2016 Presidential Horse Race

[woolybug25]

I know he has serious mutant ears but Rubio wasn't that off either, I could have supported he or Kasich.

Sure...

 

[IrishLax]

It didn't help that the entire field (outside of Kasich, who has a very punchable personality) were weirdos.

Seriously. All the Republicans had to do was put a guy in a suit that spoke well and wasn't completely insane. Instead... They gave us Trump.

They had one job...

I think Kasich, Bush, and Rubio were all relatively "not insane."

In a weird way... being "not insane" has really hurt everyone this year except for HillDog.

Cruz - probably insane by the clinical definition and creepy as fuck.
Trump - not necessarily "insane" but says some really crazy shit.
Bernie - also says some crazy shit, just from the other side of the spectrum.

Those were three of the four top finishers from both parties. Everyone "reasonable" got squeezed out. I blame Twitter.

 

[GoIrish41]

How is this nation so dam stupid that we chose Hillary or Trump to be our next president.... How?..... Seriously?

We're talking about a large ass percentage!!! There were other candidates from both sides to offer.

For the Republican side I get it a little more. Trump was speaking for a lot of people in the beginning that were sick of all the PC shit and smaller minority amounts of people forcing the majority to change or be labeled. I get it, but again Trump will still have to prove in the debates he has good plans/policies. I wanted Kasich/Rubio.

For the Democratic side it was like an automatic Hillary or Bernie from the get go. For the record I would vote for Bernie over Hillary in a heartbeat. How does someone under investigation and with proof after proof of wrong doing get the candidacy? Someone who has been caught in lies after lies get the votes? WTF is going on here? At least all Trumps wrong doings happened when he wasn't holding a government position!!!! This means lying and committing crime while serving the people of this nation is not below her.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I have a hard time believing these are the people the public chose!!


Can a Democrat please explain Hilary to me? Iv'e heard the Trump explaination enough.

Trump is facing a lawsuit right now over defrauding "students" of Trump University. Trial is scheduled for late November -- so that might tell us what his first 100 days would look like.

About Hillary. I'm not excited about her in the least. I think she is a caricature of a politician. She knows what all the buttons do, and which way to push all the levers of government. When she says she knows how to "get things done" this is the vision I see in my head -- not only more of the same, but more of the same on steroids.

Republicans hate her because she and her husband are better at the game than any of them since, maybe, Reagan. The Clintons have been kicking their asses so long that they are hyperventilating about how to take her down. In their eagerness to ruin her, they will blow their load on all the scandal allegations, and criminal conspiracy garbage before it even matters. Around September or October, independents will be so sick of hearing about these accusations that they will listen for substance. And from Trump, there will be none. I've been watching this movie for 30 years, and it always ends the same with the Clintons on top flipping off the Republicans who tried to tear them down. For the record, this isn't a good look for them, and I find it unappealing. I never voted for Bill and I don't want to vote for Hillary, but the GOP has given me no choice.

Trump's a hollow, loudmouth with nothing to offer except pointing out what he thinks is wrong. Anyone can do that. How do you fix it? He's got nothing. Like her or not, she's got well thought out solutions to complex problems. Some will argue that she takes the wrong approach, but at least she has a coherent approach to criticize. Trump doesn't. He's all over the place and his rhetoric seems to be bringing out the worst in people, not inspiring the best from them.

I also like that Bernie has pushed Hillary to the left, where I believe there is fertile soil for political solutions to this country's ills. He pushed her toward universal health care and affordable education. He's pushed her toward investments in our crumbling infrastructure and toward getting serious about clean energy ... these, I believe, are the single biggest steps toward rebuilding and sustaining the middle class. And, Bernie has an Army of supporters who will come on board just as soon as she fully embraces these positions. Those supporters represent a new wave of politically active voters who will form the core of the Democratic party for decades to come. Whether you like her or not, Hillary is an extremely smart woman, and she will recognize this fact. She has moved left and is not starting to talk about the issues I care about in the way I want to hear them talked about.

