somebody tell me why

[clambake]

there are those here that are voting for hillary. why on earth would you do that?

[clambake]

look, you guys can shit on each other later.

tell me why in hell you'd vote for her.

[DarrinS]

Least shiity of two shitty candidates?

[DMC]

This is a forum. Most people who post on forums are against thing, rarely for things.

[clambake]

Least shiity of two shitty candidates?

good luck with that one.

[FromWayDowntown]

The federal courts (not just the Supreme Court). Hillary is far more likely to appoint people to the federal benches who see the world the way that I do (or would prefer for it to be seen) than Trump is.

I also think Trump is a despicable and absolutely unprincipled candidate. I might have actually considered a Republican vote for President if it had been anyone other than this guy.

[clambake]

thanks. sensible.

[spurraider21]

This is a forum. Most people who post on forums are against thing, rarely for things.
^Philo

[ducks]

Hillary does not believe in the 2 amendment I do
I would never vote for her

[ducks]

I have no problems with any of the people trump says he would pick for the court

he gives a list unlike Clinton who is afraid to tell people 20 people who she would appoint

[baseline bum]

To act as a check and balance against the teabagger house

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1) I think Clinton would appoint SCOTUS justices that align more in my views moreso that Trump. Specifically CU and Heller.
2) I think Trump is low intelligence, short fused and narcissistic which would make him easy to manipulate by our enemies and anyone else as well as increasingly the likelihood of dangerous scenarios.
3) I think Trump's mercantile trade policies would start a trade war that would set us back from a century of progress.
4) I think Trump's trickle down economic policies would be a fiscal nightmare. He has more wishful thinking than Reagan ever did.
5) I think in the era of race relations and a police state that he would worsen the problem and lead to more of an authoritarian Orwellian dystopia.
6) I think Texas needs to get rid of the one party hegemony that we have had throughout my lifetime. Polls are within the margin of error.

Neither candidate says anything about election reform and neither candidate seems to have any antitrust initiatives.

[DMC]

1) I think Clinton would appoint SCOTUS justices that align more in my views moreso that Trump. Specifically CU and Heller.
2) I think Trump is low intelligence, short fused and narcissistic which would make him easy to manipulate by our enemies and anyone else as well as increasingly the likelihood of dangerous scenarios.
3) I think Trump's mercantile trade policies would start a trade war that would set us back from a century of progress.
4) I think Trump's trickle down economic policies would be a fiscal nightmare. He has more wishful thinking than Reagan ever did.
5) I think in the era of race relations and a police state that he would worsen the problem and lead to more of an authoritarian Orwellian dystopia.
6) I think Texas needs to get rid of the one party hegemony that we have had throughout my lifetime. Polls are within the margin of error.

Neither candidate says anything about election reform and neither candidate seems to have any antitrust initiatives.

Wow HRC's attributes are a mile long. How can you choose just these?

[florige]

Because Trump sucks.

[clambake]

so......i guess every vote for hillary is trumps fault.

[DarrinS]

so......i guess every vote for hillary is trumps fault.

Pretty much. She's only electable ...because Trump.

[boutons_deux]

Pretty much. She's only electable ...because Trump.

bulllshit. Repugs have been executing "politics of personal destruction" on Bill, Hillary, Obama, rather campaigning on Repug policies.

NOT one of the Repug shithouse of this year's wannabe-Pres had a chance.

The race would have been closer than the impending landslide, but Hillary would have won.

Any other Repug would run on exactly the same issues as Trash, but with dog-whistling xenophobia, LGBT hate, bigotry, racism, Muslim-hating rather than Trash's megaphone. They would have had to appeal to their beloved base, cultivated (and Repug-screwed) for decades, just like Trash has been doing.

[ducks]

Because Trump sucks.Hillary sucks much worse

[MannyIsGod]

The idea that Clinton would only beat Trump and not the other GOP candidates that couldn't even beat Trump is oft repeated but doesn't come close to being reality. Polling prior to the end of the GOP primary showed her beating GOP candidates left and right. The democrats have a built in electoral advantage. Who among them was going to move the needle in the states that Romney lost? There is a sizeable portion of the GOP that is the alt right and that fraction is why Trump won to begin with. You think they would be running to the polls to support Rubio? You think Jeb Bush was going to beat her? Or Kaisich who couldn't beat out the terrible primary campaigns of Rubio and Cruz to come in second? Was the GOP all of a sudden going to develop opposition research on the scale of Clintons? Because if they had then the bad data come out on Trump (IE Machado ) would have come out then. Did the GOP even RUN oppo on Trump? Because it sure doesn't seem like it.

