Hillary vs. (republican candidate)

[Ramses]

Disaster Capitalism... check
TPP...check
more wars/continuation of wars..check
privatization of education...check
spying on Americans...check
largest prison population in the world...check
50 plus million Americans on food stamps and in poverty...check
the 1% owning and controlling the electronic voting machines..check


We are in trouble

[RiverLover]

1. Don't forget love of GMOs(environmental destruction for profit) & BigAg. nt

[Bandit]

2. Write in your own name.

Hillary is far better than anyone else in the running and will more than likely win easily.

[RiverLover]

3. No one is officially running for president yet on the Democratic side. nt

[Ramses]

4. No Bandit, Hillary is NOT far better than anyone else in the running

With two republicans running all who will win are republicans and their right wing policies

[SidDithers]

5. Which one?...

the poster has had a few.

Sid

[merrily]

8. You've posted that Skinner, who owns this board, doesn't care. Why should you?

[Ramses]

14. care to share?

what poster has had a few? What are you talking about?

[SidDithers]

20. I believe that previously banned troll frwrfpos / argiel1234 is back posting under a new name...

I guess I don't like when anti-Democratic trolls get banned, and come back over and over again.

Sid

[Ramses]

21. in the

Ive lived in California my whole life and recently moved to the Northeast in the last few months. Ive followed politics for a long time and have just recently started posting to this website. Im not sure you have whatever witch hunt you have correct with me.

I received a private email from you from here and I ignored it as I dont get into drama or conspiracies

Please feel free to contact whoever you feel necessary to accuse in the future

[Ramses]

28. Oh and I agree with your signature line

Ive never responded to your username here before so maybe we do have things in common before you judge. Peace to you SidDithers

[merrily]

6. Well, that has been the meme. I think Hillary will make defeat in the general more likely, not less.

[JaneyVee]

7. Shouldn't we wait to hear her positions?

Regardless, insert any Republican name will be far worse. I could add at least 30 more terrible policies on top of that if a Repub wins.

[merrily]

9. By now, we all know who we think Hillary is. Campaign rhetoric is not more reliable than a lifetime.

Some may like her and some may not. But, campaign rhetoric is going to be looked at for what it is.

[JaneyVee]

10. I'm all for a vigorous primary, but lets not pretend that...

She wouldn't be far better than every single (insert Repub name). Just look at what the GOP has voted on this week alone.

[merrily]

17. I didn't pretend anything. Not my style. Please see Reply 13.

But let's not pretend she'll be light years better or that her revised campaign rhetoric--and it will be revised--should matter more than everything she did and said before that.

[Ramses]

12. Hillary's positions are Republican talking points

We have already heard of her republican positions. This country does not need more republican positions.

[JaneyVee]

16. Yet, not even close to as bad as an actual Republican.

Im all for a big open primary, I encourage it, but my point is, we'll be FAR more fucked with any Repub.

[merrily]

18. FAR? How far and in what ways?

[Ramses]

19. Hillary's positions and ideals ARE republicans

That dog DONT hunt anymore. Fully 50% of the population doesnt vote because they know the game is rigged.

[JaneyVee]

23. Lets give her the label of 'centrist', now compare...

To every single Repub looking for a nomination, none are even close to centrist. They are all far-right off a cliff. She's not my ideal candidate, but she would govern far better than every single repub tossing their hat in the ring. Again, Im all for a vigorous primary.

[LondonReign2]

35. The problem is the "centrist" label now describes

1980's Republicanism. Modern Republicans have gone off the edge, and Democrats have responded by tacking ever further to the right. Hillary represents a continuation of that trend. No thanks.

[brooklynite]

11. Those are the same voting machines the "1%" used to keep Obama from getting elected?

Right?

[merrily]

15. By dollar amount, who got more Wall Street/big business/bankster donations in 2008, McCain or Obama?

No shade. He got my money too, but the game the real big guys play is not quite as simplistic as red v. blue, and that's all she wrote.

[brooklynite]

22. What's your point?

The allegation in the OP is the old chestnut that voting machines have been and can be rigged. Amazingly in the 6 elections from 2004-2014, the rigged voting machines let the Democrats win 3.

[merrily]

26. Obviously, I was simply disagreeing with YOUR point, namely that a win by Obama and/or

other Democrats proves that machines could not possibly be rigged.

The "old chestnut" in the OP was the subject of hearings by Waxman that cost the taxpayer a lot, so some Democrats can't be as pooh poohing about the possiblity as you are. Either that, or Waxman and his committee should apologize. The testimony was pretty clear that rigging them would be very easy.

