Feel the bern hillary, feel it.

[Jannabear]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WN58OKD7d0

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Collection of pundit soundbites.. Doesn't mean anything..
I like Bernie and have been on his mailing list for about the past 5-6 years long before he began running for president.
I'm still worried about what dirty tricks both the HRC camp and/or the rubes will pull out.  Right now the rubes are using the HRC camp as a surrogate to sling mud, but once she falls the real mudslingers come out.  It's really going to depend on how Bernie responds if he responds at all which might be the best response, none,  just push ahead with his message.

[Hydra009]

[drunkenshoe]

I wish he would win.

We should be able to vote for the US presidents though, as it has always directly affected our lives. It's only fair. Lol I said 'fair' in something related to politics.

[Jannabear]

I personally became a socialist because I've seen what capitalism can do, or more, what it can't.
Sure, it can make a few ALOT.
And I mean ALOT of money.
But for most people, it fucks them over.
I'm not against people becoming rich, but when they let people starve in the process, and don't pay enough back into the system, it's not fair.
And anyways we spend 570 billion on our military budget per year, we can dip into it a little.

[Munch]

I wish he would win.

We should be able to vote for the US presidents though, as it has always directly affected our lives. It's only fair. Lol I said 'fair' in something related to politics.

I always thought that too, countries with the most influence on international affairs should be permitted to have those countries cast some kind of vote, at least based on the influence said leader would have outside of their borders.

Of course sadly the world isn't that simple.

[Hydra009]

And anyways we spend 570 billion on our military budget per year, we can dip into it a little.

I just caught the last Republican debate (it's actually watchable without Trump) and they couldn't stop talking about how they're going to build a stronger military, which certainly wouldn't be cheap.  Cruz (I think it was Cruz) lamented about how we have fewer aircraft and warships (and fewer bayonets) than we did under Reagan.  Gee, I wonder why we might have a smaller military now than we did during the Cold War.  Let me think...

I really want either Sanders or Clinton (preferably Sanders) to win this, otherwise we are going to go back to a Cold War mentality and let a lot of Americans languish while pumping out tanks and bombers like it's WW3.

[josephpalazzo]

I just caught the last Republican debate (it's actually watchable without Trump) and they couldn't stop talking about how they're going to build a stronger military, which certainly wouldn't be cheap.  Cruz (I think it was Cruz) lamented about how we have fewer aircraft and warships (and fewer bayonets) than we did under Reagan.  Gee, I wonder why we might have a smaller military now than we did during the Cold War.  Let me think...

The US military spending has slowed down from 5% of GDP to the present 3.5%. So there are people hurting (economically speaking). Not that I would lose sleep over. But facts are facts, and if you're employed to anything related to the military, you do feel the pain. So these GOP candidates are scoring points with that segment of the population.

I really want either Sanders or Clinton (preferably Sanders) to win this, otherwise we are going to go back to a Cold War mentality and let a lot of Americans languish while pumping out tanks and bombers like it's WW3.

More like pumping drones and laser cannons... On a more serious side, as for Sanders, though his policies make sense, in swing states, he is more likely to lose than Hillary. Unfortunately those 5-8 states basically decide in presidential elections. Sander, should he win the nomination, will be portrayed as a socialist/communist and his message will be drowned. You could end up with a landslide for the GOP, regardless who runs for them.

[Baruch]

I just caught the last Republican debate (it's actually watchable without Trump) and they couldn't stop talking about how they're going to build a stronger military, which certainly wouldn't be cheap.  Cruz (I think it was Cruz) lamented about how we have fewer aircraft and warships (and fewer bayonets) than we did under Reagan.  Gee, I wonder why we might have a smaller military now than we did during the Cold War.  Let me think...

I really want either Sanders or Clinton (preferably Sanders) to win this, otherwise we are going to go back to a Cold War mentality and let a lot of Americans languish while pumping out tanks and bombers like it's WW3.

America has a bayonet ready economy, not a shovel ready economy.  We are the biggest arms exporter ... that is the military that the GOP is talking about, not the DoD.  The R-people shit on the military ... just like the D-people.  Of course in foreign policy, under Communist Obama ... we are already in a new Cold War since we ... liberated Ukraine and tried to assist Georgia over Ossetia.  The DoD has a big enough budget for what it is doing now.  But you will need more than money if you want to invade Russia or China.