So far, the biggest hurdle to Clinton's candidacy has been stuff related to wikileaks. And would Russia have been so eager to leak that if they were doing so to help a GOP member like Cruz or Kaisich? That's laughable. Romney's biggest hurdle to winning in 2012 was his poorly run data campaign. The GOP hasn't learned from what Obama did in 2008 and its almost a decade later. When is a GOP presidential candidate going to run a 21st century data driven presidential campaign? 2020? We'll see.

Even now, with all of what's been said about her in this campaign, Hilary is down 1 in polling to a generic GOP candidate. 1 whole point. Against a fictional candidate that she doesn't get to campaign against.

In any event, I choose to vote for Clinton because she has a long history of working well with members on the other side of the aisle. She's got the best - by far - climate change approach which includes fracking away but doing it in a more responsible well regulated manner. She's got a history of working for children's rights. And because its an opportunity to get a woman in the white house. Much like 2008 was an opportunity to get a black man in the white house (and many studies have spoken to the positive effect that's had on its own in the black community), half of our country deserves to have someone to look to as a role model for achieving that major goal. I agree with her on the vast majority of domestic politics (not a fan of the free college plan and there are some other disagreements I have) and although I have serious foreign policy questions, the other 3 "major" candidates are all demonstrably worse in this field.

[clambake]

well, thats pretty good. but she's made of snake oil.

[DMC]

"poling"

When are you folks going to learn that these polls are not good representations of the country as a whole?

Pretty sure the DNC was worried about Bernie, since they back doored his ass. If Hillary had problems getting through her own convention without collusion, what makes you think they weren't worried about anyone EXCEPT Trump?

Jesus, the slimy whore you folks are supporting has a trail of dead bodies from here to Shanghai. Can't say Trump is any better, but at least we don't know. We know Hillary is a sleazeball.

And lol at "get a woman in the WH". That's about like blacks voting for Obama because he's half black. What qualification is having a vagina? Might as well say "getting a blonde in the Whitehouse".

What people mean is 'anyone but a white man".

HRC has been a failure at Sec of State, at Senator, at wife (see Monica), and now she will be at POTUS. Oh but you'll get your "woman in the WH".

Yay. what's the cliffhanger going to be this season?

[ducks]

abc poll 27 republicans wow what a fair poll

[TDMVPDPOY]

leaders of both major parties with no better alternative to vote for....democracy? lmao more like voting dunce clowns for leadership...

[MannyIsGod]

lol, DMC, no misogyny in your post. None. Its hilarious to read posts on here claiming conspiracy theories and dead bodies. I'm not going to engage people in a debate over whether or not conspiracy theories are true. Its an exercise in futility.

CB, she sells so much snake oil that she ended up with a progressive voting record in the senate on par with Sanders. She's unlikable like many women who have the audacity to be ambitious are. The question on whether or not she's qualified and whether she'll do a good job advancing the agenda I want in the WH are both an easy yes. Isn't that the bottom line?

[hater]

Only one candidate has secretly had an email server and divulged classified info and lied about it. One candidate caused the mess in Lybia and risked our ambassador who was killed, only one candidate is in it with wall street and has 2 personnas, the public and the private where she makes backroom deals. One candidate wants to put our pilots at risk by enforcing an impossible no fly zone over areas infested with russian s300 and s400 anti aircraft systems. Only one candidate accepted millions in donations to her foundation while secretary of state. Only one candidate cheated in the primaries

Only one candidate is that despicable. And that candidate is not Trump

[ElNono]

The idea that Clinton would only beat Trump and not the other GOP candidates that couldn't even beat Trump is oft repeated but doesn't come close to being reality. Polling prior to the end of the GOP primary showed her beating GOP candidates left and right. The democrats have a built in electoral advantage. Who among them was going to move the needle in the states that Romney lost? There is a sizeable portion of the GOP that is the alt right and that fraction is why Trump won to begin with. You think they would be running to the polls to support Rubio? You think Jeb Bush was going to beat her? Or Kaisich who couldn't beat out the terrible primary campaigns of Rubio and Cruz to come in second? Was the GOP all of a sudden going to develop opposition research on the scale of Clintons? Because if they had then the bad data come out on Trump (IE Machado ) would have come out then. Did the GOP even RUN oppo on Trump? Because it sure doesn't seem like it.

This is a bad read, IMO. But it does show one of the symptoms the GOP is experiencing: electable candidates can't survive their primary. Only about 15% of eligible voters for each party actually voted on the primaries. That's 30% of total eligible voters. It was an excellent turnout (not a new record, but close), but it goes to show the it's the bases picking largely without consideration of independents, which are the ones that eventually do swing the election. So the fact that Kasich, who many in the GOP base viewed as not being conservative enough, could not survive the GOP primary doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't have had a good race against Shillary if he did win the nomination. The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of those primary voters will eventually align with the candidate for their party (Trump might be one of the few exceptions), then it's all about convincing independents to get the path to victory. And that's where the GOP has gone wrong time and again. Shillary bullshitted her way with free college to attract the young, played the women's card, took the warhawk approach in foreign policy, all the little things to draw up from certain centrist groups, whereas both Romney (47% of moochers) and Trump (too many to list), doubled down on a message that only matters to the base, whose votes they already have.

