In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 01 2015 04:38 ticklishmusic wrote: It's really sad that Bobby Jindal is basically on the same level as Trump.
Except Trump is in 2nd, not 12th.
Well, he didn't tank the economy and education system of an entire state
Bobby Jindal is such an interesting character - the guy was appointed to a state cabinet position at the age of 24, and was the president of the Louisiana State University System at 28. That's insane.
On July 02 2015 05:30 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is going to pull a reverse Al Franken.
Dems messed up not convincing Elisabeth Warren to run. She would have alot easier path to the presidency than Clinton.
Warren is way to far to the left to be elected nationally IMO. I fear the same is the case with Sanders. I'd rather have Hillary convincingly beat the Republican candidate rather than have a close race between Sanders and the Republican. We don't need a Walker or Rubio or yet another Bush presidency.
Don't forget, the average American voter is very different from the average TL user :p
The people showing up in Wisconsin look like average American voters to me?
On July 02 2015 05:30 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is going to pull a reverse Al Franken.
Dems messed up not convincing Elisabeth Warren to run. She would have alot easier path to the presidency than Clinton.
Warren is way to far to the left to be elected nationally IMO. I fear the same is the case with Sanders. I'd rather have Hillary convincingly beat the Republican candidate rather than have a close race between Sanders and the Republican. We don't need a Walker or Rubio or yet another Bush presidency.
Don't forget, the average American voter is very different from the average TL user :p
The people showing up in Wisconsin look like average American voters to me?
Those are average liberal voters in a relatively liberal state. Conservative voters won't show up to a Sanders rally the same way that liberal voters won't attend a Ted Cruz event.
Now Sanders would still carry the traditionally blue states (IE California, New England, etc.), but if he's too liberal for most Americans, he loses the battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and suddenly we have President Bush the Third. That's my worry.
HIllary is an imperfect candidate, but she's centrist enough where I think she should easily beat the Republican candidates (none of whom seem particularly strong at this moment). The electoral map is in the Democrats' advantage - they just can't fuck it up by nominating someone that is too liberal.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind a Sanders presidency by any means. But I fear another Republican administration, with how the party has radicalized recently.
On July 02 2015 05:30 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is going to pull a reverse Al Franken.
Dems messed up not convincing Elisabeth Warren to run. She would have alot easier path to the presidency than Clinton.
Warren is way to far to the left to be elected nationally IMO. I fear the same is the case with Sanders. I'd rather have Hillary convincingly beat the Republican candidate rather than have a close race between Sanders and the Republican. We don't need a Walker or Rubio or yet another Bush presidency.
Don't forget, the average American voter is very different from the average TL user :p
The people showing up in Wisconsin look like average American voters to me?
Those are average liberal voters in a relatively liberal state. Conservative voters won't show up to a Sanders rally the same way that liberal voters won't attend a Ted Cruz event.
Now Sanders would still carry the traditionally blue states (IE California, New England, etc.), but if he's too liberal for most Americans, he loses the battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and suddenly we have President Bush the Third. That's my worry.
HIllary is an imperfect candidate, but she's centrist enough where I think she should easily beat the Republican candidates (none of whom seem particularly strong at this moment). The electoral map is in the Democrats' advantage - they just can't fuck it up by nominating someone that is too liberal.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind a Sanders presidency by any means. But I fear another Republican administration, with how the party has radicalized recently.
Well I was skeptical at first but Hillary has screwed up enough that I think the best way to ensure a republican has a chance is for Hillary to win the nomination.
Live stream BTW not sure other candidates are doing this?:
Or if you're too hip for mainstream (self-coverage): The grass roots channel
On July 02 2015 05:30 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is going to pull a reverse Al Franken.
Dems messed up not convincing Elisabeth Warren to run. She would have alot easier path to the presidency than Clinton.
Warren is way to far to the left to be elected nationally IMO. I fear the same is the case with Sanders. I'd rather have Hillary convincingly beat the Republican candidate rather than have a close race between Sanders and the Republican. We don't need a Walker or Rubio or yet another Bush presidency.
Don't forget, the average American voter is very different from the average TL user :p
The people showing up in Wisconsin look like average American voters to me?
Those are average liberal voters in a relatively liberal state. Conservative voters won't show up to a Sanders rally the same way that liberal voters won't attend a Ted Cruz event.
Now Sanders would still carry the traditionally blue states (IE California, New England, etc.), but if he's too liberal for most Americans, he loses the battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and suddenly we have President Bush the Third. That's my worry.
HIllary is an imperfect candidate, but she's centrist enough where I think she should easily beat the Republican candidates (none of whom seem particularly strong at this moment). The electoral map is in the Democrats' advantage - they just can't fuck it up by nominating someone that is too liberal.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind a Sanders presidency by any means. But I fear another Republican administration, with how the party has radicalized recently.
Well I was skeptical at first but Hillary has screwed up enough that I think the best way to ensure a republican has a chance is for Hillary to win the nomination.
Live stream BTW not sure other candidates are doing this?:
On July 02 2015 05:30 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is going to pull a reverse Al Franken.
Dems messed up not convincing Elisabeth Warren to run. She would have alot easier path to the presidency than Clinton.
Warren is way to far to the left to be elected nationally IMO. I fear the same is the case with Sanders. I'd rather have Hillary convincingly beat the Republican candidate rather than have a close race between Sanders and the Republican. We don't need a Walker or Rubio or yet another Bush presidency.
Don't forget, the average American voter is very different from the average TL user :p
The people showing up in Wisconsin look like average American voters to me?
Those are average liberal voters in a relatively liberal state. Conservative voters won't show up to a Sanders rally the same way that liberal voters won't attend a Ted Cruz event.
Now Sanders would still carry the traditionally blue states (IE California, New England, etc.), but if he's too liberal for most Americans, he loses the battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and suddenly we have President Bush the Third. That's my worry.
HIllary is an imperfect candidate, but she's centrist enough where I think she should easily beat the Republican candidates (none of whom seem particularly strong at this moment). The electoral map is in the Democrats' advantage - they just can't fuck it up by nominating someone that is too liberal.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind a Sanders presidency by any means. But I fear another Republican administration, with how the party has radicalized recently.
Well I was skeptical at first but Hillary has screwed up enough that I think the best way to ensure a republican has a chance is for Hillary to win the nomination.
Live stream BTW not sure other candidates are doing this?:
On July 02 2015 05:30 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is going to pull a reverse Al Franken.
Dems messed up not convincing Elisabeth Warren to run. She would have alot easier path to the presidency than Clinton.
Warren is way to far to the left to be elected nationally IMO. I fear the same is the case with Sanders. I'd rather have Hillary convincingly beat the Republican candidate rather than have a close race between Sanders and the Republican. We don't need a Walker or Rubio or yet another Bush presidency.
Don't forget, the average American voter is very different from the average TL user :p
The people showing up in Wisconsin look like average American voters to me?
Those are average liberal voters in a relatively liberal state. Conservative voters won't show up to a Sanders rally the same way that liberal voters won't attend a Ted Cruz event.
Now Sanders would still carry the traditionally blue states (IE California, New England, etc.), but if he's too liberal for most Americans, he loses the battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and suddenly we have President Bush the Third. That's my worry.
HIllary is an imperfect candidate, but she's centrist enough where I think she should easily beat the Republican candidates (none of whom seem particularly strong at this moment). The electoral map is in the Democrats' advantage - they just can't fuck it up by nominating someone that is too liberal.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind a Sanders presidency by any means. But I fear another Republican administration, with how the party has radicalized recently.
Well I was skeptical at first but Hillary has screwed up enough that I think the best way to ensure a republican has a chance is for Hillary to win the nomination.
