Houshphandzadeh wrote:

pacino wrote:But I look at things differently at this point. I've evolved! I'm voting Clinton. I think it's great that Sanders is in the race making sure she's on her toes and not cowtowing to the mushy middle but I wish he'd spend more time on foreign policy. This is her big problem, IMO, and where I disagree with her. But, it hardly came up in the debate.

I'd rather vote for someone I think can get things done for an executive position because I saw early on how obstructive the opposition is going to be.

I just think JH should be able to have a similarly conflicted relationship with his own party and shouldn't have to answer for every errant statement by a Republican in the same way no Democrat here is expected to explain no third-party investigation for a bombed hospital.

The GOP, by contrast, has basically two perfectly plausible plans for moving its agenda forward. One is to basically change nothing and just hope for slightly better luck from the economic fundamentals or in terms of Democratic Party scandals. The other is to shift left on immigration and gain some Latino votes while retaining the core of the party's commitments. Neither of these plans is exactly brilliant, innovative, or foolproof. But neither one is crazy. Even if you believe that Democrats have obtained a structural advantage in presidential elections, it's clearly not an enormous one. The 51 percent of the vote obtained by Barack Obama in 2012 was hardly a landslide, early head-to-head polling of 2016 indicates a close race, and there's always a chance that unexpected bad news will hit the US economy or impair our national security.

But instead of a dialogue about how to obtain that success, Democrats are currently engaged in a slightly bizarre bidding war between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to see whether Congress in 2017 will reject a legislative agenda that is somewhat to the left of Obama's or drastically to its left. The differences between them are real, of course, and at least somewhat important.

pacino wrote:But I look at things differently at this point. I've evolved! I'm voting Clinton. I think it's great that Sanders is in the race making sure she's on her toes and not cowtowing to the mushy middle but I wish he'd spend more time on foreign policy. This is her big problem, IMO, and where I disagree with her. But, it hardly came up in the debate.

I'd rather vote for someone I think can get things done for an executive position because I saw early on how obstructive the opposition is going to be.

"Negotiating with Bernie was not a usual experience, because he is very passionate and he and I are both very strong-willed people and we spend a lot of time banging our fists on the table and having the occasional four-letter word," McCain said. "But at the end of the day, Bernie was result-oriented."

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

pacino wrote:But I look at things differently at this point. I've evolved! I'm voting Clinton. I think it's great that Sanders is in the race making sure she's on her toes and not cowtowing to the mushy middle but I wish he'd spend more time on foreign policy. This is her big problem, IMO, and where I disagree with her. But, it hardly came up in the debate.

I'd rather vote for someone I think can get things done for an executive position because I saw early on how obstructive the opposition is going to be.

I just think JH should be able to have a similarly conflicted relationship with his own party and shouldn't have to answer for every errant statement by a Republican in the same way no Democrat here is expected to explain away all of their party's many indignities

smitty wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/opinion/the-republicans-incompetence-caucus.html

I like this piece by a conservative columnist.

Gimpy wrote:

pacino wrote:But I look at things differently at this point. I've evolved! I'm voting Clinton. I think it's great that Sanders is in the race making sure she's on her toes and not cowtowing to the mushy middle but I wish he'd spend more time on foreign policy. This is her big problem, IMO, and where I disagree with her. But, it hardly came up in the debate.

I'd rather vote for someone I think can get things done for an executive position because I saw early on how obstructive the opposition is going to be.

I think Sanders would be fine at getting things done

I know some Republicans don't like McCain because he was captured and they prefer guys who weren't captured, but I really liked this quote by him about Bernie

"Negotiating with Bernie was not a usual experience, because he is very passionate and he and I are both very strong-willed people and we spend a lot of time banging our fists on the table and having the occasional four-letter word," McCain said. "But at the end of the day, Bernie was result-oriented."

Hillary is likely to get things done though. Things like giving Wall Street whatever they want. There's a near zero percent chance I would vote for her in the general election.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I think it's a little crazy that you think Hillary and, say, Jeb Bush are 90% different than each other

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

pacino wrote:But I look at things differently at this point. I've evolved! I'm voting Clinton. I think it's great that Sanders is in the race making sure she's on her toes and not cowtowing to the mushy middle but I wish he'd spend more time on foreign policy. This is her big problem, IMO, and where I disagree with her. But, it hardly came up in the debate.

I'd rather vote for someone I think can get things done for an executive position because I saw early on how obstructive the opposition is going to be.

