US Elections 2016

[Guard Dog]

Bruce, I'm not saying the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't justified, I'm just saying Gore wouldn't have done it. And he wouldn't. IIRC he spoke out against any military reprisals to 9-11.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

I don't understand why the US media constantly talk about how Hillary Clinton has such an advantage with minority voters.

If you repeat something enough people will come to believe it.

 

Like the fact she's a criminal.

 

That one remains to be seen. It's looking like she is.

[Leferd]

I'm a minority and all the other minority democrats I talk to prefer voting Clinton > Sanders.

[Barothmuk]

I'm a minority and all the other minority democrats I talk to prefer voting Clinton > Sanders.

See they're believing it!

[Rostere]

I'm a minority and all the other minority democrats I talk to prefer voting Clinton > Sanders.

 

Why?

[Leferd]

Because William Jefferson.

[Hurlshort]

Probably because she is a minority.  

 

[Rostere]

Bruce, I'm not saying the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't justified, I'm just saying Gore wouldn't have done it. And he wouldn't. IIRC he spoke out against any military reprisals to 9-11.

 

But Gore's VP candidate was Joe Lieberman. And if Gore would have died - say, if an aircraft had crashed into the White House while he was there, or if he would have been in the wrong part of the Pentagon or in the WTC during 9/11, or if he would have been killed with anthrax or something, Lieberman would have been president. And he is a neocon just like Bush.

 

If we just get rid of Gore somehow, I bet the rest would have turned out the same way as under GWB.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Rostere

[BruceVC]

Bruce, I'm not saying the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't justified, I'm just saying Gore wouldn't have done it. And he wouldn't. IIRC he spoke out against any military reprisals to 9-11.

Yes I know that, I'm just pointing out that the USA\West  will now be blamed for the collapse of Afghanistan ..so don't get upset when this happens (I know you personally don't believe that but others may )

[BruceVC]

I'm a minority and all the other minority democrats I talk to prefer voting Clinton > Sanders.

Correct minorities must vote for Clinton    

[Calax]

 

 

 

I don't understand why the US media constantly talk about how Hillary Clinton has such an advantage with minority voters.

If you repeat something enough people will come to believe it.

 

Like the fact she's a criminal.

 

That one remains to be seen. It's looking like she is.

 

Honestly... I can't help but think the entire thing is manufactured 90% of the way. It's the entire republican political machine hell bent on getting her out of the race because they knew for years she was the main option to be the presidential candidate (which is why Benghazi was constantly punched up for a year before the report saying "they did the best they could with what they knew at the time" appeared), so they could manufacture this "illegality" in the way a cop can manufacture a ticket or arrest for you at any given point in your life.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Bruce, I'm not saying the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't justified, I'm just saying Gore wouldn't have done it. And he wouldn't. IIRC he spoke out against any military reprisals to 9-11.

 

But Gore's VP candidate was Joe Lieberman. And if Gore would have died - say, if an aircraft had crashed into the White House while he was there, or if he would have been in the wrong part of the Pentagon or in the WTC during 9/11, or if he would have been killed with anthrax or something, Lieberman would have been president. And he is a neocon just like Bush.

 

If we just get rid of Gore somehow, I bet the rest would have turned out the same way as under GWB.

 

Of course. The US political spectrum is an extremely narrow section of economic liberalism and there is very little difference between neocons and neoliberals in terms of foreign and domestic policy. With the exception of Sanders, Paul(s), and Trump I don't think we've seen any presidential candidates from the major parties with diverging views from the spectrum and even if they were elected the most they would be able to do is veto **** from the legislature because the HoR and Senate are packed with neocons and neolibs.

[BruceVC]

 

I'm a minority and all the other minority democrats I talk to prefer voting Clinton > Sanders.

 

Why?

 

Because the Democrats believe in supporting the middle class and also supporting minorities ....they are seen in this light at least and believe in the Federal government intervening in some ways to achieve this. So for me I would also support the Democrats if I was a minority because there always seems to be Trump in every election in the Republicans

 

Now of course not every minority supports the Democrats and the vast numbers of Republican supporters on this forum are not like Trump but end of the day the Republican party has lost its way. They can restore themselves but they need to ask what they stand for 

 

For example the Democrats haven't offended the Latino population or women like Trump did, until the Republicans can learn to curtail this type of behavior they will suffer in the polls IMO

Edited February 7, 2016 by BruceVC

[Barothmuk]

He wasn't asking why they prefer Democrats over Republicans. He was asking why they prefer Clinton over Sanders.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Barothmuk

[BruceVC]

He wasn't asking why they prefer Democrats over Republicans. He was asking why they prefer Clinton over Sanders.

Oh....why didn't you let me know before I made that point ?

Remember just because I'm speaking on your behalf it doesn't mean you can't sometimes correct me....this is not a dictatorship, I believe in SJ    

[Leferd]

Look, the Clintons have street cred with minority communities. Victimized groups have long memories and the Clintons built up a lot of equity through their past deeds. Bill in particular knows and understands Black America. He knows the poor. For all his moral lapses, Bill Clinton comes across as genuine in his commitment to public service.  Bill Clinton is also the best politician in the modern era. He understands how to get elected and how to run a government.

 

Throwing all useless cyncism aside, the Clintons aren't Machiavellian schemers whose endgame is to rule for the sake of maintaining power. Hillary's not nearly as likable or charming as slick Willy, but I believe her commitment to public service is as strong as Bill's. 

 

Sanders is also genuine in his commitment to public service on behalf of the poor. But he'd make a terrible President for the sheer fact that he won't be able to get much done. He's a zealot, similar to Cruz and other Tea Party candidates, and zealots are just bad for Washington. Realist > Idealist.

 

The Clintons at the very least have history and know how to make things happen despite a hostile legislature. There will be a waiting cadre of experienced and talented staffers and Cabinet members to make the administration work.

[BruceVC]

Look, the Clintons have street cred with minority communities. Victimized groups have long memories and the Clintons built up a lot of equity through their past deeds. Bill in particular knows and understands Black America. He knows the poor. For all his moral lapses, Bill Clinton comes across as genuine in his commitment to public service.  Bill Clinton is also the best politician in the modern era. He understands how to get elected and how to run a government.

 

Throwing all useless cyncism aside, the Clintons aren't Machiavellian schemers whose endgame is to rule for the sake of maintaining power. Hillary's not nearly as likable or charming as slick Willy, but I believe her commitment to public service is as strong as Bill's. 

 

Sanders is also genuine in his commitment to public service on behalf of the poor. But he'd make a terrible President for the sheer fact that he won't be able to get much done. He's a zealot, similar to Cruz and other Tea Party candidates, and zealots are just bad for Washington. Realist > Idealist.

 

The Clintons at the very least have history and know how to make things happen despite a hostile legislature. There will be a waiting cadre of experienced and talented staffers and Cabinet members to make the administration work.

Nice post Leferd, I wish you commented more and I'm not suggesting this because you are minority therefore you must know these types of things

 

It just get sometimes draining having to seemingly defend Clinton ....and I'm even American( yet )  

[Calax]

Look, the Clintons have street cred with minority communities. Victimized groups have long memories and the Clintons built up a lot of equity through their past deeds. Bill in particular knows and understands Black America. He knows the poor. For all his moral lapses, Bill Clinton comes across as genuine in his commitment to public service.  Bill Clinton is also the best politician in the modern era. He understands how to get elected and how to run a government.

 

Throwing all useless cyncism aside, the Clintons aren't Machiavellian schemers whose endgame is to rule for the sake of maintaining power. Hillary's not nearly as likable or charming as slick Willy, but I believe her commitment to public service is as strong as Bill's. 

 

Sanders is also genuine in his commitment to public service on behalf of the poor. But he'd make a terrible President for the sheer fact that he won't be able to get much done. He's a zealot, similar to Cruz and other Tea Party candidates, and zealots are just bad for Washington. Realist > Idealist.

 

The Clintons at the very least have history and know how to make things happen despite a hostile legislature. There will be a waiting cadre of experienced and talented staffers and Cabinet members to make the administration work.

And I think a lot of Hillary's intangability for the population really comes down to how her campaign portrays her. I've said it before, and will say it again, her experiance makes everything she says (unless she's caught almost totally off guard) come off as prepared.

[BruceVC]

 

Look, the Clintons have street cred with minority communities. Victimized groups have long memories and the Clintons built up a lot of equity through their past deeds. Bill in particular knows and understands Black America. He knows the poor. For all his moral lapses, Bill Clinton comes across as genuine in his commitment to public service.  Bill Clinton is also the best politician in the modern era. He understands how to get elected and how to run a government.

 

Throwing all useless cyncism aside, the Clintons aren't Machiavellian schemers whose endgame is to rule for the sake of maintaining power. Hillary's not nearly as likable or charming as slick Willy, but I believe her commitment to public service is as strong as Bill's. 

 

Sanders is also genuine in his commitment to public service on behalf of the poor. But he'd make a terrible President for the sheer fact that he won't be able to get much done. He's a zealot, similar to Cruz and other Tea Party candidates, and zealots are just bad for Washington. Realist > Idealist.

 

The Clintons at the very least have history and know how to make things happen despite a hostile legislature. There will be a waiting cadre of experienced and talented staffers and Cabinet members to make the administration work.

And I think a lot of Hillary's intangability for the population really comes down to how her campaign portrays her. I've said it before, and will say it again, her experiance makes everything she says (unless she's caught almost totally off guard) come off as prepared.

 

So people don't like her because her speeches are prepared ?

You also support her Calax...sorry I forgot

 

 

Look, the Clintons have street cred with minority communities. Victimized groups have long memories and the Clintons built up a lot of equity through their past deeds. Bill in particular knows and understands Black America. He knows the poor. For all his moral lapses, Bill Clinton comes across as genuine in his commitment to public service.  Bill Clinton is also the best politician in the modern era. He understands how to get elected and how to run a government.

 

Throwing all useless cyncism aside, the Clintons aren't Machiavellian schemers whose endgame is to rule for the sake of maintaining power. Hillary's not nearly as likable or charming as slick Willy, but I believe her commitment to public service is as strong as Bill's. 

 

Sanders is also genuine in his commitment to public service on behalf of the poor. But he'd make a terrible President for the sheer fact that he won't be able to get much done. He's a zealot, similar to Cruz and other Tea Party candidates, and zealots are just bad for Washington. Realist > Idealist.

 

The Clintons at the very least have history and know how to make things happen despite a hostile legislature. There will be a waiting cadre of experienced and talented staffers and Cabinet members to make the administration work.

And I think a lot of Hillary's intangability for the population really comes down to how her campaign portrays her. I've said it before, and will say it again, her experiance makes everything she says (unless she's caught almost totally off guard) come off as prepared.

 

[ShadySands]

I'm a minority and all the other minority democrats I talk to prefer voting Clinton > Sanders.

 

Me too but my minority dem friends prefer Sanders

 

That's in AZ though where our local Rep is one of the few who backed Sanders

 

EDIT- Forgot to post this since no woman that I know under 50 supports Clinton

Edited February 7, 2016 by ShadySands

[Meshugger]

Rubio is just hilariously bad. The whole package of trying to act tough with an effeminate voice, repeating the same talking points with zero awereness on how rehearsed it sounds and finally being verbally bitchslapped by a guy nicknamed "Christy Kremé" is simply too much. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Gg6ggghoI

[Guard Dog]

I will give Trump credit for one thing. He is the only candidate that is doing this by just being himself. In Iowa Ted Cruz bookended ever speech with bible quotes. He hasn't done that once in NH. Rubio, Bush, Christie have all changed everything from their positions to presentation based on whom they were talking to at the time.

 

When you see Trump, you get Trump. Both the good and the bad. With the others you never know which one is going to show up. I can see the appeal in that.

