|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
Sanders supporters were open to voting for Hillary when this all started, but after seeing the total propaganda that went out after the debate I've seen many more that say outright they couldn't vote for her even against Trump.
As has already been suggested here is that we might as well elect a moderate republican if we are going to elect Hillary, except she'll get even less done than a moderate Republican or Sanders.
Her approval rating is within the margin of error of Obama's among republicans. People thinking she'll get moderates to work with her are totally delusional (unless you're talking about moderate Democrats).
That's one of several total breakdowns of her campaign. She isn't calling for a political revolution, she expects more or less the same people in the house and senate and to bend democrats to their will rather than bend the house and senate to the peoples will. How democrats choose to get behind that, I don't quite understand?
She told wall street to "cut it out" before the financial crisis to which they laughed and made it rain $100 bills on her and Barack's campaign and so they turned a mostly blind eye to all that crap.
She only calls herself progressive when it's time to get votes, and is just straight up lying about TPP.
I'm not voting for someone using superPAC money period. That she claims she "needs" it to win against someone not using one, just reeks of disingenuousness as does most of her rhetoric.
|
On October 16 2015 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Sanders supporters were open to voting for Hillary when this all started, but after seeing the total propaganda that went out after the debate I've seen many more that say outright they couldn't vote for her even against Trump.
I don't know what that show except these people are idiots talking out of their butt. Either they are so misinformed they have no business voting in the first place, or they just go with latest flavor of the month and might as well pick someone out of random.
|
Aren't you guys terrified at the thought of having the current incarnation of the GOP in charge of all three branches of government though? Clinton is far from an ideal candidate, and I wouldn't expect her to get much more done than Obama has, but at least with her in the presidency we wouldn't have to worry about Trump negotiating with the Chinese, or Carson setting environmental policy...
|
On October 16 2015 04:37 Mercy13 wrote:
Aren't you guys terrified at the thought of having the current incarnation of the GOP in charge of all three branches of government though? Clinton is far from an ideal candidate, and I wouldn't expect her to get much more done than Obama has, but at least with her in the presidency we wouldn't have to worry about Trump negotiating with the Chinese, or Carson setting environmental policy...
Sometimes you need to burn down the forest so that new trees can grow.
|
On October 16 2015 04:37 Mercy13 wrote:
Aren't you guys terrified at the thought of having the current incarnation of the GOP in charge of all three branches of government though? Clinton is far from an ideal candidate, and I wouldn't expect her to get much more done than Obama has, but at least with her in the presidency we wouldn't have to worry about Trump negotiating with the Chinese, or Carson setting environmental policy...
I and many others look at it like dealing with an addict. If people want to vote for Hillary we obviously haven't hit rock bottom yet. Another Clinton presidency just means it takes us longer to hit it but does nothing to change direction.
So if it's Hillary or rock bottom I'm picking rock bottom. Maybe after president Trump people will realize they need to pull their heads out.
|
This also assumes the current flavor of GOP has legs. Remember that the Tea Party's campaigning was funded by folks like the Koch Brothers and other interests. That huge money isn’t going to be there this time around, since the tea party has adopted this “government shut down to get what I want” style of governance. We can hope that they start going towards more pragmatic candidates. But the this flavor of conservative reactionary who hates all government isn't going to get the outside support like it did in the last two general elections
On October 16 2015 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 04:37 Mercy13 wrote:
Aren't you guys terrified at the thought of having the current incarnation of the GOP in charge of all three branches of government though? Clinton is far from an ideal candidate, and I wouldn't expect her to get much more done than Obama has, but at least with her in the presidency we wouldn't have to worry about Trump negotiating with the Chinese, or Carson setting environmental policy... I and many others look at it like dealing with an addict. If people want to vote for Hillary we obviously haven't hit rock bottom yet. Another Clinton presidency just means it takes us longer to hit it but does nothing to change direction. So if it's Hillary or rock bottom I'm picking rock bottom. Maybe after president Trump people will realize they need to pull their heads out.
Bro, this type of apathy is how people terrible people get into power. Like the most terrible in history. Never vote this way.
|
The thing with rock bottom is that, sometime you never get out, and just rot there. Would you rather have another civil war if that "solves" your perceived issues?
|
On October 16 2015 04:46 Plansix wrote:This also assumes the current flavor of GOP has legs. Remember that the Tea Party's campaigning was funded by folks like the Koch Brothers and other interests. That huge money isn’t going to be there this time around, since the tea party has adopted this “government shut down to get what I want” style of governance. We can hope that they start going towards more pragmatic candidates. But the this flavor of conservative reactionary who hates all government isn't going to get the outside support like it did in the last two general elections Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 16 2015 04:37 Mercy13 wrote:
Aren't you guys terrified at the thought of having the current incarnation of the GOP in charge of all three branches of government though? Clinton is far from an ideal candidate, and I wouldn't expect her to get much more done than Obama has, but at least with her in the presidency we wouldn't have to worry about Trump negotiating with the Chinese, or Carson setting environmental policy... I and many others look at it like dealing with an addict. If people want to vote for Hillary we obviously haven't hit rock bottom yet. Another Clinton presidency just means it takes us longer to hit it but does nothing to change direction. So if it's Hillary or rock bottom I'm picking rock bottom. Maybe after president Trump people will realize they need to pull their heads out. Bro, this type of apathy is how people terrible people get into power. Like the most terrible in history. Never vote this way.
It's not apathy at all. I'm the opposite of apathetic. I'm doing more than anyone here working on trying to win. What I won't do is proactively support someone I know doesn't support me and my concerns. If it comes to a Hillary V Trump election Hillary will have to #earnthisdamnvoteorlose, considering I don't trust her, that would take quite the effort on her part.
|
On October 16 2015 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 04:46 Plansix wrote:This also assumes the current flavor of GOP has legs. Remember that the Tea Party's campaigning was funded by folks like the Koch Brothers and other interests. That huge money isn’t going to be there this time around, since the tea party has adopted this “government shut down to get what I want” style of governance. We can hope that they start going towards more pragmatic candidates. But the this flavor of conservative reactionary who hates all government isn't going to get the outside support like it did in the last two general elections On October 16 2015 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 16 2015 04:37 Mercy13 wrote:
Aren't you guys terrified at the thought of having the current incarnation of the GOP in charge of all three branches of government though? Clinton is far from an ideal candidate, and I wouldn't expect her to get much more done than Obama has, but at least with her in the presidency we wouldn't have to worry about Trump negotiating with the Chinese, or Carson setting environmental policy... I and many others look at it like dealing with an addict. If people want to vote for Hillary we obviously haven't hit rock bottom yet. Another Clinton presidency just means it takes us longer to hit it but does nothing to change direction. So if it's Hillary or rock bottom I'm picking rock bottom. Maybe after president Trump people will realize they need to pull their heads out. Bro, this type of apathy is how people terrible people get into power. Like the most terrible in history. Never vote this way. It's not apathy at all. I'm the opposite of apathetic. I'm doing more than anyone here working on trying to win. What I won't do is proactively support someone I know doesn't support me and my concerns. If it comes to a Hillary V Trump election Hillary will have to #earnthisdamnvoteorlose, considering I don't trust her, that would take quite the effort on her part.
Then why in the name of god would you vote for Trump? He gives ZERO fucks about you and your concerns.
|
I think that is why he would not vote for any of the two. Not due to apathy, but as a conscious choice that none of them are worth his vote.
|
Just reading the past few pages of this thread makes me feel better about my hunch regarding Hillary not being a viable candidate. Seriously, who really wants her? She's being rammed down our throats by political elites. I find it really hard to believe that that is enough for her to carry the day through the election.
|
On October 16 2015 05:23 xDaunt wrote:
Just reading the past few pages of this thread makes me feel better about my hunch regarding Hillary not being a viable candidate. Seriously, who really wants her? She's being rammed down our throats by political elites. I find it really hard to believe that that is enough for her to carry the day through the election.
Agreed and I don’t want her as the candidate. Though I would caution everyone that almost any form of the internet is rarely a reflection the voting reality. Lots of internet hype and derision often do not translate into reality.
|
What makes people think Trump can build a wall if he gets elected while we are wailing about how Sanders isn't viable because he "won't be able to get anything done" with Congress? It's possible that Trump is farther left than Hillary is.
|
On October 16 2015 05:30 IgnE wrote:
What makes people think Trump can build a wall if he gets elected while we are wailing about how Sanders isn't viable because he "won't be able to get anything done" with Congress? It's possible that Trump is farther left than Hillary is.
Well that's cuz Mexico is gonna pay for the wall.
|
On October 16 2015 05:30 IgnE wrote:
What makes people think Trump can build a wall if he gets elected while we are wailing about how Sanders isn't viable because he "won't be able to get anything done" with Congress? It's possible that Trump is farther left than Hillary is.
I dunno, but it's likely a wall would be cheaper no? And it would create jabs! Good blue collar working jabs!
|
On October 16 2015 05:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 16 2015 04:46 Plansix wrote:This also assumes the current flavor of GOP has legs. Remember that the Tea Party's campaigning was funded by folks like the Koch Brothers and other interests. That huge money isn’t going to be there this time around, since the tea party has adopted this “government shut down to get what I want” style of governance. We can hope that they start going towards more pragmatic candidates. But the this flavor of conservative reactionary who hates all government isn't going to get the outside support like it did in the last two general elections On October 16 2015 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 16 2015 04:37 Mercy13 wrote:
Aren't you guys terrified at the thought of having the current incarnation of the GOP in charge of all three branches of government though? Clinton is far from an ideal candidate, and I wouldn't expect her to get much more done than Obama has, but at least with her in the presidency we wouldn't have to worry about Trump negotiating with the Chinese, or Carson setting environmental policy... I and many others look at it like dealing with an addict. If people want to vote for Hillary we obviously haven't hit rock bottom yet. Another Clinton presidency just means it takes us longer to hit it but does nothing to change direction. So if it's Hillary or rock bottom I'm picking rock bottom. Maybe after president Trump people will realize they need to pull their heads out. Bro, this type of apathy is how people terrible people get into power. Like the most terrible in history. Never vote this way. It's not apathy at all. I'm the opposite of apathetic. I'm doing more than anyone here working on trying to win. What I won't do is proactively support someone I know doesn't support me and my concerns. If it comes to a Hillary V Trump election Hillary will have to #earnthisdamnvoteorlose, considering I don't trust her, that would take quite the effort on her part. Then why in the name of god would you vote for Trump? He gives ZERO fucks about you and your concerns.
lol Simberto is right. Though I will say if I imagined myself as a conservative/republican (non establishment type) Trump would get my vote over Carson, Bush, Rubio, or Cruz.
|
Jeb! pulls in 13.4M for Q3
|
On October 16 2015 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 05:16 Plansix wrote:On October 16 2015 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 16 2015 04:46 Plansix wrote:This also assumes the current flavor of GOP has legs. Remember that the Tea Party's campaigning was funded by folks like the Koch Brothers and other interests. That huge money isn’t going to be there this time around, since the tea party has adopted this “government shut down to get what I want” style of governance. We can hope that they start going towards more pragmatic candidates. But the this flavor of conservative reactionary who hates all government isn't going to get the outside support like it did in the last two general elections On October 16 2015 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 16 2015 04:37 Mercy13 wrote:
Aren't you guys terrified at the thought of having the current incarnation of the GOP in charge of all three branches of government though? Clinton is far from an ideal candidate, and I wouldn't expect her to get much more done than Obama has, but at least with her in the presidency we wouldn't have to worry about Trump negotiating with the Chinese, or Carson setting environmental policy... I and many others look at it like dealing with an addict. If people want to vote for Hillary we obviously haven't hit rock bottom yet. Another Clinton presidency just means it takes us longer to hit it but does nothing to change direction. So if it's Hillary or rock bottom I'm picking rock bottom. Maybe after president Trump people will realize they need to pull their heads out. Bro, this type of apathy is how people terrible people get into power. Like the most terrible in history. Never vote this way. It's not apathy at all. I'm the opposite of apathetic. I'm doing more than anyone here working on trying to win. What I won't do is proactively support someone I know doesn't support me and my concerns. If it comes to a Hillary V Trump election Hillary will have to #earnthisdamnvoteorlose, considering I don't trust her, that would take quite the effort on her part. Then why in the name of god would you vote for Trump? He gives ZERO fucks about you and your concerns. lol Simberto is right. Though I will say if I imagined myself as a conservative/republican (non establishment type) Trump would get my vote over Carson, Bush, Rubio, or Cruz.
In the grand tradition of "which dumpster fire do I chooses?"
|
On October 16 2015 05:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
Jeb! pulls in 13.4M for Q3
Ouch... He got crushed. That sounds like the beginning of the end, short of something like Trump insulting Jeb's dad and Jeb decking him on the debate stage Jeb's in trouble.
|
On October 16 2015 05:30 IgnE wrote:
What makes people think Trump can build a wall if he gets elected while we are wailing about how Sanders isn't viable because he "won't be able to get anything done" with Congress? It's possible that Trump is farther left than Hillary is.
...which wouldn't surprise me. Like I've said before, no one who is paying attention mistakes Trump for a conservative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