That's why among the topics of the GOP 2012 election post-mortem was a lot of this stuff: catering to minorities, jumping into the immigration reform bandwagon, being more inclusive with women. They just didn't heed their own advice, and are basically paying the price again. Until they figure it out, they're going to continue to sink in irrelevancy in federal elections like these. You can't shape the country without power, and you can't get real power without winning these elections. It's time to be pragmatic about this. Dubya is certainly a poster child of RINO for the modern conservatives, but he was practical at this game: For example, his platform offered temporary work permits to illegals, and that earned him almost 50% of the latino vote. That's how these battles are won, looking at the forest, not the tree.

[boutons_deux]

"major parties with no better alternative to vote for"

the candidates represent America and Americans, and the politicians they re-elect repeatedly.

What progressive, "decent" person would want to run as a Dem to get witch hunted, slandered, trashed in the way the Repugs. the VRWC, the 1% have done to Bill, Barack, Hillary?

[ElNono]

As far as the OP, I can't consciously cast a vote for her. So I won't. I understand but don't support the 'lesser of two evils' principle. It's morally broken no matter how you look at it, IMO.

[ElNono]

FWIW, The NY Times did a good infographic about the primaries and what it looks like in the overall:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html

[hater]

As far as the OP, I can't consciously cast a vote for her. So I won't. I understand but don't support the 'lesser of two evils' principle. It's morally broken no matter how you look at it, IMO.

Ma niga. Ill b doing the same tbqh. Im writing in El Chapo for president

[ducks]

Democrat people wanted Bernie establishment for them wanted clinton

[FuzzyLumpkins]

looks like ducks is drunk again.

[clambake]

As far as the OP, I can't consciously cast a vote for her. So I won't. I understand but don't support the 'lesser of two evils' principle. It's morally broken no matter how you look at it, IMO.

this is the high octane response i was looking for.

[DMC]

lol, DMC, no misogyny in your post. None. Its hilarious to read posts on here claiming conspiracy theories and dead bodies. I'm not going to engage people in a debate over whether or not conspiracy theories are true. Its an exercise in futility.

So because I won't use gender as a qualification, like you did, that makes me anti-female? lol

"Trail of bodies" is a figure of speech, though in her case it could be used both ways.


CB, she sells so much snake oil that she ended up with a progressive voting record in the senate on par with Sanders. She's unlikable like many women who have the audacity to be ambitious are. The question on whether or not she's qualified and whether she'll do a good job advancing the agenda I want in the WH are both an easy yes. Isn't that the bottom line?On par with Sanders? You mean the guy she colluded with the DNC against to force out of the Democratic race? Her audacity isn't why she's unlikable. She's a transparent political prostitute who clung to Bill like a cockle burr while he was ass fucking interns with a Monte Cristo in the Oral office. She parlayed her "loyalty" into a cabinet position where she got 4 people killed and lied about it the very same night it happened, as she scrambled to do political damage control for the election just 56 days away. She's a fucking sleazeball, and you think all this is because she's an outspoken female? lol

If her husband wasn't the former POTUS, she couldn't land a spot on the city council of Bald Knob Arkansas.

[DMC]

I'm with El Nono. I cannot vote for either of these people. A vote is a mark of approval and I'd vomit in my mouth a little with either of them, and the 3rd party people are a ruse so I'll abstain.

[MannyIsGod]

No, you're misogyny comes like shit by saying she failed at being a wife because of her husbands actions. Textbook.

For the record, people here tried to spin me saying being black was a good thing as me saying being black was a qualification. Its not, but its a plus. Same thing with being a woman. But of course, posters here turn that into LOL YOU"RE VOTING FOR HER BECAUSE SHE HAS A VAGINA. Never change, Spurstalk. Never change.

I get why people have issues with her. Some of it is very legit. But a lot of it isn't. They hold her to a different standard and don't view in the context of decades of GOP witchhunting against her. And thats fine, but after the Bengazi bullshit, you'll have to excuse me if I cut her a bit of slack for some of the things she's done. I think she'll be an effective governor and a hell of a better negotiator than Obama. I'm fairly happy with the Obama presidency, but I think she'll actually improve on it.

