
06-19-2015, 08:33 AM
It's always a bit jarring reading a post like Mac7's (#36) after a post like IMPressPolly's (#35). Hers - reasoned, thoughtful, explaining her reasons, even throwing in some thoughts about how Clinton and Obama think; not attacking anyone or belittling them. His - knee jerk response with some buzz words. Nothing that responds to anything in IMPressPolly's post.
Mac-7
06-19-2015, 08:40 AM
It's always a bit jarring reading a post like Mac7's (#36) after a post like IMPressPolly's (#35). Hers - reasoned, thoughtful, explaining her reasons, even throwing in some thoughts about how Clinton and Obama think; not attacking anyone or belittling them. His - knee jerk response with some buzz words. Nothing that responds to anything in IMPressPolly's post.
I'm a man of fewer words than most libs.
And Poly is no exception.
I guess I just get to the point faster than she does.
But notice I stuck to the issue and didn't attack her the way you attacked me.
maineman
06-19-2015, 08:41 AM
I'm a man of fewer words than most libs.
And Poly is no exception.
I guess I just get to the point faster than she does.
But notice I stuck to the issue and didn't attack her the way you attacked me.
you get to "points" like basketballs have points.
Chris
06-19-2015, 08:43 AM
I'm a man of fewer words than most libs.
And Poly is no exception.
I guess I just get to the point faster than she does.
But notice I stuck to the issue and didn't attack her the way you attacked me.
No, mac, as evidenced by your posts, you're a person of fewer thoughts.
Patty didn't attack you but your post: "His - knee jerk response with some buzz words. Nothing that responds to anything in IMPressPolly's post."
PattyHill
06-19-2015, 08:43 AM
I'm a man of fewer words than most libs.
And Poly is no exception.
I guess I just get to the point faster than she does.
But notice I stuck to the issue and didn't attack her the way you attacked me.
You really perceived my post as an "attack" instead of just a statement of the facts? Interesting.
But enough about you. I need to read IMPressPolly's post another time or two because she has a lot of good information in there.
Mac-7
06-19-2015, 08:46 AM
You really perceived my post as an "attack" instead of just a statement of the facts? Interesting.
But enough about you. I need to read IMPressPolly's post another time or two because she has a lot of good information in there.
You thought my post was "knee jerk."
and in spite of your loyal lib allies here I think your post was an attack.
PattyHill
06-19-2015, 08:51 AM
One characteristic of more logic-oriented people like Hillary (or Obama, as another prominent example) is that such people tend to change their outlook from time to time rather than always just digging into their pre-existing views whenever challenged. That's because such people have the ability to learn and grow. I think other people are often too controlled by pride to ever admit to being wrong about something.
Lots of good stuff in the full post, but I wanted to comment on this. I think most of us (if we are honest) don't have a problem with politicians changing their minds over time - whether they now support same sex marriage or whether they are not as supportive of abortion rights as they used to be. We know, because WE change our minds over time, that life experience can cause us to have different views. Also, getting more information helps. We now know, for example, that IUDs generally don't cause abortions; in virtually every case the egg is never fertilized. So people who are anti-abortion can use IUDs for birth control. (Granted, it's taking time for this information to spread through the population - but it's out there.). So there are people who used to be anti-IUD who no longer are.
I think the same sex marriage is a great example of a whole lot of people changing their minds, as they thought about, as they knew same sex couples, as they got used to the idea.
So I don't accuse politicians who change their positions over time as being people who just switch for votes.
I think what bothers us are when someone has one position in the primary, let's say, and then a different one in the general election. Or someone who suddenly comes out for XYZ position because they have a strong challenger who favors that position.
Of course, sometimes it can be hard to tell if the switch was because of knowledge and life experience or if it was politically convenient. But we shouldn't just label someone as "switching" unless we know for sure it was for convenience.
Ransom
06-19-2015, 09:08 AM
Lots of people are like "What did you ever see in Hillary? You can't trust her!" You people are too cynical, IMO. Many people seem to believe that if one should ever adopt a new outlook on the world, they must have an ulterior motive. It's as if consistency is a virtue unto itself regardless of its contents.
I just don't think many people get Hillary. I do. Hillary and I have somewhat similar personalities, I think. She's a cerebral, logic-oriented person and I don't think most people understand that type of person, being more emotionally-driven and impulsive themselves. She's not an Elizabeth Warren type. She's just not an excitable, fire-breathing kind of person. When she wants to make a point, she'll raffle off statistics and stuff like that rather than yelling. That's kind of like me. I understand that. You may have noticed that I'm not all that excitable a person myself. I get pissed off sometimes, but even when I am, I tend to respond by trying to make the offending person or persons look really stupid and walk off. It's telling to me that emotionally charged speeches with lots of yelling and anger and fiery rhetoric are like society's definition of relatable. Think about that for a minute. What does that imply about society?
One characteristic of more logic-oriented people like Hillary (or Obama, as another prominent example) is that such people tend to change their outlook from time to time rather than always just digging into their pre-existing views whenever challenged. That's because such people have the ability to learn and grow. I think other people are often too controlled by pride to ever admit to being wrong about something. Logic-oriented people are often more willing to take the plunge and adapt when confronted with new information that discredits their previous line of thinking. I'm that kind of person. A lot of aspects of my own political thinking have changed even just since I've joined this message board. I joined as a Marxist, but today consider myself a futurist for example. While that for me still remains within the ideological framework of communism and what I consider scientific socialism, it is a major change of outlook and strategic orientation. Hillary is somebody who likewise displays an ability to learn and adapt to new knowledge, starting out as a conservative and gradually evolving into the progressive she is today. That doesn't mean she's dishonest, it just means that she has the ability to learn.
As to "the party establishment", like I've explained before, the old corporate establishment that dominated the Democratic Party from the 1980s through half the 2000s really doesn't exist today. The remnants of corporate support for the Democratic Party really are just that because the more Wall Street-friendly Democrats are the ones losing the seats in the government in these wave elections. The definition of the Democratic Party's "establishment has changed over the years. From the 1930s into the '70s, basically it was organized labor and that's what McGovern's New Left reorganization challenged to a substantial degree. But after the 1984 Reagan landslide, right wing politics seemed established as the order of the day and the Democrats thereafter let Wall Street in and corporate America subsequently held major sway in the Democratic Party for decades. That then became the new "party establishment". Then the crash of 2008 happened and the party's politics shifted leftward on economics again in what very much appears to be a profound and lasting way. Though not my favorite example as a supporter of the TPP, this TPP issue and vote is actually an example of how union influence is now once again a more significant and decisive factor in which way Democrats vote than what corporate America may want. The debate we're seeing unfold between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in many ways is a debate over what coalition of forces the party should go forward with: should the party seek to revive Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition (Sanders) or go with the McGovern coalition (Hillary)? Here in white, agrarian Vermont, the Democrats rely on the former and it works, but nationally I actually think the latter is the correct path for the party because it corresponds to the demographic changes the country is undergoing. To that end, while I like Sanders' economics better (hence why I'm backing him), I still think he should put more effort into keeping the whole McGovern coalition (youth, women, people of color) together rather than JUST relying on a kind of worker-farmer coalition.
Anyway, again, trade policy was the main difference I thought existed between the two candidates and it turned out that it doesn't exist as a fundamental difference, so that's why I've decided to go with Sanders.
Trade policy is now the difference maker?
Wow.
Ransom
06-19-2015, 09:17 AM
I'm a man of fewer words than most libs.
And Poly is no exception.
I guess I just get to the point faster than she does.
But notice I stuck to the issue and didn't attack her the way you attacked me.
It's women's issues, it's economic issues, it's the difference in trade.
Next week it will be something else. It's a highlight reel for how the media just manipulates the conversation, sensationalism breeds ignorance and from what I hear, ignorance breeds bliss.
And why you and I aren't happy about our current reality nor direction of our nation, meanwhile........we got lot's of happy go lucky types.
Who you couldn't make up. Entertainment....and it's free, so....
I think for liberals Sanders is the only honest choice, meaning I think he's honest as a social democrat and liberals ought to be honest that's what they are as well.
How old is Sanders?
Hitler was as honest about his beliefs as Sanders is about his.
GrassrootsConservative
06-19-2015, 09:35 AM
I'm still hoping for America to prevail over Liberal idiots like Sanders and Hillary. I don't "switch" camps. I've been consistent on this since Bush and Obama, too. America over everything else. Hopefully no stooge politician can take that away from us.
gamewell45
06-19-2015, 09:44 AM
As many of you know, I've sort of leaned in this and that direction vis-a-vis the 2016 presidential election for a while, but I have now officially made up my mind as to whom I will back: Drum roll please...ta daaaaaaaa! Bernie Sanders!
Probably not what you were expecting, I suppose, given my general support for Hillary Clinton of late. Well there's a reason why I've decided to go with Sanders instead. You may recall from my past discussions of their similarities and differences that, from what I could see, the two candidates largely agreed on the issues in principle, but simply differed in degrees with one crucial policy area exception: trade policy. On that they appeared to fundamentally disagree and, being an internationalist, I preferred what I thought was Hillary Clinton's more internationalist approach to trade policy over Sanders' relative isolationism. Now that Hillary Clinton has come out opposed to fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership herself though, I can no longer see any broad area of fundamental disagreement between the two candidates, which leaves me to decipher a preference based on degrees...and that's a contest Sanders wins by a mile because I very strongly prefer the policy ideas he's advancing vis-a-vis domestic economics and that's going to be the single most important policy area for me in this election cycle. Without any areas of fundamental disagreement between the two, I'm definitely going to have to go with Sanders. Sorry Hillary! I don't at all hate you and if you win the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for you for sure in the general election, but, you know, primaries are for principles! Sanders' politics are (broadly) where my heart is.
That said, Hillary Clinton still has her particular strengths. Namely, she's I think the strongest candidate (which for me means the most egalitarian candidate) on cultural issues like equal pay for women, paid family leave, de-militarizing the police, immigrant rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, etc. She's not only staked out some pretty principled positions on those sorts of things, but has specifically led other candidates on them. I think that's an area where she's the strongest candidate and as much may well prove decisive when it comes to winning the Democratic nomination, as I've pointed out before (e.g. Sanders' comparative difficulty so far in attracting a diverse audience for his message, which is a result of not generally discussing or prioritizing these issues despite taking rather principled positions on them himself. That remains a real weakness that Sanders needs to correct, IMO.). Lincoln Chafee also has his particular area of strength, which is foreign policy in general, both in terms of diplomatic relations (he's running on a pacifist platform that calls for reconciliation with countries like Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.) and in terms of trade policy (he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership). The problem I have with Chafee is...you know, everything else, on which he, unsurprisingly as a former Republican, takes up very weak and unprincipled stances. He's also made it clear that he'll be the negative campaigner in the bunch who relies substantially on personal rather than ideological attacks against his Democratic opponents and I don't really respect that. Now Martin O'Malley, by contrast, is a candidate with no area of particular strength, which begs the question of why he's running (I think it's called his ego) and makes him the least interesting of the Democratic candidates in my eyes.
Listing the Democratic candidates in order of my personal preference looks like this:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Lincoln Chafee
4. Martin O'Malley
5. Jim Webb (who says he'll announce "soon") <-- Sorry, not voting for any DLC-styled centrist aggressive war hawks.
On economic policy -- the most decisive policy area for me -- here's how I'd grade various Democrats in reverse order from worst to best:
Lincoln Chafee: D
1st Term Obama: C-
Today's Obama: C
Hillary Clinton: C+
Elizabeth Warren: B
Bernie Sanders: A
Maybe that'll help clear up why I'm making this switch. Anyway, Sanders is my official endorsement, so expect to see that fact represented in the election discussions we have going forward.
For me, a candidates position and track record on organized labor is paramount in my decision on who to vote for when it comes to any election. All else is secondary; I believe I mentioned it in here a few weeks ago, I'm going to support Bernie as well based on his high rating by the AFL-CIO. The website below is very informative and gives you the voting records of our elected officials.
http://www.aflcio.org/Legislation-and-Politics/Legislative-Voting-Records?act=3&termyear=2013&location=Senate
Tahuyaman
06-19-2015, 09:49 AM
I just don't think many people get Hillary. I do. Hillary and I have somewhat similar personalities,
Do you believe that's a positive trait?
Why would any female intentionally admit to having a similar personality to Hillary Clinton?
Tahuyaman
06-19-2015, 09:51 AM
I wish more liberals would make the switch to Sanders. He's to the Democrats what Trump would be to the Republicans.
birddog
06-19-2015, 10:18 AM
I wish more liberals would make the switch to Sanders. He's to the Democrats what Trump would be to the Republicans.
No, Trump would actually have a chance of winning if nominated, although neither of them will be.
Ransom
06-19-2015, 10:21 AM
Do you believe that's a positive trait?
Why would any female intentionally admit to having a similar personality to Hillary Clinton?
You simply cannot make any of this up.....no one would believe you.
Tahuyaman
06-19-2015, 10:32 AM
No, Trump would actually have a chance of winning if nominated, although neither of them will be.
He has zero chance.
Tahuyaman
06-19-2015, 10:34 AM
Do you believe that's a positive trait?
Why would any female intentionally admit to having a similar personality to Hillary Clinton?
You simply cannot make any of this up.....no one would believe you.
No one would believe you because no one would want to be near you.
IMPress Polly
06-19-2015, 12:00 PM
Patty wrote:
It's always a bit jarring reading a post like Mac7's (#36) after a post like IMPressPolly's (#35). Hers - reasoned, thoughtful, explaining her reasons, even throwing in some thoughts about how Clinton and Obama think; not attacking anyone or belittling them. His - knee jerk response with some buzz words. Nothing that responds to anything in IMPressPolly's post.
Forget it. He's not really talking to you or me anyway. He's just trying for easy rep points from people who think like him. None too successfully as yet I might add.
Ransom wrote:
Trade policy is now the difference maker?
Wow.
I'm an internationalist for a reason. I mean, generally speaking, when it comes to the issue of globalization (expansion of international trade and mass migration between nations) people tend to mentally break down right and left in concert with whom one believes should have freedom of movement across national borders: rightists tend to favor freedom of movement for capital but not for labor, while amongst leftists the opposite is true: they tend to favor freedom of movement for labor but not for capital. Hence why Republicans tend to support "free" trade deals on the one hand and oppose immigration on the other, while Democrats tend to be more supportive of immigration and oppose these trade deals. Sanders and Hillary are obviously both to different degrees coming for the latter position. Then there are fascistic people like Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee who are just generally opposed to having any kind of friendly relationship with foreign nations. Now when I describe myself as an internationalist, I mean something different than all these things: I mean that I believe in freedom of movement as a principle; as something that everyone has a right to and that the world tends to benefit from. Trade accelerates economic development and resultant mass migration helps give laboring peoples the bargaining power they need (as they can threaten to simply leave one set of employers for a country with higher labor standards, at least if that country welcomes them). This are both global poverty and the wealth gap between nations reduced simultaneously. That's happening at the fastest rate in history right now precisely because of agreements like NAFTA and that type of thing. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the strongest such agreement yet, as it includes, for the first time, BINDING international labor and environmental protection standards that will indeed force a number of signature countries to pass new labor and environmental protection laws upon going into effect. Thus do I see it as REALLY a kind of posturing for leftists to oppose the TPP. If you're really interested in reducing the global wealth gap and global poverty and interested in fairer trade agreements going forward, you should support it. Opposition methinks is just a tacit form of elitism favoring wealthier, First World workers. This is one of those areas, in other words, wherein I feel that capitalism yet retains an historically progressive role to play.
Anyway, the fact that they're both against it really eliminates all fundamental distinctions that exist between Hillary and Bernie as far as I can, leaving me to decide which I favor based on degrees, and that's a pretty easy choice for me, all in all. I mean should I vote for free community college or free college period? Should I vote to raise the taxes of hedge fund managers or to break up the megabanks? Should I vote to expand free health insurance in the form of Medicare to every person in this country or be satisfied with the Affordable Care Act? That's the kind of substantive mental debate that I'm left with, at least for the most part. Yeah being a socialist personally, that's not much of a debate for me: in that case, it's Bernie by a mile.
Ransom
06-19-2015, 02:27 PM
Forget it. He's not really talking to you or me anyway. He's just trying for easy rep points from people who think like him. None too successfully as yet I might add.
I'm an internationalist for a reason. I mean, generally speaking, when it comes to the issue of globalization (expansion of international trade and mass migration between nations) people tend to mentally break down right and left in concert with whom one believes should have freedom of movement across national borders: rightists tend to favor freedom of movement for capital but not for labor, while amongst leftists the opposite is true: they tend to favor freedom of movement for labor but not for capital. Hence why Republicans tend to support "free" trade deals on the one hand and oppose immigration on the other, while Democrats tend to be more supportive of immigration and oppose these trade deals. Sanders and Hillary are obviously both to different degrees coming for the latter position. Then there are fascistic people like Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee who are just generally opposed to having any kind of friendly relationship with foreign nations. Now when I describe myself as an internationalist, I mean something different than all these things: I mean that I believe in freedom of movement as a principle; as something that everyone has a right to and that the world tends to benefit from. Trade accelerates economic development and resultant mass migration helps give laboring peoples the bargaining power they need (as they can threaten to simply leave one set of employers for a country with higher labor standards, at least if that country welcomes them). This are both global poverty and the wealth gap between nations reduced simultaneously. That's happening at the fastest rate in history right now precisely because of agreements like NAFTA and that type of thing. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the strongest such agreement yet, as it includes, for the first time, BINDING international labor and environmental protection standards that will indeed force a number of signature countries to pass new labor and environmental protection laws upon going into effect. Thus do I see it as REALLY a kind of posturing for leftists to oppose the TPP. If you're really interested in reducing the global wealth gap and global poverty and interested in fairer trade agreements going forward, you should support it. Opposition methinks is just a tacit form of elitism favoring wealthier, First World workers. This is one of those areas, in other words, wherein I feel that capitalism yet retains an historically progressive role to play.
Anyway, the fact that they're both against it really eliminates all fundamental distinctions that exist between Hillary and Bernie as far as I can, leaving me to decide which I favor based on degrees, and that's a pretty easy choice for me, all in all. I mean should I vote for free community college or free college period? Should I vote to raise the taxes of hedge fund managers or to break up the megabanks? Should I vote to expand free health insurance in the form of Medicare to every person in this country or be satisfied with the Affordable Care Act? That's the kind of substantive mental debate that I'm left with, at least for the most part. Yeah being a socialist personally, that's not much of a debate for me: in that case, it's Bernie by a mile.
Who said this in Feb of 2015?
"I think the defense of women's rights and interests needs to be made a top priority at this point."
Mac-7
06-19-2015, 06:02 PM
Hillary is shrill, stiff, unlikable and unbelievable.
Bernie has more character.
And I fear that we have had enough socialist brainwashing in the public schools that a sizable number of voters are ready for socialism..
So I would not underestimate his chances in a general election.
IMPress Polly
06-19-2015, 07:35 PM
Common
I think you may be underestimating the level of demand that's out there for Sanders' type of economic populism today. While I agree that he'd have a difficult time against someone like Jeb Bush, if the Republicans were to nominate someone like say Scott Walker or Mike Huckabee, I think Sanders could win such a contest.
