of course she's most qualified to be president of those running. That was my point. Look who her competition is! A 70 year old socialist from Vermont. She's got all the money, all the backing of the party's leadership, all the advantages and yet a wacko 70 year old socialist from Vermont is pushing her to the brink. Just imagine if she had to face real competition. Democratic turnout is also way down. Nobody really wants her to be their President. She's going to lose to Trump for all the talk about the Republicans losing touch.. at least they have motivated voters and a bevy of competition to choose from.
She is not going to lose to Trump. Sanders is an effective spokesman for his point of view. I disagree with his supporters, but they don't merely dislike HRC. They LOVE Bernie. They are often compared to Trump supporters, but to me they mirror Cruz and his supporters more. They think the answer to the problems with the status quo are to turn far left, just as Cruz wants to go hard right, and any compromise is a sign of apostasy. But for all it's shortcomings it is an appealing argument to people who have no truck with nuance. In the end this election will come down to who is best positioned to carry the country forward. I doubt it ends up being someone who constantly contradicts himself and has no plan for implementing what his supporters think he is going to do (here is where Trump is like Sanders, of course).
^ As for the "of those running" comment, this is not a perfect world, so in an election the voter is always picking the lesser of two evils. I have not spent a good deal of time thinking about why someone else, meaning other than HRC on the Democratic side, but also on the GOP side is not running. I guess they make their choices. For example I can only speculate why Elizabeth Warren did not run. I would like to think it is because she is smart enough to know that her expertise is not general enough to be president, and recognizes for example that she has no foreign policy experience. And as for Biden he might be regretting his decision not to run now, but at the time he no doubt felt he had very good reasons for not running. Those who did not run, they didn't run. Oh well. It's a tough process and doesn't look like a lot of fun to me. Clinton is running because she's able to handle all the criticism and keep on going. She's been doing that for 25 years. I don't think I would like that, and part of what makes her able to take it is, I think, something that does not make her seem very warm and cuddly. Oh well. You take em as they come. Best we can do.
They dont love Sanders. They love the idea of someone besides Hillary. A few months ago nobody even knew who the hell Sanders even was! to your last point- even if I agreed that Hillary is best positioned to carry the country forward - and I'm not totally convinced I agree with that - when has an election EVER been about that? It never is and it wont be this year. I'm ready for President Trump and I will blame the Dems for that just as much as I will blame the republicans
Not sure what this nonsense is all about. You're not really making sense. As to not standing libertarians, you act like a complete asshole to everyone who disagrees with you, so this is not surprising. You don't seem to have a good understanding of what a libertarian is anyway.
You act like a complete asshole who has a thin skin. I have a plenty good understanding of what a libertarian is. I am not the least bit surprised you engaged in an ad hominem attack rather than address the substance. I was responding to your immature reference to not having the gummint take your money. But you chose instead to make a personal attack. I call people like you assholes, at least in terms of the way you act here. And on top of that I don't care much for your characterization of me. It doesn't mean shit. Posting here about politics is supposed to be about what? Some kind of popularity contest? You ain't winning that one, either.
They love Sanders because they think he is a real leftie. They think Hillary is too centrist. Read their comments.
To be fair, I am an asshole. You have posted several times something to the effect of libertarians think there should be no government. That is a fundamental misunderstanding. The issue regarding the government taking money, is not just that they do it. There is a level of government and taxation that is necessary. The question is how much government should there be and these Sanders supporters want more and more government programs to give them free shit which will cost more and more tax dollars. The government is already too big, growing it larger will create more dependency, create more inefficiency, and create more wealth distribution. As for your nonsense about personal property, just what in the motherfuck are you talking about? Again, you don't understand what libertarian means. You really don't.
I never said libertarianism means NO government. What I said, which for your benefit apparently bears repeating, is: Property rights and money do not exist in a vacuum. They DEPEND on society, they COME FROM society. And so society takes a percentage of your money to make it possible for that world to exist. It is the price we pay for the social contract. The point is that you as I said implicitly believe you have a right to money that exists before, and over and above, the government's right to take a percentage of it for the general good. Which is nonsense. As for your beliefs about the size and purpose of government, that is your opinion. Which as usual is wrong. I am not here to defend Sanders as a general matter. But a proposal such as universal Medicare is being sold on the notion that such a plan would overall cost society less than both the current and pre-ACA arrangement. In other words it would be MORE efficient, not less. I think there are political problems that he does not begin to have an answer for in his argument, but he I think does believe it would be a more efficient program. Lack of government in the regulation of the financial system led to a huge cost as a result of the financial crisis. Taxpayer bailouts and the whole Too Big To Fail dynamic show the necessity of government involvement, with no alternative to it. And finally government policies since Reagan have led to a huge amount of wealth redistribution, but it has been to the very rich through a form of crony capitalism that threatens our democracy. Libertarians want to ignore these realities.
"Agents Mulder or Scully... White curtesy phone.." The truth is out there...(cue X-Files lead-in in 3..2..1)
Snopes says it's not them. That's all I found about it from a quick search. Sent from my SM-N910U using Tapatalk
Clinton is going to waltz to the nomination. She's having the result the Republican front runner usually has. Whether that's bad or good is not clear but the Democratic Party is very much in control of who their nominee is going to be at this point and they have been since Nevada. The GOP often has issues in Iowa and New Hampshire but things are usually under control after South Carolina. This year they've got a runaway train threatening to make them derail in November and they have no convincing plan to stop the runaway at this point.
Isn't it inherently undemocratic for Party leadership to be able to handpick their candidate? That's what we call oligarchy when the people don't really have a say. Hillary was always going to be the nominee because that's who those in power wanted as their candidate. This is why the Bernie movement has exploded. People are sick of not having a voice and being controlled by the government and media. It's also why Trump has exploded, but unfortunately for very ugly reasons.
Again, meh. Those super delegates have for the most part been elected to actual government positions, in general elections. How is including them anti-democratic? At worst, and I think it is a good thing, you are balancing somewhat the impulse of the moment with at least some who have been ELECTED before and have something of a long-term view. I am sure the GOP right now wishes they had more of that on their side. Plus this is all a whiny bit of special pleading by the Sanders people. They knew the rules going in. The rules have been there since 1982. Has Sanders been complaining about them all along? Not that anyone has pointed to. Only now, when the rules might play against them, do his people complain. And how do they complain? By making silly conspiracy arguments and attacking the Democratic Party. Yeah, that's really helpful in pursuing the progressive agenda. That will really help in the end. "Let's make the Democratic Party look bad!" These sanctimonious special pleader Sanders supporters make me more annoyed as time goes on. It's bad enough they take their talking points against HRC from Karl Rove and Fox News. It's bad enough they call for a revolution when the Democrats have controlled the position Sanders is seeking for the last seven years. It's bad enough that they denigrate all the work that went into the real achievements of the Obama presidency as "Not enough! You guys didn't try hard enough!" It's bad enough they have no plan for getting the legislation they say they want through. But let's call the whole Democratic Party corrupt while we're at it. Great idea. What else do they have to screw up and misrepresent?
@Big Blocker Superdelegates are actually pointless in two different ways. For one, to my knowledge, we've never had a case in which democratic superdelegates went against the popular vote of the electorate. Soooo then what's their purpose? Shouldn't it just be one citizen = one vote if the superdelegates always get in line with the people? Also, could you imagine the backlash if Bernie wins the popular democratic vote but Hillary gets the nomination based on superdelegates? That would be the Democratic Party writing its own death warrant. It's an extremely dangerous game to give such extreme power to elected officials. Again, when politicians in power have significantly more of a say than the citizens in a so-called democracy, you no longer have a democracy. You have an oligarchy in which a few people control everything and average citizens like you and me have little to no voice.
