The problem I have with Hillary is that she will fight congress for two years and spend two years running for reelection.
That is not what we need right now
What would Bernie do differently?
Because unless we get congress that's any president left of the Tea Party.
At this point, I think you could make one of the Koch brothers president and members of congress in the tea party caucus would obstruct just out of habit.
The Tea Party and the Koch brothers are not at all friends. Like the Koch brothers are willing to use the Tea Party when it's convenient but the Tea Party is sort of a huge thorn in the side of lots of their larger aims. Cause like groups like the Koch brothers are, at least in theory, what the Tea Party kind of formed to oppose. (But it's relatively easy for the Koch Brothers to get Tea Partiers to direct their anger to more convenient targets.)
Okay, well this is where everyone gets to dogpile on me, I guess.
I'm probably not voting for Hillary in the general. It's not a hate thing; let me be clear on that front. I just don't like her politics. I don't like how she's taken advantage of the free bribery Citizen's United has spawned. I don't like her tossing over a million dollars to have paid shills troll popular social media sites. On her record, I feel like a lot of it is sketchy.
At the end of the day, she doesn't belong on the Left in my opinion. In a just universe she would be the paragon of a sane Right where the Southern Strategy never happened and the only Tea Party people would talk about would be the one that took place in the 1700's. And that's not a bad thing, on balance. I think everyone would be better off if that party existed.
But I still wouldn't vote for it. At the end of the day, this nation has a lot of problems, and politics as usual is doing a damn fine job of addressing exactly none of them. Now, I have the luxury of not living in a swing state, so I don't have to sweat a protest vote. I'm highly skeptical of Clinton, but she could still get my vote. If she "swings to the center" for the general then there's basically no chance of that. But I'll do my civic duty and watch the debates and make a decision when the time comes.
The end result is that just because I voted in a primary doesn't mean my vote in the general is already cast, and shouldn't be taken for granted. I hate the idea of hostage voting, where one party is awful so the other can be just a little bit better (but still awful) and you have to choose the lesser evil or the bunny gets it. Fuck that. I'm not about it. And I know, I probably pissed a lot of you fine people off for admitting it, but there it is.
I read somewhere today that Hillary and Sanders voted together 93% of the time. Their record isn't that different.
You can say it's "voting for the lesser evil" but when it comes down to it it's not. She's not "evil". She's not even that far off Bernie when it comes to her platform. She's "Good". Maybe not "Perfect", but neither is Bernie. I mean, people act like Hillary VS Trump would be like Grown Ups VS Grown Ups 2, when we're talking about Grown Ups VS Ghostbusters 2.
That line about 93% of the time is pretty misleading when you're talking about campaign finance reform and the undue influence of money in politics making up a lot of the remaining 7%. Say what you will about her talking points when she's a candidate her record of voting for the bankruptcy bill after taking large legalized bribes from the banking industry alone is enough to give me pause. Lobbying for opening up trade agreements with Panama on the false pretense of "creating jobs" allowing for the massive tax dodging is something I would expect out of an CNBC Republican, not the Democratic nominee. Her flipping on single payer health insurance after giving paid speeches to health and pharmaceutical companies is another thing that makes me doubt she's really going to turn on those who have given and continue to give hundreds of millions of dollars to her and her family.
So, no, it's not Grown Ups VS Grown Ups 2...but it is a money funneling scam just like Sandler's movies.
I'm not sure what the last time a company did an inversion in Panama was. I thought that usually it was Ireland. I could be wrong. CNBC Republicans wouldn't care about that type of thing. You must be thinking of MSNBC Republicans. I'd need to see what impact that actually had on tax dodging and on what types of individuals to make a decision about it. I do know that for the most part everyone actually just uses Delaware for that.
Joking aside, money buys a lot of things, but one of the funny things about this election cycle: we found out it doesn't actually buy votes in an election. Ask the Koch brothers where the money they spent this year went to. This doesn't answer the question of whether or not money affected her vote on the bankruptcy bill, but we'll get there later.
That brings us to single payer. Hillary Clinton has been on the national stage since 1992, during the infamous days of the ill fated "Hillarycare." Of course her policy position might change between 1992 and 2016. Why precisely should she try to double down on something that went no where? Why would she try to scrap the health care reform that her predecessor somehow miracle'd into existence and take up an inverted phantom liberal form of repeal and replace?