Common
06-19-2015, 08:09 PM
@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659)
I think you may be underestimating the level of demand that's out there for Sanders' type of economic populism today. While I agree that he'd have a difficult time against someone like Jeb Bush, if the Republicans were to nominate someone like say Scott Walker or Mike Huckabee, I think Sanders could win such a contest.
Polly I was mentioning his chances against hillary at this point
If I were offered Sanders or a toothache, I prefer the toothache.
Tahuyaman
06-19-2015, 11:32 PM
@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659)
I think you may be underestimating the level of demand that's out there for Sanders' type of economic populism today. While I agree that he'd have a difficult time against someone like Jeb Bush, if the Republicans were to nominate someone like say Scott Walker or Mike Huckabee, I think Sanders could win such a contest.
Sanders is about as electable as Trump. He has no chance.
Sanders is about as electable as Trump. He has no chance.
Trump has a much better chance.
Dr. Who
06-19-2015, 11:42 PM
Centrist social democrat. He's a Democrat, yes, but many Republicans are also social democrats, and they all race to the center to win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy defines social democracy as "Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods."
I agree he can't win.
Perhaps you're right, but more because he's so vocal about being a social democrat while most other politicians keep it in the closet, so to speak.
I'd rather vote for someone who says this is what I am and either you like me or don't than a chameleon.
The Xl
06-19-2015, 11:45 PM
Trump has a much better chance.
Trump literally has zero chance.
Tahuyaman
06-19-2015, 11:45 PM
Trump has a much better chance.
They are about the same. Both kooky. Both weird. Both unable to win the nomination. Both unelectable in a national election.
Private Pickle
06-19-2015, 11:49 PM
Trump literally has zero chance.
I'm giving 10-1 odds on Trump pulling out before the nomination.
Trump literally has zero chance.
Compared to Sanders who won't get nominated?
I keep hearing from a lot of people who are persuaded by Trump.
I personally don't want him. But I am not the entire public.
Sanders is out of the running.
Tahuyaman
06-19-2015, 11:54 PM
I'm giving 10-1 odds on Trump pulling out before the nomination.
He will quit right after he embarrasses himself in one of the early debates. If he's even in them.
He may not even enter the debates. In spite of his goofiness, he's not stupid. He knows that he can't come out the winner in a debate with serious politicians. Guys like Bush, Paul and Scott Walker if he runs would destroy him in a debate.
They are about the same. Both kooky. Both weird. Both unable to win the nomination. Both unelectable in a national election.
I am still working on what Democrat has a chance. I won't be Hillary.
The Xl
06-19-2015, 11:56 PM
Compared to Sanders who won't get nominated?
I keep hearing from a lot of people who are persuaded by Trump.
I personally don't want him. But I am not the entire public.
Sanders is out of the running.
Trump is a freakshow that only appeals to the dumbest and most pretentious people. At least Bernie is selling an ideology seriously, whether you agree with him or not.
Tahuyaman
06-20-2015, 12:09 AM
I am still working on what Democrat has a chance. I won't be Hillary.
Its almost at the point now where the Democrats are stuck with her. No electable Democrat is sending out signals that he or she is getting in the race. Sanders sure isn't going to challenge her. She's the best they have.
Trump is a freakshow that only appeals to the dumbest and most pretentious people. At least Bernie is selling an ideology seriously, whether you agree with him or not.
You touting "ugh" Sanders?
I sort of thought you were on the other side.
Tahuyaman
06-20-2015, 12:18 AM
I think Sanders is a true believer in the stances he takes. Sanders also knows he has no chance. I can't figure out why he even entered the race.
Its almost at the point now where the Democrats are stuck with her. No electable Democrat is sending out signals that he or she is getting in the race. Sanders sure isn't going to challenge her. She's the best they have.
She will burn up just like Al Gore did.
Private Pickle
06-20-2015, 12:26 AM
He will quit right after he embarrasses himself in one of the early debates. If he's even in them.
He may not even enter the debates. In spite of his goofiness, he's not stupid. He knows that he can't come out the winner in a debate with serious politicians. Guys like Bush, Paul and Scott Walker if he runs would destroy him in a debate.
Doubtful he will enter the debates. He will avoid them and then insinuate but not say he wasn't invited... He will milk it for as long as he can without losing face...just like he did last year...
Tahuyaman
06-20-2015, 12:27 AM
She will burn up just like Al Gore did.
She speaks like she took robot lessons from Al Gore. Just like Gore, she speaks like she's talking to a room full of third graders. The only difference is her voice goes through your head like a nail.
Tahuyaman
06-20-2015, 12:28 AM
Doubtful he will enter the debates. He will avoid them and then insinuate but not say he wasn't invited... He will milk it for as long as he can without losing face...just like he did last year...
I agree.
Private Pickle
06-20-2015, 12:32 AM
As many of you know, I've sort of leaned in this and that direction vis-a-vis the 2016 presidential election for a while, but I have now officially made up my mind as to whom I will back: Drum roll please...ta daaaaaaaa! Bernie Sanders!
Probably not what you were expecting, I suppose, given my general support for Hillary Clinton of late. Well there's a reason why I've decided to go with Sanders instead. You may recall from my past discussions of their similarities and differences that, from what I could see, the two candidates largely agreed on the issues in principle, but simply differed in degrees with one crucial policy area exception: trade policy. On that they appeared to fundamentally disagree and, being an internationalist, I preferred what I thought was Hillary Clinton's more internationalist approach to trade policy over Sanders' relative isolationism. Now that Hillary Clinton has come out opposed to fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership herself though, I can no longer see any broad area of fundamental disagreement between the two candidates, which leaves me to decipher a preference based on degrees...and that's a contest Sanders wins by a mile because I very strongly prefer the policy ideas he's advancing vis-a-vis domestic economics and that's going to be the single most important policy area for me in this election cycle. Without any areas of fundamental disagreement between the two, I'm definitely going to have to go with Sanders. Sorry Hillary! I don't at all hate you and if you win the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for you for sure in the general election, but, you know, primaries are for principles! Sanders' politics are (broadly) where my heart is.
That said, Hillary Clinton still has her particular strengths. Namely, she's I think the strongest candidate (which for me means the most egalitarian candidate) on cultural issues like equal pay for women, paid family leave, de-militarizing the police, immigrant rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, etc. She's not only staked out some pretty principled positions on those sorts of things, but has specifically led other candidates on them. I think that's an area where she's the strongest candidate and as much may well prove decisive when it comes to winning the Democratic nomination, as I've pointed out before (e.g. Sanders' comparative difficulty so far in attracting a diverse audience for his message, which is a result of not generally discussing or prioritizing these issues despite taking rather principled positions on them himself. That remains a real weakness that Sanders needs to correct, IMO.). Lincoln Chafee also has his particular area of strength, which is foreign policy in general, both in terms of diplomatic relations (he's running on a pacifist platform that calls for reconciliation with countries like Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.) and in terms of trade policy (he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership). The problem I have with Chafee is...you know, everything else, on which he, unsurprisingly as a former Republican, takes up very weak and unprincipled stances. He's also made it clear that he'll be the negative campaigner in the bunch who relies substantially on personal rather than ideological attacks against his Democratic opponents and I don't really respect that. Now Martin O'Malley, by contrast, is a candidate with no area of particular strength, which begs the question of why he's running (I think it's called his ego) and makes him the least interesting of the Democratic candidates in my eyes.
Listing the Democratic candidates in order of my personal preference looks like this:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Lincoln Chafee
4. Martin O'Malley
5. Jim Webb (who says he'll announce "soon") <-- Sorry, not voting for any DLC-styled centrist aggressive war hawks.
On economic policy -- the most decisive policy area for me -- here's how I'd grade various Democrats in reverse order from worst to best:
Lincoln Chafee: D
1st Term Obama: C-
Today's Obama: C
Hillary Clinton: C+
Elizabeth Warren: B
Bernie Sanders: A
Maybe that'll help clear up why I'm making this switch. Anyway, Sanders is my official endorsement, so expect to see that fact represented in the election discussions we have going forward.
In my humble opinion I think it small minded and narrow of you to limit yourself to a single party. History has shown that a presedent can be influential in a good way despite his political affiliation. Combine this with the ebbs, flows, hills and valleys that political parties are and it seems to me that you are not taking the overall picture into account. I expect you will dismiss me and any rational argument I present but that doesn't mean I don't think this ideal of yours makes you any less cool or progressive as I believe you to be...
She speaks like she took robot lessons from Al Gore. Just like Gore, she speaks like she's talking to a room full of third graders. The only difference is her voice goes through your head like a nail.
Oh lord.
Made me almost puke.
Private Pickle
06-20-2015, 12:37 AM
She will burn up just like Al Gore did.
Hillary is going to get the nomination dude. Best face reality.
Private Pickle
06-20-2015, 12:39 AM
Trump is a freakshow that only appeals to the dumbest and most pretentious people. At least Bernie is selling an ideology seriously, whether you agree with him or not.
Well there is 90% of the voting populace....
Boris The Animal
06-20-2015, 12:41 AM
Speaking of dumb, it does not surprise me that Communists like Polly support Komrade Sanders.
Private Pickle
06-20-2015, 12:47 AM
Speaking of dumb, it does not surprise me that Communists like Polly support Komrade Sanders.
I don't know whether to start with the irony the "szpelling" or the difference between Communism, Socialism and the Democratic Party (which makes progressive liberals around the world look like Reagan on a Sunday).
Boris The Animal
06-20-2015, 12:55 AM
I don't know whether to start with the irony the "szpelling" or the difference between Communism, Socialism and the Democratic Party (which makes progressive liberals around the world look like Reagan on a Sunday).
There is no difference between the three as far as I am concerned. They all favor major expansion of the Federal Government well beyond its Constitutional mandates.
Private Pickle
06-20-2015, 12:57 AM
There is no difference between the three as far as I am concerned. They all favor major expansion of the Federal Government well beyond its Constitutional mandates.
Well I know there is no difference to you. That's why I posted what I posted. What you don't seem to get is that today's Republicans also favor major expansion of the Federal Government and also favor legislation that is not only unconstitutional but also grotesque in the general sense of liberty.
Mac-7
06-20-2015, 05:28 AM
Modern democrats are not socialists.
That would require too much effort from them running the factories which they are not suited for.
Better to let private individuals own the means of production while libs (meaning liberals) merely regulate and tax it.
Economically that's called fascism and its how progressives operate.
Peter1469
06-20-2015, 08:11 AM
The (D)s and (R)s are essentially a bifractional single party. Sure each side talks loud on pet issues for their bases. But each side largely works together towards a common goal. Greater federal control over all aspects of life. The masses are distracted with side issues and controversies to ensure solid voting blocks while the puppet masters pull the strings.
That is why Sanders and Trump have no chance. Rand as well, although he could sell out to the Establishment and have a shot. Like Obama did.
Mac-7
06-20-2015, 09:01 AM
The (D)s and (R)s are essentially a bifractional single party. Sure each side talks loud on pet issues for their bases. But each side largely works together towards a common goal. Greater federal control over all aspects of life.
That is the standard excuse the 3 percent fence sitters use to justify being unable to make up their minds
Libs like to flirt arpund, never committing to either side and therefore never helping to fix any problem
But they sure are good at avoiding blame
Peter1469
06-20-2015, 09:02 AM
That is the standard excuse the 3 percent fence sitters use to justify being unable to make up their minds
Libs like to flirt arpund, never committing to either side and therefore never helping to fix any problem
But they sure are good at avoiding blame
lol
See? The Establishment has a firm grip. :shocked:
Mac-7
06-20-2015, 09:24 AM
lol
See? The Establishment has a firm grip. :shocked:
How does voting for some libertarian loser who piles up 1% of the vote helping anyone?
Peter1469
06-20-2015, 09:26 AM
How does voting for some libertarian loser who piles up 1% of the vote helping anyone?
How does voting Establishment over and over help anyone?
Chris
06-20-2015, 09:56 AM
How does voting for some libertarian loser who piles up 1% of the vote helping anyone?
It allows an alternative message to get out. I doubt Ron Paul ever thought he'd become President, but his constant campaigning has spread a message. It's not just about winning and losing, and losing when you win like with Bush and Obama.
Mac-7
06-20-2015, 10:07 AM
How does voting Establishment over and over help anyone?
Because republicans are not perfect but they are better than democrats
Your problem is that if you commit to one or others you get blamed too
Otherwise libs can avoid blame for everything
Mac-7
06-20-2015, 10:09 AM
It allows an alternative message to get out. I doubt Ron Paul ever thought he'd become President, but his constant campaigning has spread a message. It's not just about winning and losing, and losing when you win like with Bush and Obama.
Ron Paul joined the Republican Party
So he had nothing on common with the libs on this board
Hillary is going to get the nomination dude. Best face reality.
Could be true. I am speaking of the general election. She will flame out.
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Peter1469 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1143163#post1143163)
How does voting Establishment over and over help anyone?
Because republicans are not perfect but they are better than democrats
Your problem is that if you commit to one or others you get blamed too
Otherwise libs can avoid blame for everything
I don't even know what Establishment stands for.
I voted for Jimmy Carter when he claimed he was not establishment. I got the worst president I ever voted for. He did not understand DC and how to function there.
In the past 100 years, only 3 times in the past 100 years has this country had a Democratic party super majority.
None for Republicans.
Yes that is correct. Republicans still have not had a super majority.
Yet supposedly some of the ills is their fault.
What good did it do when the Democrats had the super majority their three times.
They gave us the new deal, Johnson's great society and more and more socialism.
We are running out of cash to fund Disability. Estimates are there are two years of funds that will be raised. Social Security lasts a few years longer then ... kaput.
We have the most massive debt this country has endured due to the Democratic party solutions.
Now ... I get upset.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=16&v=EaEAinJMwHI
Private Pickle
06-20-2015, 11:28 AM
Could be true. I am speaking of the general election. She will flame out.
Depends on who she is up against.
Depends on who she is up against.
Our best will face her in the Fall of 2016. Our best will cause her to flame out.
Mac-7
06-20-2015, 11:37 AM
I don't even know what Establishment stands for.
I voted for Jimmy Carter when he claimed he was not establishment. I got the worst president I ever voted for. He did not understand DC and how to function there.
In the past 100 years, only 3 times in the past 100 years has this country had a Democratic party super majority.
None for Republicans.
Yes that is correct. Republicans still have not had a super majority.
Yet supposedly some of the ills is their fault.
What good did it do when the Democrats had the super majority their three times.
They gave us the new deal, Johnson's great society and more and more socialism.
We are running out of cash to fund Disability. Estimates are there are two years of funds that will be raised. Social Security lasts a few years longer then ... kaput.
We have the most massive debt this country has endured due to the Democratic party solutions.
Now ... I get upset.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=16&v=EaEAinJMwHI
Libs insist there is no difference in the two political parties and I think that's nonsense
I think the republican we elect to office can be very self serving and usually a disappointment
But that's nothing compared to the absolute destruction we see when democrats are on charge
Private Pickle
06-20-2015, 11:52 AM
Our best will face her in the Fall of 2016. Our best will cause her to flame out.
The Republicans haven't put up their best in decades.
GrassrootsConservative
06-20-2015, 12:07 PM
The Republicans haven't put up their best in decades.
To be fair, what the Republicans put up are still way ahead of the incompetent parasites the Democrats keep putting up. But they're "oppressed minorities" or whatever so it's cool. America should feel sorry for them and support their plight.
Racist pieces of shit.
GrassrootsConservative
06-20-2015, 12:13 PM
I mean, their biggest hope right now is Hillary "what difference does the death of four Americans make?" Clinton... That says it all.
The Xl
06-20-2015, 12:49 PM
You touting "ugh" Sanders?
I sort of thought you were on the other side.
How is that touting him? It's a legitimate observation. I said nothing about personally supporting him.
Peter1469
06-20-2015, 12:49 PM
Because republicans are not perfect but they are better than democrats
Your problem is that if you commit to one or others you get blamed too
Otherwise libs can avoid blame for everything
Demonstrably incorrect and finally proven false in the 2nd Bush term.
You are still under the Establishment spell.
I woke up in 2006 when I was 36 years old.
The Xl
06-20-2015, 12:50 PM
Well there is 90% of the voting populace....
Fair point lol. But I'm talking the cream of the crop of those traits.
The Xl
06-20-2015, 12:51 PM
How does voting for some libertarian loser who piles up 1% of the vote helping anyone?
How does it help when the R you nominate and support winds up pushing effectively the same policies and ideology of the Democrats?
Private Pickle
06-20-2015, 12:59 PM
Fair point lol. But I'm talking the cream of the crop of those traits.
Rare indeed.
How is that touting him? It's a legitimate observation. I said nothing about personally supporting him.
Clearly is is an opinion.
The Republicans haven't put up their best in decades.
This time they will.
How does it help when the R you nominate and support winds up pushing effectively the same policies and ideology of the Democrats?
What it would take to cure you and those like you's perceptions is a steady dose of watching CSPAN
Even looking at the voting records shows clearly the two parties are not the same.
The Republicans haven't put up their best in decades.
I believe you mean Democrats have not.
Libs insist there is no difference in the two political parties and I think that's nonsense
I think the republican we elect to office can be very self serving and usually a disappointment
But that's nothing compared to the absolute destruction we see when democrats are on charge
We have direct links between the Democrats system called "the new deal, the Great Society and one more thing. "
They falter, they sputter and they cause great anguish and gnashing of teeth.
They are not good for this country.
The trainers of our athletes has a lot to do with how well they perform. The system does not hand them special benefits, meaning they don't give the losers points for losing. If you want the losers to win, train them. But to award them points is nuts. Democrats practice this dumb nuttery.
maineman
06-20-2015, 01:36 PM
I believe you mean Democrats have not.
Bob... think what you want about the past democratic candidates. The fact remains, that more Americans have voted FOR the democratic candidate than the republican candidate in five out of the last six presidential elections. You might think we didn't put up OUR best, but Americans, five of the last six times, thought that OUR best was better than YOUR best.
Which one of the dozen clowns are you gonna let pass through the tea party gauntlet THIS time?
The Xl
06-20-2015, 01:39 PM
What it would take to cure you and those like you's perceptions is a steady dose of watching CSPAN
Even looking at the voting records shows clearly the two parties are not the same.
Right. That's why they both support debt based money, deficient spending, mass amounts of interventionism, the drug war, etc, etc.
Please. Their differences are on minor issues at best. Social issues usually, mostly over abortion and marriage.
Mac-7
06-20-2015, 02:28 PM
How does it help when the R you nominate and support winds up pushing effectively the same policies and ideology of the Democrats?
They don't have exactly the same policies.
That's just the big lie that libs and democrats tell to discourage voters
Right. That's why they both support debt based money, deficient spending, mass amounts of interventionism, the drug war, etc, etc.
Please. Their differences are on minor issues at best. Social issues usually, mostly over abortion and marriage.
Watch CSPAN
Republicans always target this so called debt based money. Though that is not how it really does work.
If you mean the economy since FDR, certainly. But how do you stop the Democrats when you read posters here that enjoy this "debt money" and in fact endorse it.
