Maybe a 2 prong strategy, Trump heats up the economy enough in 4 years we can then afford Bernie ?

(February 24, 2016 at 6:52 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(February 24, 2016 at 6:23 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Sanders is anti establishment. Clinton IS the establishment. 'nuff said, as far as I'm concerned.

Still leaves me wondering, are you hoping he'll figure out a way to accomplish his fine ambitions through the establishment or were you hoping he'd appoint himself emperor and just decree his whole agenda.  If you see the establishment as something that must be negotiated with skill, you could reasonably prefer Hillary.  But whatever.  I hope the Bern wins too but I'm not expecting any magic if he does.  Hopefully he won't be woefully ineffective.

Hehe, reminds me of the waltz in Evita. It's going to be tough for him if he does win, though I still hope he does.

I’m not convinced Sanders can’t win.

In 2007 I heard someone say there was just no way America was going to elect a Black president, especially not a guy with a name like Barack Obama. He just could not see it happening. America just wasn’t ready for that.

Now in 2016 I’m hearing the same thing. Predicting what Americans are ready for is like predicting the weather in Texas.

I think they're both OK. No one is without flaw. But for me, Bernie seems more domestically minded, and more infrastructurally minded. I think he'll be better for me as a disabled person. But if Hillary wins, I think she'll do just fine. I like Bill, too, and would look forward to his being more active.

Regarding Clinton, I posted this on Facebook earlier this week:

Quote:Bernie Sanders doesn't want to talk about the Clinton email controversy but I believe he is wrong to not do so. Clinton does not deserve the Presidency. She held top security clearance and send numerous emails containing classified national security information through a *private* server.

If regular government workers had done the same thing, not only would they have been fired, they would have been arrested and thrown in jail. The rules should not be different for people just because they have power or come from powerful families.

If Clinton acted with this level of disregard for classified national security information when she was Secretary of State, why would she act any differently as President?

I see the standard comments in this thread about Bernie's electibility, that the Republicans would destroy him over his "socialism". There's some debate there, but I honestly don't see how people can keep ignoring the fact that the Republicans will have vastly more shit to stir up with Clinton than Sanders. Hillary Clinton owned a private email server which she used to send / store classified information, all whilst she was Secretary of State. That's insane. It's also illegal. All the Republicans have to do is keep reminding people that she put our national security at risk and they'll take the Presidency easily.

Yeah, they're not going to let people forget the scandal with Hillary, but if Bernie keeps talking about real issues I don't think they'll have as much of a comeback. They're already trying to bury him, and he's still catching up to Hillary.

Yes, because government computer systems are SO secure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/16...67696.html

Quote:State Dept Computers Hacked, Email Shut Down

11/16/2014 03:00 pm ET | Updated Jan 16, 2015

Besides, the concept is not so foreign as the republicunts would have you believe.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice...ls-n511181

Quote:Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails

BTW, I just got my ballot for the Arizona Primary.

(February 26, 2016 at 7:44 pm)Minimalist Wrote: BTW, I just got my ballot for the Arizona Primary.

Oh yeah. I was supposed to pick a ballot up today, but I was busy and forgot. Mom usually helps me with the ballots, but right now I don't really care to vote for more republicans.

I'm a democrat - I don't get to vote in the republicunt primary.