Originally posted by psmith81992
Goddamn. Some of the liberals on this site can actually argue rationally while some conservatives here scream bias. Life is a trip.
I assume you are not talking to me, Did I scream bias here? Or are you confusing me with Omega, who said the AP and Reuters are biased sources?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He has Charisma.
Carly Fiorina would probably make an excellent negotiator.
Edit: Actually, wasn't Romney's lack of charisma always one of his big failings? He's got great hair and he looks 20 years younger than he is, but that's not the same thing as charisma.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
So does Marco Rubio, with the added bonus that he's bilingual.Carly Fiorina would probably make an excellent negotiator.
Edit: Actually, wasn't Romney's lack of charisma always one of his big failings? He's got great hair and he looks 20 years younger than he is, but that's not the same thing as charisma.
Forget it, maybe you are right, but keep dodging in that Iranian thread though.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Forget it, maybe you are right, but keep dodging in that Iranian thread though.
Btw- It strikes me as almost pointless if Hillary *did* drop out now.
It'd be pretty easy for Biden to gear up and take her place as a well supported establishment candidate. He'd lack the first-women-president appeal himself, but as a sitting Veep attached to a successful President, he'd be in a strong position. Heck, Elizabeth Warren could likely step up too.
I still don't think Sanders would have much of a chance, but remember, in the past, people joining at this time was normal or even early.
Ideally, for those scandal-focused, what you want is for someone to be hit by a massive scandal either right before or right after they get the nod. That's when it is very hard for someone to take their place.
Strategically, a killing blow this early doesn't accomplish much. It's like on the other side, of the Republican candidates, "Trump had a scandal? We've got no problem with Bush anyway. Bush drops out due to a kitten related incident that killed his support? Ok, then Walker, you're up. Walker dropped out because he had a vision from Ra the Sun God causing him to convert? Rubio, you're in." Everyone has reserves and replacements.
On the flip side, if those happen way later... "Why did Walker have to convert to Ra the Sun God the week of the Primary when he was polling in second?? Now we have to make up ground and deal with the fact we supported a Ra-ist for so long!".
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It will come down to Capitalizm vs Socialism, and Sad to say for you but Trump will be the next president and steer America back in the direction it once sailed.
Pffhehe, Hillary a socialist? That *is* funny! Someone should tell all her corporate buddies that she hobnobs with so much.
If we raised taxes and spent more on infrastructure, that'd bring us back to where we were during the booming 50s and 60s.
I don't think you realize this, but we're still near a low-eb taxes and such wise, and Clinton is very middle-of-the-road economically by traditional standards. She's only to the left by modern Republican standards, which are an economic set the country hasn't used, or at least not for well over a century, I think you'd have to go back to the Gilded Age to get something similar to those.
We can't go back to something we never really did in the first place.
It does bug me that so many people don't know our economic history and freak out about going to policies that worked for some of our most prosperous decades in recent memory...
Do you misconstrue words on purpose?. Or do you always miss the point and context?
Trump (Capitalist)
Vs
Sanders (Socialist)
Wake up and smell the coffee. That's how going down, you trying to dismiss it as no one trusts a Clinton or a Bush.
Now I see why we never get along, you in the wrong crowd. If you supported Sanders I would respect you.
Supporting A Clinton still? 😂
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you misconstrue words on purpose?. Or do you always miss the point and context?Trump (Capitalist)
Vs
Sanders (Socialist)
Ah, yes, Sanders is a socialist.
I will note, however, you left out 'Sanders' from your message which is why I didn't notice that, and we were just talking Hillary. I thought you were doing the ol' 'call any Dem a socialist' thing 🙂
Now I see why we never get along, you in the wrong crowd. If you supported Sanders I would respect you.
Oh, Sanders? He's got two big reasons to not support him. He's against pretty much all foreign trade agreements- which would be bad for a trade based power like us.
And he's for putting the Fed more under congress. Now considering the Federal Reserve is one of the more competent organizations around, and Congress tends to make things incredibly partisan, this is a really bad idea.
All this stuff is also things the President has a lot of discretion on, so it's not like they could be blocked too easily.
Sanders has good points and bad points, but unfortunately his bad points are the one a President could do easily, and his good points are ones that'd have to go through congress and are unlikely to get done. So, good guy in some respects, but in others he has some bad calls, ones that could cost the US a lot.
Surprised you support him out of the Dem side because he is openly more socialist... I will say I like his more socialist polities a fair amount, butagain, not likely to get those in while he has some major dumbass policies too.
And, aside from any personal opinion on his policies, he simply doesn't have the support from the party, he's only really popular with white democrats. If Hillary tagged out and Biden stepped in, Biden would gain a lead rapidly because while Bernie Sanders has strong support in one area, Biden is more popular among black democrats, hispanic democrats, etc..
Same goes for Elizabeth Warren.
People win and lose not based on how popular they are with one segment of their party, but how wide a coalition they can get.
Supporting A Clinton still? 😂
Yes, I do support Hillary (her economics aren't bad, she's forward enough on social issues, she knows how to work against strong opposition, and she also knows how to form coalitions. Also most of her 'scandals' are bunk), but at the same time, I think Rubio's the best Republican candidate but fully admit he's not in a good position to win his primary right now.
Likes and predictions are two separate things. You seem mainly focused on trying to sell me on the idea that Hillary's gonna lose and Trump is going to win, which, frankly, is besides the point. The point is what stuff looks like it'll help and hurt each candidate and their respective positions.
You may not think anyone trusts Clintons or Bushes, but Jeb Bush has a whole lot of Republican support, he would not have much trouble getting the nod. Indeed, most figure his odds are the highest- higher, I feel, than the candidates you or I think would be better for the nomination in his party.
Who we like, who has the best support in their primaries, and who has the best odds in the general are three different things. They may occasionally overlap but they are not the same things.
Sanders is committed to his belief and I respect that, Hilary is a loose flag in the wind with no moral compass nor does she care about anyone. Stop talking to me about foreign policy..like hers is any better!? Are you blind to her failures! Bernie is at least committed to fixing Amerca. Something you seem to have zero interest in.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's a huge oversimplification to boil it down to "socialism vs capitalism."There are other worldviews and ideologies at issue, such as Trump's brand of economic nationalism.
I'm fine with his Brand of economic nationalism. It's worked for him. What has Hilary done?
The Great Wall of Trump is coming soon and it will provide thousands of jobs and save us trillions in dollars.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]What doesn't cost us trillions anymore?
[/B]
Illegal immigrants, who both pay taxes and add to supply and workforce, causing economic activity.
When some areas of the US passed strict laws that drove them out, local businesses were hurt by the loss.
Time-Immemorial
Sanders is committed to his belief and I respect that,
Personally, I care more about what actually helps the country than what someone things. Someone should be willing to compromise on an issue if they learn that that issue has negative side effects.
I mean, granted, he *also* has some ideas that'd really help the country, like raising minimum wage, but I'd rather have those ideas picked up by someone else who's not hung up on ideas that'll hurt the country.
Sometimes a candidate is better to push issues than to actually get the chair, and I think Bernie is one of those.
I do like passion and such, but judgement on not just a few issues, but a wide range, is more important, and he has some big problems, in issues that the President has massive discretion on.
Hilary is a loose flag in the wind with no moral compass nor does she care about anyone.
She's kinda been built into a caricature in your head, hasn't she?
Also, you do know that people say the same thing about Trump like, all the time, right? And you still support him. You should maybe consider how effective your repeating such attacks are, if you don't believe similar ones yourself.
My objections to Trump are much more policy based, and, well, I don't think he's very good with economics (though that said, there was the fact that he said he isn't planning on cutting social security and medicare like most other Republican candidates, because he doesn't have the irrational fear of debt so common to the party, and I will give him points on that).
Stop talking to me about foreign policy..like hers is any better!?
... yes? I mean, hers is better than the Republican's too, but compared to Sanders, the loss of trade would be extremely painful and cost lots of jobs and money.
Are you blind to her failures!
No, she's far from perfect, she has definite mistakes and things I don't agree with. She's too hawkish for my tastes, to be sure.
At the same time, I do note that many people exaggerate her failures or practically make them out of whole cloth. I'll only hold her accountable for what she actually did, not what others want her to have done, and even so, I'll also take into consideration her successes and the likely effects of her other policies, just as I would anyone else.
That's how I judge things.
Bernie is at least committed to fixing Amerca. Something you seem to have zero interest in.
I think you're projecting. One of the main reasons I support Obama is he did a lot to help fix America's economy (at a time when the Republicans were actively against taking stimulus steps to do so), and one of the reasons I support Hillary is I believe she's going to continue doing so.
Hillary wants to help the country. So does literally everyone else in the race, both parties, no exception. If you think anyone in the race doesn't, I think you're letting personal dislike get in the way of analyzing things. Now, they do certainly have much different ideas on how to go about this, but 'doesn't care' doesn't come into it.
She's a broadly experienced candidate who's got a lot of experience, did well as a senator and secretary of state, has an inside view of the white house and what the job entails, has positive social views, good-enough economics, is not adverse to diplomacy, and I think can manage things quite well.
I do hope you aren't going to turn this thread just into "Why Time thinks everyone else should hate Hillary," personally I'm more interested in tracking the situation, who's ahead, and discussing numbers and trends rather than trying to convince people
In this thread, I intend to say why I think this or that candidate is doing well or not, but not focus on selling them for or against so much.
And really, it wouldn't matter how much I supported Sanders, it wouldn't make his odds shoot up- at least, that's what every analysis and graph I've seen said.
A Howard Dean campaign staffer compared the two, and the situation is likely quite similar. Someone who's popular to start out, but then as more voters show interest, fades out because their small motivated following doesn't represent a potion of the party beyond, and then need to *make* new following in the party beyond, which is hard.
Now, it's not impossible, but he needs-needs-needs to branch out, and he's in a tough spot.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
With Trump we will most likely get the other 15 GOP hopefuls as cabnier members and Carson as the VP.Solid
I could also see Romey as Sec State. He could fix everything Hilary has done.
Whoever said Hilary would be better with the economy is a joke. She charges schools $100k to speak at them which is a burden on the school and students. Trump does not take money from anyone.
Hilary good on the economy is like saying Hilary was good with emails. If she can't run her email server to code, she can't run the country.
Isn't everyone here tired of the Cliton Controversy and the excuse "OH MY, I had no idea."
I think he could also choose Carly Fiorina as VP. Would really double down on the business experience thing that people seem to like about him, and would also be a way for him to try and show that he doesn't hate or disrespect women while also potentially getting a few extra women voters.
Paycheck withholdings basically screw Immigrants over. Ditto sales tax.
Originally posted by BackFire
I think he could also choose Carly Fiorina as VP. Would really double down on the business experience thing that people seem to like about him, and would also be a way for him to try and show that he doesn't hate or disrespect women while also potentially getting a few extra women voters.
That'd work.
Both of their actual business success could be attacked, but that's nothing new and their supporters already know about that aspect of Trump*, but it seems a fairly solid approach.
*Just like with Hillary, if there's a 'flaw' but it's one everyone knows and doesn't care about, it is not going to be the opposition's silver bullet.