We have a state apparatus that needs to be checked. But the Democrats have no plans to check it. Republicans do.
This nation in the past 100 years has never enjoyed a republican super majority. Why is that? Republicans want spending cut. Voters elected Democrats.
Democrats have had in the past 100 years,3 super majorities and some lasted so long they did real damage.
I wish the public supported republicans to find out how it will be if they get a super majority.
They don't have exactly the same policies.
That's just the big lie that libs and democrats tell to discourage voters
Ask some of them that complain about Republicans when in the past 100 years they have had a super majority.
The correct reply is never.
I explain this by calling to all of our attention to whom the voters pick.
They picked Obama not to cut the national debt, but to spend more. Obama constantly whines he can't raise taxes.
Well, the only people wanting them cut and spending cut happen to be republicans.
maineman
06-20-2015, 04:07 PM
I mean, their biggest hope right now is Hillary "what difference does the death of four Americans make?" Clinton... That says it all.
you misquoted her. why am I not surprised?
Bob... think what you want about the past democratic candidates. The fact remains, that more Americans have voted FOR the democratic candidate than the republican candidate in five out of the last six presidential elections. You might think we didn't put up OUR best, but Americans, five of the last six times, thought that OUR best was better than YOUR best.
Which one of the dozen clowns are you gonna let pass through the tea party gauntlet THIS time?
The public is seriously unhappy with this country. Even Obama moans about the country.
Tell me how the republicans can change things when it is only Democrats getting the super majorities?
100 years of trying yet we have no super majorities.
This means we can't fix things.
Democrats when fixing blow more and more money getting less and less done. The massive public debt run up by Democrats should have you holding your head in shame.
You actually approve this massive debt and the sorry state of social security and health care.
But you voted for it.
maineman
06-20-2015, 04:09 PM
The public is seriously unhappy with this country. Even Obama moans about the country.
Tell me how the republicans can change things when it is only Democrats getting the super majorities?
100 years of trying yet we have no super majorities.
This means we can't fix things.
Democrats when fixing blow more and more money getting less and less done. The massive public debt run up by Democrats should have you holding your head in shame.
You actually approve this massive debt and the sorry state of social security and health care.
But you voted for it.
you didn't acknowledge the facts that I presented and you didn't bother to answer my question. I wonder why?
you misquoted her. why am I not surprised?
I saw her say it. She was ultra annoyed they asked about the deaths in Benghazi.
As the head of department of state, she should have acted interested to say the least.
maineman
06-20-2015, 04:10 PM
I saw her say it. She was ultra annoyed they asked about the deaths in Benghazi.
As the head of department of state, she should have acted interested to say the least.
she didn't say the words as quoted. fact.
you didn't acknowledge the facts that I presented and you didn't bother to answer my question. I wonder why?
I will hunt for those "facts" and ferret out your "question.?
Then you will know why.
she didn't say the words as quoted. fact.
Can you see by her annoyed attitude?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wVnOu-aFlQ
she didn't say the words as quoted. fact.
You claim she did not say as she was annoyed, What difference does it make?
I just replayed her exchange with Senator Johnson.
I fail to find you told the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wVnOu-aFlQ
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by maineman http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1143330#post1143330)
Bob... think what you want about the past democratic candidates. The fact remains, that more Americans have voted FOR the democratic candidate than the republican candidate in five out of the last six presidential elections. You might think we didn't put up OUR best, but Americans, five of the last six times, thought that OUR best was better than YOUR best.
Which one of the dozen clowns are you gonna let pass through the tea party gauntlet THIS time?
In order of your comments. maineman
1. Voters for the Democrats. I hope you have verified numbers but I am not even trying to dispute that.
2.Voters approved Democrats. Again, I don't dispute your claims. I have written short essays on why they vote for Democrats. To recap: They are told to hate the rich. They get told the RICH are our bosses. That they hate American citizens not rich. Sure, when that is your message to the public, it is normal for them to vote with their wallet. They think Democrats won't pass taxes over them. This of course is a myth, but yes it is why voters voted for Democrats.
3.Clowns. Frankly if the republican party runs say Gov. Walker or say Kasich it will mark a turn go great governance. But I am not in charge of the clowns being elected.
Even in your party, you too are not in charge of the clowns your party puts up to be elected.
There that mopped up the mess you say I had to mop up.
Green Arrow
06-20-2015, 05:39 PM
Just about every Democrat I've spoken to is largely uninterested in a President Hillary and has said they'd rather someone else get the nomination. So I expect to see Hillary soundly defeated in the primary.
I hope our state government moves our primary up to January like they have been talking about, I'd like to help Sanders win the nomination when my primary vote will actually matter.
Chris
06-20-2015, 05:42 PM
Just about every Democrat I've spoken to is largely uninterested in a President Hillary and has said they'd rather someone else get the nomination. So I expect to see Hillary soundly defeated in the primary.
I hope our state government moves our primary up to January like they have been talking about, I'd like to help Sanders win the nomination when my primary vote will actually matter.
Sanders would at least make it a serious election if the Republicans can find a serious candidate to debate him. Ron Paul would have been perfect, dang.
Ethereal
06-20-2015, 05:45 PM
Sorry Hillary! I don't at all hate you and if you win the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for you for sure in the general election...
You would vote for a war-monger who voted to invade Iraq, likened the President of Russia to Adolf Hitler, and who is responsible for the destruction of Libya and Syria?
Way to be a champion of peace!
Green Arrow
06-20-2015, 05:46 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Sanders is the Democratic nominee, I'll vote Democrat in 2016. If he isn't the Democratic nominee, I'll seek other options.
Ethereal
06-20-2015, 05:54 PM
...he's too militaristic.
And Hillary Clinton isn't? She's a war criminal who helped oversee the destruction of two secular governments in Libya and Syria. The women of Syria are especially suffering because of Clinton's war crimes, and Polly even participated in the thread I started on that very subject (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/43932-CIA-Backed-Rebels-amp-al-Qaeda-Wing-in-Syria), yet she is now professing he potential support for Clinton, the same person who is responsible for Syrian women having to fight off Islamist troglodytes.
TrueBlue
06-20-2015, 06:03 PM
I'm switching to Sanders too.
...no, not really.
We know. You still prefer Ross Perot. LOL!
Green Arrow
06-20-2015, 06:05 PM
If the Democrats don't nominate Sanders, and the GOP nominates Rand Paul, I'll vote Republican in 2016.
If the Democrats don't nominate Sanders, and the GOP doesn't nominate Rand Paul, I'll vote third party in 2016. Probably Jill Stein.
Just about every Democrat I've spoken to is largely uninterested in a President Hillary and has said they'd rather someone else get the nomination. So I expect to see Hillary soundly defeated in the primary.
I hope our state government moves our primary up to January like they have been talking about, I'd like to help Sanders win the nomination when my primary vote will actually matter.
First Obama and now Sanders
Both left wing Democrats.
maineman
06-20-2015, 06:05 PM
In order of your comments. @maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289)
1. Voters for the Democrats. I hope you have verified numbers but I am not even trying to dispute that.
do you doubt that Bill Clinton got more votes than GHW Bush in '92?
do you doubt that Bill Clinton got more votes that Dole in '96
do you doubt that Al Gore got more votes than Dubya in '00?
I certainly don't doubt that Dubya got more votes that Kerry in '04
do you doubt that Obama got more votes that McCain in '08?
do you doubt that Obama got more votes than Romney in '12?
do you doubt that Bill Clinton got more votes than GHW Bush in '92?
do you doubt that Bill Clinton got more votes that Dole in '96
do you doubt that Al Gore got more votes than Dubya in '00?
I certainly don't doubt that Dubya got more votes that Kerry in '04
do you doubt that Obama got more votes that McCain in '08?
do you doubt that Obama got more votes than Romney in '12?
Given my previous answer, essentially yes to all of that, this amounts to harassment. maineman
maineman
06-20-2015, 06:08 PM
You claim she did not say as she was annoyed, What difference does it make?
I just replayed her exchange with Senator Johnson.
I fail to find you told the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wVnOu-aFlQ
did she ever say these words as quoted?
"what difference does the death of four Americans make?"
a simple yes or no will suffice.
maineman
06-20-2015, 06:10 PM
Given my previous answer, essentially yes to all of that, this amounts to harassment. @maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289)
you stated: " hope you have verified numbers"
why make such a statement if you don't NEED such numbers?
did she ever say these words as quoted?
"what difference does the death of four Americans make?"
a simple yes or no will suffice.
Well, since you refuse to watch the brief video ...
She said these words
With all due respect, we had 4 dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because some guys out on a walk that night decided to go kill some Americans. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE?
Annoyed and highly defensive. She refused to do her duty because she said it was the duty of the FBI to find out.
This when asked why she did not correct the mistake made.
you stated: " hope you have verified numbers"
why make such a statement if you don't NEED such numbers?
You were agreed with and still you want to act like that.
Green Arrow
06-20-2015, 06:16 PM
First Obama and now Sanders
Both left wing Democrats.
My political views are moderate left-wing, so naturally I'm going to be primarily drawn to left-wing candidates. Just like your political views are right-wing, so you are naturally drawn to right-wing candidates.
My political views are moderate left-wing, so naturally I'm going to be primarily drawn to left-wing candidates. Just like your political views are right-wing, so you are naturally drawn to right-wing candidates.
:laugh: Glad to see you are back on board. :laugh:
I think my views are center with a twitch to the right. I checked using the political compass and there is plenty of room on the right for you. I am not there though.
Ethereal
06-20-2015, 06:19 PM
Bernie Sanders seems like a decent person with actual beliefs and principles. Hillary Clinton is just another soulless opportunist looking to advance her own interests. She belongs in a jail cell next to Dick Cheney.
TrueBlue
06-20-2015, 06:21 PM
The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton continues to lead handily throughout the country! Sanders does not even come close with his single-digit numbers. So, Hillary is still very well positioned to take the White House in 2016!!
Election 2016 Presidential Polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Green Arrow
06-20-2015, 06:29 PM
The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton continues to lead handily throughout the country! Sanders does not even come close with his single-digit numbers. So, Hillary is still very well positioned to take the White House in 2016!!
Election 2016 Presidential Polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Thankfully, that is changing. Sanders is surging in the polls and there's still plenty of time for him to show that he is a far better, more honest, candidate.
Mini Me
06-20-2015, 06:30 PM
I'm switching to Sanders too.
You should! But we know you are a con bagger, sometimes posing as a liberal.
You should sick to snark and sick comedy, as that's your schtick.
...no, not really.
Mini Me
06-20-2015, 06:36 PM
After 40 years of socialist brainwashing in the schools and universities, the loss of our manufacturing base that has left many middle class Americans destitute, and the influx of foreigners from countries that do not have a strong capitalist or democratic tradition the country may be ripe for socialism.
Which means sanders would stand a chance in the general election.
For once, we can agree!
After 40 years of corporate FASCSIM, and Neocon perpetual wars, and Wall Street crooks causing the huge collapse, the push will be on for democratic socialism. This cannot stand!
Peter1469
06-20-2015, 06:39 PM
For once, we can agree!
After 40 years of corporate FASCSIM, and Neocon perpetual wars, and Wall Street crooks causing the huge collapse, the push will be on for democratic socialism. This cannot stand!
Unfortunately for you, your democrats are in the same bed as the establishment GOP.
You are in for a rude awakening. :wink:
GrassrootsConservative
06-20-2015, 06:45 PM
you misquoted her. why am I not surprised?
Not a misquote.
That's what the quote was referring to.
Why am I not surprised you don't know this?
Four Americans died in Benghazi. Her response was "what difference does it make."
Context is everything.
Mini Me
06-20-2015, 06:53 PM
You thought my post was "knee jerk."
and in spite of your loyal lib allies here I think your post was an attack.
There is a vast liberal conspiracy, and they are out to get you! LOL! Paranoid!
Mini Me
06-20-2015, 06:56 PM
Hitler was as honest about his beliefs as Sanders is about his.
Take your meds and go back to bed, Bob!
Take your meds and go back to bed, Bob!
Actually, why not dispute my claim.
PattyHill
06-20-2015, 08:01 PM
Given my previous answer, essentially yes to all of that, this amounts to harassment. @maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289)
No, it's not harassment.
Google the results of the popular votes in each of those elections; if you get contrary data, post it.
PattyHill
06-20-2015, 08:04 PM
Not a misquote.
That's what the quote was referring to.
Why am I not surprised you don't know this?
Four Americans died in Benghazi. Her response was "what difference does it make."
Context is everything.
Holy shit. You and Bob are sure not reading properly on this one. Context DOES matter, and you two blew it.
Her point was - there are four dead Americans. THAT matters. Why they died - that's what doesn't make as much of a difference.
Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/
PolWatch
06-20-2015, 08:09 PM
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
did I forget anything?
TrueBlue
06-20-2015, 08:15 PM
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
did I forget anything?
And yet with 30 or more inquiry hearings the Republicans have held on Benghazi they still have not found one damn thing wrong that Hillary did that will stick. One would think that by now the Republicans would have given up after more than thirty embarrassing hearings and still nothing. How 'bout that!
PolWatch
06-20-2015, 08:20 PM
I am not a fan of Hillary but she has got to be the most investigated woman in the history of American politics. She is either the slickest crook in history or the investigators are the dumbest incompetents in history.
Peter1469
06-20-2015, 08:23 PM
The US is covering up for its weapons running op from Libya to Syria.
Nothing to see here. Go back to sleep.
TrueBlue
06-20-2015, 08:34 PM
I am not a fan of Hillary but she has got to be the most investigated woman in the history of American politics. She is either the slickest crook in history or the investigators are the dumbest incompetents in history.
It's obviously the latter, Pol.
Green Arrow
06-20-2015, 09:10 PM
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
did I forget anything?
Yes you did, America hater! You forgot Benghazi!
Tahuyaman
06-20-2015, 09:22 PM
The Republicans haven't put up their best in decades.
Actually, the "Republucans", or Democrats for that matter don't put forth candidates. Political parties don't have any say as to who runs for president.
No, it's not harassment.
Google the results of the popular votes in each of those elections; if you get contrary data, post it.
I agreed with him. He charged back at me. That was the harassment.
maineman
06-20-2015, 09:41 PM
You were agreed with and still you want to act like that.
"hope you have verified numbers"
wtf??
I hope you've got a fresh box of Depends, old man.
"hope you have verified numbers"
wtf??
I hope you've got a fresh box of Depends, old man.
You are living in the past old man.
You were agreed with. What is the matter with you.
maineman
06-20-2015, 09:44 PM
Not a misquote.
That's what the quote was referring to.
Why am I not surprised you don't know this?
Four Americans died in Benghazi. Her response was "what difference does it make."
Context is everything.
quotation marks are everything. She did NOT say the words that she was quoted as saying. Why can't you be a fucking grownup and just admit that?
Good lord.... you're damn near old enough to be my father and yet, you are less mature than my son, for crissakes.
maineman
06-20-2015, 09:45 PM
You are living in the past old man.
You were agreed with. What is the matter with you.
explain the context of "hope you have verified numbers". explain what the fuck you were trying to get across with that sentence when you first wrote it.
PattyHill
06-20-2015, 09:46 PM
You are living in the past old man.
You were agreed with. What is the matter with you.
In post 137, you seemed to disagree with MM's number.
MM's post:
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by maineman http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1143754#post1143754)do you doubt that Bill Clinton got more votes than GHW Bush in '92?
do you doubt that Bill Clinton got more votes that Dole in '96
do you doubt that Al Gore got more votes than Dubya in '00?
I certainly don't doubt that Dubya got more votes that Kerry in '04
do you doubt that Obama got more votes that McCain in '08?
do you doubt that Obama got more votes than Romney in '12?
Your post
Given my previous answer, essentially yes to all of that, this amounts to harassment. @maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289)
So therefore you doubt all the numbers MM listed.
If you agree with his numbers, then your answer should be worded slightly differently.
explain the context of "hope you have verified numbers". explain what the fuck you were trying to get across with that sentence when you first wrote it.
What the hell? YOU ARE AGREED WITH
Stop this nonsense
maineman
06-20-2015, 09:47 PM
"Four score and seven years ago... Thomas Jefferson was tapping dark meat" Abraham Lincoln.
same exact thing.
maineman
06-20-2015, 09:48 PM
What the hell? YOU ARE AGREED WITH
Stop this nonsense
you can't explain your own writing????
Alzheimer's????
In post 137, you seemed to disagree with MM's number.
MM's post:
Your post
So therefore you doubt all the numbers MM listed.
If you agree with his numbers, then your answer should be worded slightly differently.
Do you wish me to change my mind and not agree with him?
you can't explain your own writing????
Alzheimer's????
You must be on a vendetta to force me to not agree with you.
Talk about Alzheimer's.
maineman
06-20-2015, 09:50 PM
Do you wish me to change my mind and not agree with him?
my questions were phrased, "do you doubt...."
your response was "yes to all of that"....ergo, yes, I doubt all of that. Is English your second language?
maineman
06-20-2015, 09:51 PM
"hope you have verified numbers".
What DID that mean? Simple question... you wrote it.... now, apparently, you cannot explain it.
I, Bob ... say to maineman
Over this remark he made
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by mainemanhttp://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1143754#post1143754)do you doubt that Bill Clinton got more votes than GHW Bush in '92?
do you doubt that Bill Clinton got more votes that Dole in '96
do you doubt that Al Gore got more votes than Dubya in '00?
I certainly don't doubt that Dubya got more votes that Kerry in '04
do you doubt that Obama got more votes that McCain in '08?
do you doubt that Obama got more votes than Romney in '12?
I know you mean the popular vote, which is not the system we use, but the electoral college system
I do not doubt you.
I DO NOT DOUBT THOSE FIGURES.
maineman
06-20-2015, 09:53 PM
now admit that Hillary was misquoted, and we can call it a night.
"hope you have verified numbers".
What DID that mean? Simple question... you wrote it.... now, apparently, you cannot explain it.
What do you think it meant? I do hope you have verified numbers.
I expect you have them.
You are correct.
Why are you doing this?
Tahuyaman
06-20-2015, 09:55 PM
I saw her say it. She was ultra annoyed they asked about the deaths in Benghazi.
As the head of department of state, she should have acted interested to say the least.
Is someone trying to claim Hillary never made the "what different does it make " comment?
now admit that Hillary was misquoted, and we can call it a night.
On this, you need to pause since I have never used the same phrasing you did
But watch her video
Then explain her words on this matter.
Is someone trying to claim Hillary never made the "what different does it make " comment?
Yup. Yes indeedy. The man claims she did not say what she said.
maineman
06-20-2015, 09:56 PM
What do you think it meant? I do hope you have verified numbers.
I expect you have them.
You are correct.
Why are you doing this?
I personally don't have verified numbers. The world has verified numbers. HISTORY has verified numbers. The numbers of popular votes cast for the president is available for anyone for every single election that we have ever had. YOU have verified numbers.
And Hillary was misquoted and you still have not admitted that, nor has the moron who initially misquoted her.
maineman
06-20-2015, 09:58 PM
On this, you need to pause since I have never used the same phrasing you did
But watch her video
Then explain her words on this matter.
