• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For Democratic voters

for democratic voters

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 12 30.8%
  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 27 69.2%

  • Total voters
    39
Warren. She is one of the few true liberals in the democratic party. Clinton is the same old center right Democrats with hawkish tendencies.
 
Hillary is farther left then you are.

:doh
This is where I am:
2ymhvh1.jpg

Navy... Please come back down to the real world.
 
Hillary is farther left then you are.

I think your statement will serve as proof positive that not only do you not know who is and is not a liberal, but also that you do not know what a liberal is.

FYI, Hillary is not nearly so liberal as I am...and I'm almost certainly not as liberal as
TheDemSocialist
is. In the eyes of real liberals, Hillary's about as liberal as McCain is in the eyes of Tea Partiers...in other words, not much.
 
Neither.

Hillary is too much like reelecting Bill. They both just need to go away.

Warren is too far Left for me. But, my wife likes her. So, she'd get one vote from this household.

I actually agree with this.

But let's face it, they'll both likely be far superior to whichever clown the GOP decides to run in 2016.
 
:doh
This is where I am:
2ymhvh1.jpg

Navy... Please come back down to the real world.

:eek: You're a freakin anarchist DemSocialist, just one square above a socialist revolutionist. :lol:

As soon as you hit the left bottom square the next box you move to is the top left box.
 
Well. That is. Very interesting. :)
 
I would prefer Warren, but Clinton is the more electable candidate. I don't feel particularly strongly about either though and I've been thinking about simply refusing to vote for some of the upcoming races.
 
Elizabeth Warren, easily. However, if Hilary won the nomination I'd vote for her.
 
In what alternate ****ing universe is Hillary to the left of a self-avowed socialist?

Like "Slick Willie" did she pretends to be a moderate to get the nomination but the only ones she fools is you lefties who would vot for her anyway.
 
Not a Democrat or Republican and don't know a lot about Warren but my first impressions, I don't like the way she uses class warfare and lives in like a five million dollar house. Also don't like that she seems to support the education bureaucracy and just believes we need to "invest" more money into it.
 
Last edited:
Like "Slick Willie" did she pretends to be a moderate to get the nomination but the only ones she fools is you lefties who would vot for her anyway.

LOL what? How on earth was Bill Clinton a hardcore "leftist"? That's utterly absurd.
 
Elizabeth Warren, easily. However, if Hilary won the nomination I'd vote for her.

I would absolutely not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. She fails my litmus test ... during her time as a NY Senator, she voted in favor of the Iraq War. I will not vote for anyone who did.

Now, I do have the luxury of living in a solid blue state where my vote really doesn't matter. Hence my third-party vote in 2012 and my hold-my-nose vote for Obama in 2008, despite the fact that Biden also voted for the war. The one and only time I've cast a ballot for someone who did.
 
LOL what? How on earth was Bill Clinton a hardcore "leftist"? That's utterly absurd.

Remember the GOP praise for Hillary during Obama's 1st term just to play their divide game. That all changed when Romney lost. To hedge their bets, GOPs continue to bash Warren, the true leftist GOPs are terrified of .
 
Remember the GOP praise for Hillary during Obama's 1st term just to play their divide game. That all changed when Romney lost. To hedge their bets, GOPs continue to bash Warren, the true leftist GOPs are terrified of .

I don't play the "YER SKURRED" game, but I think Warren speaks a lot of truth regarding how badly the financial system is dicking over the average American.

I can see Wall Street spending a boatload of money to try and destroy her in primary season.
 
I'm down on both party's political machines and wish we could just get rid of parties altogether. Warren is very big on investment and is using all the traditional Democratic talking points. The problem is I do not trust the Democratic party machine with taxpayer money and how much more can we invest when we are running half trillion to trillion dollar budgets annually. I may be too jaded and of course we need to invest in infrastructure, but when I hear "invest" greater in infrastructure I visualize taking more money out of the pocket of taxpayers and then rewarding union bosses with their cut for their support in keeping the Democratic machine and its politicians in power and then giving $22/hr jobs for 1 guy to fix a pot hole while nine other guys watch. Investing more in government I visualize awarding public employees and their unions for keeping the Democratic machine and their politicians in power and throwing more and more of taxpayer money into inefficient bureaucracies where we get EPA employees getting six figure salaries who haven't shown up for work in yrs, and the USPS union turning down technology from a John Doerr investment that would have saved tax payers billions because it would cost USPS jobs. Investing more in education is rewarding education unions for keeping the Democratic machine and their politicians in power throwing more money into the same broken, mediocre bureaucracy resistant to innovation and change. She talks about kids not being able to afford higher education while she and her husband were pulling close to a million a yr from Harvard.
 