I just think JH should be able to have a similarly conflicted relationship with his own party and shouldn't have to answer for every errant statement by a Republican in the same way no Democrat here is expected to explain away all of their party's many indignities

Werthless wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

pacino wrote:But I look at things differently at this point. I've evolved! I'm voting Clinton. I think it's great that Sanders is in the race making sure she's on her toes and not cowtowing to the mushy middle but I wish he'd spend more time on foreign policy. This is her big problem, IMO, and where I disagree with her. But, it hardly came up in the debate.

I'd rather vote for someone I think can get things done for an executive position because I saw early on how obstructive the opposition is going to be.

I just think JH should be able to have a similarly conflicted relationship with his own party and shouldn't have to answer for every errant statement by a Republican in the same way no Democrat here is expected to explain away all of their party's many indignities

I think he enjoys slamming poor logic. When the logic is being applied against something a Republican said/did, his post often gets conflated with support for said Republican comment/action. So even if he actually disagrees with the comment/action (eg. he is for gay marriage, IIRC), that doesn't mean he can't argue the claims on both sides.

pacino wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

pacino wrote:But I look at things differently at this point. I've evolved! I'm voting Clinton. I think it's great that Sanders is in the race making sure she's on her toes and not cowtowing to the mushy middle but I wish he'd spend more time on foreign policy. This is her big problem, IMO, and where I disagree with her. But, it hardly came up in the debate.

I'd rather vote for someone I think can get things done for an executive position because I saw early on how obstructive the opposition is going to be.

I think Sanders would be fine at getting things done

I know some Republicans don't like McCain because he was captured and they prefer guys who weren't captured, but I really liked this quote by him about Bernie

"Negotiating with Bernie was not a usual experience, because he is very passionate and he and I are both very strong-willed people and we spend a lot of time banging our fists on the table and having the occasional four-letter word," McCain said. "But at the end of the day, Bernie was result-oriented."

Hillary is likely to get things done though. Things like giving Wall Street whatever they want. There's a near zero percent chance I would vote for her in the general election.

Yes, I know you said you'd then vote for a Republican who would then put in 90% of what you're against instead of 10%.

Youseff wrote:Hilary thus far has the largest amount of contributions from the Prison Industrial Complex lobbies. Rubio is in 2nd, Jeb 3rd.

Gimpy wrote:

pacino wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

pacino wrote:But I look at things differently at this point. I've evolved! I'm voting Clinton. I think it's great that Sanders is in the race making sure she's on her toes and not cowtowing to the mushy middle but I wish he'd spend more time on foreign policy. This is her big problem, IMO, and where I disagree with her. But, it hardly came up in the debate.

I'd rather vote for someone I think can get things done for an executive position because I saw early on how obstructive the opposition is going to be.

I think Sanders would be fine at getting things done

I know some Republicans don't like McCain because he was captured and they prefer guys who weren't captured, but I really liked this quote by him about Bernie

"Negotiating with Bernie was not a usual experience, because he is very passionate and he and I are both very strong-willed people and we spend a lot of time banging our fists on the table and having the occasional four-letter word," McCain said. "But at the end of the day, Bernie was result-oriented."

Hillary is likely to get things done though. Things like giving Wall Street whatever they want. There's a near zero percent chance I would vote for her in the general election.

Yes, I know you said you'd then vote for a Republican who would then put in 90% of what you're against instead of 10%.

I don't really care what political party a person's in. The biggest thing I hate about this country is that corporations tend to legislate and politicians end up looking out for their interests instead of people's interests. The republicans are probably guiltier of that, but both sides do it. Hillary's pretty much the epitome of it though. She doesn't believe in anything. She won't fight for any ideals. She'll do what's best for her political career. #$!&@ that.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I think it's a little crazy that you think Hillary and, say, Jeb Bush are 90% different than each other

SK790 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

pacino wrote:But I look at things differently at this point. I've evolved! I'm voting Clinton. I think it's great that Sanders is in the race making sure she's on her toes and not cowtowing to the mushy middle but I wish he'd spend more time on foreign policy. This is her big problem, IMO, and where I disagree with her. But, it hardly came up in the debate.

I'd rather vote for someone I think can get things done for an executive position because I saw early on how obstructive the opposition is going to be.

I just think JH should be able to have a similarly conflicted relationship with his own party and shouldn't have to answer for every errant statement by a Republican in the same way no Democrat here is expected to explain away all of their party's many indignities

I think he enjoys slamming poor logic. When the logic is being applied against something a Republican said/did, his post often gets conflated with support for said Republican comment/action. So even if he actually disagrees with the comment/action (eg. he is for gay marriage, IIRC), that doesn't mean he can't argue the claims on both sides.