I don't need to explain her words. She was misquoted on this thread. She did NOT say the words attributed to her. Period.
I say again... would you think THIS was an accurate quote:
"Four score and seven years ago.... Thomas Jefferson was tapping dark meat" Abraham Lincoln
yes or no?
I personally don't have verified numbers. The world has verified numbers. HISTORY has verified numbers. The numbers of popular votes cast for the president is available for anyone for every single election that we have ever had. YOU have verified numbers.
And Hillary was misquoted and you still have not admitted that, nor has the moron who initially misquoted her.
Things must be very slow at your place today.
Are you a tick or something? You bite right in and hang on tight.
Tahuyaman
06-20-2015, 09:59 PM
And Hillary Clinton isn't? She's a war criminal who helped oversee the destruction of two secular governments in Libya and Syria.
actually she's a combat vet. Remember when she dodged sniper fire in Bosnia?
I don't need to explain her words. She was misquoted on this thread. She did NOT say the words attributed to her. Period.
I say again... would you think THIS was an accurate quote:
"Four score and seven years ago.... Thomas Jefferson was tapping dark meat" Abraham Lincoln
yes or no?
Oh I see the woman in the white nurse outfit is taking care of you.
Why would I say yes to such nonsense? You mean it needs a no for you to believe it is fiction?
maineman
06-20-2015, 10:01 PM
I mean, their biggest hope right now is Hillary "what difference does the death of four Americans make?" Clinton... That says it all.
she did not say that. That was my point, and my only point. If you are going to use quotation marks, you don't have editorial license to add stuff or alter stuff from what the person whom you are quoting actually said.
Tahuyaman
06-20-2015, 10:01 PM
Yup. Yes indeedy. The man claims she did not say what she said.
If he belueves it, it's not a lie.
maineman
06-20-2015, 10:02 PM
Oh I see the woman in the white nurse outfit is taking care of you.
Why would I say yes to such nonsense? You mean it needs a no for you to believe it is fiction?
it's the same thing GRC did... he added a little bit at the end to spice it up, and, that seems perfectly acceptable to you when it is Hillary whose quotes are being spiced up. When it's Honest Abe, not so much, apparently.
If he belueves it, it's not a lie.
That's it. He defends the woman but does not know her exact words.
I actually put her on youtube, as she talked, I transcribed her words and still he moans.
it's the same thing GRC did... he added a little bit at the end to spice it up, and, that seems perfectly acceptable to you when it is Hillary whose quotes are being spiced up. When it's Honest Abe, not so much, apparently.
Can you read this.
I do not read all posts.
Want that in all caps?
Tahuyaman
06-20-2015, 10:06 PM
That's it. He defends the woman but does not know her exact words.
I actually put her on youtube, as she talked, I transcribed her words and still he moans.
That's within his character.
PattyHill
06-20-2015, 10:10 PM
I, Bob ... say to @maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289)
Over this remark he made
I know you mean the popular vote, which is not the system we use, but the electoral college system
I do not doubt you.
I DO NOT DOUBT THOSE FIGURES.
Ok. Your first response indicated the opposite. Glad to read this response.
she did not say that. That was my point, and my only point. If you are going to use quotation marks, you don't have editorial license to add stuff or alter stuff from what the person whom you are quoting actually said.
This is what she said. Sure acts with sympathy to the dead Americans I suppose.
Her words certainly sucked the big one to say the least.
The attack killed four Americans -- and set off administration critics such as U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.
A few days before the hearing, it was disclosed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/) that a top U.S. diplomat had said "everyone" at the consulate thought "from the beginning" that the attack was an act of terror.
And even before that, Johnson had reminded citizens (http://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=dc346e0a-f9ac-466c-881d-318276f49a3c) at least twice (http://graphics.jsonline.com/620podcasts/sykes/050213_Senator_Ron_Johnson.mp3)of what Clinton told him about the attack during a Senate committee hearing in January 2013.
"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/
Ok. Your first response indicated the opposite. Glad to read this response.
Were I in your place, I would have shrugged off. He tries to bait me a lot.
maineman
06-20-2015, 10:14 PM
Can you read this.
I do not read all posts.
Want that in all caps?
so...what you are saying is that you didn't even READ the quote that GRC posted that I took issue with?
Why in the world are you arguing about it then? She did NOT say the words in quotation marks. period. end of story. I called him on it. You, apparently, took, his side of the story without even reading the quote??? What a good RWNJ team player you are, Bob. Congratulations.
GrassrootsConservative
06-20-2015, 10:14 PM
This is what she said. Sure acts with sympathy to the dead Americans I suppose.
Her words certainly sucked the big one to say the least.
The attack killed four Americans -- and set off administration critics such as U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.
A few days before the hearing, it was disclosed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/) that a top U.S. diplomat had said "everyone" at the consulate thought "from the beginning" that the attack was an act of terror.
And even before that, Johnson had reminded citizens (http://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=dc346e0a-f9ac-466c-881d-318276f49a3c) at least twice (http://graphics.jsonline.com/620podcasts/sykes/050213_Senator_Ron_Johnson.mp3)of what Clinton told him about the attack during a Senate committee hearing in January 2013.
"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/
Thanks Bob. Sorry I had to shorten her quote to make for a proper nickname.
so...what you are saying is that you didn't even READ the quote that GRC posted that I took issue with?
Why in the world are you arguing about it then? She did NOT say the words in quotation marks. period. end of story. I called him on it. You, apparently, took, his side of the story without even reading the quote??? What a good RWNJ team player you are, Bob. Congratulations.
What is your passive aggressive kick?
Somebody did not feed you yet?
Thanks Bob. Sorry I had to shorten her quote to make for a proper nickname.
I have you covered.
maineman
06-20-2015, 10:17 PM
Yup. Yes indeedy. The man claims she did not say what she said.
THAT is a lie.. People who lie are known as LIARS where I come from.
so...what you are saying is that you didn't even READ the quote that GRC posted that I took issue with?
Why in the world are you arguing about it then? She did NOT say the words in quotation marks. period. end of story. I called him on it. You, apparently, took, his side of the story without even reading the quote??? What a good RWNJ team player you are, Bob. Congratulations.
Pardon me.
I heard her say it. I even transcribed her words FOR YOU.
Now you tell me you missed the post?
maineman
06-20-2015, 10:18 PM
What is your passive aggressive kick?
Somebody did not feed you yet?
she was misquoted. I simply stated that. you said I was wrong. YOU were wrong. Own it and go to bed.
THAT is a lie.. People who lie are known as LIARS where I come from.
Hell, i transcribed her words. i even showed you the video. And still you are stomping your feet!!! Why?
maineman
06-20-2015, 10:20 PM
Pardon me.
I heard her say it. I even transcribed her words FOR YOU.
Now you tell me you missed the post?
You did NOT hear her say, as GRC quoted her as saying, ""what difference does the death of four Americans make?"
she did not say those words. Admit it, and we're done here.
Tahuyaman
06-20-2015, 10:20 PM
Pardon me.
I heard her say it. I even transcribed her words FOR YOU.
Now you tell me you missed the post?
Why are you arguing with that nit-wit? Stop it. I'm trying to ignore his inane comments.
she was misquoted. I simply stated that. you said I was wrong. YOU were wrong. Own it and go to bed.
No Senor, you own it.
Why are you arguing with that nit-wit?
Better than watching TV.
You did NOT hear her say, as GRC quoted her as saying, ""what difference does the death of four Americans make?"
she did not say those words. Admit it, and we're done here.
I posted her true words.
I take care of my own laundry.
Do not bug me to defend other posters.
maineman
06-20-2015, 10:22 PM
Why are you arguing with that nit-wit? @Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365) seems to be as clueless as this as he is about things. PLUS... he's such a pussy, he can't defend his own words in a conversation with me, so he puts me on ignore, but STILL follows me around nipping at my heels all the while pretending he can't - or won't - read what I have written. Nutless. Underachieving pussy.
You did NOT hear her say, as GRC quoted her as saying, ""what difference does the death of four Americans make?"
she did not say those words. Admit it, and we're done here.
Talk to him. I posted her true words. Even supplied you the Video. Did you eat it?
Tahuyaman
06-20-2015, 10:29 PM
Talk to him. I posted her true words. Even supplied you the Video. Did you eat it?
At least now he's humping your leg instead of mine.
maineman
06-20-2015, 10:31 PM
I posted her true words.
I take care of my own laundry.
Do not bug me to defend other posters.
But that is PRECISELY what you did, Bob. Here is the flow of the conversation:
GRC said:
I mean, their biggest hope right now is Hillary "what difference does the death of four Americans make?" Clinton... That says it all.
to which I replied:
you misquoted her. why am I not surprised?
and YOU jumped to his defense and said:
I saw her say it. She was ultra annoyed they asked about the deaths in Benghazi.
As the head of department of state, she should have acted interested to say the least.
So... let me ask you again... one last time: Did GRC quote Hillary accurately with this quote, "what difference does the death of four Americans make?"
yes or no?
maineman
06-20-2015, 10:33 PM
Talk to him. I posted her true words. Even supplied you the Video. Did you eat it?
Bob... have I ever taken issue with the video or YOUR transcript thereof?
yes or no
GrassrootsConservative
06-20-2015, 10:35 PM
But that is PRECISELY what you did, Bob. Here is the flow of the conversation:
GRC said:
to which I replied:
and YOU jumped to his defense and said:
So... let me ask you again... one last time: Did GRC quote Hillary accurately with this quote, "what difference does the death of four Americans make?"
yes or no?
