• 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!

Poll: Bernie, Warren surge to tie Biden atop Democratic field

Linc said:
I would say the Party that safeguards health care better, doesn’t give away trillions in windfall tax cuts for the last 36 years now, doesn’t gut the EPA; believes in Science; selects Moderates for the SCOTUS like Garland, doesn’t have McConnell and Trump, doesn’t have Stephen Miller at Immigration, no DeVos at ‘Education’;

That party might have some of these ‘operates in the best interests of Americans’ things you may have in mind. I’m pretty sure I missed a few, such as Trump’s statesmanlike behavior on the World Stage for 3 years, as well as his unseemly groveling for Putin. For every Pocahontas ‘The Insane One’ throws out, we must throw out 950 today, the # of days so far of this catastrophe.

National Polls mean less than zero to me since people actually pay attention to them and get distracted. They keep forgetting they have an Electoral College to win, so they should only be looking at state polls, and now state approvals and disapprovals. That’s all I search for, such as on RCP. For every Wisconsin DEMs are looking at, there’s a Minnesota that GOPs are looking at also. I also believe the 10th circuit ruling on faithless electors is being vastly underrated for its potential chaos.
Click to expand...

Good arguments, Linc. I am not a Democrat but I cannot disagree with your post.
 
Surrealistik said:
The problem is, it's no longer possible to work with Republicans across the aisle; Obama tried for 6 years to little avail, so **** it, and **** that stonewaller McConnell.

The only way anything will get done is if Republicans are routed from every possible avenue of obstruction.
Click to expand...

When Bill Clinton lost congress in 1994, he adjusted and his last six years were successful. Bill moved toward the center, which he probably was anyway. One forgets Bill founded and headed the DLC which was an organization for conservative democrats. Obama never adjusted to his new surroundings. He continued with his liberal agenda or tried to continue anyway. Would the GOP have worked with him? I don't know since it never happened, none of us know for sure.

I will point out that McConnell was the majority leader during Obama's last two years. Not years three through six. The Democrats still controlled the senate from 2009 through 2014. At which time Harry Reid was the majority leader, not McConnell. You do remember that Reid tabled over 300 Republican House passed bills, legislation from 2011-2014 without any debate or floor vote? That's an indication of polarization on both sides. Where compromise today means give me everything I want and if you don't, you won't compromise. McConnell and Reid are two peas in a pod when it comes to partisanship.
 
Perotista said:
When Bill Clinton lost congress in 1994, he adjusted and his last six years were successful. Bill moved toward the center, which he probably was anyway. One forgets Bill founded and headed the DLC which was an organization for conservative democrats. Obama never adjusted to his new surroundings. He continued with his liberal agenda or tried to continue anyway. Would the GOP have worked with him? I don't know since it never happened, none of us know for sure.

I will point out that McConnell was the majority leader during Obama's last two years. Not years three through six. The Democrats still controlled the senate from 2009 through 2014. At which time Harry Reid was the majority leader, not McConnell. You do remember that Reid tabled over 300 Republican House passed bills, legislation from 2011-2014 without any debate or floor vote? That's an indication of polarization on both sides. Where compromise today means give me everything I want and if you don't, you won't compromise. McConnell and Reid are two peas in a pod when it comes to partisanship.
Click to expand...

Problem is that the GOP has been moving ever more towards the right; moving towards the 'center' as they define it is to move further right with them which is obviously unacceptable; if anything, the States was too far to the right relative to the rest of the developed world for decades, nevermind in recent years. The GOP moderate of the 90s is essentially the Democrat moderate of today, and the GOP moderate of today is the lunatic fringe of the 90s. Enough is enough.

Moreover, yes, I'm aware of Reid's tenure, but the fact remains that the GOP are the ones who really fired the opening salvos of this impasse; certainly Obama can't be said to be a my way or highway stalwart. Hell, the Republican's clearly stated intention since their mid-term win in 2010 was to 'make Obama a one term president', and cockblock everything the Democrats put up without qualification or nuance. Even during the Obama years, the GOP kept inching to the right, kept moving the goal posts, and kept expecting everyone else to move along with and accommodate them, nevermind McConnell being utterly impassable in a way no one else had ever been before in modern politics.

We as a party are well past done with this nonsense; it took the Dems far too long to find their spine, but better late than never, and now, we're going to break the GOP's. It's as simple as that. If the Republicans want to play hardball, they're going to ****ing get it; in spades.
 
MTAtech said:
I would vote for Biden, because he connects with blue-collar America and can get those three states that narrowly fell to the Trump Con. It's interesting reading how Trump supporters bemoan Biden's supposed mental decline while not mentioning their own candidate who is ready for the psych ward -- which is where people who claim to be the "chosen one" and "King of Israel" are sent.
Click to expand...

Democrat kooks claim Trump is crazy and so is everyone else who does not believe the world is coming to an end in 12 years due to global warming.
 
Surrealistik said:
Problem is that the GOP has been moving ever more towards the right; moving towards the 'center' as they define it is to move further right with them which is obviously unacceptable; if anything, the States was too far to the right relative to the rest of the developed world for decades, nevermind in recent years. The GOP moderate of the 90s is essentially the Democrat moderate of today, and the GOP moderate of today is the lunatic fringe of the 90s. Enough is enough.

Moreover, yes, I'm aware of Reid's tenure, but the fact remains that the GOP are the ones who really fired the opening salvos of this impasse; certainly Obama can't be said to be a my way or highway stalwart. Hell, the Republican's clearly stated intention since their mid-term win in 2010 was to 'make Obama a one term president', and cockblock everything the Democrats put up without qualification or nuance. Even during the Obama years, the GOP kept inching to the right, kept moving the goal posts, and kept expecting everyone else to move along with and accommodate them, nevermind McConnell being utterly impassable in a way no one else had ever been before in modern politics.

We as a party are well past done with this nonsense; it took the Dems far too long to find their spine, but better late than never, and now, we're going to break the GOP's. It's as simple as that. If the Republicans want to play hardball, they're going to ****ing get it; in spades.
Click to expand...

The polarization and attempted destruction of the other party continues. From both sides. The my way or the highway approach. The only hope for America is the rise of a viable third party and perhaps a fourth as the Republicans and Democrats are thrown on the trash heap of history. I have no use for either party. I think more and more Americans are coming to that conclusion. This is why independents have risen from 30% of the electorate in 2006 to 42% today. Why those who affiliate or identify with the two major parties have fallen below 30% each. 27% Republican, 29% Democratic. What a come down from the big tent democratic party pre Reagan to today.

Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014 | Pew Research Center

I'm old enough to remember when both parties had their liberal and conservative wings. I think both parties have become hard core ideologues with only the good of their party at heart.
 
marke said:
Democrat kooks claim Trump is crazy and so is everyone else who does not believe the world is coming to an end in 12 years due to global warming.
Click to expand...
When someone who says they are The King of Israel or that they are the Chosen One is taken to the hospital, the hospital staff either suspect drug usage or mental illness. Nuff said. Compound that with someone who says other off-the-wall statements and it isn't a large leap to think that the Orange Caesar is nuts.
 
Perotista said:
The polarization and attempted destruction of the other party continues. From both sides. The my way or the highway approach. The only hope for America is the rise of a viable third party and perhaps a fourth as the Republicans and Democrats are thrown on the trash heap of history. I have no use for either party. I think more and more Americans are coming to that conclusion. This is why independents have risen from 30% of the electorate in 2006 to 42% today. Why those who affiliate or identify with the two major parties have fallen below 30% each. 27% Republican, 29% Democratic. What a come down from the big tent democratic party pre Reagan to today.

Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014 | Pew Research Center

I'm old enough to remember when both parties had their liberal and conservative wings. I think both parties have become hard core ideologues with only the good of their party at heart.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're really paying attention to the rightward shift of the GOP, or otherwise giving them the majority credit they deserve for the lack of bipartisanship. Having said that, I rather doubt you're willing to shift on this largely unsupported position of false equivalency/each party being more or less just as guilty. If the Democratic party can be said to have moved to the left at all, it would only be on the social axis; at least until recent years when Sanders single-handedly shifted the Overton window on substantive matters of economic policy; from the late 70s onwards, we've done nothing but become more conservative on the crucial economic axis as neoliberalism factually displaced and overthrew the FDR wing.

Nonetheless, the political reality is as I've described it: the GOP is at the manic fringe, continues to drift rightward ever further, and we will no longer follow, full stop, whether you lament this fact or not, while independents strongly embrace 'far left' ideas like MFA and free public college.
 
