General Primary Discussion Thread

Originally posted by Lestov16
That's what I'm hoping for. Out of Hillary, Sanders, Trump, and Rubio, I view Hillary as having the best qualifications and strategies to achieve the progress the public desires. Sanders is too idealistic, Trump is too egotistical, and Rubio is too much of a Washington shill. So I'm officially rooting for Hillary.

It would be the first time ever that I'd be outright unhappy about who won the presidency. I think she is probably a nice lady and all that, I just don't want her as president. Just the way she has flip flopped and/or lied I just do not trust her.

I know some will say she is more honest then most, but I still just get the feeling she will say whatever she thinks people want to hear. Even Bernie with all his faults I do not get the feeling of "I can't trust what this person says" from him.

It is the same problem I have with Trump. I do agree with his stance on some issues, though he often takes them to extremes they really don't need to be taken to. But it's hard to trust what he says because I'm still not sure if he even believes all of what he says.

Originally posted by Newjak
So this is a pretty scary set of data to me

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-supporters-for-intolerance.html

I mean Trump has the most supporters right now so when 30% of his supporters say some of this stuff that is a scary percentage to me.

I do support deporting illegals. Or that is I would if we had a way of tracking them and deporting them that wouldn't cost boatloads of money and resources.

On the other hand I don't quite understand the rationale about wanting to ban gays and lesbians. In fact this is the first time I've even heard that Trump apparently wants to do that. You would think something like that would be brought up a lot more. But when you hear people talk about the stuff Trump wants its usually stuff he has said about illegals or muslims. Even the muslims he wants a temporary ban, but this says nothing of banning gays temporarily.

I also think that since apparently Trump has a legit chance at becoming president now we should ask him about some of the details about what he wants to do. For instance his temporary ban on muslims. Has he ever said what his definition of "temporary" means? A month? A year? Until ISIS is defeated?

Likewise with his stance on deportation. Like I said I'd support it if it was feasible and not terribly expensive, so I'd ask how he would plan to actually set about deporting all of the illegals here. He's already talked about building a wall to keep people out(not his best idea), but what about the people already in the country?

Originally posted by Surtur
I do support deporting illegals. Or that is I would if we had a way of tracking them and deporting them that wouldn't cost boatloads of money and resources.

On the other hand I don't quite understand the rationale about wanting to ban gays and lesbians. In fact this is the first time I've even heard that Trump apparently wants to do that. You would think something like that would be brought up a lot more. But when you hear people talk about the stuff Trump wants its usually stuff he has said about illegals or muslims. Even the muslims he wants a temporary ban, but this says nothing of banning gays temporarily.

I also think that since apparently Trump has a legit chance at becoming president now we should ask him about some of the details about what he wants to do. For instance his temporary ban on muslims. Has he ever said what his definition of "temporary" means? A month? A year? Until ISIS is defeated?

Likewise with his stance on deportation. Like I said I'd support it if it was feasible and not terribly expensive, so I'd ask how he would plan to actually set about deporting all of the illegals here. He's already talked about building a wall to keep people out(not his best idea), but what about the people already in the country?

Like there are people in that article that said slavery shouldn't have ended after the Civil War. I'm just shocked at the number of them.

With Donald Trump Looming, Should Dems Take a Huge Electability Gamble by Nominating Hillary Clinton? https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-huge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/

Just reading this headline-

In Shift, Marco Rubio Attacks Donald Trump by Name ahead of Debate

... Marco Rubio is getting around to learning you can attack your opponents by name.

No wonder Trump's walking all over him.

Bernie needs to step up his game on Hillary.

While its great to illustrate your policy ideas its also important to show your opponents flaws.

Bernie needs to take advantage of Hillary's situation and press on her troubles while still providing solutions with his policies.

Originally posted by Q99
Just reading this headline-

In Shift, Marco Rubio Attacks Donald Trump by Name ahead of Debate

... Marco Rubio is getting around to learning you can attack your opponents by name.

No wonder Trump's walking all over him.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Bernie needs to step up his game on Hillary.

While its great to illustrate your policy ideas its also important to show your opponents flaws.

Bernie needs to take advantage of Hillary's situation and press on her troubles while still providing solutions with his policies.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
I agree, but at this point it's too late, IMO. If he starts "attacking" her (or what's perceived as attacks) then people would call him out saying "Hey, I thought you were running a positive campaign?" I mean, people are already doing that when Bernie is putting out a mere iota of what he could be putting out in terms of criticism.

You can address someones shortcomings without "attacking" them.

If family guy has taught us anything the compliment sandwhich is a wonderful passive aggressive tool.........................(go go stewie griffin.)

Originally posted by snowdragon
Bernie needs to step up his game on Hillary.

While its great to illustrate your policy ideas its also important to show your opponents flaws.

Bernie needs to take advantage of Hillary's situation and press on her troubles while still providing solutions with his policies.

He is going the way of John McCain.

John McCain won the nomination.

Pfft. You and your "facts".

Originally posted by snowdragon
You can address someones shortcomings without "attacking" them.

If family guy has taught us anything the compliment sandwhich is a wonderful passive aggressive tool.........................(go go stewie griffin.)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
John McCain won the nomination.

And he lost because he refused to take a real fight against Obama.

He lost because he got exposed as a plutocrat who thought almost half the country was "lazy"

Originally posted by Lestov16
He lost because he got exposed as a plutocrat who thought almost half the country was "lazy"

I think you might be referring to a well known Romney gaffe...

The GOP pushing a mentally challenged woman as his VP didn't help him at all towards the end.

Part of be still thinks Palin was put in place to sandbag the election, since it was predicted that the US was headed towards dark times with the then Iraq quagmire (giggity) and a looming recession and they wanted a Dem to shoulder the blame.

YouTube video

Hilary Clinton called blacks super predators. Black lives matter is out on Hilary Clinton for her previous racist statements she refuses to acknowledge.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/black-lives-matter-activist-demands-hillary-clinton-apologize-based-on-a-lie/

Every black person needs to see this.

YouTube video

Wow, thats a rough one to come back on.

If that got the media play that Romney's lazy comment did then Hillary will make plenty of friends.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/25/former_mexican_president_vicente_fox_to_trump_im_not_paying_for_that_fing_wall.html

So that's a wrap on the whole "Mexican paid Great Wall of Trump" plan. How many more of his plans will fall through?