Yes. Look at the link bob spoon-fed you. If you're capable. I shortened it to make for a proper nickname, is all. A forty word nickname isn't a very good one, you know?
maineman
06-20-2015, 10:40 PM
Yes. Look at the link bob spoon-fed you. If you're capable. I shortened it to make for a proper nickname, is all. A forty word nickname isn't a very good one, you know?
the quotation was inaccurate. YOU did more than shorten it, you added "does the death of four americans make" on to her statement that had to do with what difference did it make what the underlying instigation was that caused the deaths. the important thing was that we had lost four Americans. You misquoted her. deliberately. I called you on it. You went silent. Bob took up your defense. You two should go get a room, I think.
But that is PRECISELY what you did, Bob. Here is the flow of the conversation:
GRC said:
to which I replied:
and YOU jumped to his defense and said:
So... let me ask you again... one last time: Did GRC quote Hillary accurately with this quote, "what difference does the death of four Americans make?"
yes or no?
Let's try it this way.
Who was Hillary discussing?
the quotation was inaccurate. YOU did more than shorten it, you added "does the death of four americans make" on to her statement that had to do with what difference did it make what the underlying instigation was that caused the deaths. the important thing was that we had lost four Americans. You misquoted her. deliberately. I called you on it. You went silent. Bob took up your defense. You two should go get a room, I think.
Yes or no
She was discussing the dead Americans?
Tahuyaman
06-20-2015, 10:48 PM
I don't know what the controversy is all about, but when trying to find out why four Americans were killed needlessly, clearly Hillary Clinton was annoyed by the inquiry and said " what difference does it make at this point".
She was only concerned about relieving herself of any and all responsibility for the decisions which allowed the incident to take place.
maineman
06-20-2015, 10:49 PM
Yes or no
She was discussing the dead Americans?
you have yet to answer my question. When you do, then you get to ask me some. not until.
Was she misquoted by GRC or not?
maineman
06-20-2015, 10:54 PM
the congressman was attempting to suggest that there was some conspiracy to create a false narrative around what caused the incident to erupt in Benghazi. Hillary said, and I am paraphrasing, "we have four dead Americans. what difference does it make whether there were protesters who were upset at a movie who decided to kill them or whether they were terrorists who were not involved in any protest who killed them. We have four dead Americans. The IMPORTANT thing is to find those who did it and bring them to justice".
But you RWNJ's will never admit that... or believe that.... just like some of you still don't believe that the president is not a Kenyan imposter.
She was misquoted here. I called the guy who did it on it, and all the other RWNJ's came to his defense.
Get a room.... get in a circle.... put a cracker in the middle.... jack off on it.... I'm outa here.
you have yet to answer my question. When you do, then you get to ask me some. not until.
Was she misquoted by GRC or not?
Do you have any friends left?
Yes or no
the congressman was attempting to suggest that there was some conspiracy to create a false narrative around what caused the incident to erupt in Benghazi. Hillary said, and I am paraphrasing, "we have four dead Americans. what difference does it make whether there were protesters who were upset at a movie who decided to kill them or whether they were terrorists who were not involved in any protest who killed them. We have four dead Americans. The IMPORTANT thing is to find those who did it and bring them to justice".
But you RWNJ's will never admit that... or believe that.... just like some of you still don't believe that the president is not a Kenyan imposter.
She was misquoted here. I called the guy who did it on it, and all the other RWNJ's came to his defense.
Get a room.... get in a circle.... put a cracker in the middle.... jack off on it.... I'm outa here.
She was busted giving a false narrative and tossed a fit referring to dead Americans.
Bob... have I ever taken issue with the video or YOUR transcript thereof?
yes or no
I call what you pulled flat out ignoring it.
Did you?
Yes or no
maineman
06-21-2015, 07:23 AM
She was busted giving a false narrative and tossed a fit referring to dead Americans.
I disagree. She certainly never said that the deaths of four Americans did not make any difference.
maineman
06-21-2015, 07:23 AM
I call what you pulled flat out ignoring it.
Did you?
Yes or no
no.
maineman
06-21-2015, 07:23 AM
Do you have any friends left?
Yes or no
yes
PattyHill
06-21-2015, 08:09 AM
I call what you pulled flat out ignoring it.
Did you?
Yes or no
No. You are supporting the original poster who misquoted Ms. Clinton.
Did you ignore ME posting the quote earlier? The "what difference does it makes" referred to whether it had been planned for a long time or was just randomly acted on. Four dead Americans was awful, in either case.
But you are so desperate to hate on her that you can't read her comments properly.
I'm with MM. I won't discuss this anymore because you all are refusing to read the comments correctly.
Boris The Animal
06-21-2015, 08:21 AM
No. You are supporting the original poster who misquoted Ms. Clinton.
Did you ignore ME posting the quote earlier? The "what difference does it makes" referred to whether it had been planned for a long time or was just randomly acted on. Four dead Americans was awful, in either case.
But you are so desperate to hate on her that you can't read her comments properly.
I'm with MM. I won't discuss this anymore because you all are refusing to read the comments correctly.Her royal thighness, Hitlery Rotton Clintoon is not qualified even to be a shithouse cleaner, let alone POTUS.
nic34
06-21-2015, 08:23 AM
I think that may liberals know that Hillary has some real issues that are going to come out in the General.
neither party can get elected without the swing or independent vote. Hillary is not a likeable person, She is clearly not honest and all of her positions that the left really likes? She was on the opposite side of, just a few months ago.
Even they can't trust her.
We're simply tired of voting for those that say they're on the left only to see them later tack to the right to appease corporate masters. Get money out of politics and even the GOPers might elect an honest person.
maineman
06-21-2015, 08:25 AM
Her royal thighness, Hitlery Rotton Clintoon is not qualified even to be a shithouse cleaner, let alone POTUS.
what will be your reaction when she is elected? Will you (hopefully) explode?
nic34
06-21-2015, 08:30 AM
yes
Are you really trying to have a discussion with bob?
maineman
06-21-2015, 09:02 AM
Are you really trying to have a discussion with bob?
with each new day, hope springs forth.
Tahuyaman
06-21-2015, 09:06 AM
We're simply tired of voting for those that say they're on the left only to see them later tack to the right to appease corporate masters. Get money out of politics and even the GOPers might elect an honest person.
Who has run as a liberal then shifted to the right once elected?
Chris
06-21-2015, 10:41 AM
We're simply tired of voting for those that say they're on the left only to see them later tack to the right to appease corporate masters. Get money out of politics and even the GOPers might elect an honest person.
Like Obama. I don't blame you. So who will you vote for, Clinton the war-mongering 0.1%er or Sanders the populist social democrat?
Lineman
06-21-2015, 10:48 AM
Sanders would be great with a like minded Congress and Senate. Without that, hed be drubbed out by the religious conservative caliphate presently in control of Congress.
Tahuyaman
06-21-2015, 10:52 AM
Sanders would be great with a like minded Congress and Senate. Without that, hed be drubbed out by the religious conservative caliphate presently in control of Congress.
Comments like that make me chuckle a bit. "Religious conservative caliphate". What a hoot.
Peter1469
06-21-2015, 10:53 AM
Comments like that make me chuckle a bit. "Religious conservative caliphate". What a hoot.
We need clowns here to make us laugh now and then.... :smiley:
Tahuyaman
06-21-2015, 10:57 AM
We need clowns here to make us laugh now and then.... :smiley:
I just hope they don't ooze in an ruin the good discussion we are having elsewhere.
Chris
06-21-2015, 10:59 AM
Sanders would be great with a like minded Congress and Senate. ...
But that's the way the government was designed with the branches contesting each other and checking excessive power.
Private Pickle
06-21-2015, 11:53 AM
Actually, the "Republucans", or Democrats for that matter don't put forth candidates. Political parties don't have any say as to who runs for president.
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
Tahuyaman
06-21-2015, 01:20 PM
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
what a thoughtful answer.
Private Pickle
06-21-2015, 01:22 PM
what a thoughtful answer.
There wasn't a question...
Tahuyaman
06-21-2015, 01:27 PM
There wasn't a question...
What a thoughtful response.
There, happy now?
Private Pickle
06-21-2015, 02:13 PM
What a thoughtful response.
There, happy now?
That's a question.
I'm pensive today but thanks for asking.
No. You are supporting the original poster who misquoted Ms. Clinton.
Did you ignore ME posting the quote earlier? The "what difference does it makes" referred to whether it had been planned for a long time or was just randomly acted on. Four dead Americans was awful, in either case.
But you are so desperate to hate on her that you can't read her comments properly.
I'm with MM. I won't discuss this anymore because you all are refusing to read the comments correctly.
I posted her remarks correctly along with posting the video to show all what her words were as you see her talk.
Can't do more than that. PattyHill
Like Obama. I don't blame you. So who will you vote for, Clinton the war-mongering 0.1%er or Sanders the populist social democrat?
Sanders stil gets no more than 10 percent, mostly 8 percent in the polls. The good news is Hillary's numbers have greatly fallen.
One poll for instance has her 42 percent vs Bush at 41 percent
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
what will be your reaction when she is elected? Will you (hopefully) explode?
Obama runs about 45 percent favorable and in real clear politics, she is not running away with anything.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Ohio: Bush vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_bush_vs_clinton-4078.html)
Quinnipiac (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/sw/ps06172015_S63hvd.pdf)
Clinton 42, Bush 41 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_bush_vs_clinton-4078.html)
Clinton +1
I disagree. She certainly never said that the deaths of four Americans did not make any difference.
Why didn't you then quote her?
I did maineman and posted the actual video
PattyHill
06-21-2015, 04:17 PM
I posted her remarks correctly along with posting the video to show all what her words were as you see her talk.
Can't do more than that. @PattyHill (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1335)
well, you COULD read her quote accurately.
well, you COULD read her quote accurately.
Wow, I DID PATTY. PattyHill
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.