The Official World Politics Thread - All Breaking News here.
Options
Comments
-
? what ya heard -
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol.
I'm curious what changes you believe Hilary will bring. Are you saying that not trying is better than trying?
? what changed is anybody gonna bring? The calvary ain't comin, the president don't have that kind of power. The money holds the power, the money sways the votes of the congressmen, and senators. I don't want to sound like that guy, but I know we bein kept from the main table by design. We gotta go get it on our own, ain't nobody givin us ? . You ? think ya'll castin votes for change is gon work ya'll lost in the sauce.
They ain't changed a federal gun law yet. They shot up 20 white babies in a school. Ya'll think they give a ? about us?
I was just curious as to the logic behind saying you prefer the person that is looking to maintain the status quo as opposed to the person that wishes to change it while having a track record spanning multiple decades that proves his desire to do so.
For example I'll use the point that you yourself raised.
Gun lobbyists/NRA are probably the largest reason why no federal gun laws have been passed as of yet. The power of those lobbyists was achieved thanks to the corrupting influence of money in politics, which happens to be an issue that Sanders has addressed and is steadfast about changing. Hillary Clinton has also professed a willingness to bring about a change to campaign finance and getting the Citizen's United ruling overturned.
- Sanders on one hand has proven the sincerity of his position by running a grass-roots campaign relying primarily on small individual donations and refusing to take money from Super PACS.
- Clinton's campaign on the other hand is being financed by Super PACS & Wall Street lobbyists whom undoubtedly are expecting a return on their investment.
Which of the two do you believe is being sincere about campaign finance reform?
Stop falling for the politricks. I'd rather be disappointed by someone falling short of their established goals as opposed to be disappointed by someone's lack of trying.
I play chess dog... When I know i'm about to lose a piece, I gotta choose which piece is more important and will benefit in the overall game and sacrifice the other. I'll bide my time with Hillary before I do sanders. Bernie sanders ain't gon get half of this done. He's not just pandering to us like Hillary obviously is at times, but he's too far out there, they see him comin, and will put that fire out before he can even start it. At least hilary is straight with the foreign policy, that's what sets her apart for me. These other guys are in over their head with that.
You're playing chess against yourself, IMO. No president gets the opportunity to accomplish all of their campaign goals.
Bernie may not be able to accomplish ALL of what he wants done but even some is better than what Hillary is proposing.
If Bernie is aiming for the moon and falls short at the sky...
That's still better than...
Hillary aiming for the top of a skyscraper and getting stuck half way up the building.
People are talking about the republican narrative in regards to the Sanders/Marxist rhetoric? Are y'all really that naïve to believe the GOP isn't chomping at the bit waiting to rev this Benghazi and e-mail stuff up to the next level. It's far easier for Sanders to explain his ideology than it is for Clinton to explain away a perceived scandal.
Like I said, if trump gets the nomination, and he likely will(crazy world), he's a good matchup for bernie sanders. Obama played that change card 8 years ago, and did it much better, with more winning attributes. If bernie sanders gets the nomination, he's not winning the general election. Flat.
Obama preached change while having Wall Street as his largest contributors. As a result he went into office beholden to those donors and other lobbyists.
Sanders doesn't have that conflict with the way he's running his campaign.
The change that each proposed is far from being the same so it's lost on me how anyone could conflict the two.
And you're saying he's not winning the general election, for the umpteenth time, the polls DISAGREE with you. If you're saying that' because you feel it in your bones or something then more power to you but that's not what the facts say as we stand today.
I trust my bones over skewed polls. My intuition tends to be smarter than me, and I trust it. -
Sometimes the moral course lies within the politically possible, and sometimes the moral course lies outside of the politically possible. One of the great functions of radical candidates is to war against equivocators and opportunists who conflate these two things. Radicals expand the political imagination and, hopefully, prevent incrementalism from becoming a virtue.
Unfortunately, Sanders’s radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy. What he proposes in lieu of reparations—job creation, investment in cities, and free higher education—is well within the Overton window, and his platform on race echoes Democratic orthodoxy.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/
There is also another article he wrote 4 days ago -
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol.
I'm curious what changes you believe Hilary will bring. Are you saying that not trying is better than trying?
