Page 19 of 51
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 26th, 2016, 11:17 pm
by grant1simons2
Feel the Bern might be the worst political slogan I've ever heard. I want to vote for a candidate, not a venereal disease.
Seriously though, I just automatically stop taking an argument seriously when someone says that.
How does, "A change we can believe in" sound? Because I've seen a lot of signs say that. And Bernie's podium said it too.
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 26th, 2016, 11:50 pm
by Tiller
"Feel the Bern might be the worst political slogan I've ever heard."
Do u even lift m8y?
Though I personally prefer "Not For Sale" and "Can't Be Bought" as slogans. They certainly draw a contrast now, don't they?
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 10:31 am
by mattaudio
How about Hope and Change?
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 11:45 am
by at40man
I'd guess there are more center-right people who don't like Trump than center-left people who don't like Bernie. But just making this up right now with no evidence.
I consider myself center-right, and I honestly am supporting Hillary this time around. Not because she's so great or anything, but she's a helluva lot better than Trump's buffoonery and her ideas aren't straight out of Fantasyland like Bernie's, either.
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 11:53 am
by acs
If you're in the center to center right like me, the only candidates for you are Hillary, Rubio, Kasich, Christie and maybe Jeb Bush. Of those, only the first is a front-runner likely to get the nomination, so Hildog it is.
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 1:02 pm
by amiller92
Rubio does not belong on the list. Centerist in rhetoric maybe, but in terms of policy proposals he's hard to distinguish from Cruz.
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 1:12 pm
by mattaudio
The whole left/centrist/right continuum completely misses the point. They're all working for the same bosses. Establishment.
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 1:14 pm
by seanrichardryan
http://www.startribune.com/readers-writ ... 366636051/
PRESIDENTIAL PROCESS
Entertaining, for some, but of little benefit to the nation
As the media go crazy wondering if 2016 will be a battle between the one socialist in Congress and a TV reality star famous for his bad hair and bankrupt casinos, we tend to forget how utterly ridiculous the U.S. system for electing presidents is. In Iowa, the “winners” will be decided by a few thousand teacher union reps, vegan college students, ethanol lobbyists, home schoolers and evangelicals who speak in tongues. Then the race moves on to New Hampshire, a lily-white, tiny state full of crusty farmers and Revolutionary War re-enactors. This is not politics; it’s reality TV.
Ken Darling, Golden Valley
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 1:29 pm
by amiller92
The whole left/centrist/right continuum completely misses the point. They're all working for the same bosses. Establishment.
Okay, but Obama and Bush were too, and yet we've seen pretty significantly different policy outcomes between them.
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 1:42 pm
by VAStationDude
The whole left/centrist/right continuum completely misses the point. They're all working for the same bosses. Establishment.
Okay, but Obama and Bush were too, and yet we've seen pretty significantly different policy outcomes between them.
Being correct isn't as important as fitting a narrative.
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 1:55 pm
by Tiller
The whole left/centrist/right continuum completely misses the point. They're all working for the same bosses. Establishment.
Okay, but Obama and Bush were too, and yet we've seen pretty significantly different policy outcomes between them.
That would depend on the area of policy, and in many cases it's only a matter of degree. Obama has been pushing the TPP pretty hard, while Bush expanded Medicare.
The largest differences are probably in terms of Social Policy, though even then Obama evolved on the issue of gay marriage. I think I remember hearing Cheny changed his mind on it too b/c of his daughter.
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 2:09 pm
by phop
The largest differences are probably in terms of Social Policy, though even then Obama evolved on the issue of gay marriage. I think I remember hearing Cheny changed his mind on it too b/c of his daughter.
And that whole foreign policy thing...
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 2:57 pm
by trigonalmayhem
For foreign policy I'll take the less wars option, please.
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 2:58 pm
by mattaudio
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 3:00 pm
by EOst
You're right, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor are virtually interchangeable.
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 3:17 pm
by Tiller
The largest differences are probably in terms of Social Policy, though even then Obama evolved on the issue of gay marriage. I think I remember hearing Cheny changed his mind on it too b/c of his daughter.
And that whole foreign policy thing...
Yes, with us verging on the edge of a 3rd Iraq war.
With a "no fly zone" [having been](Obama took it off, Hillary bringing it back) on the table that would require the commitment of tens of thousands of American troops (and moving us towards conflict with Russia and her proxies).
With US "Advisors" (See: Vietnam War) having been dispatched to a number of different countries over the last 8 years.
With Regime Change still being an integral part of US foreign policy (See: Arab Spring, Ukraine, Honduras).
With an intensification of our drone and surveillance programs.
Both Bush and Obama are center-right in terms of foreign and economic policy, with Hillary being between the two.
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 4:26 pm
by Nathan
Is Hill-dawg (worse than feel the bern) more electable than Bernie Sanders? ... not really.
Is Hillary Clinton More Electable Than Bernie Sanders? -
http://huff.to/1VpoCgs
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 4:33 pm
by EOst
"Person who has so far been the subject of virtually no attack ads from Democrats or Republicans has better ratings than someone attacked constantly for the last 25 years, news at 11."
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 4:45 pm
by Nathan
Apparently one candidate warrants attack ads. Despite the other having been in politics longer. Maybe because one has done a lot of shadowy behind the scenes politics and capitalizes on corporate money. When there's less to attack there's not as much to say, so yeah a good for the people politician wouldn't have a lot of attack ads, especially not from their own side.
Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: January 27th, 2016, 4:49 pm
by Didier
Or because one was the first lady, a senator from New York and a secretary of state, while the other was a back-bench, independent senator from Vermont.
Come on.