[Calax]

 

 

Look, the Clintons have street cred with minority communities. Victimized groups have long memories and the Clintons built up a lot of equity through their past deeds. Bill in particular knows and understands Black America. He knows the poor. For all his moral lapses, Bill Clinton comes across as genuine in his commitment to public service.  Bill Clinton is also the best politician in the modern era. He understands how to get elected and how to run a government.

 

Throwing all useless cyncism aside, the Clintons aren't Machiavellian schemers whose endgame is to rule for the sake of maintaining power. Hillary's not nearly as likable or charming as slick Willy, but I believe her commitment to public service is as strong as Bill's. 

 

Sanders is also genuine in his commitment to public service on behalf of the poor. But he'd make a terrible President for the sheer fact that he won't be able to get much done. He's a zealot, similar to Cruz and other Tea Party candidates, and zealots are just bad for Washington. Realist > Idealist.

 

The Clintons at the very least have history and know how to make things happen despite a hostile legislature. There will be a waiting cadre of experienced and talented staffers and Cabinet members to make the administration work.

And I think a lot of Hillary's intangability for the population really comes down to how her campaign portrays her. I've said it before, and will say it again, her experiance makes everything she says (unless she's caught almost totally off guard) come off as prepared.

 

So people don't like her because her speeches are prepared ?

You also support her Calax...sorry I forgot

 

No, people dislike her because she's to prepared. She's to perfectly political for them. They don't know that she'll do anything she says because she seems like she'd prefer to say what's correct (for her audience) vs what she thinks is actually right. That's where Sanders and Trump are scoring points, they don't care about traditional politics as they were, so they don't care that their ideas might not test well with men 18-45 (or whatever) but they still stick by them. Hillary has been in politics so long that she comes off as incredibly focus tested and always with the most political answer for her audience.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Look, the Clintons have street cred with minority communities. Victimized groups have long memories and the Clintons built up a lot of equity through their past deeds. Bill in particular knows and understands Black America. He knows the poor. For all his moral lapses, Bill Clinton comes across as genuine in his commitment to public service.  Bill Clinton is also the best politician in the modern era. He understands how to get elected and how to run a government.

 

Throwing all useless cyncism aside, the Clintons aren't Machiavellian schemers whose endgame is to rule for the sake of maintaining power. Hillary's not nearly as likable or charming as slick Willy, but I believe her commitment to public service is as strong as Bill's. 

 

Sanders is also genuine in his commitment to public service on behalf of the poor. But he'd make a terrible President for the sheer fact that he won't be able to get much done. He's a zealot, similar to Cruz and other Tea Party candidates, and zealots are just bad for Washington. Realist > Idealist.

 

The Clintons at the very least have history and know how to make things happen despite a hostile legislature. There will be a waiting cadre of experienced and talented staffers and Cabinet members to make the administration work.

And I think a lot of Hillary's intangability for the population really comes down to how her campaign portrays her. I've said it before, and will say it again, her experiance makes everything she says (unless she's caught almost totally off guard) come off as prepared.

 

So people don't like her because her speeches are prepared ?

You also support her Calax...sorry I forgot

 

No, people dislike her because she's to prepared. She's to perfectly political for them. They don't know that she'll do anything she says because she seems like she'd prefer to say what's correct (for her audience) vs what she thinks is actually right. That's where Sanders and Trump are scoring points, they don't care about traditional politics as they were, so they don't care that their ideas might not test well with men 18-45 (or whatever) but they still stick by them. Hillary has been in politics so long that she comes off as incredibly focus tested and always with the most political answer for her audience.

 

Well put!

[Leferd]

 

I'm a minority and all the other minority democrats I talk to prefer voting Clinton > Sanders.

 

Me too but my minority dem friends prefer Sanders

 

 

Most of my family and friends live on the coasts --California (North and South), Washington D.C., NYC, Philadelphia, Oregon. A few were Sun Devil and Wildcat graduates though. They're conservative though.