Why do Liberals & Dems think Hillary is the best person to nominate?

[Slew Foot]

I for one, think a Biden/Trump debate would be fucking awesome.

 

[thraashman]

I for one, think a Biden/Trump debate would be fucking awesome.

The debate slogan could be "Foot in mouth vs head up ass".

 

[brycejones]

Vincent Foster wasn't murdered by the Clintons, nor did he commit suicide.

In reality, Vincent Foster is an Agenda21 agent from the year 2130, working on behalf of Obama, who was born in Kenya in 1836. See, Foster had to fake his death in order to go back in time, recruit Obama, and then forge Obama's birth announcement and birth certificates.

All of this is obvious for anyone who isn't blinded by the libruul media and the Benghazi scandal, which actually also involved Vincent Foster, who was the actual person responsible for the consulate attack.

All of this is true because Glenn Beck and Alex Jones both received this information over their back left crown molars, which as everyone knows, ensures that the intelligence is true and not just a psyop.

Because freedom!

 

[Moonbeam]

I prefer Sanders to Clinton. I will vote Clinton if she runs against anybody but Trump. I think Trump will be the lesser evil. He has two fates, that he be a good President or a disaster. Either would be better that the status quo of a corporate owned Democrat.

 

[Sonikku]

Why do Liberals & Dems think Hillary is the best person to nominate?

Because we don't. Actual Liberals want Sanders or Warren. But they aren't bought out and by extension connected like Hillary is, so no nomination. Just look at Trump. A majority of Conservatives want him, but he won't get the nomination a year for now. Just look at how the establishment is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him. States are now changing their caucus rules solely to hurt him.

Your vote doesn't decide the presidency. The super elite do.

 

[BoberFett]

I prefer Sanders to Clinton. I will vote Clinton if she runs against anybody but Trump. I think Trump will be the lesser evil. He has two fates, that he be a good President or a disaster. Either would be better that the status quo of a corporate owned Democrat.

Assuming you're being honest, I'm impressed with that statement Moonbeam. As I've stated before, I'd vote Sanders before any of the Republicans. Hillary vs any of the Republicans? I might stay home and masturbate, it'd be a more useful pursuit than voting. Trump winning could be disastrous for the US. But sometimes you've got to hit rock bottom to move up.

 

[Atreus21]

But if in the general it's a choice between getting Trumped or Bushwhacked, I'll choose Hillary over them.

I pray it doesn't come to that. The only thing I like about Trump is that he's audacious, and I think that's the cause of his current appeal. Apart from that, I'm in Rubio's camp.

 

[Atreus21]

Assuming you're being honest, I'm impressed with that statement Moonbeam. As I've stated before, I'd vote Sanders before any of the Republicans. Hillary vs any of the Republicans? I might stay home and masturbate, it'd be a more useful pursuit than voting. Trump winning could be disastrous for the US. But sometimes you've got to hit rock bottom to move up.

I gotta admit, I like Sanders because he's honest. His positions are abhorrent, but a virtue is a virtue.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I gotta admit, I like Sanders because he's honest. His positions are abhorrent, but a virtue is a virtue.

hesitant to ask, but what makes his positions 'abhorrent'?

 

[soulcougher73]

I don't. But it's what's being spoon fed to the moronic masses.

 

[smackababy]

I certainly wouldn't vote for Hilary, but I don't see any real candidates challenging her as of right now. I hope Bernie Sanders can step up, but who knows.

Honestly, I hope Trump wins. I don't agree with much of anything he says, but at least he won't play the idiotic dance and be bought and paid for. We can expect him to act in his best interest, always.

 

[chowderhead]

I consider Hillary Clinton to be a technocrat. She knows government. She knows people and built relationships in the Senate and got things done. Obama gave fancy speeches and was very telegenic but he left the business of governing to others. I want someone who will get in there and solve some problems instead of just talking about it.

 

[TheGardener]

I for one, think a Biden/Trump debate would be fucking awesome.

Yes it would. Sanders and Trump would be terrific as well.

 

[soundforbjt]

I for one, think a Biden/Trump debate would be fucking awesome.

One thing Trump couldn't accuse Joe of is being bought by billionaires.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I consider Hillary Clinton to be a technocrat. She knows government. She knows people and built relationships in the Senate and got things done. Obama gave fancy speeches and was very telegenic but he left the business of governing to others. I want someone who will get in there and solve some problems instead of just talking about it.

This sums up my position. People get so caught up in wanting a politician to be ideologically pure or principled, they overlook the fact that these are essentially akin to executive management positions in the private sector, and require skill and experience to get things done. We've got a whole crop of young congressman in Washington, mostly Republicans in the tea party surge, that dont have a lick of political acumen. They might talk a big game, but what can they put on their resume after their first terms? Not jack shit. I have no problem with a technocrat. I want people in Washington who are cognizant of their political standing, and ask for only as much as they can reasonably get. Republicans all or nothing approach to legislating with a democrat in the white house is stupid and unproductive, and delivers nothing of substance to their constituents.

 

[shira]

Is the pool of potential candidates so dry that the best they can prop up is Hillary?

She is a pure establishment candidate with a pretty shady past and this whole mail issue thing, she does not really come off as someone who cares about the middle class. She is more like voting for a Republican in Democrat clothing. She does not come off as someone who really gives a shit about the the regular american. The whole Non profit she runs sounds like a big scam as well.


So why is there no one more palatable that they can put up. Why are so many people backing her up like she is the messiah of the Democratic race.

If she is nominated I suspect not to many people are gonna be excited about her as a candidate and she will lose.

This is why I predict a Republican president will win (Bush) because Hillary in my book is a real dud.

I don't think Hilary is at all the "best person." But of the non-righty politicians with their hats currently in the ring, she seems the most electable. I would prefer Biden to Hilary, but he's not a candidate - officially or unofficially - yet.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Is the pool of potential candidates so dry that the best they can prop up is Hillary?

The Democratic establishment (corporations and the 1%) and the media have been telling the sheeple that she is the best candidate. Also, she has a vagina! Vagina! We've never had a president or even a vice president with a vagina before!

What more could you ask for?

Also, from the perspective of blacks and Hispanics, she's not come old white guy like Bernie Sanders. (For some ridiculous reason, she has the black vote by default.)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I gotta admit, I like Sanders because he's honest. His positions are abhorrent, but a virtue is a virtue.

I'm backing Sanders. Sanders does offer some things that might appeal to some Republicans and Libertarians:

(1.) He's not a corporatist. If I remember correctly, many of the Tea Party supporters were opposed to the Wall Street bailout and big corporations increasing influence over Washington. Sanders is the only non-establishment candidate on the Democratic side.

(2.) He would be in favor of a more isolationist foreign policy, avoiding foreign wars and reducing military spending. Some Republicans and Libertarians are in favor of that and think we should get the hell out of the quagmire in the Middle East.

(3.) He's interested in reducing the size of the police state, especially in the area of drug crimes. That's something many Libertarians and some Republicans would support.

I read the "Sanders for President" Reddit forum and it isn't uncommon to come across anecdotal stories of Republican and Libertarian supporters who are favoring Sanders.

 

[Mxylplyx]

The Democratic establishment (corporations and the 1%) and the media have been telling the sheeple that she is the best candidate. Also, she has a vagina! Vagina! We've never had a president or even a vice president with a vagina before!

What more could you ask for?

Also, from the perspective of blacks and Hispanics, she's not come old white guy like Bernie Sanders. (For some ridiculous reason, she has the black vote by default.)

The democrats in general have the black vote by default. You can thank the Republicans for that. Hillary's lead is built solely on name recognition and organization.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm backing Sanders. Sanders does offer some things that might appeal to some Republicans and Libertarians:

(1.) He's not a corporatist. If I remember correctly, many of the Tea Party supporters were opposed to the Wall Street bailout and big corporations increasing influence over Washington. Sanders is the only non-establishment candidate on the Democratic side.

(2.) He would be in favor of a more isolationist foreign policy, avoiding foreign wars and reducing military spending. Some Republicans and Libertarians are in favor of that and think we should get the hell out of the quagmire in the Middle East.

(3.) He's interested in reducing the size of the police state, especially in the area of drug crimes. That's something many Libertarians and some Republicans would support.

I read the "Sanders for President" Reddit forum and it isn't uncommon to come across anecdotal stories of Republican and Libertarian supporters who are favoring Sanders.

:thumbsup:

I don't agree with everything he believes, but he'd be a breath of fresh air from the usual assholes we end up with.

 

[Hugo Drax]

I'm backing Sanders. Sanders does offer some things that might appeal to some Republicans and Libertarians:

(1.) He's not a corporatist. If I remember correctly, many of the Tea Party supporters were opposed to the Wall Street bailout and big corporations increasing influence over Washington. Sanders is the only non-establishment candidate on the Democratic side.

(2.) He would be in favor of a more isolationist foreign policy, avoiding foreign wars and reducing military spending. Some Republicans and Libertarians are in favor of that and think we should get the hell out of the quagmire in the Middle East.

(3.) He's interested in reducing the size of the police state, especially in the area of drug crimes. That's something many Libertarians and some Republicans would support.

I read the "Sanders for President" Reddit forum and it isn't uncommon to come across anecdotal stories of Republican and Libertarian supporters who are favoring Sanders.

These things seem good. So why are democrat voters slobbering for Clinton instead of pushing for him who seems more interested in fixing things that hurt the middle class.

Well with Clinton it will be super easy to Bribe as she will take all kinds of donations to her scam nonprofit.

 

[Jhhnn]

I consider Hillary Clinton to be a technocrat. She knows government. She knows people and built relationships in the Senate and got things done. Obama gave fancy speeches and was very telegenic but he left the business of governing to others. I want someone who will get in there and solve some problems instead of just talking about it.

This sums up my position. People get so caught up in wanting a politician to be ideologically pure or principled, they overlook the fact that these are essentially akin to executive management positions in the private sector, and require skill and experience to get things done. We've got a whole crop of young congressman in Washington, mostly Republicans in the tea party surge, that dont have a lick of political acumen. They might talk a big game, but what can they put on their resume after their first terms? Not jack shit. I have no problem with a technocrat. I want people in Washington who are cognizant of their political standing, and ask for only as much as they can reasonably get. Republicans all or nothing approach to legislating with a democrat in the white house is stupid and unproductive, and delivers nothing of substance to their constituents.

Agreed. I want a govt that accomplishes what it's supposed to do, one not being demolished from the top down.

 

[Brian Stirling]

What poll?

The polls that show her support is softening and that the email scandal is high on the list as to why her support is softening.

Look, I still think she's the favorite to win the Democratic nomination and have been saying so for months, but my certainty of her winning is not what it was.


Brian

 

[88keys]

The polls that show her support is softening and that the email scandal is high on the list as to why her support is softening.

Look, I still think she's the favorite to win the Democratic nomination and have been saying so for months, but my certainty of her winning is not what it was.


Brian

Polling data at this stage of the election is almost meaningless.

 

[Brian Stirling]

It really does not matter what the polls say!! The Republicans have no viable candidate except for ....Donald what`s his name......

Actually what polls say atherwise>?? or is this just another republican talking point?

See above polls from NYT.

And, BTW, not a Republican and have never voted for one at any level or any time. I have voted Democratic but not in a while. Won't be voting for Hillary either.

Nice try though...


Brian