The machines may be rigged from time to time or always, or they may not eveer be, but implying that Obama's victory proves they are not rigged is not proof of anything. It's incredibly bad police work and, in addition, relies on incredibly simplistic political thinking. So if you post something, be prepared to be disagreed with.

[brooklynite]

27. It's only "bad police work" if...

...you buy into the notion that there's no "real" Democratic Party, and that President Obama and other elected officials are equally beholden to "them".

[merrily]

30. No, citing something as proof when it proves nothing is bad police work, no matter what.

It's also bad lawyering and suggests that it is the product of just plain ole bad reasoning.

you buy into the notion that there's no "real" Democratic Party, and that President Obama and other elected officials are equally beholden to "them".

Dude, read my post again and then think. My post said nothing said nothing about any politician being beholden. to people who fix machines. My post said the real big money people are not as unsophisticated politically as your post implied.

For just one thing, what do you supposed would have happen in this country and maybe the world if the machines were rigged and we had had nothing but Republican presidents for decades?

Don't get stuck in memes.

[merrily]

13. Depending on who the Republican candidate is, differences may exist.

For one thing, Hillary is pro-woman, pro-choice and not a homophobe. If the Republicans pick a moderate (everything being relative), that person is still going to have to keep the Republican religious base.

So, the most visible lines in the sand will be mostly about social issues and the Supremes. And so it has been for decades. Sigh.

[pampango]

24. As you imply, the republican nominee (no matter how "moderate") will not be pro-woman, pro-choice

and will have to appeal to the homophobic wing of the republican base.

Those issues don't matter to some but they do matter to other liberals. Hillary is not my first choice but she is far, far from being a 'republican'.

[merrily]

29. Not quite. My point was that, even if the Republican is actually pro woman, pro choice, and

not a homophobe as a human being, the Republican cannot say so frankly and may have to be, at a minimum, very equivocal about it. It's not a very different result than what you said I was implying, but my point was more nuanced that simply assuming all Republicans are bigots, etc. Both Republicans and Democrats have to make sure to get the votes of the respective base, but Republicans and Democrats have a very different base. (I try not to "know" what is in the heart or mind of a politician.)

Those issues don't matter to some but they do matter to other liberals

If you are even so much as implying that those issues don't matter to me, you can take a flying leap. I became a Democrat because of my family. I stayed one because of human rights. However many of the so called cultural issues should not even be in politics. They should be how we bring up our kids. It's sad that they do have to be political issues, but they should not be the only or the major differences between Democratic politicians and Republicans.

Hillary is not my first choice but she is far, far from being a 'republican'.

First, I never said she was a Republican now. Second, you are replying to a post in which I said she was different from a Republican. However, if you want to say she is far, far from being a Republican, I disagree and request that we please keep it real. Even while running in a Dem primary, where politicians know to lean more left than in the general, she was not that different.

[pampango]

31. The "even if" is a huge qualifier. I think it is safe to say that most republican politicians aren't

pro-woman, pro-choice or pro-gay rights.

It is, as you say, impossible "to "know" what is in the heart or mind of a politician" but it is a fair certainty that republican politicians will not pursue liberal policies whether policies either due to their own personal convictions or fear of the reaction of their base.

Those issues don't matter to some but they do matter to other liberals

If you are even so much as implying that those issues don't matter to me, you can take a flying leap.

Not at all. I have seen posts from some that social policy differences between repubicans and Democrats don't matter as much as policy similarities on other issues. I did not mean to imply that you were one of those posters.

First, I never said she was a Republican now.

Obviously, I expressed myself very poorly in my post. I did not mean to imply that you ever said she was a republican.

[merrily]

32. Thank you for that clarification about what your implication was.

Because if someone wants to imply that I specifically don't care about everyone's human rights, they can fuck themselves. Twice.

[NCTraveler]

25. What is Hillarys role with the voting machines?

Last I checked she wasn't accused of colluding with the one percent to get Obama elected. Last I checked she wasn't accused of rigging the machines against Crist to get Scott elected.

[Broward]

33. Voted for the Iraq War -check

Actually, wait a minute. If she wins the nomination, she may run against a candidate that did not vote for war. Imagine that.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

34. Whenever I say "voted for Iraq War" I always add "Believed Dimson" and

probably her husband as well. But, making two massive errors like that, I
am hoping she learned her lesson - think for herself.