• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Hillary Clinton

angelo said:
If Hillary did manage to pull it off it would mean three terms of Democratic rule. When is the last time that happened?
Click to expand...
Last time was 1988, with Bush Sr. This should be an easier election year for the Repugs, but their 2 top presidential candidates are pretty extreme. Additionally, demographics are slowly becoming more difficult for them as white (males especially) are becoming a less dominate force in our national elections. I think it is dropping about 2 percentage points every 4 year election cycle at this point.
 
This may well turn out to be the year of the woman voter. Women voting for Hillary or against the GOP. And if not for Hillary, for a woman president, breaking that ceiling. In the South, black women voters turned out for Hillary in large numbers. The GOP's anti-woman attitudes may soon become a big political problem for them, and may encourage women voters with success in electing Hillary to energize and play a big roll in off year elections.

It's going to be interesting to see how this all works itself out.
 
Elixir said:
I agree with all of that. But she has stated categorically that her SCOTUS nominees WILL overturn Citizens United.
Click to expand...
Which is a dishonest statement; she can't vouch for the actions of a nominee she hasn't even selected yet and who technically doesn't answer to her as a superior. If she's really claiming that her nominees will enforce her will, she's basically blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

If she's claiming that she will FILE A LAWSUIT challenging Citizens United and take it all the way to the supreme court, that would demonstrate some genuine desire to make it work. But saying "my nominees will do the work, trust me!" is just another campaign promise she doesn't have to back up; she can be seen TRYING to fix the problem and then be blameless when nothing gets done.

I suppose there is plenty of grease in the world to make her "change her mind" after she's elected, but Bernie has made sure that the price tag on that change of mind will be very high.
Click to expand...
I suspect that a professional politician who makes $11 million a year in speaking fees alone probably isn't too concerned about the price tag of anything.
 
The question still remains whether Americans are willing to go with the status quo or try something radically different as in Trump.
 
angelo said:
The question still remains whether Americans are willing to go with the status quo or try something radically different as in Trump.
Click to expand...

What is radical about Trump?

An egotistical blowhard.

Just like all the rest.

Bernie was a radical departure from the status quo.

Trump is just a rich jerk that has no experience and bad ideas.
 
angelo said:
Bernie's socialist agenda would be paid by?
Click to expand...

Bernie's so-called "agenda" is simply what civilized nations have been doing for decades.

The people with an agenda are those opposed to the US entering the civilized world.
 
Would the choice of VP make any difference?
arkirk said:
Tristan Scott said:
If, and I realize it's still an if, Clinton wins the nomination and Sanders endorses her, and even helps campaign for her, will you still believe in his integrity?
Click to expand...

I will simply vote for the person with the most integrity on the ballot....Jill Stein. Even if they force her off the ballot. You get what you vote for and voting is not supposed to be whatever the rich allow on the ballot. I think if Clinton becomes our president, she will be even worse than Obama. I can't vote for that. I didn't vote for Obama. You seem to want to escape reality and probably earnestly want a good choice available to you on the ballot but just wanting it to be so does not make it so. I agree that Bernie, if he does not carry on as a nominee should use his campaign funding to help progressives on the ballot. We are not going to get a lot more chances to get an honest leader. Bernie's 75. I don't fault his campaign in the slightest. It is a rough thing to take on the billionaires. So far he has done an admirable job. Clinton has already promised that she will be as she has been in the past...to her moneyed supporters and promised to the rest whatever they want to hear.
Click to expand...
 
angelo said:
Yea, fuck them! Who cares about the unemployment, let them eat cake!
Click to expand...

I'm with Jimmy here. Working in the defense industry is kind of like being a contractor building the second death star. If you work in the defense industry, you are already consenting to the job insecurity associated with peace, and you are already deciding to be a valid target of war operations. They are civilia s in name only.
 
Besides, the employees in the defense industry will have to do what so many others have had to do during the past 30 years of a changing economy-they will have to redirect their careers, just as the money being spent on the defense industry will be re-directed.
 
All the great discoveries that have benefited all mankind that have come out of the defense budget can go to hell too! While we're at it, why not submit to allah and go back to live in caves and tents.
 
angelo said:
All the great discoveries that have benefited all mankind that have come out of the defense budget can go to hell too!
Click to expand...
Actually, many of the discoveries came first and then the military stepped into engineer developments to help kill people (think the airplane and lasers). Hey, if it wasn't for the Iraq occupation, we wouldn't have made these advancements in head trauma care.

While we're at it, why not submit to allah and go back to live in caves and tents.
Click to expand...
That is perhaps the worse false dichotomy at this web board.

Look at it like this, we spent $300 to $600 billion a year on the military alone (ignoring Iraq War funds) under the GW Bush Admin. Yet we couldn't even come remotely close to having a large enough mobilization to properly occupy and secure a nation the size of Iraq. We were able to spare about 1/5 of what Generals actually thought we needed. So what exactly are we getting for all this money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom