Let's talk about the debate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn't come off any more insincere than the average male politician. But the two that she's been up against inspired a degree of idealism that it's hard for her image to stand up against. If she was just against a Kerry or a Gore or some other more standard Democratic candidate, she may have had a stronger lead.

This. Plus the sexist bro machine keeps mobilizing against her in ways they never do for men.

You are rationalizing why Hillary has problems.

The reason is much more basic: she is just not trustworthy. She is totally poll driven and will say whatever will sell at any point in time. I am not sure that even she knows her core convictions.

Unfortunately for her, people see through this sort of inauthentic behavior. It is why she has credibility and trust issues.

Gee, how terrible it must be to have an elected leader who represents the wishes of the electorate

[Anonymous]

I have to say, Bernie ought to get some smarter campaign spox. Trashing the Human Rights Campaign is just plain stupid, especially when you have yet to raise a single penny for the Democratic Party. Same goes for some of the other organizations they've attacked for endorsing HRC. Newsflash: if Bernie's the nominee, he will desperately need the Democrats' and liberal advocacy groups' infrastructure and support. These temper tantrums are dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, leading progressive economists and journalists who've reviewed the plan Sanders just released don't share your view of reality, at least as it applies to that. And that's opened the door to really looking at all his plans, and using terms like "half-baked" to describe them. But keep feeling the bern, my friend. The National Review thanks you.

If the Democrats had offered a viable option other than Clinton or Sanders, I'd have seriously considered the alternative. For me - a long time liberal - Clinton represents everything wrong with politics and so it goes against the grain to vote for her. Sanders has his flaws but he is honest and principled. I will take that any day over someone who I don't trust and is beholden to special interests.

So you want a republican to be president? Because Bernie has no path to win a general election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, leading progressive economists and journalists who've reviewed the plan Sanders just released don't share your view of reality, at least as it applies to that. And that's opened the door to really looking at all his plans, and using terms like "half-baked" to describe them. But keep feeling the bern, my friend. The National Review thanks you.

If the Democrats had offered a viable option other than Clinton or Sanders, I'd have seriously considered the alternative. For me - a long time liberal - Clinton represents everything wrong with politics and so it goes against the grain to vote for her. Sanders has his flaws but he is honest and principled. I will take that any day over someone who I don't trust and is beholden to special interests.

So you want a republican to be president? Because Bernie has no path to win a general election.

A lot of people don't seem to care. It's baffling. This guy just put out a healthcare plan that leaves the Hyde Amendment intact. What's that going to do to access to abortion? SMDH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, leading progressive economists and journalists who've reviewed the plan Sanders just released don't share your view of reality, at least as it applies to that. And that's opened the door to really looking at all his plans, and using terms like "half-baked" to describe them. But keep feeling the bern, my friend. The National Review thanks you.

If the Democrats had offered a viable option other than Clinton or Sanders, I'd have seriously considered the alternative. For me - a long time liberal - Clinton represents everything wrong with politics and so it goes against the grain to vote for her. Sanders has his flaws but he is honest and principled. I will take that any day over someone who I don't trust and is beholden to special interests.

So you want a republican to be president? Because Bernie has no path to win a general election.

The question a voter needs to ask is whether there is a minimum threshold that is expected of a candidate before voting for that candidate. For example, certain candidates would never get my vote because they are incompetent or lack foreign policy knowledge.

There are Republicans who say they cannot vote for Donald Trump, if he were the nominee, because he is temperamentally unsuited to the presidency or otherwise unqualified. I don't view that as a betrayal of their party.

For me, basic integrity and honesty are crucial in someone who is running for the presidency. I also look for someone with good judgement. Hillary Clinton does not meet the minimum threshold in either of those areas. I don't expect a presidential candidate to be a saint or have flawless judgement but Clinton is so seriously lacking that it would be outright unconscionable for me to vote for her in the primaries or if she ended up being the nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, leading progressive economists and journalists who've reviewed the plan Sanders just released don't share your view of reality, at least as it applies to that. And that's opened the door to really looking at all his plans, and using terms like "half-baked" to describe them. But keep feeling the bern, my friend. The National Review thanks you.

