Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who's going to win?

I'm voting for Time Immemorial.

I'd vote for none of those people.

If I could vote...

From this list....

I would guess it will come down to Jeb and Hillary with Jeb winning by the skin of his teeth...could be another major controversy...but personally this is how I ranked this list as far as my preference.

1. Bernie Sanders
2.0 Martin O'Malley
3.Joe Biden
4.Jim Webb
5.Jeb Bush
6.Ben Carson
7. Hilary Clinton
8.Chris Christie
9.Donald Trump
10.Ted Cruz

I have been a registered Independent for many years now. But I think at my core I'm conservative, however the group that is now claiming that tag is as far from me as the tag of liberal. Recently the Washington D.C. residents voted to decriminalize marijuana (@ a 70% for vote). But the guys crying about big government interfering or over reaching stepped in and over ruled that vote even though D.C. is not their "local district". It's funny how certain people are always crying about restrictive government unless it's something "they" want restricted.

Lincoln sure aint runnin this year

LOL. Maybe next year though.

There's a very good chance Hillary will win the Dem nomination should she run(rumors are she will).

Not sure about the Rep card. I am hoping Donald Trump wins the nomination, will be hysterical

Same goes for M. Bachmann and Sarah Palin, that has epic levels of comedy potential

I WILL STAND WITH RAND

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure about the Rep card. I am hoping Donald Trump wins the nomination, will be hysterical

Same goes for M. Bachmann and Sarah Palin, that has epic levels of comedy potential Along with Ted Nugent or Ted Kruz.. It'd be comedy gold.

Originally posted by Ms Chelle
Along with Ted Nugent or Ted Kruz.. It'd be comedy gold.

I know it won't happen but a Palin-Bachmann ticket would provide beyond an excess of material for comedians

Let's hope the GOP primaries are as funny as the last ones.

If you yanks vote another Bush in you deserve every shitty thing that can possibly happen.

Third time's the charm?

You're missing some big names. Particularly Scott Walker, who is maybe most likely to get the republican nom.

That said, I think Hil-dawg will win in the end.

Originally posted by Robtard
Same goes for M. Bachmann and Sarah Palin, that has epic levels of comedy potential

Yeah, but then they're one big media faux pas away from the Oval Office. No thanks. Just before Bush, there was this undercurrent of "he would be cool to have a beer with," and there was some sort of odd way in which that became a legitimate selling point for him in the election.

Then 9/11 happened, and the country was collectively like "Oh, right, the President has to do stuff."

This isn't a criticism of Bush. It's a criticism of the kind of mentality that roots for anything but the most qualified candidates on either side of the party line. I don't give a sh*t if SNL has a hard time with dry candidates.

Joe Biden with Corey Booker VP on the dem side. GOP Chris Christie and Jeb VP.

I don't see Christie getting the nomination. Opponents can easily attack him on the diversion of Sandy funds. True it may have helped seniors, but seniors who were his constituents.

I hope you guys get a good one, for once.

Scott Walker and Rand Paul have a shot. Moreso, Walker though.

Does Ben Carson have any kind of chance? My conservative family members like his ideas and I really had never even heard of him.

Originally posted by Nuke Nixon
Does Ben Carson have any kind of chance? My conservative family members like his ideas and I really had never even heard of him.

He's black, so no.

Exactly, if the Dems put forth another black man, the Reps would enact the: "There's an old saying in Tennessee," *awkward pauses* "I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, 'Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!'" tactic.

Benjamin Netayahu should run.

It's all about who can raise the most money and has some seniority in Washington. Corey Booker is a juggernaut for fundraising and Joe led a coalition to stop in the Senate the madmen of W/Cheney. FEMA funds are always misused, Hurricane Katrina to NOLA are still unaccounted for, and at the discretion of the state government, so Christie is safe there. Jeb has been out of office for a while, but the GOP (or is it GOB, grand old Bush party) appears to be doing a double down on Jeb, so it might be Jeb B and Christie.

Originally posted by BackFire
He's black, so no.

Racist

Will be hilarious if the GOP puts up Ted Cruz and starts spinning the reasons why he's eligible, despite being born in Canada, eh.

All the "Obama was born in Kenya" wingers will be eating crow then.

People voting for Hilary here, so weird people want to see her in office.

Like why would anyone want her as Commander in Chief.

Its like they didn't learn their lesson with Obama.

We should look at Bush to see how it's done right.

Oh, Donald Trump on the list at all, that made me laugh





Sandy? Nah, too near to related successes. The bridge scandal, that's what really hurt him.


Originally posted by Time Immemorial
People voting for Hilary here, so weird people want to see her in office.

Like why would anyone want her as Commander in Chief.

Its like they didn't learn their lesson with Obama.


Well, his economic performance is at least comparable to Reagan's despite starting out with worse conditions- with the only recent President surpassing them being Clinton- he improved healthcare in America, civil rights have made major strides in multiple areas, and he's done better on the foreign stage than President Bush II did.


I think you might not have learned your lesson with President Obama Why should we have a problem with a President who's outperformed any Republican President in my lifetime, despite Republicans trying to torpedo him in ways that are often actively harmful to the country? And Hillary's even closer tied to the only President in my lifetime to have done better than President Obama.

Originally posted by Robtard
Will be hilarious if the GOP puts up Ted Cruz and starts spinning the reasons why he's eligible, despite being born in Canada, eh.

All the "Obama was born in Kenya" wingers will be eating crow then.

It's so hilarious the people who do that, and normally using the reason 'he had an American parent'. Just, btw, like Obama, who had an American parent *and* was born in the US!

It's like wearing a sign proclaiming 'I only used this argument against Obama because he's black.'

Originally posted by Q99
Oh, Donald Trump on the list at all, that made me laugh





Sandy? Nah, too near to related successes. The bridge scandal, that's what really hurt him.





Well, his economic performance is at least comparable to Reagan's despite starting out with worse conditions- with the only recent President surpassing them being Clinton- he improved healthcare in America, civil rights have made major strides in multiple areas, and he's done better on the foreign stage than President Bush II did.


I think you might not have learned your lesson with President Obama Why should we have a problem with a President who's outperformed any Republican President in my lifetime, despite Republicans trying to torpedo him in ways that are often actively harmful to the country? And Hillary's even closer tied to the only President in my lifetime to have done better than President Obama.

The government in like 100 trillion in debt. I don't call that a good thing and what did Obama do to pay it down?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The government in like 100 trillion in debt. I don't call that a good thing and what did Obama do to pay it down?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/

Obama has actually done much more to shrink the deficit than George W did, but as this article points out, we're still not in a very good position because there's been insufficient reform on entitlement programs.

Lol

"Obama claims"

yet here is the truth

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/11/28/americas_true_national_debt_87_trillion

I want to hear more from Carson and Sanders.

The HBO series The Newsroom really pegged how we run our elections and the state of our "debates."

Get rid of Clinton and Bush, let's see if we can create an amalgam candidate by crossing Carson and Sanders and have them run against an amalgam of Rand and Warren!

Originally posted by Q99
Oh, Donald Trump on the list at all, that made me laugh





Sandy? Nah, too near to related successes. The bridge scandal, that's what really hurt him.





Well, his economic performance is at least comparable to Reagan's despite starting out with worse conditions- with the only recent President surpassing them being Clinton- he improved healthcare in America, civil rights have made major strides in multiple areas, and he's done better on the foreign stage than President Bush II did.


I think you might not have learned your lesson with President Obama Why should we have a problem with a President who's outperformed any Republican President in my lifetime, despite Republicans trying to torpedo him in ways that are often actively harmful to the country? And Hillary's even closer tied to the only President in my lifetime to have done better than President Obama.

http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Hillary-Clinton-Crazy-Face.jpg

So you would want this as your president?

She looks possessed.

http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2013/10/chris-christie-360x270.jpg

Originally posted by |King Joker|
http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2013/10/chris-christie-360x270.jpg

He is just as bad. His surgery seems to have failed him.

Why do people vote for these fcking tools.

Look at this shit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3038621/More-2-MILLION-Hillary-Clinton-s-Twitter-followers-fake-never-tweet.html

who ever gets it cant be worse then Then Tony F*cking Abbot. the man is a dick head whose ears stickout like car doors. if i wasnt drinking because i enjoyed it i would be drinking because i know he is in control of my life... and i am freak'n 17!

Hilarys whole new campaign about how she is one of "the people"

She couldnt even leave a tip for the "normal people"

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-15/chipotle-manager-hillary-clinton-didn-t-leave-anything-in-tip-jar

She's a complete fraud and a lier.

i'm hoping for either 3rd term obama or donald trump

though my ideal choice would be putin

Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm hoping for either 3rd term obama or donald trump

though my ideal choice would be putin

Easy, move to Russia.

Harry Reid calls GOP candidates loses.

Hey buddy speak of the devil! You lost your eye!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/harry-reid-calls-gop-2016-hopefuls-losers.html

Karma is *****, lol

I'm not sure why so many people think Hillary is going in easy

The Dems got spanked in the last round of voting
The only Gop'er that has as much haters as her is Rubio
Yes we can (have a black president) plays better than feminist push

Also in all her time in Washington, what is her biggest accomplishment?

Her opening week has been an aweful start.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
I'm not sure why so many people think Hillary is going in easy

The Dems got spanked in the last round of voting
The only Gop'er that has as much haters as her is Rubio
Yes we can (have a black president) plays better than feminist push

Also in all her time in Washington, what is her biggest accomplishment?
Mid-Term elections are often a false positive because they have such low turnouts so they tend to favor the party that's most worked up. The Democrats lost more than the Republicans won, which becomes clear when you see how, despite the republicans winning so many legislatures and state houses, Democrat-friendly ballot initiatives passed in many of those same states. Republicans are still on the wrong side of demographic trends, still have nothing to show for themselves in congress except a number of failed attempts to repeal Obamacare that almost shut down the government, and stunts that have humiliated the nation on the world stage.

I think if the last two presidents have shown anything, America doesn't need an impressive resume to vote someone into office. Clinton is AT LEAST as qualified to be president as either Obama or Bush were when they took office. Not saying that's a good thing, but it is what it is.

Benghazi anyone?

anybody but that mullet headed ****, please

Which one's the mullet-headed c*nt?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Which one's the mullet-headed c*nt?

Hilary

Word of advise: Sexist insults like that are really gonna impress voters

They also make it look like you're reacting out of bias and not looking at the candidates objectively.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Mid-Term elections are often a false positive because they have such low turnouts so they tend to favor the party that's most worked up.

Indeed, the latest one was the lowest turnout yet, plus just who was up for grabs favored the Republicans.

Due to the 6-year cycles, things normally favor one party or other just by chance of which vulnerable state seats come up... and similarly, the Republicans are going to be more vulnerable in future cycles in turn.




Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Benghazi anyone?

Ah yes, when the Republicans spent months turning a miscommunication- a miscommunication in the reporting, mind you, not one that affected actions on the ground- that happened below the level of anyone important into some giant scandal.

And then when Romney tried to use it against Obama in the *last* presidential debates- remember those?- he got spanked on them in the debate when Obama used the magic of fact-checking on him.

It's already been brought up in one election and fell flat. The muddled reporting on Benghazi simply isn't the magic bullet scandal that Republicans want it to be, since that's all it was, muddled reporting.


That's one of the big problem with the Republican approach recently- they're unwilling to simply score some points and move on, they have to push everything into "This will be the thing that sinks Obama!" (And replace Obama with Hillary soon), and they end up exaggerating, misrepresenting, and making errors in doing so, tossing away what points they could've gained.

Meanwhile, the Republican party tried to destroy the US economy with their debt ceiling fights.... twice.... and the Democrats use that against them but without driving it into the group, and thus gaining more pro-functional-economy voters to their side each time.

Why do you always makes it well Look! "The Republicans this!"

You seem pretty smart then always passing the blame..unless you are not above that.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Why do you always makes it well Look! "The Republicans this!"

You seem pretty smart then always passing the blame..unless you are not above that.


... because we're literally comparing people of two political parties and talking about a race between them and what's going to affect the race? I mean, do you think 'we can only talk bad about Hillary and not both parties, nor can we defend Hillary' is what comes with that type of discussion? If so, the original post wasn't too clear on that.




Also, on 'passing the blame,' I think it important to recognize who did what. The State Department under Hillary *did* mess up, no doubt, and that's on her in that the people under her made errors. It's not a big enough mess up to be particularly crucial, though, and I also outlined why it's impact is going to be further lessened, namely it's been heavily overmined for attacks against Obama. That's just the context which an attack strategy in the campaign based on Benghazi is going to have to exist in. I fully expect it to come up, and it may even score a little ground, but if we're talking about the elections, yea, that's all that Benghazi matters, a fairly spent issue that's already been heavily mined and where multiple Republican investigations found no wrongdoing on her part, so there's also a chance for backfire despite the real errors made.


You literally brought up a topic so I brought up things directly related to that topic as directly applies to this topic, namely the last time Benghazi was used in a presidential debate.

And now I've further gone into detail about the topic you brought up in the context of the race this thread is about.

If you don't want people to give information on topics, you shouldn't bring them up in the first place. If you only have an objection to facts being brought up when they disagree with your intended point, that says something too.

Originally posted by Q99
Word of advise: Sexist insults like that are really gonna impress voters

They also make it look like you're reacting out of bias and not looking at the candidates objectively.

i don't vote and i don't care who runs this country tbh

unless you're like some rich **** trying to edge out a sphere of influence, watching politics is like watching reality television

you keep it on cause... shit, it's on

you're probably the kind of sap that voluntarily dedicates themselves to the furthering of one particular politician's career all while feeling that you're just doing your civic duty

sexist insults like that are the only reason i pop into a thread like this, these days..

but honestly i don't know anything about her policies i just dislike her manufactured TV personality.

edit- and of course, her hair style.

Poor q99 defending democrats until the end.

Benghazi could be a total piece of garbage news wise but we'll never know because apparently congressional committees can't pull info from a deleted hard drive.

IRS might be a total farce but once again deleted now recovered hard drives still waiting on info.

fast and furious who knows again the ag said fu not releasing info.

Obama was pretty weak with the video/un piece then going to get funds for campaigning within 24 hours.

Originally posted by Q99
... because we're literally comparing people of two political parties and talking about a race between them and what's going to affect the race? I mean, do you think 'we can only talk bad about Hillary and not both parties, nor can we defend Hillary' is what comes with that type of discussion? If so, the original post wasn't too clear on that.




Also, on 'passing the blame,' I think it important to recognize who did what. The State Department under Hillary *did* mess up, no doubt, and that's on her in that the people under her made errors. It's not a big enough mess up to be particularly crucial, though, and I also outlined why it's impact is going to be further lessened, namely it's been heavily overmined for attacks against Obama. That's just the context which an attack strategy in the campaign based on Benghazi is going to have to exist in. I fully expect it to come up, and it may even score a little ground, but if we're talking about the elections, yea, that's all that Benghazi matters, a fairly spent issue that's already been heavily mined and where multiple Republican investigations found no wrongdoing on her part, so there's also a chance for backfire despite the real errors made.


You literally brought up a topic so I brought up things directly related to that topic as directly applies to this topic, namely the last time Benghazi was used in a presidential debate.

And now I've further gone into detail about the topic you brought up in the context of the race this thread is about.

If you don't want people to give information on topics, you shouldn't bring them up in the first place. If you only have an objection to facts being brought up when they disagree with your intended point, that says something too.

I know the republicans have done stuff stupid stuff. If you wanna point fingers lets talk. But I hope you don't do the "Look what Bush did 8 years Ago!"

But Cmon! Hilary is a complete clown of a Secretary of State, what did she do, what did she accomplish? Supposedly Somalia, Yemen and Egypt and Libya are their successes..What effing success????

She accepts foreign donations from states that punish women and then pays her female staffers .70 cents on the dollar but then wants to run a campaign that will largely be based on "sexism"

She is a complete joke, a liar, a fraud, she isn't what the American people want or need.

She can't even tip the "everyday people" when going out to eat.

She's running around in a $500,000 car on the campaign trail, and then parks it in handicap parking while visiting the "everyday people."

She is not Bill, she will never be Bill and frankly people are sick and tired of the Clintons..


http://static.ow.ly/photos/normal/aov3o.jpg

People will never be tired of Bill.

I don't think people are even tired of Hilldawg, she's pretty popular.

Originally posted by Mindset
People will never be tired of Bill.

I don't think people are even tired of Hilldawg, she's pretty popular.



Have you listened to her open her mouth, it sounds like a funeral proceeding.

Seems odd that there is no other dem running. Looks like Hillary has no one in the party to compete against. Winner by default. I still say Corey Booker is VP, due to fundraising prowess and to draw blacks to the voting booth.

She's got Biden to compete with.

I think Biden knows he isn't Presidential material. As much as I don't take Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul seriously as candidates, I can much more easily imagine them as presidents than I can Biden. Which is odd because he's been a literal heartbeat away from being one for seven years now.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
She's running around in a $500,000 car on the campaign trail, and then parks it in handicap parking while visiting the "everyday people."

She is not Bill, she will never be Bill and frankly people are sick and tired of the Clintons..


http://static.ow.ly/photos/normal/aov3o.jpg

She's probably not driving the car herself and didn't park it.

Love her, hate her or don't care, I don't think she wants to be Bill, H. Clinton has tried hard to be her own person, distancing her accomplished from her husband's prestige.

She's a complete fool. Adult fun camps, lol.

While that was a silly and foolsih thing, I'd not call her a "complete fool" over it.

Originally posted by Robtard
While that was a silly and foolsih thing, I'd not call her a "complete fool" over it.

Accepting foreign donations from countries that discriminate against women.
Paying women staffers 70 cents on the dollar.
Can't even tip when she goes out to eat at "everyday people" establishments
Drives around in a 500,000 shaggin wagon.
Email scandal
Benghazzi
The Bosnia Embellishment
Ignoring the Youth
Iraq War Vote Change of Heart
Firing Patty Solis

I mean I could go on and on about her foolishness.

Do so then

Originally posted by Robtard
Do so then


I agree, TI. Keep telling me more about the bad stuff about Hillary. I don't like her and don't want her to be the next PotUS. Give me more reasons.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do so then

Hubris

I doubt you'd find a top politician that doesn't possess that quality.

The Iraqi War Vote.

Already stated.

I personally don't see that one as a big issue. She voted yes based on a false premise and then changed her mind after facts came out, 6ish years later, it wasn't even a flip-flop.

Ok so your not going to vote for her right?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Ok so your not going to vote for her right?

I'll probably cast my vote to an Independent again. Living in Ca., I have that luxury since it's a very staunch Blue state with little to no chance of going Purple or Red. So I can waste/use my vote in support of a Three-Party system.

But I'd vote for Clinton over Cruz, Huckabee or Rubio if I was in a state that could go either way, like NJ, NY, IN or crappy OH. Don't know too much about Everson, Carson or Rand Jr., so can't comment there.

Sounds good to me.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'll probably cast my vote to an Independent again. Living in Ca., I have that luxury since it's a very staunch Blue state with little to no chance of going Purple or Red. So I can waste/use my vote in support of a Three-Party system.

But I'd vote for Clinton over Cruz, Huckabee or Rubio if I was in a state that could go either way, like NJ, NY, IN or crappy OH. Don't know too much about Everson, Carson or Rand Jr., so can't comment there.




I'm also going to vote for someone other than a GOP or Dem. Just looking for that person.


I think "I Side With" said a Green Party member had over an 80% match with my ideals. Perhaps I should revive that thread and see where other KMC political posters stand.

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/obscene.jpg

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/obscene.jpg

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/40413068.jpg

DUN DUN DUUUUUN!

Got no problem with those making over a million a year being taxed at 80% for every dollar over a million made from any source of revenue. No problem with it all. And keep the rest of the income tax in place too.

How do people like TI think democracies work? that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?

is he familiar with the process election?

Does he think that the president should not answer to the demands of the majority, but rather a select few?

Does he think that any American president, or hitler, or any dictator had or have any intention of representing the good of the people?

Originally posted by krisblaze
How do people like TI think democracies work? that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?

is he familiar with the process election?

Does he think that the president should not answer to the demands of the majority, but rather a select few?

Does he think that any American president, or hitler, or any dictator had or have any intention of representing the good of the people?

I am, since I am from here, since you are not, are you?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/obscene.jpg



The resemblance is striking. Needless to say, there's no way I'll ever be convinced to vote for her now. I've said it before that even Mickey Mouse would be preferable to her being the C-in-C. Even more convinced now. Thanks, TI.


Edit: Yeah, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but as Americans we have individual liberties that should never be tampered with even it's under the guise of "it's for the greater good of the many". Like our right to bear arms, for example.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/obscene.jpg

If Hillary is as warmongering as Hitler then the Republican weapons lobby will back her up

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I am, since I am from here, since you are not, are you?

Well, believe it or not, other countries do have elections as well.

Which is why I'm curious about what you're implying here.

Seems like you're averse to the rule of the majority.

You do know that's how decisions are made in democracies, right?

Originally posted by Star428
The resemblance is striking. Needless to say, there's no way I'll ever be convinced to vote for her now. I've said it before that even Mickey Mouse would be preferable to her being the C-in-C. Even more convinced now. Thanks, TI.


Edit: Yeah, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but as Americans we have individual liberties that should never be tampered with even it's under the guise of "it's for the greater good of the many". Like our right to bear arms, for example.



Or our right to individual privacy. Obviously though, this one is already being trampled on somewhat but don't want to make it much worse by electing someone who clearly has even more extreme socialistic views than Obama does.

Originally posted by Star428
Or our right to individual privacy. Obviously though, this one is already being trampled on somewhat but don't want to make it much worse by electing someone who clearly has even more extreme socialistic views than Obama does.



read a book

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I am, since I am from here, since you are not, are you?
That's a fallacious line of reasoning. Argumentum ad locus or something.

You could be an American and be absolutely ignorant of all things pertaining to America. Not that that describes you or anything. stoned

Oh, and another thing... The United States is most certainly NOT a democracy. I hate it when people make that mistaken assumption. It's actually a constitutional republic. Always has been. That's a significant difference from being a democracy. Our founding fathers made damn sure that the word "democracy" was used nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.


http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

Originally posted by SayWhat
Got no problem with those making over a million a year being taxed at 80% for every dollar over a million made from any source of revenue. No problem with it all. And keep the rest of the income tax in place too.

If I made that much, I'd be okay with that, too.


However, I'd prefer a flat tax. A very simple one. That'd generate more revenue, as well (no more tax loopholes for the rich).


http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/its-good-to-be-rich-you-get-a-lower-tax-rate/



I'm positive I'm paying more taxes than the rich because I fall into the category of "middle class professional." Guess how much I paid in taxes in 2014? ~$17,000.















I could really really use that money, right now. I cannot afford to pay that much in taxes.


So if a presidential candidate espouses an excise tax (preferred option: something similar to what Texas does, which is awesome) or flat tax (my second choice), I like it. I suppose I could vote for a GOP or Dem that gave me a tax reform that fits my two choices. Maybe that's how I'll choose to vote.


As for Hillary, I decided she's not a person I'd ever vote for when she said she'd blow Iran up if they attacked Israel. That type of immature warmongering attitude is why I didn't like Bush. Also, the obvious, it's not very Christian-like.

Originally posted by Star428
Oh, and another thing... The United States is most certainly NOT a democracy. I hate it when people make that mistaken assumption. It's actually a constitutional republic. Always has been. That's a significant difference from being a democracy. Our founding fathers made damn sure that the word "democracy" was used nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.


http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

No nation is just "a democracy".

Norway, like Canada, is a constitutional monarchy.

However, like the united states, they are all representative democracies where the majority rule. Which was my point, that it's ridiculous to try and demonize someone for saying they want to put importance of the needs of the majority over the needs of individuals, which is what happens in literally any demoratic process.

Edit: And like most nations in the first world they all run on the "separation of powers" princible, and its leaders are elected through a democratic process.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of a more social based approach to government, that Hilary Clinton quote is unsourced. As ever, remember to apply your critical faculties to such things- the internet is a place worth being sceptical about.

I'd say there is an irony here in people saying others should wake up and stop believing lies when they make no effort to check facts themselves, but it's far too boring an example of people simply believing what aligns with their views and doubting what does not for it have any proper ironic value. It's pretty much just humanity all over.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's a fallacious line of reasoning. Argumentum ad locus or something.

You could be an American and be absolutely ignorant of all things pertaining to America. Not that that describes you or anything. stoned

Whats fallacious is when you love to parade the constitution in your arguements when it suits you, then disregard and toss it to the wind when it does not.

Originally posted by Star428
Oh, and another thing... The United States is most certainly NOT a democracy. I hate it when people make that mistaken assumption. It's actually a constitutional republic. Always has been. That's a significant difference from being a democracy. Our founding fathers made damn sure that the word "democracy" was used nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.


http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html


Man, this was a topic we argued about and discussed quite thoroughly in one of my political science classes. It is not-so cut and dry. Among political scientists (lol), they argue about this. One thing that is not really in dispute is this:


The United States of America is a Constitutional Democratic Federal Republic.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html






When you get pedantic about something, there's someone that will come along and one-up you. This is why I try to avoid pedantry.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of a more social based approach to government, that Hilary Clinton quote is unsourced. As ever, remember to apply your critical faculties to such things- the internet is a place worth being sceptical about.

I'd say there is an irony here in people saying others should wake up and stop believing lies when they make no effort to check facts themselves, but it's far too boring an example of people simply believing what aligns with their views and doubting what does not for it have any proper ironic value. It's pretty much just humanity all over.

You're right. This needs to be sourced before it can be paraded about as another political talking point. Anyone can slap some text on an image and pretend it is true.


Brainyquote lists it as a quote from her:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hillarycli385982.html



Snopes says this quote of hers is so pervasive that it has even shown up in several books. But, they conclude that no one has been able to really produce a strong source for this. They say it may have been stated by her in 1993:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/societyquote.asp



Regardless, the quote is silly. It is a logical fallacy. It is a form of ad hominem. Here is how this logical fallacy (this is not directed at you as you already are aware of how this works) works:

Hitler said it therefore it must be bad. Hillary said the same as Hitler, therefore, Hillary must be bad because she has the same idea as Hitler.



However, the fallacy in that statement is the notion that the entire set of utterances and writings from Hitler are ALL bad. This is absurdly stupid. If Hitler said, "Eating healthy and exercising regularly is good for you", we cannot just abandon eating healthy and exercising just because "Hitler said it."

If we put the image quote in likely context, Hillary has always espoused a Universal Healthcare solution similar to our Western European counterparts. She wants to move away from an individualistic healthcare system to a social one.* Duh. Both the Clintons have always been vocal about wanting to do that. And, based on real research by multiple organizations, our Western European healthcare systems are doing better than the US'. So it's not a "Hitlerism": it's just Hillary pushing a decent (or even good) political idea.



*This was Snopes conclusion: that her phrase was referring to healthcare reform.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Whats fallacious is when you love to parade the constitution in your arguements when it suits you, then disregard and toss it to the wind when it does not.


I don't know if OV is doing that but many people do exactly as you state. They like the constitution when it suits them but disregard it when it doesn't align with their political agenda.


For example: one of the worst, draconian, and evil pieces of legislation to ever hit the American People is the Patriot Act. It's unconstitutional. It's not even debatable how unconstitutional it is. Yet, it was upheld as constitutional when challenged. I mean...how? It's very cut and dry, the 4th Amendment, about warrants and search and seizure. Un-warranted search and seizure is not allowed by the US Constitution via the 4th amendment.



What I recommend is that any candidate that supports the Patriot Act, SOPA, or CISPA (or any incarnations of those 3), no one vote for the candidates. Regardless of any of their other platforms, those positions should immediately bar all of the American people for voting for them. It's extremely difficult to convince humans to make hard-line stances and to vote for candidates based on their actual political positions. This is the most frustrating thing about voting in America: they vote on people they like rather than political positions that they agree with. inimalist called this the "Person you'd like to have a beer with" property. Speaking of him, these threads need that motherf*****. uhuh

He was doing it here, http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=611311&pagenumber=2#post15166667

Waving the constitution in my face but has disregarded it any basically every other thread that mattered, like Immigration, Iran deal.

Then when I called him out on it, he ignored it.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
He was doing it here, http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=611311&pagenumber=2#post15166667

Waving the constitution in my face but has disregarded it any basically every other thread that mattered, like Immigration, Iran deal.

Then when I called him out on it, he ignored it.

I'll leave that particular feud between you two, alone. I can't follow it or even understand it that well so I'll not comment on it, further. I'll keep my comments about that in general, basically.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
He was doing it here, http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=611311&pagenumber=2#post15166667

Waving the constitution in my face but has disregarded it any basically every other thread that mattered, like Immigration, Iran deal.



Also, the thread dealing with gun ownership rights.

Originally posted by Star428
Also, the thread dealing with gun ownership rights.

Oh yea, its so often he throws it out the window, its hard to recall all the times, but damn when he wants to use it to win a debate, he is an ALL AMERICAN constitutional lawyer.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
He was doing it here, http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=611311&pagenumber=2#post15166667

Waving the constitution in my face but has disregarded it any basically every other thread that mattered, like Immigration, Iran deal.

Then when I called him out on it, he ignored it.
Dude, I asked you to show what law forbids American troops from operating on public land on US soil and you straight up admitted there isn't a law to this effect. How is that ignoring the Constitution?

And there's nothing in the Iran thread that had to do with Constitutional law. As I recall, you just got frustrated because you weren't able to articulate a real argument beyond accusing me of "wanting Iran to have a bomb."

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dude, I asked you to show what law forbids American troops from operating on public land on US soil and you straight up admitted there isn't a law to this effect. How is that ignoring the Constitution?

And there's nothing in the Iran thread that had to do with Constitutional law. As I recall, you just got frustrated because you weren't able to articulate a real argument beyond accusing me of "wanting Iran to have a bomb."

You know what you are doing, don't play dumb.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You know what you are doing, don't play dumb.
No see, that's not how debate works. Point out what I'm doing with specific examples rather than just linking threads and insisting that your claim is proven there.

Thats your problem, all you care about is winning a online debate, which means nothing past the words you type, you have not helped or informed anyone, you just get the pleasure of thinking "AH, HA, I won on a interent forum", you don't actually care about where the implications are leading.

You simply don't understand that the military only trains for missions that they are about to commence on. You fail to realize what conditioning the public is. You failed to realize that training or not, deploying troops in cities is beyond wrong unless there is some sort of natural disaster or martial law.

You don't train in a jungle, to fight in the desert.

This is common sense stuff.

Comedy gold.

Originally posted by krisblaze
Comedy gold.

Anything to add of actual value?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Thats your problem, all you care about is winning a online debate, which means nothing past the words you type, you have not helped or informed anyone, you just get the pleasure of thinking "AH, HA, I won on a interent forum", you don't actually care about where the implications are leading.

You simply don't understand that the military only trains for missions that they are about to commence on. You fail to realize what conditioning the public is. You failed to realize that training or not, deploying troops in cities is beyond wrong unless there is some sort of natural disaster or martial law.

You don't train in a jungle, to fight in the desert.

This is common sense stuff.
And you just avoided substantiating your position again. Bravo.

Yes, but you would train in one city to fight in another city in another country.

There's a decent chance these troops are training for low intensity/stealthy combat in Eastern European cities in the event that the Russians repeat their activities in Russia in the Baltic States. That's one explanation that's much more plausible than "OMG MARTIAL LAW IS COMING!!"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/03/31/why-the-new-special-operations-exercise-freaking-out-the-internet-is-no-big-deal/

Please read this, TI.

Unrelated to the topic, Harry Reid, his family and a special security detail are chillin in a room about 30 feet from me as I type this.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And you just avoided substantiating your position again. Bravo.

Yes, but you would train in one city to fight in another city in another country.

There's a decent chance these troops are training for low intensity/stealthy combat in Eastern European cities in the event that the Russians repeat their activities in Russia in the Baltic States. That's one explanation that's much more plausible than "OMG MARTIAL LAW IS COMING!!"

So they can't train in something that will look like the Baltic States? When we trained for Iraq we they built cities that looked like Iraq, funny enough, now they building cities that look like America.

http://www.truthandaction.org/military-builds-another-fake-american-looking-city-urban-warfare-training/

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So they can't train in something that will look like the Baltic States? When we trained for Iraq we they built cities that looked like Iraq, funny enough, now they building cities that look like America.

http://www.truthandaction.org/military-builds-another-fake-american-looking-city-urban-warfare-training/
That's a valid point, but I only said that counter-insurgency in Eastern Europe was a possible reason. According to the US military's spokespeople, the training is supposed to reflect "new and difficult terrain our forces might face overseas."

They chose the American Southwest, Texas, and southern California to stage the training exercises, so we'd have to look at what kinds of places have similar geography and climates. For Southern California, with its mix of desert, city, and Mediterranean climate coastline it's probably the closest you can get to simulating a ground operation in coastal Libya or Syria on United States soil. Texas, due to its size and diversity, can stand in for a lot of places that Americans might get involved in.

Pay attention to the fact that Jade Helm is supposed to train soldiers to operate quietly, without attracting too much attention from the local populace. While no part of me believes that Jade Helm is in any way prepping for a military takeover of the US, I am inclined to believe that it could be preparation for off-the-record black or gray interventions overseas, interventions where the US doesn't recognize or acknowledge their own operations (perhaps taking a cue from Russia's more or less successful covert hiding-in-plain-sight-and-lying-with-a-straight-face operations in Ukraine).

I realize we in the wrong thread, I will post a rely in the Jade Helm thread.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Unrelated to the topic, Harry Reid, his family and a special security detail are chillin in a room about 30 feet from me as I type this.

I phoned in an anonymous threat and gave your description as the suspect. Enjoy the abuse

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/obscene.jpg http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/societyquote.asp

edit: STFU DDM

Originally posted by Star428
The resemblance is striking. Needless to say, there's no way I'll ever be convinced to vote for her now. I've said it before that even Mickey Mouse would be preferable to her being the C-in-C. Even more convinced now. Thanks, TI.


Edit: Yeah, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but as Americans we have individual liberties that should never be tampered with even it's under the guise of "it's for the greater good of the many". Like our right to bear arms, for example. You should probably check your facts before blindly agreeing with pictures online, sheep.

Not only it being false, but the "If Hitler said it, it must be bad!" no matter what mentality.

Reminds me of those people who say that (according to popular belief) because Hitler was a vegan, all vegans are evil.

As far as Hilary goes, just like Obama in the '12 election, she may not be the most superlative candidate ever, but she's undoubtedly the best on the card and the one I'll probably be voting for. All of her mess ups don't even remotely compare to the reign of terror the GOP has subjected America to over the past 6 years. Hilary may have said something stupid at some point, but at no point did she shut down the government, veto every bill the POTUS attempted to pass purely out of spite (including a bill to aid veterans), threaten to destroy the US economy, and treasonously humiliate America's foreign policy (amongst other things) like the GOP did. The Benghazi mess up and the ultimately pointless "email scandal" aren't even in the same league as the GOP's shenanigans.

Originally posted by NemeBro
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/societyquote.asp

edit: STFU DDM

Originally posted by Robtard
Not only it being false, but the "If Hitler said it, it must be bad!" no matter what mentality.

Thank you both for stating things, but in much poorer ways, I have already stated. uhuh



estahuh

Originally posted by Lestov16
...I'll probably be voting for .

Noooo!

Lestov...of all people...

He's been taken from us!



But you're doing what I've done in the past and are just voting for a lesser among many piles of shit.

STFU, DDM.

I'm lucky enough to be absolved of responsibility by not being registered to vote.

You're in Florida, so it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You should probably check your facts before blindly agreeing with pictures online, sheep.

You do know that snopes is not an unquestionable authority on politics, they are obviously bias against conservative view points, and they are funded by liberals, regardless of their claim that they do not.

Provide evidence that she actually said the quote then.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Provide evidence that she actually said the quote then.

The youtube videos with her saying that 7 years ago, have all but disappeared and been pulled from youtube.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Provide evidence that she actually said the quote then.


I already tried. Isn't going to happen. I know you know this but my comment is directed more towards TI.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I already tried. Isn't going to happen. I know you know this but my comment is directed more towards TI.

No worries.

Can you at least provide proof of Hitler actually saying it?

Here are some of his famous quotes

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes.nsf/quotes_author!ReadForm&Start=21&Count=20&RestrictToCategory=adolf+hitler

That link doesn't work, TI. You sure you typed it correctly?

If you can't source a quote, don't try and pass it off as a legitimate point of debate. That just wastes time in a thread like this.

So I did some checking around for that quote (Hillary's) and found this:


http://spectator.org/articles/47154/just-being-herself



Apparently, she said it in 93' when she was the first lady.



I also discovered something else interesting while searching for the origin of her quote:



http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdThread=Tx1QQDOW0MNUAOG



I never knew that Amazon had a discussion forum. I've been a customer of theirs for years and never realized it. LOL. Learned something new today.

Yay!

That's not a source, that's some guy saying she said it. My understanding is that book does not itself provide a source.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Reminds me of those people who say that (according to popular belief) because Hitler was a vegan, all vegans are evil.

As far as Hilary goes, just like Obama in the '12 election, she may not be the most superlative candidate ever, but she's undoubtedly the best on the card and the one I'll probably be voting for. All of her mess ups don't even remotely compare to the reign of terror the GOP has subjected America to over the past 6 years. Hilary may have said something stupid at some point, but at no point did she shut down the government, veto every bill the POTUS attempted to pass purely out of spite (including a bill to aid veterans), threaten to destroy the US economy, and treasonously humiliate America's foreign policy (amongst other things) like the GOP did. The Benghazi mess up and the ultimately pointless "email scandal" aren't even in the same league as the GOP's shenanigans.





Haven't we had enough of presidents with socialistic agendas? I know I sure have but apparently many people seem to have a hard time learning from the past.

Originally posted by Star428



Haven't we had enough of presidents with socialistic agendas? I know I sure have but apparently many people seem to have a hard time learning from the past.
You don't know what a socialistic agenda is

And the presidents of America, all looking to the line the pockets of various corporations, have never had one.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's not a source, that's some guy saying she said it. My understanding is that book does not itself provide a source.


I never claimed it was a verifiable source now did I? I simply posted what I found. However, I continued to search and found many other websites that have that listed as a quote of hers. It seems odd, don't u think, that so many different websites that have claimed that she made that statement are just making it up? Do you realize what slander and libel are?



Surely Hillary would've heard about this by now especially if some guy wrote a book with that in it. If she had, and they were all actually lying don't you think she would've tried suing them for libel or slander by now? And do you think the people who claimed that she said it would just make that up when they realized that they could be sued over it?


Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it's not good enough for you as just a spectator of American politics and you think all those people are lying but it's certainly enough proof for me as an American voter.

Well if it was not a source then I do not know why you bothered posting it. As for it being repeated around the web- that's not in the least bit odd at all; the internet is famous for repetition of spurious nonsense without checking facts. There's an uncountable number of other examples.

That libel/slander example is a bit weird- you'd have a hell of a time establishing the quote was intend to be defamatory (if you think the case for libel/slander revolves around something being made up, you are mistaken), and who the hell would bother trawling through the courts for something that trivial? I DO know that the author of that book admitted he couldn't back a lot of those quotes though.

If you are accepting mere rumour as proof then that says a lot about you. Regardless of being a spectator or participant in any election, standards of sourcing and proof are universal and this fails that test on an objective basis. Those people aren't lying, btw- they are just doing the same as you; mindlessly repeating a rumour without properly checking because they really want it to be true. However, like I said above, do not use unsourced quotes as points in this thread, lest the thread descend into anyone making up whatever nonsense they like.

Originally posted by Star428



Haven't we had enough of presidents with socialistic agendas? I know I sure have but apparently many people seem to have a hard time learning from the past.

I know I've had enough of Republicans sabotaging progress at every turn, whether or not they are the POTUS. You keep crying "socialism" all you want. The Democrat-run government isn't the Stalinist dictatorship you want it to be and never will be, provable by you being able to spout your BS opinion without worry. I understand your concern with government interference, but when that interference is only trying to benefit lives and prevent exploitation of those with lesser means, I'm more than willing to accept it. If/when the Democrat-run fascist dictatorship you are fearmongering about actually comes to pass, you can be the first to say I told you so, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

And if it does happen, it'll more than likely be under a GOP administration, considering the disgusting lengths they've went to in the past to get what they desire, common US citizens be damned.

Sorry, but all the socialist fearmongering in the world isn't going to convince me that the democrat with a few blemishes on her record is somehow an inferior candidate to the party who nearly FUBARed America on an economic, social, and geopolitical scale for 6 years out of pettiness.

Hillary's a better candidate than anybody the GOP can put up. She's going to win. You know this, and you're just crying and bitching about it like a hater and trying to smear her image with hilariously out-of-context comparisons to Hitler like a political strawman in a bad comedy.

Considering that you're willing to ignore everything the GOP has done over the last decade and a half, I'd say that you're the one having a hard time learning from the past.

The Clintons are the most corrupt politicians there is, and you want her to win.

You dissapoint me Lest.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The Clintons are the most corrupt politicians there is, and you want her to win.

You dissapoint me Lest. Lol.

Democrats are onlh considered socialist in murricah by murrican rightwingers.

Everywhere else in the world most american democrats are considered centric/rightwing

Originally posted by Star428
I never claimed it was a verifiable source now did I? I simply posted what I found. However, I continued to search and found many other websites that have that listed as a quote of hers. It seems odd, don't u think, that so many different websites that have claimed that she made that statement are just making it up? Do you realize what slander and libel are?



Surely Hillary would've heard about this by now especially if some guy wrote a book with that in it. If she had, and they were all actually lying don't you think she would've tried suing them for libel or slander by now? And do you think the people who claimed that she said it would just make that up when they realized that they could be sued over it?


Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it's not good enough for you as just a spectator of American politics and you think all those people are lying but it's certainly enough proof for me as an American voter. So you accept quotes as fact despite the fact that they can't be proven? What a sheep.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The Clintons are the most corrupt politicians there is, and you want her to win.

You dissapoint me Lest.

The GOP are the most corrupt politicians there are, provable with their track record of holding the US economy hostage and treason-level sabotage of American foreign policy, and you want one of them to win.

You disappoint me Time. Oh wait, this is to be expected. You thought Romney was a good choice lol.

Whether or not Hitler and Hillary said the same thing isn't really that important, unless we're talking about both of them saying something unequivocally evil like "kill all Jews."

Saying that society's needs should be prioritized over individual needs is a statement that can have multiple possible implications, ranging from sensible and benign (it's more or less accepted, for instance, by all but the most extreme libertarians, that if a person is in a ward full of newborn babies that person shouldn't be allowed to smoke, because the needs of all those babies to breathe clean air outweigh the needs of one man to get his nicotine fix) to totalitarian (you must surrender all property for the good of the state). However the words attributed to Clinton aren't contextualized enough to show what end of the spectrum she's coming from, making it a pointless comparison.

LOL. Maybe it's ok to you but saying something like what Hillary supposedly said is a very anti-American statement. Only people who share her socialistic views would say that "it's not that important". Considering your views on things like gun ownership rights it's not that difficult to understand why it doesn't bother you but to someone who thinks individual rights are an important part of being an American it's highly offensive. Perhaps not "evil" but offensive, nonetheless.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Maybe it's ok to you but saying something like what Hillary supposedly said is a very anti-American statement. Only people who share her socialistic views would say that "it's not that important". Considering your views on things like gun ownership rights it's not that difficult to understand why it doesn't bother you but to someone who thinks individual rights are an important part of being an American it's highly offensive.

That's just a foolish idealistic generalization. Individual rights are fine if nobody's getting hurt, but when these "rights" are able to serve as excuses for people to abuse, harm, promote ignorance of, discriminate against, exploit, and/or overall impede on the natural human rights of people, they need to be rectified. If you think people should endure harm and abuse just to uphold the ideal of individual rights, I just consider you selfish and myopically close-minded.

And as OV said, you're taking Hilary's quote out of context just so it can fit your BS narrative. Here's another quote supporting society over the individual.

"He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." - Aristotle

Based on your BS logic, i guess that means one of history's greatest philosophers is like Hitler as well. LOL the lows you'll stoop to to lowball a candidate even though she's the best qualified there is right now.

It's like you want the GOP to destroy America and are actively sabotaging America with foolish ignorance so it can happen. Why do you hate America so much, Star?

Originally posted by Lestov16
The GOP are the most corrupt politicians there are, provable with their track record of holding the US economy hostage and treason-level sabotage of American foreign policy, and you want one of them to win.

You disappoint me Time. Oh wait, this is to be expected. You thought Romney was a good choice lol.

Obama founded his Obama care on Romney care, certainly you can't think bad of Romney.

Wait till this book about the Clintons comes out, I hope you read it.

Its called "Clinton Cash"

He thought half of America were lazy freeloaders.

Yet another irrelevant smear attempt

Originally posted by Lestov16
He thought half of America were lazy freeloaders.

Yet another irrelevant smear attempt

Half the country is not disabled like you think Lest.

They just refuse to work and like the welfare state.

I understand your sentiment. My "aunt" (family friend) had a grandson who went on welfare, and she instantly called him out for being lazy, which admittedly he was. But 47%? I understand there are those who abuse the system, and there are definitely welfare reforms that could and should take place to weed out the lazy from those who actually need it, but still, almost half of America falls under this category? I'm calling BS.

Also, only about 35% of America is on welfare, so how does that become 47%?

Its very hard to do because the people who make the promises for those welfare checks bank on those votes to keep them elected. Remember that lady after Obama was elected was screaming "I don't have to worry about my mortgage anymore, or putting gas in my car, Obama is gonna pay my bills." Those are the people that fck it up for everyone.

Its a vicious circle.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Its very hard to do because the people who make the promises for those welfare checks bank on those votes to keep them elected. Remember that lady after Obama was elected was screaming "I don't have to worry about my mortgage anymore, or putting gas in my car, Obama is gonna pay my bills." Those are the people that fck it up for everyone.

Its a vicious circle.

I agree, but the way the GOP tried to handle the situation was horribly and irredeemably misguided and harmful to America. Sorry, but I can not in good conscience vote for a member of that party. IMO, it is easier for me to hope that Hillary will make welfare reforms than hope the GOP will stop their insane behavior.