Politics Hillary is done

[crowTrobot]

Biden just met with Liz Warren. If he's asking her to be VP that would be an interesting ticket, sort of the socialist version of Bush/Cheney.

 

[magnifier661]

I understand, but it's odd to see someone say they'd be ok to be in two completely different political boats.

Why not? Why not vote for the best president available, regardless of political side? I'm only registered republican because I want to vote for the primaries. I will not keep that vote for the presidential election. I voted for Clinton his first term.

 

[Denny Crane]

What is he challenging exactly? Not being PC? The calling card for assholes who are mad that they have repercussions for being assholes? He exists by being a wealthy celebrity, loudly fueling spiteful xenophobia and slinging dumbed down rhetoric to a dumbed down populace.

Mindless rant aside, you got the bit about PC right. About "anchor babies," too. That's challenging the status quo. He's taken on the Republican Party establishment as well.

Latest poll says he's within 5 points of Hillarity in a head to head general election match up. She's going south, he's moving in a positive direction.

 

[XuLouDon]

Why not? Why not vote for the best president available, regardless of political side? I'm only registered republican because I want to vote for the primaries. I will not keep that vote for the presidential election. I voted for Clinton his first term.

It's just the polarity between the two camps and who they're trying to appeal to. It's odd that someone would be receptive to both.

Mindless rant aside, you got the bit about PC right. About "anchor babies," too. That's challenging the status quo. He's taken on the Republican Party establishment as well.

Latest poll says he's within 5 points of Hillarity in a head to head general election match up. She's going south, he's moving in a positive direction.

Tapping into peoples fear and ignorance isn't challenging the status quo.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump being the frontrunners, basically because they're famous, is pretty shameful and says a lot about us.

 

[magnifier661]

It's just the polarity between the two camps and who they're trying to appeal to. It's odd that someone would be receptive to both.



Tapping into peoples fear and ignorance isn't challenging the status quo.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump being the frontrunners, basically because they're famous, is pretty shameful and says a lot about us.

I respectfully disagree. I am very conservative with many "big government" ideas, especially at the economic level, but very liberal on social views like The right to choose and Gay marriage.

I am very environmental about the world we live in, but I don't buy into global warming. I am against abortion, but I don't think it's the government's job to force people to keep their babies.

 

[XuLouDon]

I respectfully disagree. I am very conservative with many "big government" ideas, especially at the economic level, but very liberal on social views like The right to choose and Gay marriage.

I commend you not being rigid, but can I ask how a small government economic conservative conforms their mindset or reconciles voting for Bernie Sanders?

...Or voting for promises of a 2,000 mile long wall, a constitutional change and round-up deportations.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

trump wants to tax hedge fund managers, same as bernie

 

[magnifier661]

I commend you not being rigid, but can I ask how a small government economic conservative conforms their mindset or reconciles voting for Bernie Sanders?

...Or voting for promises of a 2,000 mile long wall, a constitutional change and round-up deportations.

The wall is a great idea, IMO. As for deportation... I am for that as well. I like Trumps idea to expedite their citizenship through the legal channels. As for being "unconstitutional", the argument for the baby citizenship is that it doesn't hold up in court.

And Obama and Bush have done their fair share of breaking constitutional laws. All politicians do it. Even Clinton broke the law.

As for Bernie... The dude is a "for the best interest of all citizens". I'm open to fed spending, as long as it's for the best interest for the greater good. As long as it's not for the best interest for a political agenda.

In the end, I'm still undecided. I want to see the presidential debates first

 

[magnifier661]

trump wants to tax hedge fund managers, same as bernie

Good, they should. They make a shit ton of money.

 

[riverman]

Trump gets my vote if that happens. I would still vote trump if Jeb Bush wins republican primaries. Only way I don't vote trump is if Bernie wins the dem primary

mags version of Trumpsanity! Sarah Palin had that same 15 minutes if I remember correctly..then she had to talk for a year without looking crazy..couldn't pull it off. I don't think Trump can either. Trump's a salesman..to get power, he'll find the nerve and milk it but once in power..looney tunes baby..if by some weird quirk he were elected, I'd seriously consider going back overseas for the duration.

 

[riverman]

The wall is a great idea, IMO. As for deportation... I am for that as well. I like Trumps idea to expedite their citizenship through the legal channels. As for being "unconstitutional", the argument for the baby citizenship is that it doesn't hold up in court.

And Obama and Bush have done their fair share of breaking constitutional laws. All politicians do it. Even Clinton broke the law.

As for Bernie... The dude is a "for the best interest of all citizens". I'm open to fed spending, as long as it's for the best interest for the greater good. As long as it's not for the best interest for a political agenda.

In the end, I'm still undecided. I want to see the presidential debates first

Mexicans figured out how to tunnel a long time ago..the wall won't do shit

 

[magnifier661]

Mexicans figured out how to tunnel a long time ago..the wall won't do shit

I disagree. As for the tunneling... Seek em out and fill me with water that we don't have.

 

[magnifier661]

mags version of Trumpsanity! Sarah Palin had that same 15 minutes if I remember correctly..then she had to talk for a year without looking crazy..couldn't pull it off. I don't think Trump can either. Trump's a salesman..to get power, he'll find the nerve and milk it but once in power..looney tunes baby..if by some weird quirk he were elected, I'd seriously consider going back overseas for the duration.

We will soon find out. I'm anxiously awaiting the dog and pony show

 

[XuLouDon]

The wall is a great idea, IMO. As for deportation... I am for that as well. I like Trumps idea to expedite their citizenship through the legal channels. As for being "unconstitutional", the argument for the baby citizenship is that it doesn't hold up in court.

Building a wall to span the entire southern border so that you can only hope to play wack-a-mole from east Texas to California and spending half a trillion dollars to lose a trillion or so of our GDP forcefully deporting people isn't fiscally conservative. Changing the 14th amendment out of spite isn't small government.

And Obama and Bush have done their fair share of breaking constitutional laws. All politicians do it. Even Clinton broke the law.

You're voting for change at all costs but expect the most corrupt element of a politician to remain?

As for Bernie... The dude is a "for the best interest of all citizens". I'm open to fed spending, as long as it's for the best interest for the greater good. As long as it's not for the best interest for a political agenda.

Spending in the interest of a greater good is basically a big government mantra and obviously Bernie would spearhead that quite well...But also isn't fiscally conservative.

 

[riverman]

I disagree. As for the tunneling... Seek em out and fill me with water that we don't have.

water
how many quarts does it take to fill you?

 

[magnifier661]

Building a wall to span the entire southern border so that you can only hope to play wack-a-mole from east Texas to California and spending half a trillion dollars to lose a trillion or so of our GDP forcefully deporting people isn't fiscally conservative. Changing the 14th amendment out of spite isn't small government.

Don't know if you paid much attention to what I said. I was pretty clear that I would support spending if it helps the betterment of America. The drug and people smuggling is an epidemic. I want some effort to stop it. I mean Obama spent trillions on healthcare reform that was absolute shit. We could have built 5 walls for the frivolous spending of the Obama administration.

You're voting for change at all costs but expect the most corrupt element of a politician to remain?

No, I am explaining that your argument of Trump being corrupt, yet supporting your party using the same corruption is not a good argument. My vote is not based on "corruption", since all politicians are corrupt. Rather, I am voting on someone that is willing to think outside the box.

Spending in the interest of a greater good is basically a big government mantra and obviously Bernie would spearhead that quite well...But also isn't fiscally conservative.

As I've said again, I support spending money if it makes sense. Every business has to spend money to make money. Where I see shitty spending is on free money to large corporations or welfare recipients. Neither makes economic sense, unless the free money will bring back large amounts of taxable revenue.

 

[magnifier661]

water
how many quarts does it take to fill you?

90.235

 

[XuLouDon]

Don't know if you paid much attention to what I said. I was pretty clear that I would support spending if it helps the betterment of America. The drug and people smuggling is an epidemic. I want some effort to stop it.

Legalization would help stem it more than paying to economically harm ourselves while simultaneously not solving the problem would.

I mean Obama spent trillions on healthcare reform that was absolute shit. We could have built 5 walls for the frivolous spending of the Obama administration.

Obamacare is the definition of trying to "spend for the greater good". Bernie wants to expand it. Medicare for all.

No, I am explaining that your argument of Trump being corrupt, yet supporting your party using the same corruption is not a good argument. My vote is not based on "corruption", since all politicians are corrupt. Rather, I am voting on someone that is willing to think outside the box.