The bankruptcy bill itself looks pretty eh but ultimately I actually think she was awesome. She voted for it when it wouldn't pass and then would have voted against it when it would in 2005 when she had a bit of a better warchest; although she was absent in 2005 because her presence wasn't going to affect it.
This was the perfect crime. She didn't take money from the banking industry. She robbed it and they paid her for the privilege of being robbed.
The Koch Brothers have chosen to hold their money until the general election and focus more on local elections. Which funny enough, when it comes to making reference to 2010s comedies, is the plot of the 2012 movie The Campaign.
That said money DOES buy elections. I said it's 90% of elections. The remaining 10% is made up of elections that see heavy media coverage like, say, Presidential primaries and cases where one or more of the politicians involved is caught putting their genitals somewhere interesting like a glory hole or a rent boy's mouth or snapchat. So no, this election cycle like every modern Presidential election cycle is not a good example of whether or not the candidate with the most money wins. Look downticket for that. I guarantee you'll be disappointed.
Now, you can argue that it's too hard to push for single payer when congress is so obstructive and it's not worth trying but to say that expanding healthcare to every citizen as every other advanced first world country does is the equivalent of repeal and replace is just totally wrong.
Also, I think your framing of the bankruptcy bill is generous to say the least.
I'm fairly certain that "voting for the lesser of two evils" and voting out of fear is what has lead us to the presidential front-runners being the least likable options. The whole thing has been sold as "you have to vote for Clinton to prevent a Trump presidency" and "you have to vote for Trump to prevent a Clinton presidency". These two people are more alike than anyone who has voted for them will admit.
I can't, in good conscience, vote for either.
Trump's buffoonery would prevent most of his 'policies' from taking effect, so it's just his racist, bigoted followers that are worrisome. Unfortunately, they're already out of the bag and doing damage. It's going to take a long time to undo his effects already.
Clinton is a war hawk and has already done irreparable damage in other countries and I don't want to find out what she has planned for foreign policy as Commander in Chief. She'll take whichever social platforms are most politically expedient and she's going to be on the leash of all the monied interests that she's been taking millions from for the past decades.
I clearly cannot vote for either of these candidates.
A frustrating aspect of folks like trump running is that he lowers the bar such that his opponents only need to be better than him, and any strong criticism can be countered with well at least they aren't trump
I'm not sure what to say if you think it's the electorate's fault and not monied interests making sure to prop up candidates sympathetic to them.
You are placing a lot of responsibility on people just trying to keep their heads above water. People with individually very little power, and it can be very hard to see collective power from the perspective of a single person.
I'm fairly certain that "voting for the lesser of two evils" and voting out of fear is what has lead us to the presidential front-runners being the least likable options. The whole thing has been sold as "you have to vote for Clinton to prevent a Trump presidency" and "you have to vote for Trump to prevent a Clinton presidency". These two people are more alike than anyone who has voted for them will admit.
I can't, in good conscience, vote for either.
Trump's buffoonery would prevent most of his 'policies' from taking effect, so it's just his racist, bigoted followers that are worrisome. Unfortunately, they're already out of the bag and doing damage. It's going to take a long time to undo his effects already.
Clinton is a war hawk and has already done irreparable damage in other countries and I don't want to find out what she has planned for foreign policy as Commander in Chief. She'll take whichever social platforms are most politically expedient and she's going to be on the leash of all the monied interests that she's been taking millions from for the past decades.
I clearly cannot vote for either of these candidates.
I voted for Clinton because I think she is an excellent politician who has incredible depth of knowledge and ability.
Both sides are the same is the single most tired, ill thought argument in all of modern politics. Both sides are demonstratively not the same. If you don't want to vote, that's fine. But don't justify it to yourself with false platitudes.
+31
Options
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
A frustrating aspect of folks like trump running is that he lowers the bar such that his opponents only need to be better than him, and any strong criticism can be countered with well at least they aren't trump
Nowhere is that more evident than the period a couple months ago when people were saying "Well Cruz is terrible and normally he'd be the worst but Trump has fascist tendencies so I think he's the worst option..."
A frustrating aspect of folks like trump running is that he lowers the bar such that his opponents only need to be better than him, and any strong criticism can be countered with well at least they aren't trump
This is what the Republican party has been doing for literally decades. The only reason Trump seems different is because he's blunt and not hiding the nastiness behind colorful euphemisms.
He's not that different from Cruz or even Kasich really. He's likely to crash and burn during the general, which is why a lot of people want him to win the primary.
