The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
pjl44 said:
I see both corporate and personal tax hikes. I see expansion of health coverage at the federal level. I see increased spending and ballooning debt. I see a desire to push for gun control. I see a penchant toward militarism as a default on foreign policy. I don't see someone who will reform FISA or protect citizens' privacy. I don't see a guy concerned with criminal justice reform. I'm not convinced he'd be much better on immigration vs. Trump.mrussel1 said:
Curious as to what libertarian policies are most important to you and keep you disenchanted with Biden. Are you against any social health and security program that involves taxing and administrating? Are you against any foreign entanglement even efforts to contain NK and Iran? I never read you as a Trump supporter so trying to understand what Biden agenda would keep you home vs voting for/against the Orange Menace?pjl44 said:
Referring to your candidate as the lesser candidate? Also not great!CM189191 said:
Voting third party always helps the lesser candidate.pjl44 said:
All true, but if you can't handle and discuss earnest criticism of candidates you like, you're whistling past the graveyardmickeyrat said:
so start that thread. having the desire and principle to vote FOR a candidate as opposed to against one is admirable. In some cases that can be dangerous as many now seem to believe for this cycle. but still that choice is yours to make.pjl44 said:
Because the Libertarian field right now is bad. If Amash runs, I'll definitely start a separate thread. Discussing not voting for either is as distinct a decision as voting D or R.mickeyrat said:pjl44 said:and yet we don't see a libertarian thread with you posting in that of potential candidates. instead you're hanging out in here opining away about candidates you wont vote for. or at least now its down to those two very quickly.....so its obvious then, especially to you, it wasnt meant for you.
Not voting at all always helps the lesser candidate.
A vote for Amash is a vote for Trump.
Enjoy your shit sandwich.
You could pick through some of that stuff and assign it to Trump, too, which is why I won't vote for him.
I'll reverse the question, too. What do you see in Biden's platform that would appeal to libertarians?
Wouldn't it have made sense for the govt to spend more on healthcare and CDC, etc. to keep its citizens as healthy as possible and have enough resources to test and monitor and report progress? Instead of bumbling our govt in a tub like Pence and trump?
Given a situation like this, to hold onto fairy tale libertarian fantasies is chucking dangerous .
Hey, maybe you live in the woods eating the elk you shot. Good for you, dude. But some of us are in cities and encounter thousands of citizens on a daily basis and we all benefit if everyone is healthy
And set the record straight. We have debt only because we have a military more expensive than the next 11 nations combined, created an economic system that funnels 90% of all new income to a select few, and then dont want to tax it.
I cant think of a system with less liberty.
Geez did I wake up from my nap a Sanders supporter?0 -
Lol I wish this forum had a like buttonpjl44 said:
I fear you're going to be shouting this into the mirror while crying on November 4thCM189191 said:
We are a two-party system. Our checks and balances lie in the three branches of government.pjl44 said:
If your only strategy is to try and scold people into voting for your subpar candidate, you might want to consider that the campaign is already doomedCM189191 said:pjl44 said:
The only point you made is that you fundamentally don't understand American politics. We are a two-party system. Our checks and balances lie in the three branches of government.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
This is exactly the problem with centralizing healthcare federally - it's currently staffed by incompetents. I don't know how watching this makes you wish they had more control.Lerxst1992 said:pjl44 said:
I see both corporate and personal tax hikes. I see expansion of health coverage at the federal level. I see increased spending and ballooning debt. I see a desire to push for gun control. I see a penchant toward militarism as a default on foreign policy. I don't see someone who will reform FISA or protect citizens' privacy. I don't see a guy concerned with criminal justice reform. I'm not convinced he'd be much better on immigration vs. Trump.mrussel1 said:
Curious as to what libertarian policies are most important to you and keep you disenchanted with Biden. Are you against any social health and security program that involves taxing and administrating? Are you against any foreign entanglement even efforts to contain NK and Iran? I never read you as a Trump supporter so trying to understand what Biden agenda would keep you home vs voting for/against the Orange Menace?pjl44 said:
Referring to your candidate as the lesser candidate? Also not great!CM189191 said:
Voting third party always helps the lesser candidate.pjl44 said:
All true, but if you can't handle and discuss earnest criticism of candidates you like, you're whistling past the graveyardmickeyrat said:
so start that thread. having the desire and principle to vote FOR a candidate as opposed to against one is admirable. In some cases that can be dangerous as many now seem to believe for this cycle. but still that choice is yours to make.pjl44 said:
Because the Libertarian field right now is bad. If Amash runs, I'll definitely start a separate thread. Discussing not voting for either is as distinct a decision as voting D or R.mickeyrat said:pjl44 said:and yet we don't see a libertarian thread with you posting in that of potential candidates. instead you're hanging out in here opining away about candidates you wont vote for. or at least now its down to those two very quickly.....so its obvious then, especially to you, it wasnt meant for you.