[Hydra009]

The US military spending has slowed down from 5% of GDP to the present 3.5%. So there are people hurting (economically speaking). Not that I would lose sleep over. But facts are facts, and if you're employed to anything related to the military, you do feel the pain. So these GOP candidates are scoring points with that segment of the population.

Yeah, right up until they send them off to some desert hellhole with no exit strategy.  At least, that's what normal people would consider horrible and contrary to their best interests.

On a more serious side, as for Sanders, though his policies make sense, in swing states, he is more likely to lose than Hillary. Unfortunately those 5-8 states basically decide in presidential elections.

I've heard it both ways.  It's too early to call, imo.  And I've heard all this before when Obama was running.  "Only Clinton can carry the big states."  Well, apparently that's not the case.

Sander, should he win the nomination, will be portrayed as a socialist/communist and his message will be drowned. You could end up with a landslide for the GOP, regardless who runs for them.

The same thing could be said of Clinton.  In fact, the Republican hate machine really has it out for her more than Sanders.  Regardless, I live and hope that one or the other pushes a liberal agenda and gets some of it to stick.  That's enough for me.  True, the tide could change and the Republicans could go right back on top.  But America's been changing for a while now, and the Republicans haven't been keeping up.  They picked gay marriage as their hill to die on, and they got crushed.  Same thing to a lesser degree with abortion and creationism.  It wasn't too long ago when someone like Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum wasn't too extreme.  Now, they look like complete lunatics.  Sure, Republicans could really make a comeback.  But not as they are now.  Their strategy of going even further to the right is not working and I don't anticipate it working in the near future.

[josephpalazzo]

I've heard it both ways.  It's too early to call, imo.  And I've heard all this before when Obama was running.  "Only Clinton can carry the big states."  Well, apparently that's not the case.

But there are some people who also have been saying that it was not Obama who won, but that McCaine lost by choosing Sarah.

The same thing could be said of Clinton.  In fact, the Republican hate machine really has it out for her more than Sanders.  Regardless, I live and hope that one or the other pushes a liberal agenda and gets some of it to stick.  That's enough for me.  True, the tide could change and the Republicans could go right back on top.  But America's been changing for a while now, and the Republicans haven't been keeping up.  They picked gay marriage as their hill to die on, and they got crushed.  Same thing to a lesser degree with abortion and creationism.  It wasn't too long ago when someone like Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum wasn't too extreme.  Now, they look like complete lunatics.  Sure, Republicans could really make a comeback.  But not as they are now.  Their strategy of going even further to the right is not working and I don't anticipate it working in the near future.

A lot of this is contingent as to which party will control Congress. Sanders versus a Republican dominated congress will be as gridlocked as with Obama or maybe even worse. Sure they hate Hillary because she is perceived as the one more likely to win, and so the hate propaganda is already in place. But make no mistake, Sanders would get nowhere with his program, unless the people wake up and vote in a Democratic president along with  a Democratic Congress. When was the last time that Happened?

[Nonsensei]

But there are some people who also have been saying that it was not Obama who won, but that McCaine lost by choosing Sarah.


A lot of this is contingent as to which party will control Congress. Sanders versus a Republican dominated congress will be as gridlocked as with Obama or maybe even worse. Sure they hate Hillary because she is perceived as the one more likely to win, and so the hate propaganda is already in place. But make no mistake, Sanders would get nowhere with his program, unless the people wake up and vote in a Democratic president along with  a Democratic Congress. When was the last time that Happened?

Palin was certainly a poor choice, but she joined an already ailing campaign. She was meant to add support from right wing evangelical nutjobs that war hero McCain wasn't capable of grabbing.

As to Hillary working better with a republican controlled congress, hogwash. They fucking hate her. Shes a woman, a Clinton (not sure which one of those is worse in the eyes of republican politicians) and shes a liar. A poor one at that. That last one is a real problem because republican congressional constituents will be watching closely, not wanting to see their elected officials working with her.