But, more than anything, Hillary is superior to Donald Trump in just about every way that it matters when it comes to being the president of the United States. If the GOP would have picked any other candidate (other than Cruz) from their long list of nominees, I might have seriously given them a look in a race against Hillary. But they chose Trump! If you want to find a culprit for why people are actually going to support someone so unlikable, look no further than the republican party, which has chosen a historically bad candidate as its standard bearer. I used to think that they never really learn their lessons from presidential elections. This year, they doubled down on everything that was wrong with their approach. The multi-millionaire who doesn't even know how many houses he owns, makes way for the billionaire who writes off 47% of the country out of the shoot; who makes way for the billionaire who just outright insults huge swaths of the country based on ethnicity and religion. I don't even want to know what their next candidate is going to be like.

 

[Legacy]

Trump lambasts media for questioning veteran donations (from a BBC reporter stationed in D.C.)

Given how many interviews Trump has given (and you need to count them in the hundreds, possibly thousands), very few have stood out as asking the key questions - and then following through when you get an evasive answer.
If you want a "for example", how about the Trump pledge to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. Was he ever pressed on how this would be implemented given how few countries ask for your religion to be listed in your passport? Was he pressed about the constitutionality of such a move?
These are serious, respectful, challenging questions that any candidate has to be asked if they seek to govern.

Having covered Donald Trump for the best part of a year, I thought I had lost the capacity to be surprised. But this excoriating attack on journalists - particularly political journalists - was quite something.
There are two aspects of this that interest me. The first is the irony.
The remarkable thing that has struck me as a British correspondent living in Washington, and who is used to a robust relationship between journalist and politician, is how Trump has been treated with kid gloves.

The interesting thing is the extent to which Mr Trump really bristles at being questioned. I suspect when you are a billionaire property mogul you are used to deference. When you are a politician you need to get used to scrutiny.
There are two possible explanations - one is that he has an incredibly thin skin and just doesn't like having his motives questioned. The other is that there is deliberate strategy - if you intimidate, and threaten not to give interviews to networks that irk you then maybe they will buckle and give you an easy time.

It is our job to test our elected officials, to subject them to scrutiny, to ask the questions the public want answering and hopefully to be fearless in our pursuit of those questions. And to do so respectfully.
That is our job, and a free press able to do that is one of the cornerstones of a liberal democracy.

 

[Irish YJ]

I highly doubt the debates are going to be about personal scandals and who has what dirt on who. When asked about what their position is on nuclear proliferation, for example, Hillary will be able to draw on decades of experience in the intricacies of foreign diplomacy, and Trump will bellow out some crazy shit about how we need Japan and S. Korea to get into the nuclear arms race. He'll scare a lot of people in this country and around the world who expect the leader of the free world to have enough intelligence to understand why that kind of rhetoric is dangerous. General election voters want more than ham-fisted bluster. They want substance, not playground insults and name calling. The debates will focus us appropriately on issues facing the country, and that is where Hillary will demonstrate that she is light years ahead of Trump in the amount of thought she has given them. I have to believe that at some point, all the bluster, tough guy vagaries won't be enough to carry the day (this isn't the GOP primary anymore). More thoughtful answers to pressing issues will have to be forthcoming from the candidates. One is prepared to give them, and one is not. It is really as simple as that.

They do not have to be about personal scandals. Picture the discussion on national security. Do you not think it's easy pickin's to blast Hilldog on her personal email server security. On the topic of foreign affaris, blast her on Benghazi? There's enough on-topic, in-bounds stuff there to stir it up.

On the topic of substance, each candidate's supporters don't really want to hear substance from the other. I know what to expect from Hilldog, and I really don't care to hear it all over again. Didn't like it the first time. Trumps been an idiot thus far, but I think you will see a toned down, somewhat more thoughtful Trump. Sure he will take every opportunity to blast Hilldog, but I do think they guy will be better prepared. IMO, Hillary is static. She's not going to "win" many folks over because of the debates. People already know what to expect. Trump is the wild card here and can either win over people by toning it down, or lose his shit entirely.

