(July 21, 2016 at 12:10 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(July 21, 2016 at 12:05 am)dyresand Wrote: Two sides of the same fucking coin.... I wouldn't call Hillary a democrat she is a fucking republican through and through.

Not quite and that's a ridiculous thing to say.

I'm starting to see that politics is a lot like religion for some people. Fuck logic, because feelings.

You are on the wrong side of your own argument.  I wasn't biased against Hillary for any personal reason.  It was the financial connection to Wall Street, the flip-flopping on gay marriage, etc. that make me dislike her.

In almost every progressive stance, she's behind Sanders.  With regard to minimum wage, not only is she behind him, she never hit the mark he did.

Her attachment to Obama isn't a plus with regard to immigration or prison reform, either.

(July 21, 2016 at 5:20 am)abaris Wrote:

(July 21, 2016 at 4:57 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: if the winner is a Republican or a Democrat, the only thing they'll win is another four years of screwing sans lube.

We call the procedure with the sordid lead pipe.

But what are the chances for establishing a third party in the system? What are the chances of getting money out of politics? Far as I know, there have been several supreme court decisions on money equaling free speech.

Chances? Gosh, I don't know, but I'm not optimistic. It has to be a grass-roots thing, but right now, most Americans seems to be potatoes. It must start at the bottom and be inclusive. It would also have to rely upon voters walking away from the paradigm, the presented menu.

To repeat, I'm not optimistic. But I ain't a quitter, either.

I don't think there can be a viable 3rd party. However, if a 3rd party can poll well enough, it will moderate the positions that the main parties take-- so it's still a worthy endeavor.

(July 21, 2016 at 2:41 am)dyresand Wrote:

(July 21, 2016 at 12:10 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Not quite and that's a ridiculous thing to say.

I'm starting to see that politics is a lot like religion for some people. Fuck logic, because feelings.

Let's see you have to people they want to fuck you in different ways.

Trump want's to fuck you hard.

Hillary want's to fuck you silly and lie about putting on a condom.

Let's say you have to choose between me and Little Rik to be your boss at work.

Might be for me the 'big picture' difficulty with Hillary is that it is lightyears BEYOND FUCKING OBVIOUS that Hillary has needed to work on her TOO FUCKING HIGH NEGATIVES in the polls, and this has been SUN BLAZINGLY EVIDENT since Bill's administration. For FUCKING DECADES actually for pity's sake !!

That she not only hasn't, but has instead FUCKING ENDEAVORED to make them FUCKING WORSE is FUCKING GALLING to me. Does she really want the 'brass ring' ?? Ignoring this obvious crap is highlighting something deep inside her I cannot understand and the further it goes the more concerning it gets. This self-sabotage, unforced errors, shooting herself in the foot shit is giving the STRONG appearance she actually doesn't want to cinch the deal.

I don't like having my nose rubbed in this kind of OBVIOUS SHIT, particularly when I was strongly predisposed to support her in the first place and this BLEEDING OBVIOUS BULLSHIT she seems fucking obsessively compelled to do makes me fucking want to scream:

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU ?!?!?!?!?!

(July 20, 2016 at 9:53 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I hate that Democrat Americans have put Hillary in over Bernie Sanders.  How are you gonna choose between a fucking orangutan and the wicked witch of the East?  It's like-- what do I want for breakfast, bleach or strychnine?

F-a-l-s-e  e-q-u-i-v-a-l-a-t-o-n.  Not even close.

(July 21, 2016 at 5:28 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 21, 2016 at 12:10 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Not quite and that's a ridiculous thing to say.

I'm starting to see that politics is a lot like religion for some people. Fuck logic, because feelings.

You are on the wrong side of your own argument.  I wasn't biased against Hillary for any personal reason.  It was the financial connection to Wall Street, the flip-flopping on gay marriage, etc. that make me dislike her.

In almost every progressive stance, she's behind Sanders.  With regard to minimum wage, not only is she behind him, she never hit the mark he did.

Her attachment to Obama isn't a plus with regard to immigration or prison reform, either.

See, I don't give a shit, the fact that you even care when it's obvious it will come down between her and Trump is saying you're not able to think this through.

It doesn't fucking matter what her flaws are. It just doesn't. She's miles better than Trump anyway. Trump is the worst possible candidate ever. How do you people not see this and how is this still a debate?

(July 21, 2016 at 2:15 am)Minimalist Wrote: Sanders was not a democrat at all.  He was, and remains, an Independent.  How many points do you think that gained him with the democratic party and people who have been busting their balls for it for 30 years?

Really Min? Even when your horse has won, you still can't resist bashing the candidate who, quite frankly, most of us would have pinned as your choice given how often you express very liberal opinions here.

Of course, your description of Sanders is, as it was before, completely inaccurate. Sanders is a democrat; he's said as much, and he's also stated that he would campaign as a democrat in future elections. More importantly though, in most Vermont elections since 1994, the Democratic party endorsed him and didn't put forward their own candidate. In return, Sanders has caucused with the Democratic party in Congress.

Certainly, given the number of victories he had during the primaries and caucuses, it seems that a large number of Democrats think he's a suitable candidate. If he'd only won a small minority of the vote, I think you'd have a point, but he won 43.1% of it. That's not an insignificant number.

Quote:Not to mention that Sanders' promises were no more realistic than Drumpf's.   He had no way to pay for them and would never have gotten them through congress.

For the umpteenth time, we elect a president.  Not a king.

Sanders released information on how he would pay for all of his plans, actually. Just because you don't think Congress would pass the measures doesn't mean he had no way to pay for them. That's not how that works at all.

Besides, as I've said before, is that really the President we want? One who puts forward a manifesto based on the likelihood of stuff getting passed, rather than on what the American people actually deserve? No thanks. I'd rather have a President who believes the American people deserve better, and will fight to make their lives better, even if they fail. There's no shame in that.

Obama campaigned on "Hope" and "Change", and a lot of people said the exact same things about him that you are saying about Sanders. They didn't think Healthcare reform would pass, but it did, and it survived numerous lawsuits and legal challenges after that.

I hate to break it to you, but a lot of Sanders' promises got included in the Democratic platform, so it seems perhaps some of the party believe slightly differently to you.

(July 21, 2016 at 6:52 am)bennyboy Wrote: I don't think there can be a viable 3rd party. However, if a 3rd party can poll well enough, it will moderate the positions that the main parties take-- so it's still a worthy endeavor.

The Libertarians are polling at 13% at the moment. If they reach 15% in four major polls I believe they get to be in the debates.

(July 21, 2016 at 2:58 am)abaris Wrote:

(July 21, 2016 at 2:53 am)Minimalist Wrote: You think he would have gotten massive military cuts through congress?

I said, I don't think, he would. But the money is there.

And there it shall stay.  This is far from the only example where congress treats the pentagon budget as a jobs program.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/...e_jet.html

Eisenhower warned us and we did not listen.