It's fascinating how some people think that "the left" is represented by people like Bernie.
He and his supporters very much adhere to the extreme left, which is something that Hillary will never be a part of.
Both liberals and conservatives have veered so far to the extremes of their respective ideological spectra that even if someone such as Hillary holds mostly liberal viewpoints with some conservative ones, it's possible to just amortize her into a centrist for simplicity.
And why is being a "centrist" a bad thing again? Economically speaking if one were to implement either current liberal or conservative principles to their fullest extent, the US economy would be crushed. The former assumes money grows on trees and the latter assumes the economy and the population are mutually exclusive. She's also pretty much a liberal (by American standards) in social policies.
Frankly I'm happy she holds "conservative" (funny how being an isolationist is considered liberal) viewpoints when it comes to foreign policy. The USA's military and diplomacy is one of the major forces that's keeping the modern world from erupting into WW3. Note how the very few times they were the major (publicly) instigators how destabilized the world became. They've ****ed up here and there but those are nothing compared to what could have been. Take it from someone who's from the Middle East.
I will NEVER understand how people support Trump because he's "not a politician," or they say that "he's a successful businessman," like WHAT? Numerous bankruptcies with an empire started thanks to a multi-million dollar loan from his family isn't a self-made man, nor do we want someone with zero political experience leading one of the most powerful nations in the world. How DENSE does someone need to be to not understand this? It's like they want to see the country they claim to love so much crash and burn harder than ever before.
Also bye at him being a "moderate." Not when Pense is his running mate and he'll be left in charge of foreign/domestic policy.
I will NEVER understand how people support Trump because he's "not a politician," or they say that "he's a successful businessman," like WHAT? Numerous bankruptcies with an empire started thanks to a multi-million dollar loan from his family isn't a self-made man, nor do we want someone with zero political experience leading one of the most powerful nations in the world. How DENSE does someone need to be to not understand this? It's like they want to see the country they claim to love so much crash and burn harder than ever before.
Also bye at him being a "moderate." Not when Pense is his running mate and he'll be left in charge of foreign/domestic policy.
It's not inherently their fault. They suffer from Dunning-Kruger.
I feel like Hillary would have gotten a lot accomplished as President in 2008. Back when Republicans became friendly with her in the Senate and the crazies rocked the party. I don't think they would have stonewalled her as much as they did Obama, since everything about that was obviously race related. Wonder how different things would have been if she won in 2008 and Obama won in 2016.
I feel like Hillary would have gotten a lot accomplished as President in 2008. Back when Republicans became friendly with her in the Senate and the crazies rocked the party. I don't think they would have stonewalled her as much as they did Obama, since everything about that was obviously race related. Wonder how different things would have been if she won in 2008 and Obama won in 2016.
I don't think Palin would have been the VP pick if Clinton was the Democrat nominee. Palin is basically responsible for the Tea Party and Trump and the "crazies" taking over.
I don't think Palin would have been the VP pick if Clinton was the Democrat nominee. Palin is basically responsible for the Tea Party and Trump and the "crazies" taking over.
OK, first you talk about change (yeah, I guess ruining the country and further empowering racist nativists would be "change"), and then you're lumping your boy Trump with the "crazies" and Palin? I thought you stanned for the Donald?
I don't think Palin would have been the VP pick if Clinton was the Democrat nominee. Palin is basically responsible for the Tea Party and Trump and the "crazies" taking over.
She was the person that exacerbated it, for sure, but the seeds were already in place. McCain stopped being a moderate in the primaries. People would still think he didn't go far enough. Clinton would be respected enough without an email scandal that I think she'd survive two terms (assuming she could correct the recession). She'd probably deal with a ton of passive-aggressive sexism but nowhere near the overt levels of racism Obama has faced. Would the exact same thing still happen if Obama was elected in 2016? I'd probably say yes. A black man getting elected to the highest office will always break these people. I don't think his own party would have turned against him like they did in the midterms though.
It's all hypothetical. It's just so interesting to me how close Obama and Clinton were in 2008 and how outright passionate people were on both sides. Emails really hurt her this go around, she's lucky she has Trump. I think she has enough room to win over the public though. Statistics show that her approval ratings are horrifyingly low when she is running for office and then rise up high once she's actually in office.
I don't know why y'all think another Great Depression, WW3, and Jim Crow era would be considered change people want. Trump really has y'all on y'all Heil Trump mess. What is this to y'all? 1930s Germany?