If the Democrats had offered a viable option other than Clinton or Sanders, I'd have seriously considered the alternative. For me - a long time liberal - Clinton represents everything wrong with politics and so it goes against the grain to vote for her. Sanders has his flaws but he is honest and principled. I will take that any day over someone who I don't trust and is beholden to special interests.

So you want a republican to be president? Because Bernie has no path to win a general election.

The question a voter needs to ask is whether there is a minimum threshold that is expected of a candidate before voting for that candidate. For example, certain candidates would never get my vote because they are incompetent or lack foreign policy knowledge.

There are Republicans who say they cannot vote for Donald Trump, if he were the nominee, because he is temperamentally unsuited to the presidency or otherwise unqualified. I don't view that as a betrayal of their party.

For me, basic integrity and honesty are crucial in someone who is running for the presidency. I also look for someone with good judgement. Hillary Clinton does not meet the minimum threshold in either of those areas. I don't expect a presidential candidate to be a saint or have flawless judgement but Clinton is so seriously lacking that it would be outright unconscionable for me to vote for her in the primaries or if she ended up being the nominee.

The question people need to ask when reading opinions is whether or not they seem to be substantiated by any facts. An opinion can different from mine but have merit because it is carefully supported by facts. But opinions that are just strings of adjectives spewed one after another are generally not worth engaging with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, leading progressive economists and journalists who've reviewed the plan Sanders just released don't share your view of reality, at least as it applies to that. And that's opened the door to really looking at all his plans, and using terms like "half-baked" to describe them. But keep feeling the bern, my friend. The National Review thanks you.

If the Democrats had offered a viable option other than Clinton or Sanders, I'd have seriously considered the alternative. For me - a long time liberal - Clinton represents everything wrong with politics and so it goes against the grain to vote for her. Sanders has his flaws but he is honest and principled. I will take that any day over someone who I don't trust and is beholden to special interests.

So you want a republican to be president? Because Bernie has no path to win a general election.

The question a voter needs to ask is whether there is a minimum threshold that is expected of a candidate before voting for that candidate. For example, certain candidates would never get my vote because they are incompetent or lack foreign policy knowledge.

There are Republicans who say they cannot vote for Donald Trump, if he were the nominee, because he is temperamentally unsuited to the presidency or otherwise unqualified. I don't view that as a betrayal of their party.

For me, basic integrity and honesty are crucial in someone who is running for the presidency. I also look for someone with good judgement. Hillary Clinton does not meet the minimum threshold in either of those areas. I don't expect a presidential candidate to be a saint or have flawless judgement but Clinton is so seriously lacking that it would be outright unconscionable for me to vote for her in the primaries or if she ended up being the nominee.

Really why? She had an excellent career as a senior (in which she was able to get some bipartisan legislation passed) and was a pretty effective Secretary of State. The Clinton years wear probably the last widely prosperous years in recent history. What exactly are you so horribly offended by?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, leading progressive economists and journalists who've reviewed the plan Sanders just released don't share your view of reality, at least as it applies to that. And that's opened the door to really looking at all his plans, and using terms like "half-baked" to describe them. But keep feeling the bern, my friend. The National Review thanks you.

If the Democrats had offered a viable option other than Clinton or Sanders, I'd have seriously considered the alternative. For me - a long time liberal - Clinton represents everything wrong with politics and so it goes against the grain to vote for her. Sanders has his flaws but he is honest and principled. I will take that any day over someone who I don't trust and is beholden to special interests.

So you want a republican to be president? Because Bernie has no path to win a general election.

The question a voter needs to ask is whether there is a minimum threshold that is expected of a candidate before voting for that candidate. For example, certain candidates would never get my vote because they are incompetent or lack foreign policy knowledge.

There are Republicans who say they cannot vote for Donald Trump, if he were the nominee, because he is temperamentally unsuited to the presidency or otherwise unqualified. I don't view that as a betrayal of their party.

For me, basic integrity and honesty are crucial in someone who is running for the presidency. I also look for someone with good judgement. Hillary Clinton does not meet the minimum threshold in either of those areas. I don't expect a presidential candidate to be a saint or have flawless judgement but Clinton is so seriously lacking that it would be outright unconscionable for me to vote for her in the primaries or if she ended up being the nominee.

Really why? She had an excellent career as a senior (in which she was able to get some bipartisan legislation passed) and was a pretty effective Secretary of State. The Clinton years wear probably the last widely prosperous years in recent history. What exactly are you so horribly offended by?

Senator not senior

[Anonymous]

The Clinton years were not "the most prosperous" -- BC was the one who pulled back glass stiegal and advocated for policies that continued to demolish American industry. Big mistakes. But, yes, much better than any GOP prez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Clinton years were not "the most prosperous" -- BC was the one who pulled back glass stiegal and advocated for policies that continued to demolish American industry. Big mistakes. But, yes, much better than any GOP prez.

The Republican congress passed the bill to kill Glass-Steagall and they had enough votes to override. With you on NAFTA, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Clinton years were not "the most prosperous" -- BC was the one who pulled back glass stiegal and advocated for policies that continued to demolish American industry. Big mistakes. But, yes, much better than any GOP prez.

You are interjecting opinion, three facts state otherwise. Unemployment below 4 percent, 116 consecutive months of economic growth, average economic growth rate of 4 percent annually, increase in average median family income, and a siAble budget surplus. You have to go back decades to find similar numbers.

You can disagree wiwith nafta or glass Steagall in hindsight but that doesn't make the years Clinton was in office any less prosperous. Imo globalization was unavoidable and the utter decimation of the financial regulatory agencies by Bush was the true cause of the financial collapse.

[Anonymous]

Yesterday some Democrats were mad at Bernie for comparing Hillary to Dick Cheney. That's very definitely negative campaigning. But last night he started a fight that I think he will really regret. He said he would've welcomed the endorsement of groups like HRC and Planned Parenthood, but that they are part of the establishment he is running against. Groups fighting to protect reproductive rights and rights for LGBTQ people are actually fighting against the establishment. Needless to say, he pissed off a lot of advocates whose support he will need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn't come off any more insincere than the average male politician. But the two that she's been up against inspired a degree of idealism that it's hard for her image to stand up against. If she was just against a Kerry or a Gore or some other more standard Democratic candidate, she may have had a stronger lead.

This. Plus the sexist bro machine keeps mobilizing against her in ways they never do for men.

You are rationalizing why Hillary has problems.

The reason is much more basic: she is just not trustworthy. She is totally poll driven and will say whatever will sell at any point in time. I am not sure that even she knows her core convictions.

Unfortunately for her, people see through this sort of inauthentic behavior. It is why she has credibility and trust issues.

Gee, how terrible it must be to have an elected leader who represents the wishes of the electorate

I know of few politicians, of either gender or party, willing to endanger national security in order to keep emails away from (perfectly legitimate) oversight.

What she did, as SECRETARY OF STATE, is mind-blowing. And probably illegal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn't come off any more insincere than the average male politician. But the two that she's been up against inspired a degree of idealism that it's hard for her image to stand up against. If she was just against a Kerry or a Gore or some other more standard Democratic candidate, she may have had a stronger lead.

This. Plus the sexist bro machine keeps mobilizing against her in ways they never do for men.

You are rationalizing why Hillary has problems.

The reason is much more basic: she is just not trustworthy. She is totally poll driven and will say whatever will sell at any point in time. I am not sure that even she knows her core convictions.

Unfortunately for her, people see through this sort of inauthentic behavior. It is why she has credibility and trust issues.

Gee, how terrible it must be to have an elected leader who represents the wishes of the electorate

I know of few politicians, of either gender or party, willing to endanger national security in order to keep emails away from (perfectly legitimate) oversight.

What she did, as SECRETARY OF STATE, is mind-blowing. And probably illegal

Yeah, so it hasn't been proved that she endangered national security, and this has nothing to do with the Democratic debate, anyway. Maybe stick to your ranting about this on the other threads.

[Anonymous]

and this has nothing to do with the Democratic debate, anyway.

Gee. Hillary brought it up during the debate: "Nobody is too big to go to jail."