Not voting at all always helps the lesser candidate.
A vote for Amash is a vote for Trump.
Enjoy your shit sandwich.
You could pick through some of that stuff and assign it to Trump, too, which is why I won't vote for him.
I'll reverse the question, too. What do you see in Biden's platform that would appeal to libertarians?
Wouldn't it have made sense for the govt to spend more on healthcare and CDC, etc. to keep its citizens as healthy as possible and have enough resources to test and monitor and report progress? Instead of bumbling our govt in a tub like Pence and trump?
Given a situation like this, to hold onto fairy tale libertarian fantasies is chucking dangerous .
Hey, maybe you live in the woods eating the elk you shot. Good for you, dude. But some of us are in cities and encounter thousands of citizens on a daily basis and we all benefit if everyone is healthy
And set the record straight. We have debt only because we have a military more expensive than the next 11 nations combined, created an economic system that funnels 90% of all new income to a select few, and then dont want to tax it.
I cant think of a system with less liberty.
Geez did I wake up from my nap a Sanders supporter?
And if you want to talk about reducing military spending to square budgets and lower the debt, brother you've come to the right place.0 -
Yes, yes and yes to everything but the Sanders comment.Lerxst1992 said:pjl44 said:
I see both corporate and personal tax hikes. I see expansion of health coverage at the federal level. I see increased spending and ballooning debt. I see a desire to push for gun control. I see a penchant toward militarism as a default on foreign policy. I don't see someone who will reform FISA or protect citizens' privacy. I don't see a guy concerned with criminal justice reform. I'm not convinced he'd be much better on immigration vs. Trump.mrussel1 said:
Curious as to what libertarian policies are most important to you and keep you disenchanted with Biden. Are you against any social health and security program that involves taxing and administrating? Are you against any foreign entanglement even efforts to contain NK and Iran? I never read you as a Trump supporter so trying to understand what Biden agenda would keep you home vs voting for/against the Orange Menace?pjl44 said:
Referring to your candidate as the lesser candidate? Also not great!CM189191 said:
Voting third party always helps the lesser candidate.pjl44 said:
All true, but if you can't handle and discuss earnest criticism of candidates you like, you're whistling past the graveyardmickeyrat said:
so start that thread. having the desire and principle to vote FOR a candidate as opposed to against one is admirable. In some cases that can be dangerous as many now seem to believe for this cycle. but still that choice is yours to make.pjl44 said:
Because the Libertarian field right now is bad. If Amash runs, I'll definitely start a separate thread. Discussing not voting for either is as distinct a decision as voting D or R.mickeyrat said:pjl44 said:and yet we don't see a libertarian thread with you posting in that of potential candidates. instead you're hanging out in here opining away about candidates you wont vote for. or at least now its down to those two very quickly.....so its obvious then, especially to you, it wasnt meant for you.
Not voting at all always helps the lesser candidate.
A vote for Amash is a vote for Trump.
Enjoy your shit sandwich.
You could pick through some of that stuff and assign it to Trump, too, which is why I won't vote for him.
I'll reverse the question, too. What do you see in Biden's platform that would appeal to libertarians?
Wouldn't it have made sense for the govt to spend more on healthcare and CDC, etc. to keep its citizens as healthy as possible and have enough resources to test and monitor and report progress? Instead of bumbling our govt in a tub like Pence and trump?
Given a situation like this, to hold onto fairy tale libertarian fantasies is chucking dangerous .
Hey, maybe you live in the woods eating the elk you shot. Good for you, dude. But some of us are in cities and encounter thousands of citizens on a daily basis and we all benefit if everyone is healthy
And set the record straight. We have debt only because we have a military more expensive than the next 11 nations combined, created an economic system that funnels 90% of all new income to a select few, and then dont want to tax it.
I cant think of a system with less liberty.
Geez did I wake up from my nap a Sanders supporter?
And the testing scandal that's hitting today is a real nightmare for Trump unless the tests hit the hospitals in the next few days. It's why he was so obnoxiously adamant in that appearance yesterday. He knows it's a liability.0 -
mrussel1 said:
Sorry, every one of her plans used the same pool of tax dollars and stretched them to the point of fanciful. Her drop in the polls completely coincided with the release of the M4A cost analysis.brianlux said:I used to be a bigger fan of Elizabeth Warren than I am now, but I like what author Kent Nerburn says here about what she represented as a candidate and, more importantly, the wreckage we are left with heading into this election:And suddenly all our dreams of a new political age – the dream that never quite got realized with Obama – are being subsumed into the morass of political expediency that Biden represents.
And just as suddenly, the astonishing presence that Elizabeth was – a bridge, not a compromise – is hitting our awareness like a political two by four. More than that, we see that when this kabuki dance is all over, it’s ending right where it started – with three old white men who don’t understand that they should be mentors, not modern leaders, duking it out in their world of comb overs, hair plugs, and heart attacks.
Hey, I’m among them. And I know the truth. All of us folks of this generation know the truth. THEY DON’T BELONG THERE. None of them, I don’t care what your political stripe is. They should be the mentors, the guides, the political elders. They truly do have a role, but it’s not the one to which they aspire. And Joe might be the most retrograde, which makes him the most comforting. But the hard truth is, the marching band should get off the stage.
It’s time for the women. It’s time for the next generation. It’s time for new voices. Look at the wreckage. Kamala, Pete, Beto, Julian, Cory, Andrew, and so many others. Road kill from your father’s Oldsmobile.
Somehow Elizabeth was the magical middle. But no one likes the middle. And we didn’t know how beautiful and perfectly situated that middle was until it was gone.
So now we grieve as we face the fact that all we have are three old white guys, all of whom fail to “get it” in varying degrees.
Here’s the hard truth. Bernie lectures and doesn’t listen, Joe listens but uses what he hears to buttress old, tired policies, and Trump has never heard anything other than the sound of his own voice.
Elizabeth listened.
And she had a plan.
And people laughed at her for it.
But most of all, she made us feel like we were heard.
The trouble is, we didn’t listen. And now we are all paying the price.
Damn that was a weird nap. Saw SSPU in Brooklyn last night, has my daughter's third brown belt test this am and really needed sleep
So I awake first with the need to yell at libertarianism and now to defend M4A by saying every other country affords it so why cant the wealthiest of all time.
I guess I'm disgusted with this stupid virus everywhere and Bernie missed an important opportunity to speak about how important universal care and having resources to combat a pandemic is.
I really wanted to comment on how thankful I am voters saw thru Warrwn. She is almost as bad as trump.0 -
I don't know how you read this and think "ah yes, if only more of this were being shouldered by the federal government right now."
0 -
First, the Trumpmadmin response starting in January has been shameful because they don’t respect science, they don’t trust other countries and politics first. So it’s intellectually dishonest to look at this situation and think this is native to government.pjl44 said:I don't know how you read this and think "ah yes, if only more of this were being shouldered by the federal government right now."
Second, are you arguing that response, coordination and mitigation of a worldwide pandemic should be managed by private enterprise? Explain how that would work and what the actual revenue model would be for such an enterprise.0 -
There is enormous push by trump to minimize this virus. That red tape screams obfuscation and also a result of years of shrinking certain aspects of the govt budget into a tub. We've been cutting back on HHS type expenses but not the bombs and missiles.pjl44 said:I don't know how you read this and think "ah yes, if only more of this were being shouldered by the federal government right now."
An efficient govt health system is doable. Rand Paul went to a privately owned canadian facility. The public option allows private providers and insurers to compete with price controls.0 -
static111 said:
Lol I wish this forum had a like buttonpjl44 said:
I fear you're going to be shouting this into the mirror while crying on November 4thCM189191 said:
We are a two-party system. Our checks and balances lie in the three branches of government.pjl44 said:
If your only strategy is to try and scold people into voting for your subpar candidate, you might want to consider that the campaign is already doomedCM189191 said:pjl44 said:
The only point you made is that you fundamentally don't understand American politics. We are a two-party system. Our checks and balances lie in the three branches of government.
Biden is a decent man who lived the majority of his life middle class commuting on trains to work. Yes his stuttering is making him look older. But if a narcissist silver spoon real estate doofus 75 yo is qualified then Biden is very qualified.
I'm already shouting at the mirror. Since Nov 2016.0 -
First, I'm reacting to the notion that this somehow illustrates how the federal government should have a larger role when they're currently the problem here. If they're running the show, you're at the mercy of who you put in charge.mrussel1 said:
First, the Trumpmadmin response starting in January has been shameful because they don’t respect science, they don’t trust other countries and politics first. So it’s intellectually dishonest to look at this situation and think this is native to government.pjl44 said:I don't know how you read this and think "ah yes, if only more of this were being shouldered by the federal government right now."
Second, are you arguing that response, coordination and mitigation of a worldwide pandemic should be managed by private enterprise? Explain how that would work and what the actual revenue model would be for such an enterprise.
Second, no no no no and no. CDC should coordinate with other countries and organize guidelines for a response. Why are they getting involved in the details of who is being individually tested? If they're not staffed appropriately to process results, why do we want to see more administrative burden shifted that way (vs. state governments and local providers)? And a pandemic is certainly an appropriate time to make use of federal funding. Approve it, allocate it to the states, and let them go to work.
Like we discussed before, I'm not in the AnCap wing of libertarianism.0 -
Ok fair. Im not against state management necessarily. I thought you were contrasting private from public, not federal from state.pjl44 said:
First, I'm reacting to the notion that this somehow illustrates how the federal government should have a larger role when they're currently the problem here. If they're running the show, you're at the mercy of who you put in charge.mrussel1 said:
First, the Trumpmadmin response starting in January has been shameful because they don’t respect science, they don’t trust other countries and politics first. So it’s intellectually dishonest to look at this situation and think this is native to government.pjl44 said:I don't know how you read this and think "ah yes, if only more of this were being shouldered by the federal government right now."
Second, are you arguing that response, coordination and mitigation of a worldwide pandemic should be managed by private enterprise? Explain how that would work and what the actual revenue model would be for such an enterprise.
Second, no no no no and no. CDC should coordinate with other countries and organize guidelines for a response. Why are they getting involved in the details of who is being individually tested? If they're not staffed appropriately to process results, why do we want to see more administrative burden shifted that way (vs. state governments and local providers)? And a pandemic is certainly an appropriate time to make use of federal funding. Approve it, allocate it to the states, and let them go to work.
Like we discussed before, I'm not in the AnCap wing of libertarianism.0 -
Most qualified presidential candidate ever.Lerxst1992 said:what dreams said:
No. We have not been here before.JimmyV said:Democrats ran an old, white, straight woman in 2016 and lost. They are now going to run an old(er), straight, white man in 2020. Both are the clear choice of the most moderate elements of the party. Maybe the result will be different this time. I really hope it will. But we have been here before.
We weren't electing Clinton after a Trump. We were electing Clinton after an Obama, where everyone either got lazy/apathetic (didn't vote), or they got insatiable for more than what Obama accomplished (supported Bernie), or they felt so much antipathy toward Clinton that they voted for Trump in the general.
Clinton didn't lose to Trump because she was a horrible candidate. She lost because not enough people could imagine how horrible a Trump presidency would be, even with all the evidence right in front of them. I don't think the voters will allow it to happen again. That's why they are drifting to Biden, and that's why turnout is way up. They know they can't stay home (turnout), they know gluttony leads to disease (Sanders losses), and they know Joe Biden is basically a good guy, notwithstanding his sniffs and hugs and dentures and all that either makes us laugh or groan.
Nah, she was pretty horrible as a candidate.
Saying the other guy is unqualified is a horrible campaign strategy. At a minimum its offensive to voters as its their main job to figure out who is qualified.
Never went WI?
Even when she went to swing states it was in deep blue areas like Philly?
"Dont tell us how to run a campaign. We are winning."
Dukakis level bad.0 -
LolCM189191 said:
Most qualified presidential candidate ever.Lerxst1992 said:what dreams said:
No. We have not been here before.JimmyV said:Democrats ran an old, white, straight woman in 2016 and lost. They are now going to run an old(er), straight, white man in 2020. Both are the clear choice of the most moderate elements of the party. Maybe the result will be different this time. I really hope it will. But we have been here before.
We weren't electing Clinton after a Trump. We were electing Clinton after an Obama, where everyone either got lazy/apathetic (didn't vote), or they got insatiable for more than what Obama accomplished (supported Bernie), or they felt so much antipathy toward Clinton that they voted for Trump in the general.
Clinton didn't lose to Trump because she was a horrible candidate. She lost because not enough people could imagine how horrible a Trump presidency would be, even with all the evidence right in front of them. I don't think the voters will allow it to happen again. That's why they are drifting to Biden, and that's why turnout is way up. They know they can't stay home (turnout), they know gluttony leads to disease (Sanders losses), and they know Joe Biden is basically a good guy, notwithstanding his sniffs and hugs and dentures and all that either makes us laugh or groan.
Nah, she was pretty horrible as a candidate.
Saying the other guy is unqualified is a horrible campaign strategy. At a minimum its offensive to voters as its their main job to figure out who is qualified.
Never went WI?
Even when she went to swing states it was in deep blue areas like Philly?
"Dont tell us how to run a campaign. We are winning."
Dukakis level bad.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
static111 said:
LolCM189191 said:
Most qualified presidential candidate ever.Lerxst1992 said:what dreams said:
No. We have not been here before.JimmyV said:Democrats ran an old, white, straight woman in 2016 and lost. They are now going to run an old(er), straight, white man in 2020. Both are the clear choice of the most moderate elements of the party. Maybe the result will be different this time. I really hope it will. But we have been here before.
We weren't electing Clinton after a Trump. We were electing Clinton after an Obama, where everyone either got lazy/apathetic (didn't vote), or they got insatiable for more than what Obama accomplished (supported Bernie), or they felt so much antipathy toward Clinton that they voted for Trump in the general.
Clinton didn't lose to Trump because she was a horrible candidate. She lost because not enough people could imagine how horrible a Trump presidency would be, even with all the evidence right in front of them. I don't think the voters will allow it to happen again. That's why they are drifting to Biden, and that's why turnout is way up. They know they can't stay home (turnout), they know gluttony leads to disease (Sanders losses), and they know Joe Biden is basically a good guy, notwithstanding his sniffs and hugs and dentures and all that either makes us laugh or groan.
Nah, she was pretty horrible as a candidate.
Saying the other guy is unqualified is a horrible campaign strategy. At a minimum its offensive to voters as its their main job to figure out who is qualified.
Never went WI?
Even when she went to swing states it was in deep blue areas like Philly?
"Dont tell us how to run a campaign. We are winning."
Dukakis level bad.
Prove me wrong0 -
Oh good god, are we going back to Hillary again? A slow day on the Presidential Debates thread again.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Never orange Baffoon..Post edited by josevolution onjesus greets me looks just like me ....0
-
George H Bush (we've had this conversation before)CM189191 said:static111 said:
LolCM189191 said:
Most qualified presidential candidate ever.Lerxst1992 said:what dreams said:
No. We have not been here before.JimmyV said:Democrats ran an old, white, straight woman in 2016 and lost. They are now going to run an old(er), straight, white man in 2020. Both are the clear choice of the most moderate elements of the party. Maybe the result will be different this time. I really hope it will. But we have been here before.
We weren't electing Clinton after a Trump. We were electing Clinton after an Obama, where everyone either got lazy/apathetic (didn't vote), or they got insatiable for more than what Obama accomplished (supported Bernie), or they felt so much antipathy toward Clinton that they voted for Trump in the general.
Clinton didn't lose to Trump because she was a horrible candidate. She lost because not enough people could imagine how horrible a Trump presidency would be, even with all the evidence right in front of them. I don't think the voters will allow it to happen again. That's why they are drifting to Biden, and that's why turnout is way up. They know they can't stay home (turnout), they know gluttony leads to disease (Sanders losses), and they know Joe Biden is basically a good guy, notwithstanding his sniffs and hugs and dentures and all that either makes us laugh or groan.
Nah, she was pretty horrible as a candidate.
Saying the other guy is unqualified is a horrible campaign strategy. At a minimum its offensive to voters as its their main job to figure out who is qualified.
Never went WI?
Even when she went to swing states it was in deep blue areas like Philly?
"Dont tell us how to run a campaign. We are winning."
Dukakis level bad.
Prove me wrongI'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Comparatively, not more though, I would argue. I also assume you mean HW.mcgruff10 said:
George H Bush (we've had this conversation before)CM189191 said:static111 said:
LolCM189191 said:
Most qualified presidential candidate ever.Lerxst1992 said:what dreams said:
No. We have not been here before.JimmyV said:Democrats ran an old, white, straight woman in 2016 and lost. They are now going to run an old(er), straight, white man in 2020. Both are the clear choice of the most moderate elements of the party. Maybe the result will be different this time. I really hope it will. But we have been here before.
We weren't electing Clinton after a Trump. We were electing Clinton after an Obama, where everyone either got lazy/apathetic (didn't vote), or they got insatiable for more than what Obama accomplished (supported Bernie), or they felt so much antipathy toward Clinton that they voted for Trump in the general.
Clinton didn't lose to Trump because she was a horrible candidate. She lost because not enough people could imagine how horrible a Trump presidency would be, even with all the evidence right in front of them. I don't think the voters will allow it to happen again. That's why they are drifting to Biden, and that's why turnout is way up. They know they can't stay home (turnout), they know gluttony leads to disease (Sanders losses), and they know Joe Biden is basically a good guy, notwithstanding his sniffs and hugs and dentures and all that either makes us laugh or groan.
Nah, she was pretty horrible as a candidate.
Saying the other guy is unqualified is a horrible campaign strategy. At a minimum its offensive to voters as its their main job to figure out who is qualified.
Never went WI?
Even when she went to swing states it was in deep blue areas like Philly?
"Dont tell us how to run a campaign. We are winning."
Dukakis level bad.
Prove me wrong
The only thing Hillary is really missing on her resume is military experience. HW had it, although not as a senior officer. Ike had a good resume too. HIllary has Senator, SOS and an active first lady is pretty impressive.0 -
He wasn't a senior officer but he was in charge of the CIA.mrussel1 said:
Comparatively, not more though, I would argue. I also assume you mean HW.mcgruff10 said:
George H Bush (we've had this conversation before)CM189191 said:static111 said:
LolCM189191 said:
Most qualified presidential candidate ever.Lerxst1992 said:what dreams said:
No. We have not been here before.JimmyV said:Democrats ran an old, white, straight woman in 2016 and lost. They are now going to run an old(er), straight, white man in 2020. Both are the clear choice of the most moderate elements of the party. Maybe the result will be different this time. I really hope it will. But we have been here before.
We weren't electing Clinton after a Trump. We were electing Clinton after an Obama, where everyone either got lazy/apathetic (didn't vote), or they got insatiable for more than what Obama accomplished (supported Bernie), or they felt so much antipathy toward Clinton that they voted for Trump in the general.
Clinton didn't lose to Trump because she was a horrible candidate. She lost because not enough people could imagine how horrible a Trump presidency would be, even with all the evidence right in front of them. I don't think the voters will allow it to happen again. That's why they are drifting to Biden, and that's why turnout is way up. They know they can't stay home (turnout), they know gluttony leads to disease (Sanders losses), and they know Joe Biden is basically a good guy, notwithstanding his sniffs and hugs and dentures and all that either makes us laugh or groan.
Nah, she was pretty horrible as a candidate.
Saying the other guy is unqualified is a horrible campaign strategy. At a minimum its offensive to voters as its their main job to figure out who is qualified.
Never went WI?
Even when she went to swing states it was in deep blue areas like Philly?
"Dont tell us how to run a campaign. We are winning."
Dukakis level bad.
Prove me wrong
The only thing Hillary is really missing on her resume is military experience. HW had it, although not as a senior officer. Ike had a good resume too. HIllary has Senator, SOS and an active first lady is pretty impressive.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Yes and ambassador to the UN, and congressman. I don’t know that it’s possible to say “most” or more but there’s no doubt that aHillary was highly qualified. And considering she was sec of state during the H1N1 outbreak, she’d be doing better than Trump is at this point and certainly would have engaged with the WHO and Germany to get test kits 45 days ago.mcgruff10 said:
He wasn't a senior officer but he was in charge of the CIA.mrussel1 said:
Comparatively, not more though, I would argue. I also assume you mean HW.mcgruff10 said:
George H Bush (we've had this conversation before)CM189191 said:static111 said:
LolCM189191 said:
Most qualified presidential candidate ever.Lerxst1992 said:what dreams said:
No. We have not been here before.JimmyV said:Democrats ran an old, white, straight woman in 2016 and lost. They are now going to run an old(er), straight, white man in 2020. Both are the clear choice of the most moderate elements of the party. Maybe the result will be different this time. I really hope it will. But we have been here before.
We weren't electing Clinton after a Trump. We were electing Clinton after an Obama, where everyone either got lazy/apathetic (didn't vote), or they got insatiable for more than what Obama accomplished (supported Bernie), or they felt so much antipathy toward Clinton that they voted for Trump in the general.
Clinton didn't lose to Trump because she was a horrible candidate. She lost because not enough people could imagine how horrible a Trump presidency would be, even with all the evidence right in front of them. I don't think the voters will allow it to happen again. That's why they are drifting to Biden, and that's why turnout is way up. They know they can't stay home (turnout), they know gluttony leads to disease (Sanders losses), and they know Joe Biden is basically a good guy, notwithstanding his sniffs and hugs and dentures and all that either makes us laugh or groan.
Nah, she was pretty horrible as a candidate.
Saying the other guy is unqualified is a horrible campaign strategy. At a minimum its offensive to voters as its their main job to figure out who is qualified.
Never went WI?
Even when she went to swing states it was in deep blue areas like Philly?
"Dont tell us how to run a campaign. We are winning."
Dukakis level bad.
Prove me wrong
The only thing Hillary is really missing on her resume is military experience. HW had it, although not as a senior officer. Ike had a good resume too. HIllary has Senator, SOS and an active first lady is pretty impressive.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help