• 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!

Biggest Liberal ‘Super PAC’ to Fund Possible Clinton Bid

MichaelJR said:
Dems vote "D". Short of a baby eating, puppy killing, human trafficker...actually no. We have a bunch of criminal politicians in MA that get elected constantly. Democrats vote D. Simple as that. You'd probably have to eat a baby for them not to circle the magic "D".
Click to expand...

Probably true. But are you denying that republicans vote "R"? **** partisans.
 
Montecresto said:
America won't weather a Hillary Clinton presidency. Besides, no more Bush's or Clinton's.
Click to expand...

Heya Monte.....you got that Right. Only thing left to do now is.....hope she takes the bait. So she can be destroyed politically which then will damage Bilbo and that Global BS he started. From now and going forward.

Although.....with the Saudi who helped fund her campaign last time round. Funds might not be as magnaminous from them this time Round.
 
poweRob said:
This is really disconcerting. We are more than two years away. That makes this announcement a bully tactic to threaten possible primary contenders to not even bother to try because you will be buried alive with Clinton supporting money. I didn't like Hillary in 2008 and this kind of shyte will not make me like her much in 2016. For me its just more reasons why we need to get big money out of politics.


Biggest Liberal ‘Super PAC’ to Fund Possible Clinton Bid

The Obama political operation that once buried Hillary Rodham Clinton’s White House ambitions is now rapidly converging around her possible 2016 presidential bid, conferring on Mrs. Clinton enormous early advantages in money, expertise and voter targeting techniques.

On Thursday, Priorities USA Action, a “super PAC” that played an important role in helping re-elect President Obama, announced that it was formally aligning itself with Mrs. Clinton and would begin raising money to fend off potential opponents for 2016. The group — the largest Democratic super PAC in the country — also named new directors to steer the organization, appointments that will both cement the group’s pro-Clinton tilt and also thrust veterans of Mr. Obama’s political and fund-raising operation into the center of the post-Obama Democratic Party.​
Click to expand...

Neoliberalism is just as bad as Neoconservatism. Either one will wreck America. One already did, and unless Hillary is stopped, so will the other one.
 
Deuce said:
Unlike you, who only votes for honest and informed ideological reasons. How superior you must feel.
Click to expand...


my farts smell of roses, holmes
 
iliveonramen said:
Of course...the way the parties operate in Washington. I'd rather elect a Dem I agree with 50% of the time than a Republican I agree with 55% of the time. When that Republican gets in Washington he may be the seat that give Republicans control of the Senate/White House or House. I may agree with that individual Republican 55% of the time but I don't agree with the Republican National Platform.
Click to expand...

this seems like a great way to render your vote largely meaningless. because the politicians no longer need to appeal to you through policy positions
 
Kal'Stang said:
I don't think that is the problem the OP has with what they are doing. I think the problem he is having is that they are out right admitting that they are going to attempt to push any other contender out of the picture. By admitting that they are already gathering the money to do this very thing it is discouraging other contenders that don't or won't have the ability to raise the kind of money that would be required to counter them. As the OP stated, it is a bully tactic.
Click to expand...

It is politics. A very ugly business.
 
poweRob said:
This is really disconcerting. We are more than two years away. That makes this
announcement a bully tactic to threaten possible primary contenders to not even bother to try because you will be buried alive with Clinton supporting money. I didn't like Hillary in 2008 and this kind of shyte will not make me like her much in 2016. For me its just more reasons why we need to get big money out of politics.


Biggest Liberal ‘Super PAC’ to Fund Possible Clinton Bid

The Obama political operation that once buried Hillary Rodham Clinton’s White House ambitions is now rapidly converging around her possible 2016 presidential bid, conferring on Mrs. Clinton enormous early advantages in money, expertise and voter targeting techniques.

On Thursday, Priorities USA Action, a “super PAC” that played an important role in helping re-elect President Obama, announced that it was formally aligning itself with Mrs. Clinton and would begin raising money to fend off potential opponents for 2016. The group — the largest Democratic super PAC in the country — also named new directors to steer the organization, appointments that will both cement the group’s pro-Clinton tilt and also thrust veterans of Mr. Obama’s political and fund-raising operation into the center of the post-Obama Democratic Party.​
Click to expand...

Well seeing Rob post a thread like this certainly gives me hope.

I would thank you if I could, ( phone app doesn't let me for some reason ) not because your anti-hillary, but because your'e maintaining a level integrity and objectivity based on the broader issue of political donations.

I actually agree with you.

Millions and Millions of dollars in requisite campaign donations guarantees one thing. That that politician was purchased way before they voted in.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
this seems like a great way to render your vote largely meaningless. because the politicians no longer need to appeal to you through policy positions
Click to expand...

It's the way the parties work now. 50 years ago the parties had lots of both conservative and liberal members within each party. Now sending a Republican to the House means that he'd be one of a couple more left leaning Republicans in a party that's dominated by people further to the right. The agenda isn't set by the less conservative Republicans. My representative would be a marginalized elected officials in a party that I don't typically with their national platform.

I'd vote for a Republican in local elections or state elections depending on the guy but not national.
 
While romney's own super pac proved you can't literally buy the white house, buying the nomination puts them at 50/50 odds practically, surely not a good thing for the concept of democracy. What a farce "majority rules" has become.
 
iliveonramen said:
It's the way the parties work now. 50 years ago the parties had lots of both conservative and liberal members within each party. Now sending a Republican to the House means that he'd be one of a couple more left leaning Republicans in a party that's dominated by people further to the right. The agenda isn't set by the less conservative Republicans. My representative would be a marginalized elected officials in a party that I don't typically with their national platform.

I'd vote for a Republican in local elections or state elections depending on the guy but not national.
Click to expand...

Any politician worth voting for isn't going to vote down party lines, mate ...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Any politician worth voting for isn't going to vote down party lines, mate ...
Click to expand...

It has less to do with him voting down party lines and more to do with control of the House or Senate by the Republican party.

It has a lot to do with national money as well. Are there politicians that would stand firm even if the speaker of the house put on pressure and promised him his pet project will be pork in the bill or the RNC promised campaign money? Sure, but the national agenda of the Republican party does matter and national parties are pretty good at getting what they want from their members.
 
The sad part is we have a society that is extremely partisan and of the mindset of "Vote for lesser of two evils" that Hillary actually stands a good chance at being president.
 
MichaelJR said:
Dems vote "D". Short of a baby eating, puppy killing, human trafficker...actually no. We have a bunch of criminal politicians in MA that get elected constantly. Democrats vote D. Simple as that. You'd probably have to eat a baby for them not to circle the magic "D".
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? That would be a resume enhancer.
 
TheNextEra said:
The sad part is we have a society that is extremely partisan and of the mindset of "Vote for lesser of two evils" that Hillary actually stands a good chance at being president.
Click to expand...

I think it's too early to know that for any certainty...Clinton hasn't even said whether or not she will run, and we are still 2 years out from the race, and almost 3 from the actual elections....A lot can happen between now and then, plus should American's dis-satisfaction with the Obama administration, as well as demo obstructionism in the Senate continue, any demo is going to have an uphill struggle to get elected.
 
j-mac said:
I think it's too early to know that for any certainty...Clinton hasn't even said whether or not she will run, and we are still 2 years out from the race, and almost 3 from the actual elections....A lot can happen between now and then, plus should American's dis-satisfaction with the Obama administration, as well as demo obstructionism in the Senate continue, any demo is going to have an uphill struggle to get elected.
Click to expand...

Oh I didn't think it is certain. I just said it is a good chance. The political climate, partisanship, and "Vote for the lesser of two evils" makes it a good chance for Hillary. While the American people may be dis-satisfied with Obama, if the GOP put up a candidate that parades around like a social conservative I see Hillary almost a shoe-in. I will continue, however, to do as I did last election and either vote third party or none-of-the-above. People may not like Obama, but I serisouly doubt the majority would vote for a social conservative over a Dem. That of course is just all my opinion.
 
TheNextEra said:
Oh I didn't think it is certain. I just said it is a good chance. The political climate, partisanship, and "Vote for the lesser of two evils" makes it a good chance for Hillary.
Click to expand...

Well, you're saying that here, but originally it appeared as though you were saying that "Hillary actually stands a good chance at being president." That is not quite the same thing...

While the American people may be dis-satisfied with Obama, if the GOP put up a candidate that parades around like a social conservative I see Hillary almost a shoe-in.
Click to expand...

Goodness, can we wait to see if she is going to even run?

I will continue, however, to do as I did last election and either vote third party or none-of-the-above.
Click to expand...

Good for you.

People may not like Obama, but I serisouly doubt the majority would vote for a social conservative over a Dem.
Click to expand...

You sell the population short.

That of course is just all my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom