People on the internet talking honestly about candidates in a frank “warts and all” fashion, two years away from an election is not an act of “destroying”, in my view. If Hillary is a strong candidate in the view of the majority, that will emerge as the election grows near - ultimately she either rises or falls on her own merits, not on what anonymous people on the internet say.
Again, you’re right. Ultimately what we say and do here has little to no effect on the actual events of history, but in such case, is there any more reason to speak out against as there is to speak out in favor? Let’s assume there is ONE person reading these threads who is malleable enough to be influenced by these comments. Would you want that one person to go away with the belief that Hillary is the most unacceptable of all candidates, or would you want that one person to know that, in the overall listing of potential candidates, Hillary is not as repulsive as some of the other potential names?
My posts here make it pretty clear that I don’t think Hillary is as toxic as the Republicans, so this theoretical malleable person would have that information if they were to base their vote on the comments of a stranger on the internet.
In any case, I am not going to worry much about the effects of my comments on the internet affecting HC’s likely run for the WH. Sunlight and honest discussion are the best tools we have.
I suppose the only remaining issue is that, while you acknowledge an absence of Presidential alternatives, your comments here about HRC seem wholly conclusive, especially when juxtaposed with comments by posters who may well have done the exact same reckoning as you and decided, out of the available pool, she’s the best option. Your comments don’t acknowledge that, not at all, not in any way. You don’t acknowledge that other people may well have done the same calculations as you and, where you say “I don’t know” who a better choice is, they say they don’t either, so they’re supporting Hillary.
You believe your derision of Clinton exists in a context of her being “less toxic [than] the Republicans.” I suppose if that were true, I wouldn’t have bothered asking you these questions. But thank you for your honest and civil responses. I feel like I understand your comments far better now.
Well, that’s not true.
First, I hope we (Dems) have a couple more candidates, and a robust debate on issues important to America. I will vote for H. Clinton if she is the candidate, but feel she is a bit too connected to corporate entities. I would like a strong labor candidate for v.p., who will work to restore workers rights and benefits. Everyone does better when unions are strong, more income to spend, more time to spend with family, more safety and security. The right, led by Priebus is so far outside the mainstream, and unresponsive to the middle class and non-white citizens, is going negative early and often. It won’t work, but Dems better not fall asleep at the switch, because they will come at us with tons of money from the oligarchs.
1 Like
Chuck Todd and Joe Scarborough should make a smooth swing over to Faux Network. Both pretend to be smart and knowledgeable about politics, but both really skew everything to the right. Scarborough really is a snot nose, and it’s no surprise that he couldn’t last in the House; they were probably sick of his bombastic and bullying style. Now, he’s a rich corporate t.v. guy, and he just tosses bombs around without any real care. He doesn’t have to answer to voters, so he can spout off like he does with no consequences.
Yes kitty it is true. What Warren would like to do and what she would be able to do as President are not one and the same. Presidents have almost no control over domestic economic policy, especially if their party does not control both Houses of Congress. Would Warren try and pass policy that put some greater controls on Wall St? Sure. Would she try and pass a fairer tax code? Absolutely. Obama wanted both of these things as well. Now what makes you think she could get either passed? And face it neither of these things would actually hurt the 1%, the rest of us would feel better, but hurt the 1%? Not really.
Opps. Forget which screen name you were logged in under?
No kidding which is my point. In these battleground states she is not a lock to win the Electoral College. According to the current state by state polling she would lose Colorado to Rand Paul and is tied with him Iowa and is only 3% ahead of him in New Hampshire. These are three States that both President Obama and Clinton won handily, yet she is stuck at 45% against every GOP candidate with the exception of Ted Cruz.
Just remember she was the “sure thing” in 2006, which means nothing when the elections isn’t for another two years.
She only regrets doing so because that it became politically unpopular, no different than her position on marriage equality. You can take it to the bank, if the country was still 70-30 or 60-40 opposed to marriage equality like it was in 2004, 2006, 2008 etc, she would still be opposed to marriage equality.
But like I said if what is important is electability and everything else be damned then support her, but I think her ship has sailed. Besides being the wife of Bill Clinton, there is no reason she should be running away with the Democratic Nomination. There are 10 Democrats I could name who are more qualified than she is to be President.
Are you kidding? John McCain was not a far-right candidate. Mitt Romney was not a far-right candidate. George W Bush was not a far-right candidate. Bob Dole was not a far-right candidate. George H.W. Bush was not a far-right candidate. Ronald Reagan was not a far-right candidate.
Those are the last 6 GOP Presidential Nominees and none of them are far-right candidates. If you think they are, then it is because you are far-left but call yourself mainstream.
Are you joking? Name the last candidate the GOP nominated that was a far-right candidate? If you say any of the last 6, then that just shows you are a far-left individual.
Just like the Democratic Party is not going to nominate Bernie Sanders, the GOP is not going to nominate Ted Cruz.
I did not say the Republicans nominate their most extreme candidate. If they did, they’d be crushed in the general. I said there are no moderate Republicans any more. The party has changed. If you disagree, fine.