Last edited:
Hilary can't win. There is a full bag of dirt ready and waiting for her. She'll never get her approval up from where it is now, but it could still slide down. Just remember how ugly it got against Obama, and he wasn't trying to (metaphorically) shoot for center mass, just wing her enough to bring her down. A Republican opponent will not provide the same courtesy.

Elizabeth Warren is an interesting choice, and she's already shown a great gift for conflationary oratory. Her biggest argument so far has been for student loan interest easing, citing that it's wrong to make money off of students while they go to school. Unfortunately for her argument, students aren't charged interest while they are students (i.e. workers in the workforce are charged interest, not students) on a large portion of their financial aid; specifically, Pell money is a gift and Stafford subsidized loan interest is paid by the government while the student is in school. Realistically, if you can't attend school for under $15,000 a year, don't apply for scholarships, and refuse to work at least part time, you simply don't deserve the unsubsidized Stafford top-up. Basically, what I'm saying here is Warren is already pushing junk arguments at the lower class in an attempt to bribe them with at the minimum good intentions and at the maximum a bunch of public money. But she plays well for the cameras, so, whatever.
 
Hilary can't win.

I think that depends on who she's running against. If the GOP primary contest turns into another sideshow, I can see her being considered the lesser of two evils.
 
I think that depends on who she's running against. If the GOP primary contest turns into another sideshow, I can see her being considered the lesser of two evils.

Hilary v Romney = Romney
Hilary v Paul (either Paul) = Paul
Hilary v anyone not named "Bush" = anyone not named "Bush"
Hilary v Jeb = .... Russia. Russia wins if that happens.
 
Hilary v Romney = Romney
Hilary v Paul (either Paul) = Paul
Hilary v anyone not named "Bush" = anyone not named "Bush"
Hilary v Jeb = .... Russia. Russia wins if that happens.

Romney would lose in a landslide. Ron's not going to run; Rand might have a shot, maybe. Anyone not named Bush? Seriously?
 
Romney would lose in a landslide. Ron's not going to run; Rand might have a shot, maybe. Anyone not named Bush? Seriously?

Yeah, seriously. While Hillary is wildly popular among Democrats, she is just as unpopular among Republicans. Registered and Likely Voters are just as likely to vote for her as against her (not for the other guy, but against her). This ties her star to the Democratic Party as a whole, and that star is fading by the day. The current administration's poll numbers are dropping; the economy is not in significantly better shape yet and even a surge in 2016 might not be enough to pass on a Democrat-branded warm fuzzy feeling; Democrats always seem to do worse when the world's stage heats up, and the world's stage is heating up; Republicans have plenty of ammo for aiming at the middle a'la Obamacare, Iraq/Syria/Russia, the stagnant recovery, broken promises, the fact that "Blame Bush" is wearing very thin as an excuse...

And that's just the party itself. For Hillary the Candidate, her poll numbers will not increase among independents when the mud starts slinging. While I'm tired of hearing about it, Benghazi is going to play. Her time at the State Department is going to be painted as an incompetent second fiddle to an administration interested in meddling with forces they couldn't control. The only reaction Hillary will have in the face of this onslaught is going to be repeatedly showing pictures of herself in the situation room when they took Osama down. And that shtick isn't going to have the mileage she thinks it will. If that's not enough, there's still plenty of fodder they can throw at her about her husband. Conservative and Independent women see her as a woman who was cheated on and didn't seem to care too much when her husband got caught; while this plays for the Democratic female voter as worthy of sympathy and "strength of character", those who don't have a reason to like her will continue to see her complicity as opportunistic and shady.

Romney lost ground to Obama because Obama painted the picture of poor-kid-makes-good, which was helped by his racial background (an unfortunate truth, but I'm not in the habit of ignoring things simply because they are inconvenient or not politically correct). Romney lost the election the day his "47%" comment went live, and ONLY because his opponent was already poised as a success story and trying to get the out-of-touch label to stick to the "old rich white guy". That's the day it stuck for good, and that's the day it was over. Hillary is an old rich white lady who has already lived in the White House. I don't know how old you are, but the talk at the time in the 90's was all about how Hillary was actually calling the shots back then, usurping power from her elected spouse and wielding it like a queen. This type of rhetoric will come back 100-fold the day her candidacy is announced. She's already rich, out-of-touch, beltway royalty.

There is no one who can't win against her, saving an act of god, a murder scandal, or the last name of Bush. That is to say, any Republican who can get the nomination has great chances against Hillary. Be that as it may, she's still a Democratic primary favorite. The nom is hers if she wants it. If she takes it... we're going to have a Republican White House for at least four years.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom