2646 replies to this topic

[weatherbowl]

One of the big themes of her campaign has been income inequality. Meanwhile she and Bill made 25 million last year. This could come back to haunt her. I am thinking the Dems should get another candidate, to much baggage with Hillary, hard to trust anything the Clintons say.

[thundersleet]

weatherbowl, on 19 May 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

One of the big themes of her campaign has been income inequality. Meanwhile she and Bill made 25 million last year. This could come back to haunt her. I am thinking the Dems should get another candidate, to much baggage with Hillary, hard to trust anything the Clintons say.

There is another candidate. His name is Bernie Sanders. Clinton to me is a hypocrite. While she talks about income inequality, let us acknowledge the fact that many of her biggest funders are the very institutions which perpetrate the very income inequality that she is campaigning against (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc.).

[Mike_The_Golfer]

thundersleet, on 20 May 2015 - 06:38 AM, said:

There is another candidate. His name is Bernie Sanders. Clinton to me is a hypocrite. While she talks about income inequality, let us acknowledge the fact that many of her biggest funders are the very institutions which perpetrate the very income inequality that she is campaigning against (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc.).

What about how she was supposed to be this great feminist? Yet, she stood by her husband even though when it comes to philandering...he's a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

[GameOfLove]

thundersleet, on 20 May 2015 - 06:38 AM, said:

There is another candidate. His name is Bernie Sanders. Clinton to me is a hypocrite. While she talks about income inequality, let us acknowledge the fact that many of her biggest funders are the very institutions which perpetrate the very income inequality that she is campaigning against (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc.).

Yes. Bernie, Bernie, Bernie! He already has my vote. Clinton is a center-right politician - too much involved with Wall Street and the top 1% also neoconservative lite. It's hard to take her seriously talking about income inequality, when she has worked for wall street and the top 1% her whole life.

Bernie Sanders is exactly what america needs right now. I hope the middle class wakes up and takes him seriously.

[gpsnavigator]

Mike_The_Golfer, on 20 May 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

What about how she was supposed to be this great feminist? Yet, she stood by her husband even though when it comes to philandering...he's a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

GameOfLove, on 20 May 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

Yes. Bernie, Bernie, Bernie! He already has my vote. Clinton is a center-right politician - too much involved with Wall Street and the top 1% also neoconservative lite. It's hard to take her seriously talking about income inequality, when she has worked for wall street and the top 1% her whole life.

Bernie Sanders is exactly what america needs right now. I hope the middle class wakes up and takes him seriously.

Coming from a moderate position:

I'm no fan of what Bill Clinton did. But feminism is one area in which I hope Hillary treads lightly -- there are some aspects coming from hard line feminists that I am highly skeptical of. And then there is the whole abortion thing. I'm just worried that Hillary is going to pander a little too much to the victim mentality as it pertains to women, but also minorities, and illegal immigrants.

Sanders is a self proclaimed socialist. He has some great points like raising minimum wages, getting big money out of elections, and combating climate change, but overall, his ideology is probably far too left for the country as a whole. Democrats might be much better off with Hillary in a general. And if she can get back to near the political center on social and economic issues for the general, I think she does well and I would certainly pull for her. We'll see. It's going to be an interesting one, and I would say she has a good chance, although I'm not sure her success in the 2016 general election is a foregone conclusion, especially as it pertains to my points above.

[robbbs]

Mike_The_Golfer, on 20 May 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

What about how she was supposed to be this great feminist? Yet, she stood by her husband even though when it comes to philandering...he's a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Standing by her husband and being a feminist are two entirely different things. Feminist issues (if that is even the correct term these days) have to do with equal pay for equal work, pro-choice, etc. What she and Bill decide to do inside their marriage is no-one's business but theirs.

[thundersleet]

I resent the attitude from some Dems I know that "Hillary will be our nominee, so get over it." If the Hillary camp isn't careful, that phrase might actually galvanize people to her left.

[NittanyLion]

thundersleet, on 25 May 2015 - 09:06 PM, said:

I resent the attitude from some Dems I know that "Hillary will be our nominee, so get over it." If the Hillary camp isn't careful, that phrase might actually galvanize people to her left.

Ain't no way though that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders can win the general. Clinton, O'Malley, or Webb are the only realistic ones. Just like how there's no way Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, or Mike Huckabee is winning the general either.

[thundersleet]

NittanyLion, on 25 May 2015 - 09:33 PM, said:

Ain't no way though that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders can win the general. Clinton, O'Malley, or Webb are the only realistic ones. Just like how there's no way Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, or Mike Huckabee is winning the general either.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on a practical level, but I'm irked by the notion that I mentioned in my previous post.

[gpsnavigator]

NittanyLion, on 25 May 2015 - 09:33 PM, said:

Ain't no way though that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders can win the general. Clinton, O'Malley, or Webb are the only realistic ones. Just like how there's no way Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, or Mike Huckabee is winning the general either.

thundersleet, on 26 May 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you on a practical level, but I'm irked by the notion that I mentioned in my previous post.

Like we saw with Republicans being taken over by the tea-wing, a similar phenomenon may be occurring among Democrats/Liberals, where they are being hijacked by the further left. Hillary is the last hope for the non-existent middle. I'm not suggesting that leftist ideas are all bad, but as I've alluded to in other posts, I have my gripes with the narratives surrounding the social issues. I'm actually with Sanders and Warren on most economic issues, and environmental issues, but that message needs to be for everyone, not just feminists or millennials (no offense Nittany, TS). I'm just not convinced that Sanders or Warren care that much about people like Laura and I - socially moderate, family values people. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, or maybe I've just become too cynical about politics but one way or the other, it's hard for me to fully support far-left candidates.

The other thing to consider too -- who do you want answering the White House phone at 3AM in case of a national crisis -- say if ISIS gets a big bomb over here or another American city falls victim to natural disaster? Can Warren or Sanders handle national crisis? Or the foregin policy debacle?

What about someone like a Joe Manchin from West Virginia, if he ran? (which I don't see any evidence that he is).

I don't mean to beat you guys up too bad -- there isn't a whole lot endearing about the other side either, and I have a feeling the Republican primaries are going to be great for the comedy industry, with what, about 50 of them running? Too bad John Stewart isn't going to be around for them.

[NittanyLion]

gpsnavigator, on 26 May 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:

Like we saw with Republicans being taken over by the tea-wing, a similar phenomenon may be occurring among Democrats/Liberals, where they are being hijacked by the further left. Hillary is the last hope for the non-existent middle. I'm not suggesting that leftist ideas are all bad, but as I've alluded to in other posts, I have my gripes with the narratives surrounding the social issues. I'm actually with Sanders and Warren on most economic issues, and environmental issues, but that message needs to be for everyone, not just feminists or millennials (no offense Nittany, TS). I'm just not convinced that Sanders or Warren care that much about people like Laura and I - socially moderate, family values people. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, or maybe I've just become too cynical about politics but one way or the other, it's hard for me to fully support far-left candidates.

The other thing to consider too -- who do you want answering the White House phone at 3AM in case of a national crisis -- say if ISIS gets a big bomb over here or another American city falls victim to natural disaster? Can Warren or Sanders handle national crisis? Or the foregin policy debacle?

What about someone like a Joe Manchin from West Virginia, if he ran? (which I don't see any evidence that he is).

I don't mean to beat you guys up too bad -- there isn't a whole lot endearing about the other side either, and I have a feeling the Republican primaries are going to be great for the comedy industry, with what, about 50 of them running? Too bad John Stewart isn't going to be around for them.

My thoughts exactly haha.

I wish Jon Hunstman would run...

[weatherbowl]

gpsnavigator, on 26 May 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:

Like we saw with Republicans being taken over by the tea-wing, a similar phenomenon may be occurring among Democrats/Liberals, where they are being hijacked by the further left. Hillary is the last hope for the non-existent middle. I'm not suggesting that leftist ideas are all bad, but as I've alluded to in other posts, I have my gripes with the narratives surrounding the social issues. I'm actually with Sanders and Warren on most economic issues, and environmental issues, but that message needs to be for everyone, not just feminists or millennials (no offense Nittany, TS). I'm just not convinced that Sanders or Warren care that much about people like Laura and I - socially moderate, family values people. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, or maybe I've just become too cynical about politics but one way or the other, it's hard for me to fully support far-left candidates.

The other thing to consider too -- who do you want answering the White House phone at 3AM in case of a national crisis -- say if ISIS gets a big bomb over here or another American city falls victim to natural disaster? Can Warren or Sanders handle national crisis? Or the foregin policy debacle?

What about someone like a Joe Manchin from West Virginia, if he ran? (which I don't see any evidence that he is).

I don't mean to beat you guys up too bad -- there isn't a whole lot endearing about the other side either, and I have a feeling the Republican primaries are going to be great for the comedy industry, with what, about 50 of them running? Too bad John Stewart isn't going to be around for them.

The ad about answering the phone was used in 2008, yet the inexperienced Barack Obama won the election. The ad sounds good but apparently not to important to voters.

[gpsnavigator]

NittanyLion, on 26 May 2015 - 08:31 PM, said:

My thoughts exactly haha.

I wish Jon Hunstman would run...

Are you being facetious or do you actually want him to be a contender? I don't know much about him other than that he got run out of town on the last go around of GOP primaries partly because of his acceptance of climate change.

Could you see yourself supporting Rand Paul at any point?

[thundersleet]

gpsnavigator, on 26 May 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:

Like we saw with Republicans being taken over by the tea-wing, a similar phenomenon may be occurring among Democrats/Liberals, where they are being hijacked by the further left. Hillary is the last hope for the non-existent middle. I'm not suggesting that leftist ideas are all bad, but as I've alluded to in other posts, I have my gripes with the narratives surrounding the social issues. I'm actually with Sanders and Warren on most economic issues, and environmental issues, but that message needs to be for everyone, not just feminists or millennials (no offense Nittany, TS). I'm just not convinced that Sanders or Warren care that much about people like Laura and I - socially moderate, family values people. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, or maybe I've just become too cynical about politics but one way or the other, it's hard for me to fully support far-left candidates.

The other thing to consider too -- who do you want answering the White House phone at 3AM in case of a national crisis -- say if ISIS gets a big bomb over here or another American city falls victim to natural disaster? Can Warren or Sanders handle national crisis? Or the foregin policy debacle?

What about someone like a Joe Manchin from West Virginia, if he ran? (which I don't see any evidence that he is).

I don't mean to beat you guys up too bad -- there isn't a whole lot endearing about the other side either, and I have a feeling the Republican primaries are going to be great for the comedy industry, with what, about 50 of them running? Too bad John Stewart isn't going to be around for them.

Totally understandable. I'm not sure if the whole 3 am thing has much rhetorical effect, though.

I am basically to the point where I feel that few candidates really care about the middle class. Sure, a lot of people give lip service to the middle class, but lip service isn't adequate to me when the income gap widens further yet. Sanders is the only candidate who I think can give more than simple lip service to the matter. I fully understand that he won't win, and that he's probably too liberal to win in the general even if he pulled off a miracle against Hillary, but maybe the Dems would mobilize and actually confront income inequality if Sanders makes Hillary nervous. Maybe I'm wishing too much, even then.

Sincerely,
A disgruntled millenial

[GameOfLove]

thundersleet, on 27 May 2015 - 09:24 AM, said:

Totally understandable. I'm not sure if the whole 3 am thing has much rhetorical effect, though.

I am basically to the point where I feel that few candidates really care about the middle class. Sure, a lot of people give lip service to the middle class, but lip service isn't adequate to me when the income gap widens further yet. Sanders is the only candidate who I think can give more than simple lip service to the matter. I fully understand that he won't win, and that he's probably too liberal to win in the general even if he pulled off a miracle against Hillary, but maybe the Dems would mobilize and actually confront income inequality if Sanders makes Hillary nervous. Maybe I'm wishing too much, even then.

Sincerely,
A disgruntled millenial

Totally agree and I'm also a millennial.

If the GOP wants any chance the best candidate would be Rand Paul or even John Kasich. The rest are a bunch of crazy, religious, zealot nutjobs catering to the worst of the human race.

[NittanyLion]

gpsnavigator, on 27 May 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:

Are you being facetious or do you actually want him to be a contender? I don't know much about him other than that he got run out of town on the last go around of GOP primaries partly because of his acceptance of climate change.

Could you see yourself supporting Rand Paul at any point?

I would actually like to see Jon Huntsman run. I was hoping he would've fared a little better last go around but he's just too moderate to win the Republican primary.

1.) He worked in the Obama administration as the ambassador to China, so that right shows he can work across the aisle but also has an intimate knowledge of China and how to deal with them, which we will need going forward.

2.) He supports Health Care Reform.

3.) Supports simplifying the tax code. And while he does support cutting taxes, its not the slash and burn policy of other conservatives. He also wants to do away with corporate loopholes and corporate welfare. I however do not agree with him on dropping corporate taxes.

4.) While wanting to cut debt, he wasn't one of the idiots who refused to raise the debt ceiling and risk default. He spoke against those doing so.

5.) He at least supported Civil Unions for same-sex couples and was one of the first Republicans to do so. He was then more recently quoted as saying: "All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience."

6.) He acknowledges the existence of climate change and agrees that we should be taking more action to curb the effects of it.

7.) He believes in Evolution.

8.) He supports both a fence and immigration reform, as well as the DREAM Act. He also is in favor of increasing Legal Immigration.

9.) He's not afraid to be critical of other Republicans.

10.) He supports teachers and realizes that in order to have first rate students you need to pay first rate teachers.

11.) He supports getting us off foreign oil and wanted to make the US the leader in alternative energy.

12.) Against torture and waterboarding.

13.) This statement: In 2011, in response to a statement by Rick Perry that global warming was unproven and that evolution remains only a theory, Huntsman tweeted, "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."He said, "The minute that the Republican Party becomes... the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012."


He's pretty conservative on Gun control, which is probably where I would disagree with him the most. But you're never going to find a candidate you'll totallly agree with. So I could certainly support Jon Huntsman.

[NittanyLion]

gpsnavigator, on 27 May 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:

Are you being facetious or do you actually want him to be a contender? I don't know much about him other than that he got run out of town on the last go around of GOP primaries partly because of his acceptance of climate change.

Could you see yourself supporting Rand Paul at any point?

As far as Rand Paul, I agree with him on some of his libertarian views, but I'd support Hillary or really any other Democrat over him. He might be the best Republican though.

[thundersleet]

Nitt-If Huntsman ran against Obama in 2012, I would've probably voted for Huntsman. He is one of the few people who I think is truly capable of ending gridlock in Washington. Too bad that he would be considered too liberal on the Republican side, or too conservative on the Dem side.

[weatherbowl]

From Carly Fiorina:

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina argued that “titles are just titles” and Hillary Clinton’s “track record” includes the collapse of the Middle East and the failed Russian reset on Wednesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” on MSNBC.
Fiorina said, “I come from a world where titles are just titles, and talk is just talk. It’s only in politics where titles and words mean a lot. In the rest of the world, it’s actually about what have you done, actions speak louder than words. People want to know are your words and your actions consistent and are they consistent over time. And so, I think when 82% of the American people now believe that there is a professional political class more interested in preserving its own power and privilege than it is in serving the American people, people expect basic questions to be asked of anyone running for president. ‘What have you done, are you trustworthy, are you transparent, will you answer questions?'”
Fiorina said that while Hillary Clinton has said some “wonderful things” as Secretary of State, “it’s also true that as Secretary of State she took women’s rights and human rights off the table for discussion with China. It’s also true as Secretary of State that she called Bashar al-Assad a positive reformer. It’s also true that in 2011, when she was Secretary of State, she said that Iraq was a free, stable, sovereign nation. And now we have a nation falling apart, Iranian influence growing, ISIS growing. It’s true that she said that she could reset our Russia — our relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin is on the march. So, I think all of those things I just named go fundamentally to what is her track record.”
After host Andrea Mitchell stated, “You could also argue that a lot of Republicans in the White House and in Congress supported those policies –” Fiorina responded, “absolutely, that’s right. And by the way, every single Republican candidate has been asked about their vote for the war in Iraq. The one person who’s not been asked that question, because she won’t answer the question is Hillary Clinton. One person who was on the job in 2011, when Iraq started to fall apart, was not the Republican nominees or — candidates for president, it’s Hillary Clinton. she hasn’t been asked yet. What would she do now in Iraq?”
Fiorina then outlined her ISIS strategy, saying, “I would do very specific things. First, instead of having a Camp David conference to talk our Arab allies into a bad deal with Iran, I would have had a Camp David conference to talk with our Arab allies about how we can support them to fight ISIS. Let me give you very specific examples. The Kurds have been asking us to arm them for three years, we still have not. The Jordanians have been asking us to provide them with bombs and materiel. We know King Abdullah of Jordan, I’ve known him for many years. He took the appropriate leadership steps when a Jordanian pilot was burned alive. He was here in this country asking us for bombs and materiel, we haven’t provided him with any of them. He’s now looking to China for that. The Egyptian president, a very brave and pious Muslim, who has said there is a cancer in the heart of Islam, has asked us to share intelligence. We are not. The Turks have asked us to help them topple Bashar al-Assad, we are not. There are a whole set of things that we’ve been asked to do by our allies who know this is their fight, and we’re not doing any of them.”
The interview concluded with her being asked about equal pay for equal work, Fiorina said, “Of course I support equal pay for equal work. And that’s why, in 1963 when a law was passed guaranteeing that if a woman is being discriminated against in the workforce purely because of her gender she should take every advantage of the law. But I also know this — a seniority system, which exists in the federal government, that allows a man to watch pornography all day long in the federal government, and earn the same pay, pension, and benefits as a woman sitting next to him trying to do a good job, that is not equal pay for equal work. And the seniority system, and the federal government that promotes that seniority system, and the unions, as well, they’re not willing to talk about that. So, before the federal government or Hillary Clinton, who, by her own measures, is not paying women equally in her own office, nor is President Obama, before they lecture others, maybe they ought to look into their own offices, or look into the seniority system in the federal government.”

[NittanyLion]

"it’s actually about what have you done, actions speak louder than words"

Lol meanwhile when Fiorina was CEO of HP they lost half of their stock value and was forced to resign by the board of directors.