U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

[KantoPkmnMaster]

Meh. If it's Trump vs. Clinton i'm not going to vote. Two halves of the same duplicitous coin.
Honestly, though at this point i'm more focused on issues in my state rather than the national level.

 

[Remix2]

I alway find it funny how people say that we can't afford universal health care or good education, and yet we can spend 7 trillion dollars on two illegal wars, and God know how much money on corporate welfare on companies who don't need it.

 

[Mordent99]

This is exactly why I get annoyed by Democrats who call me out on supporting Clinton over Sanders. It causes people to fight when they should cooperate, something that is the Republican Party's biggest flaw right now.

And I still think that Hillary's detractors have only one reason for their accusations, which is because they just don't like her.

 

[KantoPkmnMaster]

So credible scandals, poor performance and leadership in leadership positions aren't reasons? That or she'll pander her way/change a policy position to get a vote. I loathe Sanders, but to his credit he sticks with his core beliefs, as nutty as they are.

That being said, you're likely in the winner's circle for the DNC nomination by going with her. Sanders doesn't generate the support with nonwhites that Clinton does, which puts him at a disadvantage. That and Clinton has the support of the DNC and a majority of dems in Congress. It's likely Hillary will win Iowa, lose New Hampshire and be nominated after.

 

[Mordent99]

So credible scandals, poor performance and leadership in leadership positions aren't reasons? That or she'll pander her way/change a policy position to get a vote. I loathe Sanders, but to his credit he sticks with his core beliefs, as nutty as they are.

I despise Trump, and despise his supporters even more. He's a bigot, no matter how much they try to deny it, and I've been insulted on other forums too much by Republican voters to consider their side. Just this morning, my considerate comments about her fund raising got me called a "Democrat terrorist".

]That and Clinton has the support of the DNC and a majority of dems in Congress. It's likely Hillary will win Iowa, lose New Hampshire and be nominated after.

You say it as if we consider it a bad thing.

 

[chalkus]

Chalkus, I have had enough of arguing with you. HERE is why I support Ms. Clinton:

I am pro gun control. Ms. Clinton is pro gun control. Republicans oppose gun control.

I oppose the death penalty; I think it is uncivilized and barbaric, used as a means of revenge, not justice. Ms. Clinton opposes the death penalty, Republican support it.

I support raising the minimum wage. Ms. Clinton supports raising the minimum wage. Republicans oppose it.

I support the ACA. Ms. Clinton supports the ACA. Republicans have vowed to repeal it, and have wasted millions trying to.

I support civil rights. The current Democrat Party supports civil rights. Republican politicians have made several racist comments since 2008 (and if you challenge that, I have a collection of links to prove it). And btw, the Dixiecrats are dead and in their graves, and I am no more ashamed to be a Democrat because of them than I am to be Italian, a form dictatorship.

I support a woman's right to choose. Democrats in general are pro choice. Republican politicians have supported outlawing abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

I've held these beliefs most of my life. And I find the current Republicans unlikeable, repugnant, and utterly foolish. And in some cases, downright mean. Their media outlets tell outright lies, and start slanderous and untrue rumors.

THAT, my friend, in a nutshell, is why I support Ms. Clinton, and plan to vote for her, and why I cannot, in clear conscience, support the opposing side.

As for Hillary "never winning an opposed election", I can name several other Presidents who were the same. (Like Abraham Lincoln, for instance.)

First of all, I never once questioned you as to who you support or to justify doing so. You were the one who kept telling me who I supported and what policies I was in favor of. And I am pretty sure Hillary did not hold true to all those things you listed and changed her positions for political purposes. I believe on the death penalty, for example, she is on the fence, and is not against it.

Because I'm realistic, and know that with her numbers, she's far more electable, because she's more popular. Overwhelmingly. I have no idea why Sanders' supporters are so upset. The Democrats should be cooperating, not fighting amongst themselves like the GOP is doing.

Funny thing is, if everyone who said Sanders is not electable actually voted for him, he would be electable.

This is exactly why I get annoyed by Democrats who call me out on supporting Clinton over Sanders. It causes people to fight when they should cooperate, something that is the Republican Party's biggest flaw right now.

And I still think that Hillary's detractors have only one reason for their accusations, which is because they just don't like her.

I see, so there shouldn't be any discussion or discourse within the Democratic Party? Everyone should just vote for Hillary without even thinking it through? I assume you are an Obama supporter, what if people had your mentality back in 2008 and refused to give Obama a chance because he wasn't as 'electable' as Hillary was considered to be then. What you are saying about Bernie is no different than what was being said about Obama at that time. Remember back then, it was believed that Obama being black would be a detriment because white voters when polled would claim to vote for a black candidate but would do otherwise once at the polls. How about rumors of Obama being a 'secret Muslim,' which the Clinton campaign also perpetuated. Yet he not only won the nomination for his party, but won the general as well.

Bernie Sander's positions fall in line with what Dems say they have wanted for years, yet so many are running away from him for someone whose positions change at the drop of a hat. Trump is a terrible candidate, but at least his supporters are honest and aren't compromising their beliefs.

So credible scandals, poor performance and leadership in leadership positions aren't reasons? That or she'll pander her way/change a policy position to get a vote. I loathe Sanders, but to his credit he sticks with his core beliefs, as nutty as they are.

Agreed. I also think Sanders' positions are unrealistic and that even if he were to win, he wouldn't be able to get anything he wants done without the Dems taking back the House and Senate, but at least he sticks to his beliefs and has not wavered form them.

That being said, you're likely in the winner's circle for the DNC nomination by going with her. Sanders doesn't generate the support with nonwhites that Clinton does, which puts him at a disadvantage. That and Clinton has the support of the DNC and a majority of dems in Congress. It's likely Hillary will win Iowa, lose New Hampshire and be nominated after.

Clinton's path to the nomination is clear, and if the Repubs put either Trump, Cruz or Carson as their candidate, then they deserve to lose. And if that does happen, I hope they lose big, like 1984 big. Maybe that will snap the far-right back into reality.

 

[Mordent99]

I see, so there shouldn't be any discussion or discourse within the Democratic Party? Everyone should just vote for Hillary without even thinking it through? I assume you are an Obama supporter, what if people had your mentality back in 2008 and refused to give Obama a chance because he wasn't as 'electable' as Hillary was considered to be then. What you are saying about Bernie is no different than what was being said about Obama at that time. Remember back then, it was believed that Obama being black would be a detriment because white voters when polled would claim to vote for a black candidate but would do otherwise once at the polls. How about rumors of Obama being a 'secret Muslim,' which the Clinton campaign also perpetuated. Yet he not only won the nomination for his party, but won the general as well.

Bernie Sander's positions fall in line with what Dems say they have wanted for years, yet so many are running away from him for someone whose positions change at the drop of a hat. Trump is a terrible candidate, but at least his supporters are honest and aren't compromising their beliefs.

Why are you so anxious to see the Democrats erupt into the same messy, hateful feud they had in 2008? The one Republicans are in now?

Lack of cooperation has caused more trouble in Washington that I can list.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Wanting the better candidate =/= wanting fighting and division, Maedar. This is how the political process works in the U.S., and it works that way for a reason. If you don't like it, then get rid of primaries.

Did KantoPkmnMaster still want to take responsibility for his bullshit 18-20 trillion dollars claim? Going once...going twice...!

By the way, I should also mention that simplifying Sanders plan as just "tax the rich" is disengenious. He's listed lots of other detailed proposals like turning post offices into banks to offer greater competition to the bigger financial institutions and restructuring the federal reserve. He wouldn't be nearly as nutty to some folks if they actually bothered to do their research into his platform/proposals.

If it's a legitimate criticism of Sanders you're looking for, you could point to his past anti-gmo proclivities and sympathy toward alternative medicine as a senator. That and lack of real foriegn policy experience are my only concerns about him. Don't try to say that he wants to make some unrealistic, socialist utopia though. What he's campaigning for is completely affordable.

 

[WitchRolina]

Speaking of Sanders, I was hoping someone could explain something to me. I've seen a lot of support for him here and there, but like most candidates I've seen talk of, I've seen very little substantive talk about his policies and the like, so I really don't know what to think. Off chance one of y'all could explain it to me, or better yet link me to an official source where he goes over it? Surely there's a reason he's got as much support as he does, I just rarely see detailed reasons as to why.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I'm on my phone right now so I can't copy and paste, but you could probably just head over to their main website, berniesanders.org. I imagine there's a detailed platform. Free tuition specifically would be covered by a tax on Wallstreet speculation.

The funny thing is, even if Sanders loses the nomination he isn't going to go away. His campaign exceeded 750,000 donors, which is the most any candidate has had in U.S. election history. His supporters aren't going to disappear, if or when he loses he'll emerge as the leader of one of the biggest political movements the country has ever seen.

 

[Mordent99]

Wanting the better candidate =/= wanting fighting and division, Maedar. This is how the political process works in the U.S., and it works that way for a reason. If you don't like it, then get rid of primaries.

I'd gladly get rid of them if I was in charge. Sadly, I am not.

 

[KantoPkmnMaster]

Clinton's path to the nomination is clear, and if the Repubs put either Trump, Cruz or Carson as their candidate, then they deserve to lose. And if that does happen, I hope they lose big, like 1984 big. Maybe that will snap the far-right back into reality.

With the upheaval in his campaign Carson shouldn't have much left in the tank. Especially with financial problems he's experienced as of late. But yeah, I get what you're saying. Part of me wants the Republicans to nominate Cruz. As a registered Republican who considers himself more of a centrist/moderate I'd love to see Cruz get crushed in the general election. Hopefully it would facilitate an implosion of the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus.

 

[Mordent99]

You think they'd lose worse than Mondale did?

Some pundits have suggested they'd lose worse than eve Goldwater did.

I have no idea how Trump's supporters think he can win. Some of them claim there's a "silent majority" who will help him, which is not just absurd, but the same thing they said when Romney's numbers were in the gutter. It seems the far-right just never learns. That's their problem.

Speaking of Sanders, I was hoping someone could explain something to me. I've seen a lot of support for him here and there, but like most candidates I've seen talk of, I've seen very little substantive talk about his policies and the like, so I really don't know what to think. Off chance one of y'all could explain it to me, or better yet link me to an official source where he goes over it? Surely there's a reason he's got as much support as he does, I just rarely see detailed reasons as to why.

Another reason I don't like him. He seems to be running just as a means of protest, the same reason guys like Ralph Nader and Ross Perot do, and that always leads to disasters when support for them splits the party.

Let me put it this way, Theodore Roosevelt himself challenged his own party and only succeeded in helping the opposing party, and people liked him.

Edit: THIS is Hillary handling a heckler:

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/...1_lnk2&pLid=752164795#confab-comment-25634641

Now compare that to Trump's way:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-141050747.html

I rest my case.

 

[Navin]

Agreed. I also think Sanders' positions are unrealistic and that even if he were to win, he wouldn't be able to get anything he wants done without the Dems taking back the House and Senate, but at least he sticks to his beliefs and has not wavered form them.

Not like the GOP will cooperate much with Hillary if she won...

Clinton's path to the nomination is clear, and if the Repubs put either Trump, Cruz or Carson as their candidate, then they deserve to lose. And if that does happen, I hope they lose big, like 1984 big. Maybe that will snap the far-right back into reality.

Carson is done. Bush's last name spelled doom from the beginning. It's really between Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. Rubio is the best shot at the general election, but he's not campaigning very well, and he's going to get hammered due to the fact that all he did in Senate was set up himself to run for President. With Trump, I can't tell anymore if people are voting for him in polls out of the "lolz" or they unfathomably want him as the President.

You think they'd lose worse than Mondale did?

Some pundits have suggested they'd lose worse than eve Goldwater did.

I have no idea how Trump's supporters think he can win. Some of them claim there's a "silent majority" who will help him, which is not just absurd, but the same thing they said when Romney's numbers were in the gutter. It seems the far-right just never learns. That's their problem.



Another reason I don't like him. He seems to be running just as a means of protest, the same reason guys like Ralph Nader and Ross Perot do, and that always leads to disasters when support for them splits the party.

Let me put it this way, Theodore Roosevelt himself challenged his own party and only succeeded in helping the opposing party, and people liked him.

Edit: THIS is Hillary handling a heckler:

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/...1_lnk2&pLid=752164795#confab-comment-25634641

Now compare that to Trump's way:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-141050747.html

I rest my case.

Quite frankly, I'm more embarrassed that a state representative behaves like that.

 

[Mordent99]

Quite frankly, I'm more embarrassed that a state representative behaves like that.

I would be too.

But right now, nothing a Republican would do would surprise me.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are ready to break out into all-out war, mass shootings in this country happen every week, and the GOP is concerned about her sex life? What has this country come to?

 

[KantoPkmnMaster]

You think they'd lose worse than Mondale did?

Some pundits have suggested they'd lose worse than eve Goldwater did.

I have no idea how Trump's supporters think he can win. Some of them claim there's a "silent majority" who will help him, which is not just absurd, but the same thing they said when Romney's numbers were in the gutter. It seems the far-right just never learns. That's their problem.



Another reason I don't like him. He seems to be running just as a means of protest, the same reason guys like Ralph Nader and Ross Perot do, and that always leads to disasters when support for them splits the party.

Let me put it this way, Theodore Roosevelt himself challenged his own party and only succeeded in helping the opposing party, and people liked him.

Edit: THIS is Hillary handling a heckler:

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/...1_lnk2&pLid=752164795#confab-comment-25634641

Now compare that to Trump's way:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-141050747.html

I rest my case.

The way the electoral college has shaped up and how polarizing Presidential and State politics has become over the past two election cycles it's very unlikely that you would see those results like you did with Mondale or Goldwater. Deep South states like mine will likely vote for the Republican regardless of who he or she is. The rest of the country might not. If Trump would lose though, I'd imagine that Clinton would likely carry somewhere around 43 States. Hopefully Rubio is the nominee. Of course, if he becomes the nominee Trump will probably run as an independent and become Ross Perot 2.0.

 

[Remix2]

The way the electoral college has shaped up and how polarizing Presidential and State politics has become over the past two election cycles it's very unlikely that you would see those results like you did with Mondale or Goldwater. Deep South states like mine will likely vote for the Republican regardless of who he or she is. The rest of the country might not. If Trump would lose though, I'd imagine that Clinton would likely carry somewhere around 43 States. Hopefully Rubio is the nominee. Of course, if he becomes the nominee Trump will probably run as an independent and become Ross Perot 2.0.

Honestly after reading this

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...security-pitch-hillary-clinton-guantanamo-bay

The last thing we need is to nominate someone who is basically want to go to war with any country we don't like because reasons.

 

[bobjr]

Marco Rubio is crazy, just not the blatant crazy we've seen from people like Fiorina and Trump.

 

[Baba Yaga]

He also thinks monitoring Muslim places of business and worship is a swell idea.

 

[Navin]

The way the electoral college has shaped up and how polarizing Presidential and State politics has become over the past two election cycles it's very unlikely that you would see those results like you did with Mondale or Goldwater. Deep South states like mine will likely vote for the Republican regardless of who he or she is. The rest of the country might not. If Trump would lose though, I'd imagine that Clinton would likely carry somewhere around 43 States. Hopefully Rubio is the nominee. Of course, if he becomes the nominee Trump will probably run as an independent and become Ross Perot 2.0.

Why would you ever want Rubio to be the nominee?