Surrealistik said:
I don't think you're really paying attention to the rightward shift of the GOP,
Click to expand...

A shift to the right would be supporting free markets, embracing the ideas of Milton Friedman, and reducing government spending.

They're not doing any of that.
 
aociswundumho said:
A shift to the right would be supporting free markets, embracing the ideas of Milton Friedman, and reducing government spending.

They're not doing any of that.
Click to expand...

They're certainly embracing deregulation, authoritarianism and militarization; all traditional hallmarks of the American right wing.
 
Surrealistik said:
They're certainly embracing deregulation,
Click to expand...

Some, but overall the Trump administration is not reducing the power of the federal government to any significant degree.

authoritarianism and militarization; all traditional hallmarks of the American right wing.
Click to expand...

First, the farther right you go, the smaller and less powerful the state gets. Libertarians, classic liberals, and ancaps, are all far right and all want a tiny to no state and a small to no military.

Second, what evidence do you have for the "authoritarianism" claim?

The "militarization" claim needs support as well. I'll concede Trump has been a disappointment regarding the middle east, but all presidents love war.

The claim also doesn't hold up when he's being admonished by real war hawks.
 
Surrealistik said:
I don't think you're really paying attention to the rightward shift of the GOP, or otherwise giving them the majority credit they deserve for the lack of bipartisanship. Having said that, I rather doubt you're willing to shift on this largely unsupported position of false equivalency/each party being more or less just as guilty. If the Democratic party can be said to have moved to the left at all, it would only be on the social axis; at least until recent years when Sanders single-handedly shifted the Overton window on substantive matters of economic policy; from the late 70s onwards, we've done nothing but become more conservative on the crucial economic axis as neoliberalism factually displaced and overthrew the FDR wing.

Nonetheless, the political reality is as I've described it: the GOP is at the manic fringe, continues to drift rightward ever further, and we will no longer follow, full stop, whether you lament this fact or not, while independents strongly embrace 'far left' ideas like MFA and free public college.
Click to expand...

You're correct, I'm not willing to shift. It isn't false equivalency. Democrats blame Republicans, Republicans blame Democrats and neither is willing anymore to compromise or to play the old game of give and take. Reid and McConnell are prime examples of that. You didn't see that when Lott and Daschle were senate leaders or when Mitchell and Dole or even back to Byrd and Baker.

Polarization began with McConnell and Reid and has continued ever since. The merits of any legislation isn't considered at all. Only who proposed it. If a Republican proposes something, the Democrats are automatically against it. Vice versa is absolutely true, the Republicans will oppose anything and everything proposed by a democrat.

The problem as I see it is both parties have moved away from middle America. I mean ideologically speaking, not regionally or geographically speaking. Of course the Democrats think their mainstream, the Republicans do also. Neither has noticed how far from middle America they have gone. This as I stated can be seen in the rise of independents who are leaving both parties. You had a time when I grew up when roughly 80% of all Americans identified with both major parties. That was when the democratic party was known as the big tent party.

That shrunk to an average of 65% during Reagan when the Democrats booted their conservative out and the Republicans their liberals. Since Reagan both parties have been losing their moderates which are becoming independents. Today only 56% of all America now identify or affiliate with one or the other major party.

Of course if one belongs to one or the other, you can't see this. Those who belong to one or the other think they're mainstream, they're middle America with the other party way out there on fringe if not beyond. There's a reason that 57% of all Americans think a viable third party is needed. The two major parties we now have no longer represent them. They've moved too far to the left or the right. They have no political party to call home anymore.

Majority in U.S. Still Say a Third Party Is Needed
 
Party of fricken old white men (hey...if it will help her get elected, Lizzie will gladly declare she is at least 1/1024th male. Which makes her twice as manly as most leftist men).
 
aociswundumho said:
Some, but overall the Trump administration is not reducing the power of the federal government to any significant degree.
Click to expand...

Despite not specifically moving towards a decrease of federal power, deregulation has been considerable, from the finance sector to telecommunications to environmental standards, nevermind putting industry lobbyists in charge of the agencies that are supposed to be regulating those industries.

First, the farther right you go, the smaller and less powerful the state gets. Libertarians, classic liberals, and ancaps, are all far right and all want a tiny to no state and a small to no military.
Click to expand...

That's not true really; the right is certainly aligned with economic liberalization, but not political and social liberalization.