I didn't say Donald Trump is corrupt. I said he's an attention whore, garnering political support by appealing to the fearful, ignorant...and willfully stupid.

As I've said again, I support spending money if it makes sense. Every business has to spend money to make money. Where I see shitty spending is on free money to large corporations or welfare recipients. Neither makes economic sense, unless the free money will bring back large amounts of taxable revenue.

Corporate and social welfare are both handed out as "the best interest for the greater good". It's sold as either that or a crumbling economy. That or little Jimmy and Gran-Gran sick, starving and homeless in the street.

 

[magnifier661]

Legalization would help stem it more than paying to economically harm ourselves while simultaneously not solving the problem would.

Economically harm ourselves? Sorry I don't buy that.

Obamacare is the definition of trying to "spend for the greater good". Bernie wants to expand it. Medicare for all.

But it isn't.

I didn't say Donald Trump is corrupt. I said he's an attention whore, garnering political support by appealing to the fearful, ignorant...and willfully stupid.

Such a pompous remark. So you are saying everyone voting for trump is stupid? Oh please...

Corporate and social welfare are both handed out as "the best interest for the greater good". It's sold as either that or a crumbling economy. That or little Jimmy and Gran-Gran sick, starving and homeless in the street.

Yep, and it could be good if it wasn't abused. We need someone fiscally responsible enough to manage these funds and who they cater to.

 

[riverman]

Economically harm ourselves? Sorry I don't buy that.

I think you may be insulating yourself from the laborers that prop up capitalism here mags..I've yet to meet an American young person who wants to pick lettuce or make tennis shoes in a factory.

.
But it isn't.



Such a pompous remark. So you are saying everyone voting for trump is stupid? Oh please...

Stupid might be too strong...delusional would be my choice


Yep, and it could be good if it wasn't abused. We need someone fiscally responsible enough to manage these funds and who they cater to.

We need TORT reform and national health care
My responses somehow got within the quote panes..my screwup

 

[XuLouDon]

Economically harm ourselves? Sorry I don't buy that.

The impact on the economy would be even larger, according to the study: Real GDP would drop by nearly $1.6 trillion and the policy would shave 5.7 percent off economic growth.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...se-against-enforcing-immigration-laws/387004/

Such a pompous remark. So you are saying everyone voting for trump is stupid? Oh please...

Being pompous couldn't be too much of a drawback if you're a fan of Donald Trump. Not everyone, but yes, a certain percentage of the people that Donald Trump appeals to - because of who he is, what he says and how he says it - are being willfully and purposefully stupid.

I didn't aim to argue or offend you man, I just thought thought you had an odd contrast and couldn't help but question it.

I'll shut up now, and hope anger and angst isn't the reason we have Donald Trump for president in a year and some months.

 

[Further]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...se-against-enforcing-immigration-laws/387004/




Being pompous couldn't be too much of a drawback if you're a fan of Donald Trump. Not everyone, but yes, a certain percentage of the people that Donald Trump appeals to - because of who he is, what he says and how he says it - are being willfully and purposefully stupid.

I didn't aim to argue or offend you man, I just thought thought you had an odd contrast and couldn't help but question it.

I'll shut up now, and hope anger and angst isn't the reason we have Donald Trump for president in a year and some months.

I am in total disagreement with just about every stance Trump has taken, but even so I actually understand very well the lure he has. Pompous, a dick, knee jerk, whatever you want to call him, at least he is turning one of the entrenched parties on its head. Likewise Sanders is thumbing his nose at the establishment Dems. Both of them can at least shake up the extreemly bought and paid for political system in America. I can totally understand rooting for Trump, because that's also rooting for a change in the status quo. Sometimes any change is preferable to the same old bullshit.

Elizabeth Warren please

 

[riverman]

I am in total disagreement with just about every stance Trump has taken, but even so I actually understand very well the lure he has. Pompous, a dick, knee jerk, whatever you want to call him, at least he is turning one of the entrenched parties on its head. Likewise Sanders is thumbing his nose at the establishment Dems. Both of them can at least shake up the extreemly bought and paid for political system in America. I can totally understand rooting for Trump, because that's also rooting for a change in the status quo. Sometimes any change is preferable to the same old bullshit.

Elizabeth Warren please

The only reason I'd root for Trump is that he'll get swept if he makes it to the finals

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm no fan of Trump. Like Further, I understand his appeal.

He's not a moron.

The anti-immigrant thing appeals to people on the left and right. Obama proudly reports his administration has rounded up and deported 2M "illegals." To some, Obama can do no wrong!

His 14th argument has real merit.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof does qualify things. A slave was subject to the jurisdiction of the state he lived. A visitor from France is not subject to any such jurisdiction.

Anyhow, I don't agree with much of what he says. If it were up to me, there'd be no wall, no requirement for a passport to cross the Mexican border, and no such thing as "illegal" immigrant. If we have a free country, the borders should be open and free.

 

[Stevenson]

It's so hard to take this "scandal" seriously. The right has spent so much time smearing her that separating the wheat from the chaff is almost impossible at this point. They are like the boy who cried wolf one time too many. They are just looking for something, anything, to pin to her, that's it. And truly, I don't want to vote for her, but gimme a break.

Oooh, she used the wrong server!

 

[Nikolokolus]

If this happens our electorate is too stupid for words, and Idiocracy is no longer a comedic fallacy.

If we're that dumb, then we'll be electing President Camacho or some former Disney channel/Real Housewives of whogivesfuck star in the not so distant future anyway.

Actually based on your assessment I'd say you've got exactly the right words for how stupid Americans might be.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's so hard to take this "scandal" seriously. The right has spent so much time smearing her that separating the wheat from the chaff is almost impossible at this point. They are like the boy who cried wolf one time too many. They are just looking for something, anything, to pin to her, that's it. And truly, I don't want to vote for her, but gimme a break.

Oooh, she used the wrong server!

USAToday for the win!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...email-server-fbi-editorials-debates/31992283/
Clinton email controversy is no joke: Our view
Presidential candidate can laugh all she wants, but FBI investigations can't be dismissed.
USA Today Editorial Board

In 2009, when soon-to-be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first broached the idea of running her work email through a private server at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., the concept should have been dismissed as laughable.

But it wasn't, and for reasons more likely having to do with control than convenience, Clinton went ahead with the plan. Now that top secret information, intelligence agency inspectors general, the FBI and federal judges are involved, the matter is far from amusing.

Clinton, though, seems to think she can dismiss the controversy by making light of it. Earlier this month in Iowa, the presidential candidate joked to a crowd of Democratic Party faithful about sending future communications over the app Snapchat, which famously makes text and photos disappear soon after they are viewed. At a testy press availability on Tuesday, Clinton went for the laugh line again after being asked whether her email server had been wiped clean. "Like with a cloth?" she replied, adding that nobody talks to her about the email controversy except reporters.

Maybe she doesn't get asked about it at tightly controlled town meetings, but the episode raises serious questions about the Democratic front-runner's decision-making and commitment to openness in government. One of the many reasons that it was a bad idea to mix personal and business messages is well known to anyone with an email account: As hard as you might try, you can't control what comes into your inbox. And if you're the secretary of State, that's inevitably going to include some sensitive information.

Last week, a Justice Department national security investigation kicked into higher gear after intelligence agency officials determined that top secret information had indeed passed through the private email account. The FBI has taken control of the server and thumb drives storing backup data. The number of potentially classified emails involved jumped from a handful to more than 300, according to a State Department count filed in federal court. A federal judge overseeing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit said, "We wouldn't be here today if this employee" — Clinton — "had followed government policy."

Clinton's stance has evolved from saying that no classified material passed through her private account (March), to saying she didn't send or receive anything that was classified at the time (last month), to saying she didn't send any material that was explicitly marked or designated classified (last week).

More vast right wing conspiracy stuff at the link

 

[Stevenson]

Colin Powell used a private email server. So did Condi Rice. Neither gave up ANY emails to Congress. Hillary shared 30,000.

Much ado about nothing, once again.

 

[Denny Crane]

Colin Powell used a private email server. So did Condi Rice. Neither gave up ANY emails to Congress. Hillary shared 30,000.

Much ado about nothing, once again.

Powell used government email servers. he didn't run a private foundation that received donations from foreign diplomats and leaders while Secy of State.

You can't wish it away.

 

[magnifier661]

Colin Powell used a private email server. So did Condi Rice. Neither gave up ANY emails to Congress. Hillary shared 30,000.

Much ado about nothing, once again.

He's the difference. Hilary did, which opens the can of worms. The other two you mentioned can't be tried for any security issues because there is nothing to use.