Live stream BTW not sure other candidates are doing this?:
I am not confident that anyone the Dems send out besides Hillary actually has a chance sadly.
In 3 months or less people will have the opposite opinion, wondering how in the world they thought she was a better option than him.
I dunno, my personal experience tells me that his association with socialism is a death knell. Socialism seems to be a dirty word in the US and I think it would be too easy for the GOP to pick him apart in the eyes of the larger public. Sure I know a lot of people who would support him (mainly the people I know from my academic circles) but to the regular joe? Socialism might have well be the new communism for how much people seem to hate it.
On July 02 2015 05:30 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is going to pull a reverse Al Franken.
Dems messed up not convincing Elisabeth Warren to run. She would have alot easier path to the presidency than Clinton.
Warren is way to far to the left to be elected nationally IMO. I fear the same is the case with Sanders. I'd rather have Hillary convincingly beat the Republican candidate rather than have a close race between Sanders and the Republican. We don't need a Walker or Rubio or yet another Bush presidency.
Don't forget, the average American voter is very different from the average TL user :p
The people showing up in Wisconsin look like average American voters to me?
Those are average liberal voters in a relatively liberal state. Conservative voters won't show up to a Sanders rally the same way that liberal voters won't attend a Ted Cruz event.
Now Sanders would still carry the traditionally blue states (IE California, New England, etc.), but if he's too liberal for most Americans, he loses the battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and suddenly we have President Bush the Third. That's my worry.
HIllary is an imperfect candidate, but she's centrist enough where I think she should easily beat the Republican candidates (none of whom seem particularly strong at this moment). The electoral map is in the Democrats' advantage - they just can't fuck it up by nominating someone that is too liberal.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind a Sanders presidency by any means. But I fear another Republican administration, with how the party has radicalized recently.
Well I was skeptical at first but Hillary has screwed up enough that I think the best way to ensure a republican has a chance is for Hillary to win the nomination.
Live stream BTW not sure other candidates are doing this?:
I am not confident that anyone the Dems send out besides Hillary actually has a chance sadly.
In 3 months or less people will have the opposite opinion, wondering how in the world they thought she was a better option than him.
There's a couple reasons why people feel this way:
1. She has better foreign policy experience from being Secretary of State, executive experience from taking on issues as First Lady.
2. Bill Clinton is still quite popular among Americans, and that could buoy her up. She is also very well connected with the Democratic party elites and key stakeholders.
3. Much more experience running national campaigns than Sanders (both from her own experience and her husbands)
4. She is more centrist in her views, which could appeal to a large group of voters (liberals voters would still vote for her over the Republican candidate, even if the views don't match up 100%).
On July 02 2015 05:30 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is going to pull a reverse Al Franken.
Dems messed up not convincing Elisabeth Warren to run. She would have alot easier path to the presidency than Clinton.
Warren is way to far to the left to be elected nationally IMO. I fear the same is the case with Sanders. I'd rather have Hillary convincingly beat the Republican candidate rather than have a close race between Sanders and the Republican. We don't need a Walker or Rubio or yet another Bush presidency.
Don't forget, the average American voter is very different from the average TL user :p
The people showing up in Wisconsin look like average American voters to me?
Those are average liberal voters in a relatively liberal state. Conservative voters won't show up to a Sanders rally the same way that liberal voters won't attend a Ted Cruz event.
Now Sanders would still carry the traditionally blue states (IE California, New England, etc.), but if he's too liberal for most Americans, he loses the battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and suddenly we have President Bush the Third. That's my worry.
HIllary is an imperfect candidate, but she's centrist enough where I think she should easily beat the Republican candidates (none of whom seem particularly strong at this moment). The electoral map is in the Democrats' advantage - they just can't fuck it up by nominating someone that is too liberal.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind a Sanders presidency by any means. But I fear another Republican administration, with how the party has radicalized recently.
Well I was skeptical at first but Hillary has screwed up enough that I think the best way to ensure a republican has a chance is for Hillary to win the nomination.
Live stream BTW not sure other candidates are doing this?:
I am not confident that anyone the Dems send out besides Hillary actually has a chance sadly.
In 3 months or less people will have the opposite opinion, wondering how in the world they thought she was a better option than him.
There's a couple reasons why people feel this way:
1. She has better foreign policy experience from being Secretary of State, executive experience from taking on issues as First Lady.
2. Bill Clinton is still quite popular among Americans, and that could buoy her up. She is also very well connected with the Democratic party elites and key stakeholders.
3. Much more experience running national campaigns than Sanders (both from her own experience and her husbands)
4. She is more centrist in her views, which could appeal to a large group of voters (liberals voters would still vote for her over the Republican candidate, even if the views don't match up 100%).
5. Massive fundraising and campaign ground-game
2 is probably the most important, but you missed the 2nd most important one: First Female President.
People who want Warren are delusional if they think she would beat a top tier Republican, and people who want Sanders are even more delusional, because he would lose to even the likes of Lindsey Graham.
On July 02 2015 05:30 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is going to pull a reverse Al Franken.
Dems messed up not convincing Elisabeth Warren to run. She would have alot easier path to the presidency than Clinton.
Warren is way to far to the left to be elected nationally IMO. I fear the same is the case with Sanders. I'd rather have Hillary convincingly beat the Republican candidate rather than have a close race between Sanders and the Republican. We don't need a Walker or Rubio or yet another Bush presidency.
Don't forget, the average American voter is very different from the average TL user :p
The people showing up in Wisconsin look like average American voters to me?
Those are average liberal voters in a relatively liberal state. Conservative voters won't show up to a Sanders rally the same way that liberal voters won't attend a Ted Cruz event.
Now Sanders would still carry the traditionally blue states (IE California, New England, etc.), but if he's too liberal for most Americans, he loses the battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and suddenly we have President Bush the Third. That's my worry.
HIllary is an imperfect candidate, but she's centrist enough where I think she should easily beat the Republican candidates (none of whom seem particularly strong at this moment). The electoral map is in the Democrats' advantage - they just can't fuck it up by nominating someone that is too liberal.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind a Sanders presidency by any means. But I fear another Republican administration, with how the party has radicalized recently.
Well I was skeptical at first but Hillary has screwed up enough that I think the best way to ensure a republican has a chance is for Hillary to win the nomination.
Live stream BTW not sure other candidates are doing this?:
I am not confident that anyone the Dems send out besides Hillary actually has a chance sadly.
In 3 months or less people will have the opposite opinion, wondering how in the world they thought she was a better option than him.
There's a couple reasons why people feel this way:
1. She has better foreign policy experience from being Secretary of State, executive experience from taking on issues as First Lady.
2. Bill Clinton is still quite popular among Americans, and that could buoy her up. She is also very well connected with the Democratic party elites and key stakeholders.
3. Much more experience running national campaigns than Sanders (both from her own experience and her husbands)
4. She is more centrist in her views, which could appeal to a large group of voters (liberals voters would still vote for her over the Republican candidate, even if the views don't match up 100%).
5. Massive fundraising and campaign ground-game
2 is probably the most important, but you missed the 2nd most important one: First Female President.
People who want Warren are delusional if they think she would beat a top tier Republican, and people who want Sanders are even more delusional, because he would lose to even the likes of Lindsey Graham.
That is pretty funny. As if Lindsey could fill a 10,000 person arena in Wisconsin on his best day, let alone have another 8k Watch on youtube.
On July 02 2015 05:30 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is going to pull a reverse Al Franken.
Dems messed up not convincing Elisabeth Warren to run. She would have alot easier path to the presidency than Clinton.
Warren is way to far to the left to be elected nationally IMO. I fear the same is the case with Sanders. I'd rather have Hillary convincingly beat the Republican candidate rather than have a close race between Sanders and the Republican. We don't need a Walker or Rubio or yet another Bush presidency.
Don't forget, the average American voter is very different from the average TL user :p
The people showing up in Wisconsin look like average American voters to me?
Those are average liberal voters in a relatively liberal state. Conservative voters won't show up to a Sanders rally the same way that liberal voters won't attend a Ted Cruz event.
Now Sanders would still carry the traditionally blue states (IE California, New England, etc.), but if he's too liberal for most Americans, he loses the battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and suddenly we have President Bush the Third. That's my worry.
HIllary is an imperfect candidate, but she's centrist enough where I think she should easily beat the Republican candidates (none of whom seem particularly strong at this moment). The electoral map is in the Democrats' advantage - they just can't fuck it up by nominating someone that is too liberal.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind a Sanders presidency by any means. But I fear another Republican administration, with how the party has radicalized recently.
Well I was skeptical at first but Hillary has screwed up enough that I think the best way to ensure a republican has a chance is for Hillary to win the nomination.
Live stream BTW not sure other candidates are doing this?:
I am not confident that anyone the Dems send out besides Hillary actually has a chance sadly.
In 3 months or less people will have the opposite opinion, wondering how in the world they thought she was a better option than him.
There's a couple reasons why people feel this way:
1. She has better foreign policy experience from being Secretary of State, executive experience from taking on issues as First Lady.
2. Bill Clinton is still quite popular among Americans, and that could buoy her up. She is also very well connected with the Democratic party elites and key stakeholders.
3. Much more experience running national campaigns than Sanders (both from her own experience and her husbands)
4. She is more centrist in her views, which could appeal to a large group of voters (liberals voters would still vote for her over the Republican candidate, even if the views don't match up 100%).
5. Massive fundraising and campaign ground-game
2 is probably the most important, but you missed the 2nd most important one: First Female President.
People who want Warren are delusional if they think she would beat a top tier Republican, and people who want Sanders are even more delusional, because he would lose to even the likes of Lindsey Graham.
Sanders would have plenty of chances if 80+% of the electorate voted in the election, especially including the 18-30 crowd.
I know that I for one would vote for Sanders and probably wouldn't vote at all without Sanders.
On July 02 2015 09:10 Slaughter wrote: Socialism seems to be a dirty word in the US .
not really. believe it or not, it's really not the 1950s anymore
On July 02 2015 10:06 cLutZ wrote: and people who want Sanders are even more delusional, because he would lose to even the likes of Lindsey Graham.
LOL. How about this. If Sanders loses the general election, I have to write an essay on why America is the best country ever. If he wins, you have to write a book report on Capital, Vol 1
On July 02 2015 09:14 Bagration wrote: 1. She has better foreign policy experience from being Secretary of State, executive experience from taking on issues as First Lady.
you mean by like, trying to start WWIII by pushing NATO into Putin's backyard? What planet do you guys live on. Clinton is dead meat
On July 02 2015 05:30 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is going to pull a reverse Al Franken.
Dems messed up not convincing Elisabeth Warren to run. She would have alot easier path to the presidency than Clinton.
Warren is way to far to the left to be elected nationally IMO. I fear the same is the case with Sanders. I'd rather have Hillary convincingly beat the Republican candidate rather than have a close race between Sanders and the Republican. We don't need a Walker or Rubio or yet another Bush presidency.
Don't forget, the average American voter is very different from the average TL user :p
The people showing up in Wisconsin look like average American voters to me?
Those are average liberal voters in a relatively liberal state. Conservative voters won't show up to a Sanders rally the same way that liberal voters won't attend a Ted Cruz event.
Now Sanders would still carry the traditionally blue states (IE California, New England, etc.), but if he's too liberal for most Americans, he loses the battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and suddenly we have President Bush the Third. That's my worry.
HIllary is an imperfect candidate, but she's centrist enough where I think she should easily beat the Republican candidates (none of whom seem particularly strong at this moment). The electoral map is in the Democrats' advantage - they just can't fuck it up by nominating someone that is too liberal.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind a Sanders presidency by any means. But I fear another Republican administration, with how the party has radicalized recently.
Well I was skeptical at first but Hillary has screwed up enough that I think the best way to ensure a republican has a chance is for Hillary to win the nomination.
Live stream BTW not sure other candidates are doing this?:
I am not confident that anyone the Dems send out besides Hillary actually has a chance sadly.
In 3 months or less people will have the opposite opinion, wondering how in the world they thought she was a better option than him.
There's a couple reasons why people feel this way:
1. She has better foreign policy experience from being Secretary of State, executive experience from taking on issues as First Lady.
2. Bill Clinton is still quite popular among Americans, and that could buoy her up. She is also very well connected with the Democratic party elites and key stakeholders.
3. Much more experience running national campaigns than Sanders (both from her own experience and her husbands)
4. She is more centrist in her views, which could appeal to a large group of voters (liberals voters would still vote for her over the Republican candidate, even if the views don't match up 100%).
5. Massive fundraising and campaign ground-game
2 is probably the most important, but you missed the 2nd most important one: First Female President.
People who want Warren are delusional if they think she would beat a top tier Republican, and people who want Sanders are even more delusional, because he would lose to even the likes of Lindsey Graham.
Sanders would have plenty of chances if 80+% of the electorate voted in the election, especially including the 18-30 crowd.
I know that I for one would vote for Sanders and probably wouldn't vote at all without Sanders.
Warren is way to far to the left to be elected nationally IMO. I fear the same is the case with Sanders. I'd rather have Hillary convincingly beat the Republican candidate rather than have a close race between Sanders and the Republican. We don't need a Walker or Rubio or yet another Bush presidency.
Don't forget, the average American voter is very different from the average TL user :p
The people showing up in Wisconsin look like average American voters to me?
Those are average liberal voters in a relatively liberal state. Conservative voters won't show up to a Sanders rally the same way that liberal voters won't attend a Ted Cruz event.
Now Sanders would still carry the traditionally blue states (IE California, New England, etc.), but if he's too liberal for most Americans, he loses the battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and suddenly we have President Bush the Third. That's my worry.
HIllary is an imperfect candidate, but she's centrist enough where I think she should easily beat the Republican candidates (none of whom seem particularly strong at this moment). The electoral map is in the Democrats' advantage - they just can't fuck it up by nominating someone that is too liberal.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind a Sanders presidency by any means. But I fear another Republican administration, with how the party has radicalized recently.
Well I was skeptical at first but Hillary has screwed up enough that I think the best way to ensure a republican has a chance is for Hillary to win the nomination.
Live stream BTW not sure other candidates are doing this?:
I am not confident that anyone the Dems send out besides Hillary actually has a chance sadly.
In 3 months or less people will have the opposite opinion, wondering how in the world they thought she was a better option than him.
There's a couple reasons why people feel this way:
1. She has better foreign policy experience from being Secretary of State, executive experience from taking on issues as First Lady.
2. Bill Clinton is still quite popular among Americans, and that could buoy her up. She is also very well connected with the Democratic party elites and key stakeholders.
3. Much more experience running national campaigns than Sanders (both from her own experience and her husbands)
4. She is more centrist in her views, which could appeal to a large group of voters (liberals voters would still vote for her over the Republican candidate, even if the views don't match up 100%).
5. Massive fundraising and campaign ground-game
2 is probably the most important, but you missed the 2nd most important one: First Female President.
People who want Warren are delusional if they think she would beat a top tier Republican, and people who want Sanders are even more delusional, because he would lose to even the likes of Lindsey Graham.
Sanders would have plenty of chances if 80+% of the electorate voted in the election, especially including the 18-30 crowd.
I know that I for one would vote for Sanders and probably wouldn't vote at all without Sanders.
On July 02 2015 10:06 cLutZ wrote: and people who want Sanders are even more delusional, because he would lose to even the likes of Lindsey Graham.
LOL. How about this. If Sanders loses the general election, I have to write an essay on why America is the best country ever. If he wins, you have to write a book report on Capital, Vol 1
On July 02 2015 09:14 Bagration wrote: 1. She has better foreign policy experience from being Secretary of State, executive experience from taking on issues as First Lady.
you mean by like, trying to start WWIII by pushing NATO into Putin's backyard? What planet do you guys live on. Clinton is dead meat
Wait now, you're assuming that Sanders will be participating in the general election. He has to win the Democratic nomination first.
Clinton has better foreign policy experience than Sanders. In fact, she has better foreign policy experience than anyone running for President right now. Notice I used the word "experience" rather than "record".
On July 02 2015 09:10 Slaughter wrote: Socialism seems to be a dirty word in the US .
not really. believe it or not, it's really not the 1950s anymore
On July 02 2015 10:06 cLutZ wrote: and people who want Sanders are even more delusional, because he would lose to even the likes of Lindsey Graham.
LOL. How about this. If Sanders loses the general election, I have to write an essay on why America is the best country ever. If he wins, you have to write a book report on Capital, Vol 1
On July 02 2015 09:14 Bagration wrote: 1. She has better foreign policy experience from being Secretary of State, executive experience from taking on issues as First Lady.
you mean by like, trying to start WWIII by pushing NATO into Putin's backyard? What planet do you guys live on. Clinton is dead meat
Wait now, you're assuming that Sanders will be participating in the general election. He has to win the Democratic nomination first.
Clinton has better foreign policy experience than Sanders. In fact, she has better foreign policy experience than anyone running for President right now. Notice I used the word "experience" rather than "record".
Let's just say there is a reason Hillary doesn't want to debate Sanders, it's not because she's a better candidate.
1) Yeah Sanders has this with both hands tied behind his back. He just sits there being awesome while everybody else slings bullets at each other. He emerges at the end unscathed because the man is fucking BULLETPROOF
2) So your argument here is that a clear record of fucking up catastrophically is a good qualification for continuing to be put in charge of the same thing, and that this is just sort of obvious to everyone
On NPR today there was a story about a stray cat in japan who was appointed station master of a rural trainstation. I would rather put a stray cat in charge of US foreign policy than hillary clinton
It's funny that anyone here thinks there are substantive differences between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton on issues that are directly impacted by the President. You are basically choosing which aesthetic you want for speeches and media relations when you choose between those two.
On July 02 2015 10:39 bookwyrm wrote: 1) Yeah Sanders has this with both hands tied behind his back. He just sits there being awesome while everybody else slings bullets at each other. He emerges at the end unscathed because the man is fucking BULLETPROOF
2) So your argument here is that a clear record of fucking up catastrophically is a good qualification for continuing to be put in charge of the same thing, and that this is just sort of obvious to everyone
On NPR today there was a story about a stray cat in japan who was appointed station master of a rural trainstation. I would rather put a stray cat in charge of US foreign policy than hillary clinton
I'm afraid you're in for a disappointing election season my friend. No candidate is bulletproof.
On July 01 2015 04:38 ticklishmusic wrote: It's really sad that Bobby Jindal is basically on the same level as Trump.
Except Trump is in 2nd, not 12th.
Well, he didn't tank the economy and education system of an entire state
Bobby Jindal is such an interesting character - the guy was appointed to a state cabinet position at the age of 24, and was the president of the Louisiana State University System at 28. That's insane.
I know his pedigree (as a New Orleanian), and that's precisely why its so sad that his administration has been a complete disaster. He's such a smart guy, yet he's lived up to almost none of his potential. He could have been the most influential politician from Louisiana since Huey P Long (who could have been president if only he hadn't been assassinated). He pawned it all away for cheap political points, and now he'll never be more than the Indian governor of a shithole state.
I'm afraid you're in for a disappointing election season my friend. No candidate is bulletproof.
EPT