Second, what evidence do you have for the "authoritarianism" claim?
Click to expand...

As the conspicuous face of the Republican party, Trump seeks to systemically marginalize and discredit the press, even going so far as to refer to them as enemies of the people while seeking to minimize/constrain their ability to report on his administration whenever possible, cultivates a cult of personality, has callous disregard for decorum and norms in favour of pursuing his agenda with brute expedience, emphasizes personal loyalty above all, routinely engages in Orwellian disputations and revisionism of facts on a particularly exceptional scale, openly and nakedly embraces dictators and envies their absolute power in alarming ways, lamenting how he lacks the same. Meanwhile, his party by and large moves in lock step, which makes them at the very least complicit; here's a couple of summations:

Is Donald Trump an authoritarian? Experts examine telltale signs | US news | The Guardian

Trump doesn't fit our stereotype of foreign dictators — because he's an American authoritarian | TheHill

“Send Her Back” and the Advancement of Trump’s Authoritarian Playbook | GQ

The "militarization" claim needs support as well. I'll concede Trump has been a disappointment regarding the middle east, but all presidents love war.

The claim also doesn't hold up when he's being admonished by real war hawks.
Click to expand...

Military spending very much speaks for itself as militarization goes. Trump certainly has a hard on for war despite exercising relative restraint to his credit; he's at least nowhere near as bad as Bush thus far. The very real risk of war with Iran is by far one of the scariest things about Trump.
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
True, true, true.

In 2020, however, I will vote for whatever Democrat is nominated. I'd like to believe it will be Bernie, but the same old hosed up DNC power people are already throwing up barriers to lessen Bernie's chances of getting the nomination.
Click to expand...

Where did you hear that? From Putin's trolls like last time?
 
Perotista said:
You're correct, I'm not willing to shift. It isn't false equivalency. Democrats blame Republicans, Republicans blame Democrats and neither is willing anymore to compromise or to play the old game of give and take. Reid and McConnell are prime examples of that. You didn't see that when Lott and Daschle were senate leaders or when Mitchell and Dole or even back to Byrd and Baker.

Polarization began with McConnell and Reid and has continued ever since. The merits of any legislation isn't considered at all. Only who proposed it. If a Republican proposes something, the Democrats are automatically against it. Vice versa is absolutely true, the Republicans will oppose anything and everything proposed by a democrat.

The problem as I see it is both parties have moved away from middle America. I mean ideologically speaking, not regionally or geographically speaking. Of course the Democrats think their mainstream, the Republicans do also. Neither has noticed how far from middle America they have gone. This as I stated can be seen in the rise of independents who are leaving both parties. You had a time when I grew up when roughly 80% of all Americans identified with both major parties. That was when the democratic party was known as the big tent party.

That shrunk to an average of 65% during Reagan when the Democrats booted their conservative out and the Republicans their liberals. Since Reagan both parties have been losing their moderates which are becoming independents. Today only 56% of all America now identify or affiliate with one or the other major party.

Of course if one belongs to one or the other, you can't see this. Those who belong to one or the other think they're mainstream, they're middle America with the other party way out there on fringe if not beyond. There's a reason that 57% of all Americans think a viable third party is needed. The two major parties we now have no longer represent them. They've moved too far to the left or the right. They have no political party to call home anymore.

Majority in U.S. Still Say a Third Party Is Needed
Click to expand...

Reid isn't even in the same ballpark as McConnell, nor were the Democrats the ones to first declare war by saying their top priority is making the opposing POTUS a one term wonder at all costs, then doing their utmost to make good on that declaration. It is absolutely a false equivalency.

Moreover, I would surmise that many have sloughed away from the Dems precisely because they moved to the right economically since the late 70s, and because of their pro-elite, pro-rich, pro-corporate neoliberal direction, rather than the traditional left-populist one of FDR; for decades they haven't really represented their constituency despite being in tune with it on the social axis, while the GOP has become ever more extreme, so yes, obviously party membership is going to shrink; that has nothing to do with Dems becoming 'extreme leftists' (since they haven't been economically left for decades at the least, and have only very recently picked up economically left policies), and everything to do with both parties veering right in every way that matters.