I'm fairly certain that "voting for the lesser of two evils" and voting out of fear is what has lead us to the presidential front-runners being the least likable options. The whole thing has been sold as "you have to vote for Clinton to prevent a Trump presidency" and "you have to vote for Trump to prevent a Clinton presidency". These two people are more alike than anyone who has voted for them will admit.
You can literally do this same thing for Trump and Sanders.
Both are anti-establishment.
Both rely on populism as the driving force of their campaigns.
Both feature some poorly thought-out policies and proposals that have no hope of being implemented because their own party has doubts about them.
I can also do this with Cruz and Clinton (aggressive foreign policy, one totally killed Vince Foster while the other terrorized the Bay Area in the late 1960s), Kasich and Clinton (establishment, don't drive vote in an inspiring way, probably both enjoy food, though Kasich might enjoy it more), and Cruz and Sanders (fanatical devotion to issues they deem important, ignoring everything else, are more establishment than they'd care to admit).
The real point is that there are real noticeable differences between the candidates and pretending they are similar is some specific level of goosery.
The democratic party has been riding on mediocrity for so long that a really rather moderate leftist like sanders is able to paint his campaign as "a political revolution"
+18
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
The democratic party has been riding on mediocrity for so long that a really rather moderate leftist like sanders is able to paint his campaign as "a political revolution"
ah yes, my biggest pet peeve about his campaign
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Both sides are not the same. Both sides are not evil.
One side has a front running candidate that wants to drop out of NATO, ban entry to any muslims (including actual US citizens out of the country), advocates violence against protesters, wants to jail reporters who say negative things about him, and is willing to utterly destroy LGBT rights.
If you think either candidate on the other side is anywhere close to that, then you live in such a white washed land of privilege that I'm amazed you can make out the text on the forums amidst the glare from your surroundings.
You can have socialist policies in a capitalist society. Maybe he plays a bit loose and fast with the term (and almost certainly uses it to add a veneer of lefty street cred), but it's not that out of place.
People say revolution when...he's not at all interested in any kind of fundamental change?
"I haven't quite recovered — it's early in the morning — from her shouting that message," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" when asked about Clinton bringing up his comments on the "woman card." "And I know a lot of people would say you can't say that about a woman, because of course a woman doesn't shout. But the way she shouted that message was not — that's the way she said it, and I guess I'll have to get used to a lot of that over the next four or five months."
I mean this is Trump "running to the center" this morning. Yeah both sides are bad.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Both sides are not the same. Both sides are not evil.
One side has a front running candidate that wants to drop out of NATO, ban entry to any muslims (including actual US citizens out of the country), advocates violence against protesters, wants to jail reporters who say negative things about him, and is willing to utterly destroy LGBT rights.
If you think either candidate on the other side is anywhere close to that, then you live in such a white washed land of privilege that I'm amazed you can make out the text on the forums amidst the glare from your surroundings.
Oh if I were really a part of any underprivileged minority, this would be even less of a choice than it already is
But the fact that it isn't a choice, and that Hillary can count on my vote regardless of almost anything she says or does, sucks
The bar has been set so low all she has to do is appear further to the left than Donald Trump
I'm votng straight ticket Dem because I live in NC and this stage desperately needs to stop being red.
When I talk to folks around here who say Hillary is a criminal and Bernie is a communist and Trump at least tells it like it is and Cruz at least is true to his principles and Kasich is a moderate.
Well, I point out that voting for Gary Johnson is an option and if the Lib's cross a certain % threshold they can become more viable in smaller elections and grow as a third party.
I do the same with Jill Stein if people just will not vote for Hillary but can't vote for a 'Pub.
Both sides are not the same. Both sides are not evil.
One side has a front running candidate that wants to drop out of NATO, ban entry to any muslims (including actual US citizens out of the country), advocates violence against protesters, wants to jail reporters who say negative things about him, and is willing to utterly destroy LGBT rights.
If you think either candidate on the other side is anywhere close to that, then you live in such a white washed land of privilege that I'm amazed you can make out the text on the forums amidst the glare from your surroundings.
Oh if I were really a part of any underprivileged minority, this would be even less of a choice than it already is
But the fact that it isn't a choice, and that Hillary can count on my vote regardless of almost anything she says or does, sucks
The bar has been set so low all she has to do is appear further to the left than Donald Trump
You can't tell me that doesn't bother you
How would it have been any different with Bernie? Because yes, Trump sucks. What does that have to do with Clinton.
A frustrating aspect of folks like trump running is that he lowers the bar such that his opponents only need to be better than him, and any strong criticism can be countered with well at least they aren't trump
This is what the Republican party has been doing for literally decades. The only reason Trump seems different is because he's blunt and not hiding the nastiness behind colorful euphemisms.
He's not that different from Cruz or even Kasich really. He's likely to crash and burn during the general, which is why a lot of people want him to win the primary.
I don't know what's worse. Trump's a thug, Cruz is a maniac, Kasich is a theofascist just like Cruz and Santorum
Is another Clinton really that bad
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
Both sides are not the same. Both sides are not evil.
One side has a front running candidate that wants to drop out of NATO, ban entry to any muslims (including actual US citizens out of the country), advocates violence against protesters, wants to jail reporters who say negative things about him, and is willing to utterly destroy LGBT rights.
If you think either candidate on the other side is anywhere close to that, then you live in such a white washed land of privilege that I'm amazed you can make out the text on the forums amidst the glare from your surroundings.
Oh if I were really a part of any underprivileged minority, this would be even less of a choice than it already is
But the fact that it isn't a choice, and that Hillary can count on my vote regardless of almost anything she says or does, sucks
The bar has been set so low all she has to do is appear further to the left than Donald Trump
You can't tell me that doesn't bother you
How would it have been any different with Bernie? Because yes, Trump sucks. What does that have to do with Clinton.
Nothing at all, really. But at least Bernie talked a big game, in that Obama sort of way. Even if, yeah, he would have been obstructed at every turn
Someone said earlier, this election isn't about moving forward, it's about not sliding backward
Both sides are not the same. Both sides are not evil.
One side has a front running candidate that wants to drop out of NATO, ban entry to any muslims (including actual US citizens out of the country), advocates violence against protesters, wants to jail reporters who say negative things about him, and is willing to utterly destroy LGBT rights.
If you think either candidate on the other side is anywhere close to that, then you live in such a white washed land of privilege that I'm amazed you can make out the text on the forums amidst the glare from your surroundings.
Oh if I were really a part of any underprivileged minority, this would be even less of a choice than it already is
But the fact that it isn't a choice, and that Hillary can count on my vote regardless of almost anything she says or does, sucks
The bar has been set so low all she has to do is appear further to the left than Donald Trump
You can't tell me that doesn't bother you
How would it have been any different with Bernie? Because yes, Trump sucks. What does that have to do with Clinton.
Nothing at all, really. But at least Bernie talked a big game, in that Obama sort of way. Even if, yeah, he would have been obstructed at every turn
Someone said earlier, this election isn't about moving forward, it's about not sliding backward
It bothers me when that's the best I get
Me too, but that's not really on the presidential candidates, it's on congress, which is in turn on people who don't vote in the midterms.
Posts
thinks only white people are pure
black people are darkness
walk away
I'm somewhere between socialist and anarchist
I could spend all night listing the reasons
a better alternative is to overthrow capitalism, imo
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Eat the rich, tear it down
The Koch Brothers have chosen to hold their money until the general election and focus more on local elections. Which funny enough, when it comes to making reference to 2010s comedies, is the plot of the 2012 movie The Campaign.
That said money DOES buy elections. I said it's 90% of elections. The remaining 10% is made up of elections that see heavy media coverage like, say, Presidential primaries and cases where one or more of the politicians involved is caught putting their genitals somewhere interesting like a glory hole or a rent boy's mouth or snapchat. So no, this election cycle like every modern Presidential election cycle is not a good example of whether or not the candidate with the most money wins. Look downticket for that. I guarantee you'll be disappointed.
Now, you can argue that it's too hard to push for single payer when congress is so obstructive and it's not worth trying but to say that expanding healthcare to every citizen as every other advanced first world country does is the equivalent of repeal and replace is just totally wrong.
Also, I think your framing of the bankruptcy bill is generous to say the least.
They still have to honor it
They have a history of not doing that
pssst but seriously if you have a way to install a successful, effective socialist government in the United States..
which is mostly writing, tbh
the whole autism thing doesn't make street demonstrations a thing I can easily do
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
I can't, in good conscience, vote for either.