? what changed is anybody gonna bring? The calvary ain't comin, the president don't have that kind of power. The money holds the power, the money sways the votes of the congressmen, and senators. I don't want to sound like that guy, but I know we bein kept from the main table by design. We gotta go get it on our own, ain't nobody givin us ? . You ? think ya'll castin votes for change is gon work ya'll lost in the sauce.
They ain't changed a federal gun law yet. They shot up 20 white babies in a school. Ya'll think they give a ? about us?
I was just curious as to the logic behind saying you prefer the person that is looking to maintain the status quo as opposed to the person that wishes to change it while having a track record spanning multiple decades that proves his desire to do so.
For example I'll use the point that you yourself raised.
Gun lobbyists/NRA are probably the largest reason why no federal gun laws have been passed as of yet. The power of those lobbyists was achieved thanks to the corrupting influence of money in politics, which happens to be an issue that Sanders has addressed and is steadfast about changing. Hillary Clinton has also professed a willingness to bring about a change to campaign finance and getting the Citizen's United ruling overturned.
- Sanders on one hand has proven the sincerity of his position by running a grass-roots campaign relying primarily on small individual donations and refusing to take money from Super PACS.
- Clinton's campaign on the other hand is being financed by Super PACS & Wall Street lobbyists whom undoubtedly are expecting a return on their investment.
Which of the two do you believe is being sincere about campaign finance reform?
Stop falling for the politricks. I'd rather be disappointed by someone falling short of their established goals as opposed to be disappointed by someone's lack of trying.
I play chess dog... When I know i'm about to lose a piece, I gotta choose which piece is more important and will benefit in the overall game and sacrifice the other. I'll bide my time with Hillary before I do sanders. Bernie sanders ain't gon get half of this done. He's not just pandering to us like Hillary obviously is at times, but he's too far out there, they see him comin, and will put that fire out before he can even start it. At least hilary is straight with the foreign policy, that's what sets her apart for me. These other guys are in over their head with that.
You're playing chess against yourself, IMO. No president gets the opportunity to accomplish all of their campaign goals.
Bernie may not be able to accomplish ALL of what he wants done but even some is better than what Hillary is proposing.
If Bernie is aiming for the moon and falls short at the sky...
That's still better than...
Hillary aiming for the top of a skyscraper and getting stuck half way up the building.
People are talking about the republican narrative in regards to the Sanders/Marxist rhetoric? Are y'all really that naïve to believe the GOP isn't chomping at the bit waiting to rev this Benghazi and e-mail stuff up to the next level. It's far easier for Sanders to explain his ideology than it is for Clinton to explain away a perceived scandal.
Like I said, if trump gets the nomination, and he likely will(crazy world), he's a good matchup for bernie sanders. Obama played that change card 8 years ago, and did it much better, with more winning attributes. If bernie sanders gets the nomination, he's not winning the general election. Flat.
Obama preached change while having Wall Street as his largest contributors. As a result he went into office beholden to those donors and other lobbyists.
Sanders doesn't have that conflict with the way he's running his campaign.
The change that each proposed is far from being the same so it's lost on me how anyone could conflict the two.
And you're saying he's not winning the general election, for the umpteenth time, the polls DISAGREE with you. If you're saying that' because you feel it in your bones or something then more power to you but that's not what the facts say as we stand today.
I trust my bones over skewed polls. My intuition tends to be smarter than me, and I trust it.
Skewed polls? I hope you don't mean biased. The establishment is scared to death of the polling & earnestly wants Hillary to win (as if that isn't enough of a red flag). Thus us getting all of these articles stating, "yes all of the quantifiable information available shows that Sanders is more electable BUT [ fill in the blank ]"
I don't know how your intuition tells you to trust the person that is clearly & unapologetically lying about policy position in order to gain favor (the campaign finance examples I gave earlier) but you're entitled to your opinion no matter how faulty the factual information says it is. -
Only in the US is Sanders a "radical," this nation's political system is so ? a real liberal could never win.
-
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol.
I'm curious what changes you believe Hilary will bring. Are you saying that not trying is better than trying?
? what changed is anybody gonna bring? The calvary ain't comin, the president don't have that kind of power. The money holds the power, the money sways the votes of the congressmen, and senators. I don't want to sound like that guy, but I know we bein kept from the main table by design. We gotta go get it on our own, ain't nobody givin us ? . You ? think ya'll castin votes for change is gon work ya'll lost in the sauce.
They ain't changed a federal gun law yet. They shot up 20 white babies in a school. Ya'll think they give a ? about us?
I was just curious as to the logic behind saying you prefer the person that is looking to maintain the status quo as opposed to the person that wishes to change it while having a track record spanning multiple decades that proves his desire to do so.
For example I'll use the point that you yourself raised.
Gun lobbyists/NRA are probably the largest reason why no federal gun laws have been passed as of yet. The power of those lobbyists was achieved thanks to the corrupting influence of money in politics, which happens to be an issue that Sanders has addressed and is steadfast about changing. Hillary Clinton has also professed a willingness to bring about a change to campaign finance and getting the Citizen's United ruling overturned.
- Sanders on one hand has proven the sincerity of his position by running a grass-roots campaign relying primarily on small individual donations and refusing to take money from Super PACS.
- Clinton's campaign on the other hand is being financed by Super PACS & Wall Street lobbyists whom undoubtedly are expecting a return on their investment.
Which of the two do you believe is being sincere about campaign finance reform?
Stop falling for the politricks. I'd rather be disappointed by someone falling short of their established goals as opposed to be disappointed by someone's lack of trying.
I play chess dog... When I know i'm about to lose a piece, I gotta choose which piece is more important and will benefit in the overall game and sacrifice the other. I'll bide my time with Hillary before I do sanders. Bernie sanders ain't gon get half of this done. He's not just pandering to us like Hillary obviously is at times, but he's too far out there, they see him comin, and will put that fire out before he can even start it. At least hilary is straight with the foreign policy, that's what sets her apart for me. These other guys are in over their head with that.
You're playing chess against yourself, IMO. No president gets the opportunity to accomplish all of their campaign goals.
Bernie may not be able to accomplish ALL of what he wants done but even some is better than what Hillary is proposing.
If Bernie is aiming for the moon and falls short at the sky...
That's still better than...
Hillary aiming for the top of a skyscraper and getting stuck half way up the building.
People are talking about the republican narrative in regards to the Sanders/Marxist rhetoric? Are y'all really that naïve to believe the GOP isn't chomping at the bit waiting to rev this Benghazi and e-mail stuff up to the next level. It's far easier for Sanders to explain his ideology than it is for Clinton to explain away a perceived scandal.
Like I said, if trump gets the nomination, and he likely will(crazy world), he's a good matchup for bernie sanders. Obama played that change card 8 years ago, and did it much better, with more winning attributes. If bernie sanders gets the nomination, he's not winning the general election. Flat.
Obama preached change while having Wall Street as his largest contributors. As a result he went into office beholden to those donors and other lobbyists.
Sanders doesn't have that conflict with the way he's running his campaign.
The change that each proposed is far from being the same so it's lost on me how anyone could conflict the two.
And you're saying he's not winning the general election, for the umpteenth time, the polls DISAGREE with you. If you're saying that' because you feel it in your bones or something then more power to you but that's not what the facts say as we stand today.
I trust my bones over skewed polls. My intuition tends to be smarter than me, and I trust it.
Skewed polls? I hope you don't mean biased. The establishment is scared to death of the polling & earnestly wants Hillary to win (as if that isn't enough of a red flag). Thus us getting all of these articles stating, "yes all of the quantifiable information available shows that Sanders is more electable BUT [ fill in the blank ]"
I don't know how your intuition tells you to trust the person that is clearly & unapologetically lying about policy position in order to gain favor (the campaign finance examples I gave earlier) but you're entitled to your opinion no matter how faulty the factual information says it is.
I'ma bookmark this thread.... See you after the primaries. -
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol.
I'm curious what changes you believe Hilary will bring. Are you saying that not trying is better than trying?
? what changed is anybody gonna bring? The calvary ain't comin, the president don't have that kind of power. The money holds the power, the money sways the votes of the congressmen, and senators. I don't want to sound like that guy, but I know we bein kept from the main table by design. We gotta go get it on our own, ain't nobody givin us ? . You ? think ya'll castin votes for change is gon work ya'll lost in the sauce.
They ain't changed a federal gun law yet. They shot up 20 white babies in a school. Ya'll think they give a ? about us?
I was just curious as to the logic behind saying you prefer the person that is looking to maintain the status quo as opposed to the person that wishes to change it while having a track record spanning multiple decades that proves his desire to do so.
For example I'll use the point that you yourself raised.
Gun lobbyists/NRA are probably the largest reason why no federal gun laws have been passed as of yet. The power of those lobbyists was achieved thanks to the corrupting influence of money in politics, which happens to be an issue that Sanders has addressed and is steadfast about changing. Hillary Clinton has also professed a willingness to bring about a change to campaign finance and getting the Citizen's United ruling overturned.
- Sanders on one hand has proven the sincerity of his position by running a grass-roots campaign relying primarily on small individual donations and refusing to take money from Super PACS.
- Clinton's campaign on the other hand is being financed by Super PACS & Wall Street lobbyists whom undoubtedly are expecting a return on their investment.
Which of the two do you believe is being sincere about campaign finance reform?
Stop falling for the politricks. I'd rather be disappointed by someone falling short of their established goals as opposed to be disappointed by someone's lack of trying.
I play chess dog... When I know i'm about to lose a piece, I gotta choose which piece is more important and will benefit in the overall game and sacrifice the other. I'll bide my time with Hillary before I do sanders. Bernie sanders ain't gon get half of this done. He's not just pandering to us like Hillary obviously is at times, but he's too far out there, they see him comin, and will put that fire out before he can even start it. At least hilary is straight with the foreign policy, that's what sets her apart for me. These other guys are in over their head with that.
You're playing chess against yourself, IMO. No president gets the opportunity to accomplish all of their campaign goals.
Bernie may not be able to accomplish ALL of what he wants done but even some is better than what Hillary is proposing.
If Bernie is aiming for the moon and falls short at the sky...
That's still better than...
Hillary aiming for the top of a skyscraper and getting stuck half way up the building.
People are talking about the republican narrative in regards to the Sanders/Marxist rhetoric? Are y'all really that naïve to believe the GOP isn't chomping at the bit waiting to rev this Benghazi and e-mail stuff up to the next level. It's far easier for Sanders to explain his ideology than it is for Clinton to explain away a perceived scandal.
Like I said, if trump gets the nomination, and he likely will(crazy world), he's a good matchup for bernie sanders. Obama played that change card 8 years ago, and did it much better, with more winning attributes. If bernie sanders gets the nomination, he's not winning the general election. Flat.
Obama preached change while having Wall Street as his largest contributors. As a result he went into office beholden to those donors and other lobbyists.
Sanders doesn't have that conflict with the way he's running his campaign.
The change that each proposed is far from being the same so it's lost on me how anyone could conflict the two.
And you're saying he's not winning the general election, for the umpteenth time, the polls DISAGREE with you. If you're saying that' because you feel it in your bones or something then more power to you but that's not what the facts say as we stand today.
I trust my bones over skewed polls. My intuition tends to be smarter than me, and I trust it.
Skewed polls? I hope you don't mean biased. The establishment is scared to death of the polling & earnestly wants Hillary to win (as if that isn't enough of a red flag). Thus us getting all of these articles stating, "yes all of the quantifiable information available shows that Sanders is more electable BUT [ fill in the blank ]"
I don't know how your intuition tells you to trust the person that is clearly & unapologetically lying about policy position in order to gain favor (the campaign finance examples I gave earlier) but you're entitled to your opinion no matter how faulty the factual information says it is.
I'ma bookmark this thread.... See you after the primaries.
I mean, I guess you could but what does the primary results have to do w/ electability in the general? -
Well if they can't make it past the primaries...
-
Only in the US is Sanders a "radical," this nation's political system is so ? a real liberal could never win.
? , good liberals have already destroyed america. I just don't understand why people cannot see this. Especially black people as we have been the primary victims of liberalism -
What are the issues with Bernie? From facts not opinion.
-
What are the issues with Bernie? From facts not opinion.
For one thing he wants to raise taxes on the rich to pay for his social programs. but they already pay a large % of taxes. Which means he will have to redefine how much money is " rich".
Also notice he almost never talks about foreign policy, and when he does he speaks swiftly about it and tries to change the subject -
Ain't been liberals in most places in decades. Don't mix liberalism with the democratic party.
Its all right wing vs far right wing elections -
They also said in 2007 Obama was the worst choice to face off against McCain versus Hillary and John Edwards SMMFH.