 

[Irish YJ]

I think you're underestimating the national debate platform. He might have gotten away with personal attacks, menstration jokes and threats in the Republican Debates. But he doesn't have that luxury in the national stage. He has to debate. He has to give details. He has to show up. This is where Hillary will slay him. He can't just stand up there making dumb faces and calling her names. The moderator will step in, the press will pounce and he will be embarrassed on a national stage.

I personally think you will see a toned down, better behaved Donald. Still a showman, but better coached and better prepared. Like I said in the above, I don't think Hilldog has the ability to "win" that many folks. Everyone knows who she is. Trump on the other hand certainly can lose people, but he also has the opportunity to win. Who knows what Donald will show up. I do think he's smart enough to be better prepared. I also think Hilldog has enough holes in her policy, experience, and behavior to give Trump enough in-bound areas to exploit without the need to act a fool for diversion.

Anyway, I hope it's a bloodbath. The fact they are our choices is the saddest thing about the situation. I don't think Trump will underestimate the platform, or Hilldog. I do think Hilldog, and Hilldog supporters have already written Trump off. Could be a big mistake if Trump doesn't act the fool she expects.

 

[kmoose]

Trump lambasts media for questioning veteran donations (from a BBC reporter stationed in D.C.)

Given how many interviews Trump has given (and you need to count them in the hundreds, possibly thousands), very few have stood out as asking the key questions - and then following through when you get an evasive answer.
If you want a "for example", how about the Trump pledge to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. Was he ever pressed on how this would be implemented given how few countries ask for your religion to be listed in your passport? Was he pressed about the constitutionality of such a move?
These are serious, respectful, challenging questions that any candidate has to be asked if they seek to govern.

Reality Check: Trump Right About Legal Authority to Ban Muslim Immigrants, Other Pres. Candidates Hypocritical on Muslims?

Reality check here: a President Trump would have the power to ban certain people from entering the country.

Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

It is our job to test our elected officials, to subject them to scrutiny, to ask the questions the public want answering and hopefully to be fearless in our pursuit of those questions. And to do so respectfully.
That is our job, and a free press able to do that is one of the cornerstones of a liberal democracy.

Since when is it the BBC's job to involve themselves in American politics?

 

[Irish YJ]

Since when is it the BBC's job to involve themselves in American politics?

They still haven't gotten over 1784...

 

[gkIrish]

Reality Check: Trump Right About Legal Authority to Ban Muslim Immigrants, Other Pres. Candidates Hypocritical on Muslims?



Since when is it the BBC's job to involve themselves in American politics?

Here here. It's only okay if America gets involved in another country's business.

 

[ACamp1900]

They still haven't gotten over 1784...

 

[kmoose]

Here here. It's only okay if America gets involved in another country's business.

I never said it wasn't ok. I said it isn't their job. Big difference. If they want to challenge the leading candidates for the Presidency of the USA, that's fine. But they don't get to deflect their choice of who to go after, and who not to, by saying that it's their job.

 

[Irish YJ]

one of my favorites....

time for a revolution?

 

[gkIrish]

I never said it wasn't ok. I said it isn't their job. Big difference. If they want to challenge the leading candidates for the Presidency of the USA, that's fine. But they don't get to deflect their choice of who to go after, and who not to, by saying that it's their job.

I mean American media does the same thing. I just don't see what difference it makes that BBC is also doing it. We do have a BBC America news channel...

 

[Legacy]

I never said it wasn't ok. I said it isn't their job. Big difference. If they want to challenge the leading candidates for the Presidency of the USA, that's fine. But they don't get to deflect their choice of who to go after, and who not to, by saying that it's their job.

I assume you read the full linked article, which begins: (Bolded is the writer's)

Spoiler alert - before you read this you should understand that I am almost certainly disgusting, invariably dishonest and an inveterate liar. Well, that seems to be the considered view of Donald Trump on journalists.

At a news conference in Trump Tower, his hostility towards the fourth estate was off the scale. If you want a dictionary perfect definition of tetchy, watch this news conference.

The subject matter sounded so benign: it was about the money Trump is giving to veterans' charities following the fundraising event he held back in January when he'd refused to take part in one of the TV debates (for reasons that I can't even remember - something about there had been enough debates).

Anyway, spool forward to today and Trump had come to announce where the money would go. And reporters wanted to know why it had taken so long to make this announcement, where the money had gone and how it was being distributed.

It wasn't just that he didn't like the questions. There was a slightly menacing, intimidating air to the way he dealt with the inquiries.

Let me give you a flavour. On the press in general he had this to say: "I think the political press is among the most dishonest people that I've ever met. The media is made up of people - in many cases, not all cases - of bad people. The press should be ashamed of themselves."

One reporter then asked whether this would be the way journalists would be treated during the general election campaign and if he became president. "It is going to be like this," he said.

And some people he picked off individually: "This sleazy guy right over here from ABC. He's a sleaze in my book," Trump said pointing to ABC reporter Tom Llamas. "You're a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well."

Then to the CNN reporter Jim Acosta, whom I have met many times at Trump events, he said sarcastically "you're a real beauty".

I agree with his conclusion:

It is our job to test our elected officials, to subject them to scrutiny, to ask the questions the public want answering and hopefully to be fearless in our pursuit of those questions. And to do so respectfully.
That is our job, and a free press able to do that is one of the cornerstones of a liberal democracy.

 

[ACamp1900]

It is our job to test our elected officials, to subject them to scrutiny, to ask the questions the public want answering and hopefully to be fearless in our pursuit of those questions. And to do so respectfully.
That is our job, and a free press able to do that is one of the cornerstones of a liberal democracy.

Would have been nice had they remembered any of this over the last eight years... but that would have been asking too much in a liberal democracy....

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Relevant to current events:

In the light of these ancient concepts, Ceasar emerges as a figure at once fascinating and dangerous. For the spirit thus depicted is one of sublime egotism; in which the libido dominandi asserts itself to the exclusion of all possible alternatives and crushes every obstacle in its path. We have spoken of Caesar as a divisive force. That, indeed, he was: as Cato had put it, “he was the only one of the revolutionaries to undertake, cold-sober, the subversion of the republic”; … A force like this, however, does more than divide, it destroys. Hostile to all claims of independence except its own, it is wholly incompatible with that effective equality which is implied in the classical idea of the commonwealth. To admit it within the community is thus to nourish the lion, whose reply to the hares in the assembly of beasts was to ask: Where are your claws?

— Charles Norris Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (1940)

 

[GATTACA!]

Sure...

His mouth was dry from talking!! HILARIOUS! What a loon.

 

[NorthDakota]

one of my favorites....

time for a revolution?

They are getting your cell ready in Gitmo....

 

[Irish YJ]

They are getting your cell ready in Gitmo....

3 hots and a cot. I hear the water sports are invigorating. As long as I can get Cohibas...

 

[woolybug25]

His mouth was dry from talking!! HILARIOUS! What a loon.

I said weirdo, not loon or crazy. He is weird and awkward. That's not questionable. Between his odd dick comments, to the water incident (don't act like it was normal, it was strange and on a national stage. It was very embarrassing and clearly hurt his career), to his generally dorky persona. He wasn't electable. That's all I was saying. The Republicans only had to put a well spoken, normal human being in place. Rubio, while significantly better than most of the field, was still a weirdo.

Btw, all caps make you come off poorly. Just a heads up... again...

 

[GATTACA!]

I said weirdo, not loon or crazy. He is weird and awkward. That's not questionable. Between his odd dick comments, to the water incident (don't act like it was normal, it was strange and on a national stage. It was very embarrassing and clearly hurt his career), to his generally dorky persona. He wasn't electable. That's all I was saying. The Republicans only had to put a well spoken, normal human being in place. Rubio, while significantly better than most of the field, was still a weirdo.

Yeah so weird someone talking a bunch would need water...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9C12ZvOJNfs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Btw, all caps make you come off poorly. Just a heads up... again...

 

[woolybug25]

Yeah so weird someone talking a bunch would need water...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9C12ZvOJNfs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Are you this dense? How was my comment an endorsement of Hillary? All I was saying was that it should have been an election they easily won with a basic candidate. (I.e. Romney, Ryan, etc). But keep digging that hole, buddy.

You don't have to take the advice on the caps, just trying to give some friendly advice, as people don't really take you serious when you post in that manner.

OMGFREAKOUTFUCKInGCOWARDS&SHITBAAHhHH!!!!!

 

[GATTACA!]

Are you this dense? How was my comment an endorsement of Hillary? All I was saying was that it should have been an election they easily won with a basic candidate. (I.e. Romney, Ryan, etc). But keep digging that hole, buddy.

You don't have to take the advice on the caps, just trying to give some friendly advice, as people don't really take you serious when you post in that manner.

OMGFREAKOUTFUCKInGCOWARDS&SHITBAAHhHH!!!!!

Where did I say you were endorsing Hillary? I was just giving another example of a politician needing water when they're giving a speech on a "national stage". Sorry that went over your head but it wasn't a criticism of Hillary I was using her to point out that it's a common issue, and certainly not something that is worthy of branding someone a "weirdo".

 

[woolybug25]

Where did I say you were endorsing Hillary? I was just giving another example of a politician needing water when they're giving a speech on a "national stage". Sorry that went over your head but it wasn't a criticism of Hillary I was using her to point out that it's a common issue, and certainly not something that is worthy of branding someone a "weirdo".

Cool story.

 

[Irish#1]

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee - WSJ

This is a really good article and just further emphasizes how poorly the mainstream media has handled this election cycle. The journalistic negligence is astounding.

Summarizing some key points of the article:

1) Pledged delegate counts: Clinton - 1769, Sanders - 1501. CA alone has 475 up for grabs and recent polling shows Clinton +2 in the state with records showing Sanders has out-performed polling and Clinton has under-performed polling in most states. A Sanders win (even by narrow margins) doesn't effect the delegate lead much, but does change the perception of HRC being a weaker candidate than most realize. He's on the brink of winning half the primaries/caucuses. If Clinton continues to lose primaries (even if she wins enough delegates to capture the nomination), it still suggests that she's a weak candidate. *Not mentioned in the article but still very relevant is Christ Matthew's claim that networks have all agreed and are ready to announce Clinton as the winner once the numbers come in from the NJ primary (she's expected to win). However, this is wildly irresponsible and negligent because her reaching the magic number is entirely based on Super Delegates and they haven't even voted. It's misleading and they're doing it on purpose.

2) Her lead on Trump has evaporated. Meanwhile, Sanders maintains 10 point leads in most polls.

3) Her unfavorable ratings are as high as Trump's. Voters don't trust her to a tune of 4:1.

4) The growing concern of Clinton's legal issues. Most pundits seem to think an indictment is not coming. But that won't change Trump's attack plan and it won't change the perception that she's a weak, untrustworthy candidate.

These four items make a strong case for Bernie being a stronger candidate. Going back to my post yesterday, the Super Delegates have one main job - to back the strongest candidate in order to thrust that person into the general election and give the Democrats the best chance to win the White House. Keeping an outsider from winning is a distant second. Dems want to win the WH first and foremost. All the evidence at the moment supports Bernie.

There are 781 pledged delegates still up for grabs. If Sanders and Clinton split them 50/50 in the remaining primaries, neither candidate will have enough to claim the nomination outright and will need the votes of the Super Delegates to push them into the 2382 range. This is why Bernie is staying in the race. For over a month now, Clinton's trajectory has been in decline and Bernie's has been rising. The Democrats need to decide if they want to roll the dice with Hillary of if they want to go with the outsider who by all evidence shown, is the stronger candidate to defeat the Republican candidate in Trump.

Lastly, the article touches on a Kerry or Biden type entering in the race. While I think it's unlikely, the possibility is still there. The chaos this would cause in the Democratic party and it's electorate would be insane.

This is a giant story. Has anyone really seen/heard the mainstream media go in depth and explain all of this? CNN, MSNBC, etc? I haven't.

For the record, I think the Establishment made up their mind with Clinton a long time ago and are going to roll the dice with her as the Democratic nominee. We'll see how it plays out for them, but in my gut, even though I believe Bernie to be the stronger candidate to defeat Trump, I feel the DNC and the Establishment absolutely does not want him as POTUS. God forbid someone kick over their apple cart.

 

[wizards8507]

This is a really good article and just further emphasizes how poorly the mainstream media has handled this election cycle. The journalistic negligence is astounding.

Summarizing some key points of the article:

1) Pledged delegate counts: Clinton - 1769, Sanders - 1501. CA alone has 475 up for grabs and recent polling shows Clinton +2 in the state with records showing Sanders has out-performed polling and Clinton has under-performed polling in most states. A Sanders win (even by narrow margins) doesn't effect the delegate lead much, but does change the perception of HRC being a weaker candidate than most realize. He's on the brink of winning half the primaries/caucuses. If Clinton continues to lose primaries (even if she wins enough delegates to capture the nomination), it still suggests that she's a weak candidate. *Not mentioned in the article but still very relevant is Christ Matthew's claim that networks have all agreed and are ready to announce Clinton as the winner once the numbers come in from the NJ primary (she's expected to win). However, this is wildly irresponsible and negligent because her reaching the magic number is entirely based on Super Delegates and they haven't even voted. It's misleading and they're doing it on purpose.

2) Her lead on Trump has evaporated. Meanwhile, Sanders maintains 10 point leads in most polls.

3) Her unfavorable ratings are as high as Trump's. Voters don't trust her to a tune of 4:1.

4) The growing concern of Clinton's legal issues. Most pundits seem to think an indictment is not coming. But that won't change Trump's attack plan and it won't change the perception that she's a weak, untrustworthy candidate.

These four items make a strong case for Bernie being a stronger candidate. Going back to my post yesterday, the Super Delegates have one main job - to back the strongest candidate in order to thrust that person into the general election and give the Democrats the best chance to win the White House. Keeping an outsider from winning is a distant second. Dems want to win the WH first and foremost. All the evidence at the moment supports Bernie.

There are 781 pledged delegates still up for grabs. If Sanders and Clinton split them 50/50 in the remaining primaries, neither candidate will have enough to claim the nomination outright and will need the votes of the Super Delegates to push them into the 2382 range. This is why Bernie is staying in the race. For over a month now, Clinton's trajectory has been in decline and Bernie's has been rising. The Democrats need to decide if they want to roll the dice with Hillary of if they want to go with the outsider who by all evidence shown, is the stronger candidate to defeat the Republican candidate in Trump.

Lastly, the article touches on a Kerry or Biden type entering in the race. While I think it's unlikely, the possibility is still there. The chaos this would cause in the Democratic party and it's electorate would be insane.

This is a giant story. Has anyone really seen/heard the mainstream media go in depth and explain all of this? CNN, MSNBC, etc? I haven't.

For the record, I think the Establishment made up their mind with Clinton a long time ago and are going to roll the dice with her as the Democratic nominee. We'll see how it plays out for them, but in my gut, even though I believe Bernie to be the stronger candidate to defeat Trump, I feel the DNC and the Establishment absolutely does not want him as POTUS. God forbid someone kick over their apple cart.

You can't be serious. For all Bernie Sanders bitches about how "the system is rigged," his only shot at winning would be that rigged system flipping in his favor. Clinton has received 13 million votes. Bernie has received 10 million votes. It doesn't make a damn difference how many states Bernie has won because he's received fewer votes, which is all that matters in a proportional delegate allocation system. Even without a single super delegate, he's getting SLAUGHTERED. It's not close, and his supporters are either delusional or massively hypocritical to think the California result could change anything.

 

[GDomer09]

Trump is facing a lawsuit right now over defrauding "students" of Trump University. Trial is scheduled for late November -- so that might tell us what his first 100 days would look like.

About Hillary. I'm not excited about her in the least. I think she is a caricature of a politician. She knows what all the buttons do, and which way to push all the levers of government. When she says she knows how to "get things done" this is the vision I see in my head -- not only more of the same, but more of the same on steroids.

Republicans hate her because she and her husband are better at the game than any of them since, maybe, Reagan. The Clintons have been kicking their asses so long that they are hyperventilating about how to take her down. In their eagerness to ruin her, they will blow their load on all the scandal allegations, and criminal conspiracy garbage before it even matters. Around September or October, independents will be so sick of hearing about these accusations that they will listen for substance. And from Trump, there will be none. I've been watching this movie for 30 years, and it always ends the same with the Clintons on top flipping off the Republicans who tried to tear them down. For the record, this isn't a good look for them, and I find it unappealing. I never voted for Bill and I don't want to vote for Hillary, but the GOP has given me no choice.

Trump's a hollow, loudmouth with nothing to offer except pointing out what he thinks is wrong. Anyone can do that. How do you fix it? He's got nothing. Like her or not, she's got well thought out solutions to complex problems. Some will argue that she takes the wrong approach, but at least she has a coherent approach to criticize. Trump doesn't. He's all over the place and his rhetoric seems to be bringing out the worst in people, not inspiring the best from them.

I also like that Bernie has pushed Hillary to the left, where I believe there is fertile soil for political solutions to this country's ills. He pushed her toward universal health care and affordable education. He's pushed her toward investments in our crumbling infrastructure and toward getting serious about clean energy ... these, I believe, are the single biggest steps toward rebuilding and sustaining the middle class. And, Bernie has an Army of supporters who will come on board just as soon as she fully embraces these positions. Those supporters represent a new wave of politically active voters who will form the core of the Democratic party for decades to come. Whether you like her or not, Hillary is an extremely smart woman, and she will recognize this fact. She has moved left and is not starting to talk about the issues I care about in the way I want to hear them talked about.

But, more than anything, Hillary is superior to Donald Trump in just about every way that it matters when it comes to being the president of the United States. If the GOP would have picked any other candidate (other than Cruz) from their long list of nominees, I might have seriously given them a look in a race against Hillary. But they chose Trump! If you want to find a culprit for why people are actually going to support someone so unlikable, look no further than the republican party, which has chosen a historically bad candidate as its standard bearer. I used to think that they never really learn their lessons from presidential elections. This year, they doubled down on everything that was wrong with their approach. The multi-millionaire who doesn't even know how many houses he owns, makes way for the billionaire who writes off 47% of the country out of the shoot; who makes way for the billionaire who just outright insults huge swaths of the country based on ethnicity and religion. I don't even want to know what their next candidate is going to be like.

You start off with a lawsuit against Donald Trump (who at that time and right now holds no seat in office). I knew the rest would be rich in unbiased material that doesn't make Hillary out to be an untouchable queen. lol.

I apreciate you're paragraph on why people like her as a last Democrat choice, but sure the Hell not a first choice but....

You started out only comparing Hillary to Trump and the Republican Party. I'm talking about why and the hell she's the primary candidate for the Democratic Party. Then the bolded rears its ugly head. Hate to break it to you, she is a fucking criminal. The evidence has been shown. She had a personal email and used it often. This is not a debate anymore. This was while she held a seat in office, serving the people. How did you glaze over that consciously?

I agree about the Republican Party completely screwing themselves, but again I know very little people whose first Republican choice was Trump. That's why I can't believe Hilary and Trump are going to be the choices and why I asked for some insight on how the fuck Democrats chose Hillary over Bernie and all other choices?

It's obvious you're a complete Democrat homer with the last bolded. I can see the side of picking Hilary over Trump, but to say it would still be a tossup between her and a different Republican? So you’re saying you find Hillary likeable? You sir are coming off just as bad as the Trump supporters. I don't know if you meant to, but you started off saying you were not excited about Hillary and 100% got super excited about her then proceeded to bash Trump for a whole paragraph.

 

[gkIrish]

snip.

I don't anything in that article is incorrect. It all comes down to whether or not the Super Delegates are willing to change their vote. If they were actually voting to nominate the candidate most capable of beating Trump, they would vote for Bernie.

Voters like me and others who don't like either candidate would jump for joy for an alternate option. I am not worried about Bernie's crazy ideas actually being enacted so I just want someone I can trust in the oval office.

 

[GATTACA!]

Cool story.

What a well thought out response.

Btw when it's obvious you were wrong you can just stop responding, replies like "cool story bro" make you come off poorly. Just a heads up....