[MannyIsGod]

This is a bad read, IMO. But it does show one of the symptoms the GOP is experiencing: electable candidates can't survive their primary. Only about 15% of eligible voters for each party actually voted on the primaries. That's 30% of total eligible voters. It was an excellent turnout (not a new record, but close), but it goes to show the it's the bases picking largely without consideration of independents, which are the ones that eventually do swing the election. So the fact that Kasich, who many in the GOP base viewed as not being conservative enough, could not survive the GOP primary doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't have had a good race against Shillary if he did win the nomination. The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of those primary voters will eventually align with the candidate for their party (Trump might be one of the few exceptions), then it's all about convincing independents to get the path to victory. And that's where the GOP has gone wrong time and again. Shillary bullshitted her way with free college to attract the young, played the women's card, took the warhawk approach in foreign policy, all the little things to draw up from certain centrist groups, whereas both Romney (47% of moochers) and Trump (too many to list), doubled down on a message that only matters to the base, whose votes they already have.

That's why among the topics of the GOP 2012 election post-mortem was a lot of this stuff: catering to minorities, jumping into the immigration reform bandwagon, being more inclusive with women. They just didn't heed their own advice, and are basically paying the price again. Until they figure it out, they're going to continue to sink in irrelevancy in federal elections like these. You can't shape the country without power, and you can't get real power without winning these elections. It's time to be pragmatic about this. Dubya is certainly a poster child of RINO for the modern conservatives, but he was practical at this game: For example, his platform offered temporary work permits to illegals, and that earned him almost 50% of the latino vote. That's how these battles are won, looking at the forest, not the tree.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/10/turnout-was-high-in-the-2016-primary-season-but-just-short-of-2008-record/

Trump energized a whole bunch of people into the GOP which is why they did have a record turnout. You think those same people are going to be turning out in force for Kaisich? The way they turned out for Romney? How'd that work out? As you point out, they need a different coalition. So who on the GOP was going to do that, while getting better white turnout than Romney? Because the deck is stacked against them more each year.

And well, after this shit show, good luck getting Bush numbers with Latinos again for decades. Its 1964 all over again.

[MannyIsGod]

Also I love the idea that she cheated in the primaries. :lol

Such a load of bullshit. Even the Sanders camp acknowledges that's bullshit. Swear to god all these hacked emails are the "climategate" out of context bullshit all over again.

[ElNono]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/10/turnout-was-high-in-the-2016-primary-season-but-just-short-of-2008-record/

Trump energized a whole bunch of people into the GOP which is why they did have a record turnout. You think those same people are going to be turning out in force for Kaisich? The way they turned out for Romney? How'd that work out? As you point out, they need a different coalition. So who on the GOP was going to do that, while getting better white turnout than Romney? Because the deck is stacked against them more each year.

And well, after this shit show, good luck getting Bush numbers with Latinos again for decades. Its 1964 all over again.

Of course they show up. Even if they have to hold their noses, they're the base, they're always there to carry the flag. It's a numbers game, as that graph shows. Just like blue-team doesn't have enough of their own. Both red and blue bases are basically 1/3 of eligible voters. There's another 1/3 that shows up and votes too, which are the fabled "independents", but really, there's an ample gamut there, from socially liberal and fiscal conservative to the far left or far right, pacifists, war hawks, etc. And after that there's another 1/3 of eligible voters that mostly never votes, but they're also ripe to convince to buy into what you're selling.

Any smart campaign knows those other 2/3 that are not the base should be your aim past the primaries. But to appeal to that, you have to move away from the base a little. Shillary knew she couldn't win without the Bernie bros, so first thing she did after winning the nomination is pivot towards Bernie voters. Then when it was clear Trump was a clown appealing to the uneducated folk guys, she pivoted to convince the neocons warhawks to vote for her. If you think with any clarity, you can't really reconcile the Bernie Bros and the neocons, but when you wanna win, you do what you need to do. It's only probably one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful position in the world at stake.

It's like if Bernie wins the primary, and, say, Rubio or Christie win... will Bernie pivot to the neocon? no way. Fiscal conservatives won't touch him with a 10 foot pole. So it's a completely different scenario, but, again, the bases hold their noses and vote, you have to convince the other 2/3 of the electorate, that's the goal. The GOP has this stupid notion of purity test bullshit at the base, from hollow guys like Cruz, that's just shooting themselves in the foot.

[boutons_deux]

"electable candidates" ? :lol

The GOP was wrong about "need to go even more right" after Bishop Gekko's defeat, and will go even more right, more extremist, after Trash's trashy extreme right supporters lose in 2016.

My guess is that the establishment Repugs will go even more right (and more defeatable) and lose seniors by trying kill Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

[Warlord23]

This guy makes a few good points about why to vote for Clinton:

-2Obeu_VYY4

[DMC]

No, you're misogyny comes like shit by saying she failed at being a wife because of her husbands actions. Textbook.

No, she failed at being a wife because of her reaction to her husband's repeated actions.. nothing. If a woman stays with a man who physically abuses her because the guy has money, do you consider that to be a good woman? So then adultery in the home in which they live, that's ok? They don't give a rats ass for each other, they are business associates.

Imagine instead she's fucking around on him. Imagine the story comes out and she's in court for sucking someone's cock in the oval office, for having a cigar shoved up her snatch. Then her husband acts like it never happened and the next thing you know he's the Secretary of State and loses an embassy because he does nothing about the warnings he received and people die. You'd paint him as a cuck and passive participant, and that's dangerous for someone who's in power. Make that POTUS level power and the danger increases exponentially. "I was in the room when..." referring to OBL killing.. but she did nothing herself, nothing. She just watched with her hand over her mouth. So no, she's not a good leader. She's not even a leader. She's just in charge.


For the record, people here tried to spin me saying being black was a good thing as me saying being black was a qualification. Its not, but its a plus. Same thing with being a woman. But of course, posters here turn that into LOL YOU"RE VOTING FOR HER BECAUSE SHE HAS A VAGINA. Never change, Spurstalk. Never change.

You're the one who used her gender as a reason to vote for her. If you used Obama's skin color as a reason to vote for him, then sure... you did use black as a qualification, at least a qualification for your vote.


I get why people have issues with her. Some of it is very legit. But a lot of it isn't. They hold her to a different standard and don't view in the context of decades of GOP witchhunting against her. And thats fine, but after the Bengazi bullshit, you'll have to excuse me if I cut her a bit of slack for some of the things she's done. I think she'll be an effective governor and a hell of a better negotiator than Obama. I'm fairly happy with the Obama presidency, but I think she'll actually improve on it.You mean the same Benghazi that was never bought up during the debates? That one? The truth is that you're the one holding HRC to a lower standard as if she's your grandmother. Secretary of State who loses a fucking embassy and lies about the reasoning as a political life preserver isn't someone who has been tortured. You might look to the actual embassy for that one.

[clambake]

if we all sold our vote, which one of them would be the highest bidder?

[Xevious]

As far as the OP, I can't consciously cast a vote for her. So I won't. I understand but don't support the 'lesser of two evils' principle. It's morally broken no matter how you look at it, IMO.
Same. Even a third party vote is a no-go for me as those candidates are absolute shit as well. I will still vote down ballot, but I'm likely going to leave the POTUS page blank.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As far as the OP, I can't consciously cast a vote for her. So I won't. I understand but don't support the 'lesser of two evils' principle. It's morally broken no matter how you look at it, IMO.

Moralizing is a waste of time and delusional. There is no objective basis and it boils down to emotion. To me that is a terrible approach.

A cost benefit analysis is possible to make an intelligent choice. If you come out with little to no difference then fine but as Orwell said moral equivalency always "ends up with half a loaf equalling no bread."

[clambake]

Moralizing is a waste of time and delusional. There is no objective basis and it boils down to emotion. To me that is a terrible approach.

A cost benefit analysis is possible to make an intelligent choice. If you come out with little to no difference then fine but as Orwell said moral equivalency always "ends up with half a loaf equalling no bread."
thats fucking hilarious!!!!!!









no offense

[ElNono]

Moralizing is a waste of time and delusional. There is no objective basis and it boils down to emotion. To me that is a terrible approach.

A cost benefit analysis is possible to make an intelligent choice. If you come out with little to no difference then fine but as Orwell said moral equivalency always "ends up with half a loaf equalling no bread."

I completely agree it's a personal choice, and, as such, varies from people to people. I'm not going to berate whoever does/think different on the subject. If you feel comfortable casting that vote, that's fine by me.

[spurraider21]

looks like ducks is drunk again.
small minds discuss people

[FuzzyLumpkins]

small minds discuss people

That certainly was a petty dig if apt. You going cavalier for him is a lovely thing.

What is your take on my ideas about moralizing as a method of choosing a candidate to vote for? Or you just going to fixate on me?

[ElNono]

What is your take on my ideas about moralizing as a method of choosing a candidate to vote for? Or you just going to fixate on me?

FWIW, it doesn't always has to be moral. I actually mentioned that my opinion is that the "lesser of two evils" principle is morally corrupt. That doesn't automatically mean not voting always has to be based on a moral construct.

I grew up in a country where voting is mandatory, and I actually cherish the new "none of the above" option if I don't like what the candidates have to offer.

[DarrinS]

Aldo, your vote may not even count because of the electoral college, e.g. a Rebulican vote in California doesn't count.

[RandomGuy]

there are those here that are voting for hillary. why on earth would you do that?

She is the single most qualified candidate that either party has fielded in quite some time.

She does seem to genuinely care about womens issues, and childrens issues.

She is quite intelligent, and extremely well informed.

[clambake]

she's a dog and you know it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

She is the single most qualified candidate that either party has fielded in quite some time.

She does seem to genuinely care about womens issues, and childrens issues.

She is quite intelligent, and extremely well informed.
How is her memory?

[RandomGuy]

Also I love the idea that she cheated in the primaries. :lol

Such a load of bullshit. Even the Sanders camp acknowledges that's bullshit. Swear to god all these hacked emails are the "climategate" out of context bullshit all over again.

That is the problem. Confirmation bias.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Yes that is the problem, confirmation bias. :lol

Wasserman Schultz terminated for confirmation bias.
Foval terminated for confirmation bias.
Creamer terminated for confirmation bias.

[HI-FI]

FWIW, it doesn't always has to be moral. I actually mentioned that my opinion is that the "lesser of two evils" principle is morally corrupt. That doesn't automatically mean not voting always has to be based on a moral construct.

I grew up in a country where voting is mandatory, and I actually cherish the new "none of the above" option if I don't like what the candidates have to offer.
nothing wrong with that at all. people shouldn't be forced to vote for those they don't like. my brother isn't voting and i respect it.
i probably like Trump more than you but you gotta admit, had our Overlords gotten their Clinton vs Bush rematch bs (which would've been a true win/win for them) this election would be far more depressing imo.

[z0sa]

She is the single most qualified candidate that either party has fielded in quite some time.

She does seem to genuinely care about womens issues, and childrens issues.

She is quite intelligent, and extremely well informed.

Shes corrupt. No question.

[ElNono]

nothing wrong with that at all. people shouldn't be forced to vote for those they don't like. my brother isn't voting and i respect it.
i probably like Trump more than you but you gotta admit, had our Overlords gotten their Clinton vs Bush rematch bs (which would've been a true win/win for them) this election would be far more depressing imo.

You mean depressing as in the entertainment factor? I mean, I never thought Jeb had a chance after dubya, tbh, but if the purpose was to actually win the election, I think he would've had a better shot than Trump (which doesn't man he would have won though).

Very few 'exciting' candidates this time around, IMO. Maybe Bernie for the novelty and amongst the GOP, Kasich was probably the guy that was more pragmatic. The rest was pretty much a freak show.

[z0sa]

You mean depressing as in the entertainment factor? I mean, I never thought Jeb had a chance after dubya, tbh, but if the purpose was to actually win the election, I think he would've had a better shot than Trump (which doesn't man he would have won though).

Very few 'exciting' candidates this time around, IMO. Maybe Bernie for the novelty and amongst the GOP, Kasich was probably the guy that was more pragmatic. The rest was pretty much a freak show.

The only reason you even have to make this post is the insane political climate. Anyone R didnt get recorded saying grab her by the pussy would be exponentially more electable.

[DMC]

Bigger womanizer: Trump or Bill Clinton?

HRC only approves on one of them doing it. Oddly it's her husband.

[DMC]

What is your take on my ideas

Or you just going to fixate on me?

That would be two people fixating on you, including you.

Pretty sure no one gives your ideas any serious consideration, seeing how special you are, how precious.

[RandomGuy]

How is her memory?

Appears to have a functional recall of briefed material.

[RandomGuy]

Of course they show up. Even if they have to hold their noses, they're the base, they're always there to carry the flag. It's a numbers game, as that graph shows. Just like blue-team doesn't have enough of their own. Both red and blue bases are basically 1/3 of eligible voters. There's another 1/3 that shows up and votes too, which are the fabled "independents", but really, there's an ample gamut there, from socially liberal and fiscal conservative to the far left or far right, pacifists, war hawks, etc. And after that there's another 1/3 of eligible voters that mostly never votes, but they're also ripe to convince to buy into what you're selling.

Any smart campaign knows those other 2/3 that are not the base should be your aim past the primaries. But to appeal to that, you have to move away from the base a little. Shillary knew she couldn't win without the Bernie bros, so first thing she did after winning the nomination is pivot towards Bernie voters. Then when it was clear Trump was a clown appealing to the uneducated folk guys, she pivoted to convince the neocons warhawks to vote for her. If you think with any clarity, you can't really reconcile the Bernie Bros and the neocons, but when you wanna win, you do what you need to do. It's only probably one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful position in the world at stake.

It's like if Bernie wins the primary, and, say, Rubio or Christie win... will Bernie pivot to the neocon? no way. Fiscal conservatives won't touch him with a 10 foot pole. So it's a completely different scenario, but, again, the bases hold their noses and vote, you have to convince the other 2/3 of the electorate, that's the goal. The GOP has this stupid notion of purity test bullshit at the base, from hollow guys like Cruz, that's just shooting themselves in the foot.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en

Purity of one sort or another is, apparently, one of the bases for morality for conservatives, much more so than liberals.

Makes a certain amount of sense.

[Chucho]

Bigger womanizer: Trump or Bill Clinton?

HRC only approves on one of them doing it. Oddly it's her husband.


Not that it's new, it's actually a signature of theirs, but it's still funny how hypocritical LOLibertards are with their projecting. Yeah, Trump is the sexual predator when we are about to let back in a known sexual predator and molestor in Billy Clinton. Just shows the ineptitude of the Left when being purposefully hypocritical.

[Chucho]

That would be two people fixating on you, including you.

Pretty sure no one gives your ideas any serious consideration, seeing how special you are, how precious.


Fuzzy just got:

http://images.uncyc.org/commons/thumb/e/ef/950_skull_fuck.jpg/250px-950_skull_fuck.jpg

AGAIN.

Fuzz, I'm certain you've heard this from more people than just me, but since you're ultra-selective like a typical Liberal, in what you read and interpret and in your hypocrisy, but using the words you employ doesn't make you any smarter than you think you are. Just thought I'd remind you as it's obvious you are selective about your self-awareness.

[RandomGuy]

Shes corrupt. No question.

Beware of the oft repeated stock phrase.

To some degree, I think so. I also think the evidence is far thinner for that than many seem to. Bear in mind there are quite a few people who have every reason to claim this no matter what the veracity.

That said, Trump is just as corrupt, if not more so. The two things sort of cancel each other out when it comes to weighing votes, despite what thesanityannex might wish.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So now I have people getting on alts to claim victory. The troll brigade in its fullest nihilist dimwit glory. Getting you guys angry is always a good way to get you to out yourself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy just got:

http://images.uncyc.org/commons/thumb/e/ef/950_skull_fuck.jpg/250px-950_skull_fuck.jpg

AGAIN.

Fuzz, I'm certain you've heard this from more people than just me, but since you're ultra-selective like a typical Liberal, in what you read and interpret and in your hypocrisy, but using the words you employ doesn't make you any smarter than you think you are. Just thought I'd remind you as it's obvious you are selective about your self-awareness.

What words do I use that you think I am using to 'sound smart?' This is a good indicator of where you are at although you think it is an indicator of what I am trying to do.

It's hilarious to me how certain people, almost always raised in the lower classes, are intimidated by multisyllables. The whine works better if you can show I used them wrong but we both know that is not the case.

I talk to everyone the same. What is extra hilarious is when people get upset on account of their kids even though I pay attention and teach them what the word means. I like to think of it as the cycle of stupidity.

[DMC]

What words do I use that you think I am using to 'sound smart?' This is a good indicator of where you are at although you think it is an indicator of what I am trying to do.

It's hilarious to me how certain people, almost always raised in the lower classes, are intimidated by multisyllables. The whine works better if you can show I used them wrong but we both know that is not the case.

I talk to everyone the same. What is extra hilarious is when people get upset on account of their kids even though I pay attention and teach them what the word means. I like to think of it as the cycle of stupidity.

So since you're teaching them, you're part of the cycle of stupidity.

You just use random debate buzz words with some passive aggressive vaginal bleedings here and there. You're Chumpdumper's queer lover.

[Wild Cobra]

Least shiity of two shitty candidates?

It's tiring that our elections have come to that.

Voting for the lesser of two evils.

[DMC]

It's tiring that our elections have come to that.

Voting for the lesser of two evils.

You have to be rich and connected, and you have to have lived a life in the public eye so that all the little nasty parts of you are disinfected through political maneuvering or cover-up. The smartest, most capable people in the county could never get elected because they might have hired a hooker once, or cheated on an exam, or used the N word on tape. Even if they haven't, they cannot gather the funds to campaign, and the two parties, as we've witnessed, shut out everyone but their ideal candidate, the one who they think can win, not necessarily the one who should.

It's always about getting the party in office. The candidate is just a conduit.

We need to start using more fitting terms. Instead of "party" we should call them "gang" or "syndicate".

[ElNono]

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en

Purity of one sort or another is, apparently, one of the bases for morality for conservatives, much more so than liberals.

Makes a certain amount of sense.

They weren't always like this though. What we're seeing nowadays, IMO, is a lack of leadership. It's like everyone wants to be Reagan, who is a mythological figure for nostalgic conservatives, tbh... makes sense from an opportunistic standpoint, due to the base being mostly old white baby boomers, but at some point they're gonna have to figure out that the tent needs to grow, and it won't happen invoking St Ronnie.

[DMC]

They weren't always like this though. What we're seeing nowadays, IMO, is a lack of leadership. It's like everyone wants to be Reagan, who is a mythological figure for nostalgic conservatives, tbh... makes sense from an opportunistic standpoint, due to the base being mostly old white baby boomers, but at some point they're gonna have to figure out that the tent needs to grow, and it won't happen invoking St Ronnie.

Reagan was so overhyped (still is) that his VP became only the 4th ever (I think) to be elected to POTUS, and none since.

[ElNono]

Reagan was so overhyped (still is) that his VP became only the 4th ever (I think) to be elected to POTUS, and none since.

I'm sure he did some good stuff for people to remember him fondly, and it's unquestionable that he's left a giant leadership void (along with a great legacy).

But reinventing yourself is always a necessary process to step forward. The GOP really needs new ideas and leadership, less dogma and more pragmatism. It's just going to be difficult with the current base, tbh. When the last two guys standing are Cruz and Trump, you're kinda screwed. Gonna probably take a generational change, or a major Dem fuckup (the latter being more likely, IMO). It's easy to blame the liberal media, etc for Shillary walking into the WH, but the conservative movement is far from blameless. I would even say, they have a huge hand in that too.

[DMC]

I'm sure he did some good stuff for people to remember him fondly, and it's unquestionable that he's left a giant leadership void (along with a great legacy).

But reinventing yourself is always a necessary process to step forward. The GOP really needs new ideas and leadership, less dogma and more pragmatism. It's just going to be difficult with the current base, tbh. When the last two guys standing are Cruz and Trump, you're kinda screwed. Gonna probably take a generational change, or a major Dem fuckup (the latter being more likely, IMO). It's easy to blame the liberal media, etc for Shillary walking into the WH, but the conservative movement is far from blameless. I would even say, they have a huge hand in that too.

Cronies seem to gain the WH most often. Hillary is a cronie. Trump is a cronie. I don't mind so much the older folks but I get tired of seeing the office passed around like a joint.

[ElNono]

Cronies seem to gain the WH most often. Hillary is a cronie. Trump is a cronie. I don't mind so much the older folks but I get tired of seeing the office passed around like a joint.

About to have 2 Bush and 2 Clinton in the past 30 years... hope next up in line is not Jeb...

[DarrinS]

... hope next up in line is not Jeb...

I don't think you have anything to worry about. :lol

[z0sa]

Beware of the oft repeated stock phrase.

To some degree, I think so. I also think the evidence is far thinner for that than many seem to. Bear in mind there are quite a few people who have every reason to claim this no matter what the veracity.

That said, Trump is just as corrupt, if not more so. The two things sort of cancel each other out when it comes to weighing votes, despite what thesanityannex might wish.

Okay, let me square up then: the Clinton cult-of-personality or cults, i suppose, that allows arguably extralegal and certainly blatant favoritism of one candidate over another in a legally binding primary, for example, should leave a sense of foreboding within every American.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, let me square up then: the Clinton cult-of-personality or cults, i suppose, that allows arguably extralegal and certainly blatant favoritism of one candidate over another in a legally binding primary, for example, should leave a sense of foreboding within every American.

Well put.

Our faithful watchdogs in the GOP will provide more than enough scrutiny, I'm sure. I mean that rather earnestly. We can look forward to years of them yelling "fire" at the first sign of haze.

[z0sa]

Well put.

Our faithful watchdogs in the GOP will provide more than enough scrutiny, I'm sure. I mean that rather earnestly. We can look forward to years of them yelling "fire" at the first sign of haze.

I agree. But then again, think of Obama's approval level being so high despite all efforts by the GOP over the past 8 years. Then we have the millions and millions spent trying to jail or at least damnably discredit Hillary resulting in... a Hillary presidency in all likelihood. The GOP has become the world's most expensive and inefficient white noise machine.

[RandomGuy]

I agree. But then again, think of Obama's approval level being so high despite all efforts by the GOP over the past 8 years. Then we have the millions and millions spent trying to jail or at least damnably discredit Hillary resulting in... a Hillary presidency in all likelihood. The GOP has become the world's most expensive and inefficient white noise machine.


:lol

Sigworthy...

[z0sa]

:lol

Sigworthy...

:lol the GOP's every thought, outside of Paul Ryan. Love him or hate his policy perspectives, I feel hes done a great job replacing Boenhead amidst all this Trump debacle. At least, relatively speaking.

[DMC]

Lest we forget

[clambake]

Lest we forget

Well? I’m waiting

[DMC]

Well? I’m waiting


ok, sometimes people are intimidated and afraid. i'll go first.


i think that trump is the best thing that coulda happened.

[diego]

1) I think Clinton would appoint SCOTUS justices that align more in my views moreso that Trump. Specifically CU and Heller.
2) I think Trump is low intelligence, short fused and narcissistic which would make him easy to manipulate by our enemies and anyone else as well as increasingly the likelihood of dangerous scenarios.
3) I think Trump's mercantile trade policies would start a trade war that would set us back from a century of progress.
4) I think Trump's trickle down economic policies would be a fiscal nightmare. He has more wishful thinking than Reagan ever did.
5) I think in the era of race relations and a police state that he would worsen the problem and lead to more of an authoritarian Orwellian dystopia.
6) I think Texas needs to get rid of the one party hegemony that we have had throughout my lifetime. Polls are within the margin of error.

Neither candidate says anything about election reform and neither candidate seems to have any antitrust initiatives.

Pretty spot on assessment of how Trump's first term played out tbh