Sanders would get washed by Trump, he says very intelligent things, has great ideas, he's a good man but wouldn't be able to raise as much money as Trump, isn't as appealing to other demographics and the Republicans would rail him for being too "radical" and old - you'd also lose New York and California which is a huuuge deal. He's much easier to beat than Hillary. Trump would overwhelm Sanders via popularity and consistency and ? him.
Like Hillary or not but she has the charm the money, popularity, the demographics (she's got women, black people and Hispanics), delegates (as long as she runs a clean campaign) and background to defeat Trump.
Not true. Obama had momentum from his DNC speech, he was a known entity. He was young. He had the youth and black vote. He was not 'close' to them in polls, he was killin them
Sanders relatively speaking came out of nowhere. He's basically Rand Paul on ? momentum wise. Trendy. 'Oooh he's different'
If you follow demographic trends, it will take a hige anomaly for a Repub to be chosen president
Bernie Sanders, who once they're done with him (tbey haven't even started) will be known as the 74 year old socialist dreamer, is that anomaly
Again the naivete. ..people are in here talking politics and heart warming stories about how Sanders makes them swoon---
DONALD TRUMP IS ALMOST PRESIDENT- --
Let that marinate before yall speak the 'issues' , things Trump barely can elaborate on. This is a popularity and comfortability election. Its a sham, but it is reality. I dont wanna see Trump vs Sanders in a debate
-
Bernie Sanders was in SNCC. I don't know what more than be in SNCC a white person can do to show yall he's down for the struggle. Look it up if you don't know what it is.
He gets my vote over Hillary who was a ? GOLDWATER girl. -
All i kno is im not voting for hillary
-
-
They also said in 2007 Obama was the worst choice to face off against McCain versus Hillary and John Edwards SMMFH.
Sanders would get washed by Trump, he says very intelligent things, has great ideas, he's a good man but wouldn't be able to raise as much money as Trump, isn't as appealing to other demographics and the Republicans would rail him for being too "radical" and old - you'd also lose New York and California which is a huuuge deal. He's much easier to beat than Hillary. Trump would overwhelm Sanders via popularity and consistency and ? him.
Like Hillary or not but she has the charm the money, popularity, the demographics (she's got women, black people and Hispanics), delegates (as long as she runs a clean campaign) and background to defeat Trump.
My people are ? for voting for her just because she is a "Clinton". Ain't no one good in this election. -
No matter what, Black folks are gonna go through hell after the age of Obama and it will be felt because Republicans and Democrats are the same ? thing.
-
All i kno is im not voting for hillary
What i dont understand is how some folk, who allegedly back democratic principles and,acknowledge Republicans seem to be on some us vs them ? racially, how those people would rather sit back and let Trump become president just bc they dont 'like' Hillary
Then in the same breath say the president is just a figurehead
Which he/she is....ok, so in that case,
you are voting for democratic policies regardless of who the figure head is. You supposed to vote for WHOEVER the democratic nominee ends up being if u really care
That's what i dont get .... -
Hillary showed alot in the Benghazi testimony and some of those debate performances
She is a strong candidate who has command of all the issues she is principled she also seeks to carry out Obamas legacy ..Bernie cant win and wont win for a number of reason most prominently his own branding. This is an important election because this next president can solidify or change the course of the Supreme Court and how they move.. we cant afford to have a Rep in the house.. Not only will they destroy all of the progressive policies.. but they can prop up conservative leaning majority in the Supreme court.
Bernies presence has been good for her.. but on some real ? if the republicans Hillary bashing campaign wasn't so successful he wouldnt have the appeal or perceived viability he has. -
All i kno is im not voting for hillary
What i dont understand is how some folk, who allegedly back democratic principles and,acknowledge Republicans seem to be on some us vs them ? racially, how those people would rather sit back and let Trump become president just bc they dont 'like' Hillary
Then in the same breath say the president is just a figurehead
Which he/she is....ok, so in that case,
you are voting for democratic policies regardless of who the figure head is. You supposed to vote for WHOEVER the democratic nominee ends up being if u really care
That's what i dont get ....
See this is why you can't have these conversations with most people. They speak from a position of absolute certainty without knowing any of the information.
You do know Bernie Sanders has spent his career as an Independent who only caucused with the Democratic Party right? That he only registered to the party last year as he was announcing his run for presidency? He's running as a democrat for strategic purposes and isn't beholden to the party which is why the DNC doing their damndest to see to it that Hillary gets the nomination (ie. restricting Sanders access to his own voter database due to their own error/running debates on weekends when viewership would be lowest).
As far as the figurehead stuff you should really do some research on campaign finance reform, it's effect on policies, each candidates position on it and their records as far as it is concerned. -
They also said in 2007 Obama was the worst choice to face off against McCain versus Hillary and John Edwards SMMFH.
Sanders would get washed by Trump, he says very intelligent things, has great ideas, he's a good man but wouldn't be able to raise as much money as Trump, isn't as appealing to other demographics and the Republicans would rail him for being too "radical" and old - you'd also lose New York and California which is a huuuge deal. He's much easier to beat than Hillary. Trump would overwhelm Sanders via popularity and consistency and ? him.
Like Hillary or not but she has the charm the money, popularity, the demographics (she's got women, black people and Hispanics), delegates (as long as she runs a clean campaign) and background to defeat Trump.
Not true. Obama had momentum from his DNC speech, he was a known entity. He was young. He had the youth and black vote. He was not 'close' to them in polls, he was killin them
Sanders relatively speaking came out of nowhere. He's basically Rand Paul on ? momentum wise. Trendy. 'Oooh he's different'
If you follow demographic trends, it will take a hige anomaly for a Repub to be chosen president
Bernie Sanders, who once they're done with him (tbey haven't even started) will be known as the 74 year old socialist dreamer, is that anomaly
Again the naivete. ..people are in here talking politics and heart warming stories about how Sanders makes them swoon---
DONALD TRUMP IS ALMOST PRESIDENT- --
Let that marinate before yall speak the 'issues' , things Trump barely can elaborate on. This is a popularity and comfortability election. Its a sham, but it is reality. I dont wanna see Trump vs Sanders in a debate
True about Obama, and true say he was a senator too, Hillary ran a terrible and negative campaign against him cuz she won the popular vote but divided the dems which made the delegates vote for Obama. She really shouldn't have lost that.
If Sanders was selected it's hard to see him winning big states. But them debating would be a troll fest lolol. Trump's an idiot but he knows how to get under your skin and take the attention away from what you say.
Aren't you Canadian??? Don't you live in Canada what the ? do you care -
The Presidency is a token seat. Speaker of the house runs the show. Congress and the House can override anything the president vetos. The repubs put young conservative in the Supreme Court to overturns decades of liberal decisions. Now all they need is a conservative president to make the whole process easier.
A democrat wins and it will be the same logjam that we have had for the last 8 years. Things only happen when at least two branches match. But one has to be the executive branch.
Jeb Bush gets my vote but he wont be there so I default to Hilary.
Jeb Bush ??? Why not Rubio??? What do you think of him
Rubio is a uppity Cuban. Like 55% of those Cubans in Miami that think they are holier than thou. His immigrations stance is BS. Jeb's immigration ideas reminds me of his big brother. Rubio doesnt even want to have talks with Iran or Cuba.
Jeb is not perfect by far but I trust his policies because of his time as Florida Governor. -
playmaker88 wrote: »Bernies presence has been good for her.. but on some real ? if the republicans Hillary bashing campaign wasn't so successful he wouldnt have the appeal or perceived viability he has.
Be careful not to conflate the national perception with what's going on in these primaries.
(At risk of generalizing the voters)
Typically democratic voters tend to be much more informed than their republican counterparts as a whole when it comes to the actual issues. So the GOP's faux outrage, when it comes to things such as the e-mail scandal and Benghazi, don't even begin to register on the scale of things that are impacting these DNC primaries. Those are not issues that democratic voters are concerned with in the slightest. -
What are the issues with Bernie? From facts not opinion.
For one thing he wants to raise taxes on the rich to pay for his social programs. but they already pay a large % of taxes. Which means he will have to redefine how much money is " rich".
Also notice he almost never talks about foreign policy, and when he does he speaks swiftly about it and tries to change the subject
The rich spend alot of money getting out of taxes. they have a report out documenting billions of dollars that are laundered through the Caribbean islands. All from wealthy Americans avoiding taxes. I could speak for days about the Irish and corporate tax scheme.