Trump's buffoonery would prevent most of his 'policies' from taking effect, so it's just his racist, bigoted followers that are worrisome. Unfortunately, they're already out of the bag and doing damage. It's going to take a long time to undo his effects already.
Clinton is a war hawk and has already done irreparable damage in other countries and I don't want to find out what she has planned for foreign policy as Commander in Chief. She'll take whichever social platforms are most politically expedient and she's going to be on the leash of all the monied interests that she's been taking millions from for the past decades.
I clearly cannot vote for either of these candidates.
You are placing a lot of responsibility on people just trying to keep their heads above water. People with individually very little power, and it can be very hard to see collective power from the perspective of a single person.
I voted for Clinton because I think she is an excellent politician who has incredible depth of knowledge and ability.
Both sides are the same is the single most tired, ill thought argument in all of modern politics. Both sides are demonstratively not the same. If you don't want to vote, that's fine. But don't justify it to yourself with false platitudes.
Nowhere is that more evident than the period a couple months ago when people were saying "Well Cruz is terrible and normally he'd be the worst but Trump has fascist tendencies so I think he's the worst option..."
and Cruz took it as a challenge.
He's not that different from Cruz or even Kasich really. He's likely to crash and burn during the general, which is why a lot of people want him to win the primary.
If you honestly think trump and Clinton aren't all that different I don't know what to say
http://www.audioentropy.com/
You can literally do this same thing for Trump and Sanders.
Both are anti-establishment.
Both rely on populism as the driving force of their campaigns.
Both feature some poorly thought-out policies and proposals that have no hope of being implemented because their own party has doubts about them.
I can also do this with Cruz and Clinton (aggressive foreign policy, one totally killed Vince Foster while the other terrorized the Bay Area in the late 1960s), Kasich and Clinton (establishment, don't drive vote in an inspiring way, probably both enjoy food, though Kasich might enjoy it more), and Cruz and Sanders (fanatical devotion to issues they deem important, ignoring everything else, are more establishment than they'd care to admit).
The real point is that there are real noticeable differences between the candidates and pretending they are similar is some specific level of goosery.
3DS: 2981-5304-3227
And then again after "Is it working?"...
Because the system is broken and I don't have any other option to prevent a fascist from taking office
That doesn't mean I like it, and it doesn't even mean I think she'll do much of anything I want to be done politically
But it's all I've got
And the older I get, the more that feeling just sucks the will to engage in politics from me
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
ah yes, my biggest pet peeve about his campaign
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Where do people get that from? Republicans?
One side has a front running candidate that wants to drop out of NATO, ban entry to any muslims (including actual US citizens out of the country), advocates violence against protesters, wants to jail reporters who say negative things about him, and is willing to utterly destroy LGBT rights.
If you think either candidate on the other side is anywhere close to that, then you live in such a white washed land of privilege that I'm amazed you can make out the text on the forums amidst the glare from your surroundings.
Bernie supporters, mostly
e: also, Bernie himself, who uses the term "democratic socialist" even though it doesn't really describe his policy positions correctly
People say revolution when...he's not at all interested in any kind of fundamental change?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I mean this is Trump "running to the center" this morning. Yeah both sides are bad.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Oh if I were really a part of any underprivileged minority, this would be even less of a choice than it already is
But the fact that it isn't a choice, and that Hillary can count on my vote regardless of almost anything she says or does, sucks
The bar has been set so low all she has to do is appear further to the left than Donald Trump
You can't tell me that doesn't bother you
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
When I talk to folks around here who say Hillary is a criminal and Bernie is a communist and Trump at least tells it like it is and Cruz at least is true to his principles and Kasich is a moderate.
Well, I point out that voting for Gary Johnson is an option and if the Lib's cross a certain % threshold they can become more viable in smaller elections and grow as a third party.
I do the same with Jill Stein if people just will not vote for Hillary but can't vote for a 'Pub.
How would it have been any different with Bernie? Because yes, Trump sucks. What does that have to do with Clinton.
I don't know what's worse. Trump's a thug, Cruz is a maniac, Kasich is a theofascist just like Cruz and Santorum
Is another Clinton really that bad
Nothing at all, really. But at least Bernie talked a big game, in that Obama sort of way. Even if, yeah, he would have been obstructed at every turn
Someone said earlier, this election isn't about moving forward, it's about not sliding backward
It bothers me when that's the best I get
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Me too, but that's not really on the presidential candidates, it's on congress, which is in turn on people who don't vote in the midterms.