All that said, the modus operandi of republicans in congress has been to simply shut down all activity until the next presidential election if their guy doesn't win. We have entered some bizarre twilight zone where elected officials feel they are doing their best work by permitting nothing to get done, and somehow the country hasn't self destructed in the mean time (yet). Thanks to this tactic, when it comes to the question of which candidate would work best with a republican controlled congress the question is completely moot. All democratic presidents will be given the exact same treatment.

[TomFoolery]

So these GOP candidates are scoring points with that segment of the population.

You would be surprised how few people in the military (and their families) actually vote though. It's not because they don't care necessarily, it just comes down to logistics a lot of the time. If you're registered in one state but are stationed somewhere else (which is pretty much always), it's easy to let your registration lapse, or forget to vote by absentee ballot correctly and on time. Hell, I was in basic training during the 2008 presidential election, I was deployed to Afghanistan during the 2010 election, and I was in the field for a month during the 2012 presidential election. I managed to vote in all instances, but it was a giant pain in the ass. Given so few people manage to vote when they don't face those obstacles, you can see how it's not a recipe for success in the wider population.

[josephpalazzo]

Palin was certainly a poor choice, but she joined an already ailing campaign. She was meant to add support from right wing evangelical nutjobs that war hero McCain wasn't capable of grabbing.

As to Hillary working better with a republican controlled congress, hogwash. They fucking hate her. Shes a woman, a Clinton (not sure which one of those is worse in the eyes of republican politicians) and shes a liar. A poor one at that. That last one is a real problem because republican congressional constituents will be watching closely, not wanting to see their elected officials working with her.

All that said, the modus operandi of republicans in congress has been to simply shut down all activity until the next presidential election if their guy doesn't win. We have entered some bizarre twilight zone where elected officials feel they are doing their best work by permitting nothing to get done, and somehow the country hasn't self destructed in the mean time (yet). Thanks to this tactic, when it comes to the question of which candidate would work best with a republican controlled congress the question is completely moot. All democratic presidents will be given the exact same treatment.

Perhaps but not necessarily so. There was a lot of bickering between Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress at the time, but certain things were still done. Yes, personality wise, they hate Hillary, but her programs are more center right while Sanders' are way off to the left (in terms of US politics). Don't get me wrong, Sanders would be a good president, were he allowed to get his programs through. But that's the hitch, he won't, not if Congress is still in the hands of the Republicans. And he is a greater uncertainty in winning the election as I've mentioned before, as he is more likely to do poorly in swing states. The choice is more or less clear: Sanders, better program, but slim chance of winning the presidency and getting his program through, or Clinton, not likable, but has better chances of winning and getting things done. But all this discussion might be academic if the GOP wins the oval office.

[Nonsensei]

Perhaps but not necessarily so. There was a lot of bickering between Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress at the time, but certain things were still done. Yes, personality wise, they hate Hillary, but her programs are more center right while Sanders' are way off to the left (in terms of US politics). Don't get me wrong, Sanders would be a good president, were he allowed to get his programs through. But that's the hitch, he won't, not if Congress is still in the hands of the Republicans. And he is a greater uncertainty in winning the election as I've mentioned before, as he is more likely to do poorly in swing states. The choice is more or less clear: Sanders, better program, but slim chance of winning the presidency and getting his program through, or Clinton, not likable, but has better chances of winning and getting things done. But all this discussion might be academic if the GOP wins the oval office.

Republican congressional "blackout" stonewalling is an Obama era/tea party phenomenon. Back in the Clinton days, republicans and democrats were certainly political enemies, but there was still this crazy idea that they had to work together to get something done. the idea of simply not allowing even the simplest thing to pass wouldn't have occurred to them. The idea that the government would come close to shutting down every year for years in a row because of an inability to agree on the federal budget would have seemed insane to them.

Its a new era, and congress has realized it can essentially nullify the people's choice in a president if they don't like it simply by not allowing that president to get anything done. Its almost as good as having the position vacant for 4 years.

As to Hillary having a better chance of winning, I guess I just don't see it. If the national election were run today maybe you would be right, but the electoral attributes of a candidate alter sharply once they become the official nominee for a party. As people realize that their only choices are Sanders or Trump they will get in line. As much as Hillary dems might not like Sanders, hes about ten billion times more preferable than Trump.