If you think Dems booted their conservatives out during the time of Reagan, I don't know what to tell you; that just is not supported by the facts. You can argue perhaps that McGovern was a true lefty, but pretty much no-one since. I would accept the argument that the Dems have become more liberal socially since the 70s, as that's objectively true (as have the GOP, albeit more slowly), but economically? There is zero basis for that.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
When someone who says they are The King of Israel or that they are the Chosen One is taken to the hospital, the hospital staff either suspect drug usage or mental illness. Nuff said. Compound that with someone who says other off-the-wall statements and it isn't a large leap to think that the Orange Caesar is nuts.
Click to expand...

You obviously lack the ability to recognize humor.
tenor.gif
 
Surrealistik said:
Despite not specifically moving towards a decrease of federal power, deregulation has been considerable, from the finance sector to telecommunications to environmental standards,
Click to expand...

Which is typical for any Republican administration.

nevermind putting industry lobbyists in charge of the agencies that are supposed to be regulating those industries.
Click to expand...

That's common for both Democratic and Republican administrations.

That's not true really; the right is certainly aligned with economic liberalization, but not political and social liberalization.
Click to expand...

There's no line between them, it's pretty much all economic. Consider the issue of abortion, which most people believe is a social issue. But it's not a social issue, it's an economic issue. How do Republicans stop women from a having abortions? They criminalize the transaction between the doctor and the woman. In a free market for medical services, the government would be powerless to stop women from having abortions.

But people like you support an expansive regulatory state, which gives the government the power to control buying and selling between individuals - and by extension gives the government the power to prevent women from having abortions or to ban certain politically incorrect drugs.

As the conspicuous face of the Republican party, Trump seeks to systemically marginalize and discredit the press,
Click to expand...

An authoritarian would shut down the press.

openly and nakedly embraces dictators and envies their absolute power in alarming ways, lamenting how he lacks the same.
Click to expand...

Are you a mind-reader? Because I'm pretty sure Trump hasn't said he laments not having absolute power, and again, an authoritarian wouldn't be lamenting it, he would take it.

there's a couple of summations:
Click to expand...

None of your links support the claim, and they don't even try to. Trump doesn't jail political dissidents, he hasn't tried to shut down the press, or shut down elections, and so on and so forth. He hasn't done anything that could be consider to be "authoritarian".

Trump certainly has a hard on for war despite exercising relative restraint to his credit
Click to expand...

They all have a hard on for war. Hillary would have been 10x worse than Trump.
 
aociswundumho said:
Which is typical for any Republican administration.

That's common for both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that the Dems have for many years been moving economically right. The claim was that Republicans are embracing deregulation and they are.


There's no line between them, it's pretty much all economic. Consider the issue of abortion, which most people believe is a social issue. But it's not a social issue, it's an economic issue. How do Republicans stop women from a having abortions? They criminalize the transaction between the doctor and the woman. In a free market for medical services, the government would be powerless to stop women from having abortions.

But people like you support an expansive regulatory state, which gives the government the power to control buying and selling between individuals - and by extension gives the government the power to prevent women from having abortions or to ban certain politically incorrect drugs.
Click to expand...

There absolutely is a distinction between social and political liberalization and economic liberalization, even if there are cases of overlap. It is asinine and factually wrong to assert that a social or political imposition is always tantamount to an economic one, or that defined regulations and purview invariably feature a slippery slope to draconian and absolute control.

As a particularly prominent example of the notable difference between political, social and economic liberalization, China features significant economic freedom for example, but little social and virtually zero political freedom (both of which are further declining under the social credit system and expanding surveillance state).





Are you a mind-reader? Because I'm pretty sure Trump hasn't said he laments not having absolute power, and again, an authoritarian wouldn't be lamenting it, he would take it.
Click to expand...

Trump thinks having a president for life would be great

Donald Trump Really Wishes He Were A Dictator | HuffPost Canada

An authoritarian would shut down the press...

...None of your links support the claim, and they don't even try to. Trump doesn't jail political dissidents, he hasn't tried to shut down the press, or shut down elections, and so on and so forth. He hasn't done anything that could be consider to be "authoritarian".
Click to expand...

The articles highlight the clea authoritarian and dictatorial propensities Trump blatantly and demonstrably has; just because he hasn't engaged in specific and material violations of the constitution to our knowledge, doesn't mean he doesn't lean towards or favour authoritarianism, nor that he does not routinely engage in behaviours common to dictators, nor that the party doesn't support him in this. One can lean or identify as authoritarian without committing the political suicide of actually engaging in de jure authoritarian governance.

They all have a hard on for war. Hillary would have been 10x worse than Trump.
Click to expand...

You don't know that for starters, and secondly, while the MIC indeed has needled many presidents towards war since Ike's warning about the institution, the fact remains that he certainly has been a solid proponent of militarization at every level barring outright warfare, which is all that was being claimed. That he's less bad than say Bush doesn't really say much.
 
Last edited:
Rogue Valley said:
A GOP circle jerk.

Like Trump is a viable candidate :lamo
Click to expand...

None of those people would vote for any democratic candidate no matter who it was anyway.
 
Surrealistik said:
There absolutely is a distinction between social and political liberalization and economic liberalization, even if there are cases of overlap. It is asinine and factually wrong to assert that a social or political imposition is always tantamount to an economic one, or that defined regulations and purview invariably feature a slippery slope to draconian and absolute control.
Click to expand...

If it's asinine then why didn't you address the abortion argument? In a free market for medical services, how would the government prevent women from having abortions?


As a particularly prominent example of the notable difference between political, social and economic liberalization, China features significant economic freedom for example, but little social and virtually zero political freedom (both of which are further declining under the social credit system and expanding surveillance state).
Click to expand...

First, China ranks low when it comes to economic freedom, they're not even in the top 50.

Second, their social credit system punishes people economically. I found this article about the punishments. All of the punishments would be impossible in a free market except for the last two: taking your dog and naming you a bad citizen.
 
aociswundumho said:
If it's asinine then why didn't you address the abortion argument? In a free market for medical services, how would the government prevent women from having abortions?
Click to expand...

I did. Your abortion argument is an example of the slippery slope informal fallacy. Just because the govt is empowered to regulate certain, specific and defined areas of commerce does not mean it can or will necessarily impose on other areas of commerce.

Moreover, the idea of a completely free market where the govt has and exerts absolutely no control or regulatory power whatsoever is a pipedream. Even if it were somehow impossibly achieved, it almost certainly wouldn't remain for long.



First, China ranks low when it comes to economic freedom, they're not even in the top 50.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but simultaneously economic freedom remains significant in China, at the very least on a relative basis and vastly exceeds social and political freedom there.

Second, their social credit system punishes people economically. I found this article about the punishments. All of the punishments would be impossible in a free market except for the last two: taking your dog and naming you a bad citizen.
Click to expand...

It restricts freedom of movement and the ability to enroll your children in schools, which are both not exclusively economic punishments. Moreover, the use of economic punishments to suppress undesirable social and political behaviour doesn't mean that social and political freedoms specifically aren't diminished, and in fact, highlights my point about the divide between social, political and economic freedom: here the state specifically forces you to choose between economic freedom and prosperity, and social and political freedom; it categorically strives to make these things mutually exclusive.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I am back to what I have been saying for months... Democrats learned absolutely nothing from 2016, Independents might just stay home, and Trump cakewalks into a 2nd term.

The only thing that might change this is the economy going south.
Click to expand...

The republicans don't support Trump so they may run someone against him. They need to do something stupid to stay up with the democrats. I was really hoping for a choice this election. Looks like it is a choice between lose my rights or roll the dice and see what Trump does next.
 
PoS said:
Poll: Bernie, Warren surge to tie Biden atop Democratic field - POLITICO


So it's between the creepy uncle and gaffe prone Joe Biden, Pocahontas and Bernie the Commie? I wouldn't vote for any of them as POTUS (and I wouldnt vote for Trump either). Who would you vote for?
Click to expand...

The only real hope seems for a really popular and great third party candidate to emerge. Otherwise it is Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, and pick a party puppet or Trump. It looks like I will lose again.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I sincerely hope the links are nothing more than hot air. One is over a year old.

I would have a difficult time voting for Hillary. I suspect many people would. However, the DNC is as boogered up as the GOP. Both are worthless agents for the 1%, corporations and monied foreign interests. Neither party operates in the best interests of Americans. The sad news is that most Americans have proven that old line party power doesn't have to be concerned. Americans - if they vote - will vote GOP or Democrat.
Click to expand...

The only one of those articles from this year was 'the American thinker , a web site that is quite the oxymoron. Hillary has done none of the things that would be needed to be able to run a campaign. Therefore, it's the right wing playing up irrational fear of a strong woman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom