Well when you're choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich...Apparently, we are, we elected obummer twice
Frankly, the US has been off-track since at least 1969, with Nixon's election.
Apparently, we are, we elected obummer twice
Of course the 3rd choice, that Dems just don't like either candidate, might be a precursor to the general election.
What a Liberal really does is attempt to make the best of reality & not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
We're better than conservatives at recognizing unobtainium for what it is. It's better to achieve the possible than to insist on the impossible. Leave absolutism to the radicals on the Right.
Makes me wonder how many of those GOP registrations are Democrats for Trump because they think he's unelectable and Hillary has it in the bag?Dem's don't seem to be real happy with their choices, or at least one of them.
Iowa Voter Registrations. Notice the Dem's have significantly fewer registrations in 2016 vs 2007, and fewer registrations than the GOP which they had more registrations than in 2007. I think the Dems are abandoning Hillary.
This just corresponds too closely with many posts / statements / comments I've seen where left leaning types simply will not vote for Hillary, keeping in mind there were polls where some 20% of Dems said they would go GOP if Hillary were nominated.
Then there's this last second media assault on Sanders that seems to be having a Trump effect, causing a backlash of anger right at the moment Sanders needs it.
I think Sanders is about to have a blowout win in Iowa. Let's see...
http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/28/iowa-voter-registration-data-point-ted-cruz-victory-iowa/
Jan. 2007
Dem: 609,633
GOP: 590,187
Jan. 2016 (one month out)
Dem: 584,111
GOP: 612,112
Obviously that's the answer. Just like Mrs. Clinton, the Foundation is clearly a victim here. How is it supposed to know it received millions in foreign contributions? Just like Hillary, the Foundation is scrupulously honest in reporting what it's been caught doing. Hell, everybody does it. Why, I remember when the Clintons had to go back and amend their personal tax returns three times while in the White House because someone had caught them lying about what they received, and each time they were completely open about what had just been documented. If that's not honesty, you don't know what is.More spin from a notorious right wing rag. If the foundation were trying to hide something they sure as Hell wouldn't have posted the information on their website & in their publications, would they?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-foundation-tax-forms_us_564ae72be4b08cda348a6239
It's all just another version of Benghazi.
I've a hunch that if "None of the above" were a valid choice in our system, we'd be facing yet another nail-biter as "None of the above" takes on "None of the above" in the fifth or sixth rematch.That's possible, like I said we'll see. If it's the former in Iowa, it'll probably be the same most everywhere. The latter, same.
Of course the 3rd choice, that Dems just don't like either candidate, might be a precursor to the general election.
So, what if there isn't an anti-Hillary? What if there is just an "other-Hillary", probably with a penis? We're not exactly known for our politicians' integrity, you know.You might want to re-calibrate your criticism, since I'm an independent. I might vote for Gary Johnson if Hillary is not the nominee, but if she is, I will vote for the anti-Hillary, whoever that is.
That we can even see this post is proof that the Internet cannot be broken with unintentional irony at the WMD level. Thanks, Algore!Feel free to be an irrational partisan hater. It's a POV requiring little thought or intellect.
Makes me wonder how many of those GOP registrations are Democrats for Trump because they think he's unelectable and Hillary has it in the bag?
Obviously that's the answer. Just like Mrs. Clinton, the Foundation is clearly a victim here. How is it supposed to know it received millions in foreign contributions? Just like Hillary, the Foundation is scrupulously honest in reporting what it's been caught doing. Hell, everybody does it. Why, I remember when the Clintons had to go back and amend their personal tax returns three times while in the White House because someone had caught them lying about what they received, and each time they were completely open about what had just been documented. If that's not honesty, you don't know what is.
I owe almost my entire Wall Street career to the Clintons. I am not alone; most bankers owe their careers, and their wealth, to them. Over the last 25 years they with the Clintons it is never just Bill or Hillary implemented policies that placed Wall Street at the center of the Democratic economic agenda, turning it from a party against Wall Street to a party of Wall Street.
...
That crisis came in January 1995, halfway through the administrations first term. Mexico, after having boomed from the optimism surrounding Nafta, went bust. It was a huge embarrassment for the administration, given the push they had made for Nafta against a cynical Democratic party.
...
As the crisis unfolded, senior management traveled to DC as part of a group of bankers to meet with Treasury officials.
...
To the surprise of Wall Street, the administration pushed for a $50bn global bail-out of Mexico, arguing that to not do so would devastate the US and world economy. Unmentioned was that it would have also devastated Wall Street banks.
...
The bailout worked, with Mexico edging away from a crisis, allowing it to repay the loans, at profit. It also worked wonders on Wall Street, which let out a huge sigh of relief.
The success encouraged the administration, which used it as an economic blueprint that emphasized Wall Street. It also emphasized bailouts, believing it was counterproductive to let banks fail, or to punish them with losses, or fines or, God forbid, charge them with crimes, and risk endangering the economy.
...
Except that Hillary Clinton continues to receive large donations from top bankers. Ask anyone who has spent the last two decades on Wall Street which politicians have worked for them the hardest and most will grudgingly admit its the Clintons. I doubt that will change anytime soon.
So Lyndon Johnson was an off the map success?Well when you're choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich...
You're seriously out of your mind if you think any establishment top pick during those elections was a good idea.
Frankly, the US has been off-track since at least 1969, with Nixon's election.
He's a political hack.You people are pathetic... You're not a progressive.
Apparently, we are, we elected obummer twice
He's a political hack.
Per Free Dictionary:
Noun1.political hack - a politician who belongs to a small clique that controls a political party for private rather than public ends
Obama and Romney were practically the same for all intents and purposes. Their plans and ideas were eerily similar. Even if we hadn't elected Obama I don't think it would have made much of a difference.
Obama and Romney were practically the same for all intents and purposes. Their plans and ideas were eerily similar. Even if we hadn't elected Obama I don't think it would have made much of a difference.
So Lyndon Johnson was an off the map success?
What about their campaign platforms was eerily similar, specifically?
Other than the Vietnam War, he was.
http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/q/43/9699/What-were-President-Lyndon-Johnson-s-accomplishments
Now & at the time the war overshadowed the rest.
I don't know, but apparently he was well hung. Wish I could have seen that thing :wub:So Lyndon Johnson was an off the map success?
You are truly laughable in a very sad way. The progressives on this discussion board are right, in that you and Clinton are not progressives. Listen to any progressive, and they will tell you that the 1968 Democratic convention was a defining event in changing the direction of the Democrat Party.
In the convention hall and on the Chicago streets outside, it was all about the Vietnam War. Not too many incumbent presidents in this country's history, decided not to run for a 2nd term only because of a major political fail. In fact I can only think of one. So "other than the Vietnam War"? People were rioting in the streets of big cities over race. People both conservative and liberal were marching in the streets over the war. Nixon was elected because of Johnson's war.
Just because you post a lot, doesn't mean you have anything meaningful to say.
Yikes. What a crook.Before everyone gets in a tizzy over Lyndon B over Vietnam consider this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668
Nixon undermined the peace process for political gain.
That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is young people in Iowa aren't going out to register as Democrats to caucus for Bernie.
Obama and Romney were practically the same for all intents and purposes. Their plans and ideas were eerily similar. Even if we hadn't elected Obama I don't think it would have made much of a difference.
I wouldn't count on the young person vote no matter who or what you support in this election as even the Atlantic magazine is discussing how incoherent their politics are. They'll be a total wild card in this election; not to mention afterwards whenever who wins tries to actually govern and has the youth fickleness come into play and turns against them.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...omics-voting-clueless-kids-these-days/374427/