If Donald Trump is elected president and Republicans hold onto Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan is bluntly promising to ram a partisan agenda through Capitol Hill next year, with Obamacare repeal and trillion-dollar tax cuts likely at the top of the list. And Democrats would be utterly defenseless to stop them
It's fascinating how some people think that "the left" is represented by people like Bernie.
He and his supporters very much adhere to the extreme left, which is something that Hillary will never be a part of.
Both liberals and conservatives have veered so far to the extremes of their respective ideological spectra that even if someone such as Hillary holds mostly liberal viewpoints with some conservative ones, it's possible to just amortize her into a centrist for simplicity.
And why is being a "centrist" a bad thing again? Economically speaking if one were to implement either current liberal or conservative principles to their fullest extent, the US economy would be crushed. The former assumes money grows on trees and the latter assumes the economy and the population are mutually exclusive. She's also pretty much a liberal (by American standards) in social policies.
Frankly I'm happy she holds "conservative" (funny how being an isolationist is considered liberal) viewpoints when it comes to foreign policy. The USA's military and diplomacy is one of the major forces that's keeping the modern world from erupting into WW3. Note how the very few times they were the major (publicly) instigators how destabilized the world became. They've ****ed up here and there but those are nothing compared to what could have been. Take it from someone who's from the Middle East./quote]
Firstly, Bernie Sanders is not "the extreme left" Maybe in America. But certainly not in Canada, some South American countries or Europe.
Liberals and conservatives have indeed veered to the left and the right. This is happening all over the West. And there is a reason for it: the 2008 financial crash. Economists are in general agreement that the key reason that was allowed to happen was a lack of regulation on not only Wall Street, but in banks and financial firms all over.
Since the 2008 crash, what has happened? Centrists governments have continued business as usual. They bailed out the banks, made cuts to working people, and continued. The middle class and working class has suffered. There has been no real change, because it is not in the appetite for these centrist governments who seek to preserve the status quo. Instead, since 2008, we've just limped on wounded whilst seeing revelations like the Panama papers. And another crash could easily happen.
I wouldn't say the left believe "money grows on trees". Many would just like to see regulation... to stop the mass corruption and theft at the top
People are sick and tired of the Reagan/Thatcher economics that was established in the 1980s and the deregulation that followed. It has created this system, and we in the last 10 years have started to realise the damage..
I'm glad you find comfort in Clinton's hawkishness. Sure, she supported the Iraq war. Lets put that down to an error of judgement. But sadly, I can't look over the fact she was the one telling Bill Clinton to bomb people in Serbia, which killed innocent people. Or how she literally supported a fascist coup in Honduras. Her role with Libya. How she supported the death squads in Nicaragua in the 80s. It's honesty astonishing how some people see foreign policy as one of her strengths: she's literally been on the wrong side of history in nearly everything she has done in regards to it.
I've been thinking, and even if Hillary wins, the only way she will be re-elected is if she does all the things she's promised in her very progressive platform. She might get just enough of the millennial vote this time because many are willing to give her a chance, but if she fails to do the things she has promised, there's not a chance in hell she will be re-elected. You can deny this as much as you want, but it's true. I'm not saying it's right, but we have very well entered an era in which socialism is on the rise and the social paradigm is now one in which socialist tendencies are now very much the center-left, and that's the case around the world.
My guess is that if she doesn't do as she has promised, a much more progressive candidate will primary her, and even if she manages to win the primary (doubt it), she is going to be probably facing Pence in the GE, which she will lose without the support of those willing to give her a chance in this GE.
So, the question is, does she have what it takes to begin the process of making clean renewable energy the norm, college tuition mostly free, to expand & develop Obamacare, and to take on criminal justice reform?She's got a hell of a challenge on her hands. Especially now that obstructionism has become the norm in the American political machine.
Of course, I don't want to get ahead of myself here. Although, I'm becoming increasingly confident that Hillary is going to win this GE and win it by quite a large margin.
You don't primary a sitting President lol. Unless you want to lose for sure. It's never worked. Bernie was an idiot for suggesting that happen to Obama.
I've been thinking, and even if Hillary wins, the only way she will be re-elected is if she does all the things she's promised in her very progressive platform. She might get just enough of the millennial vote this time because many are willing to give her a chance, but if she fails to do the things she has promised, there's not a chance in hell she will be re-elected. You can deny this as much as you want, but it's true. I'm not saying it's right, but we have very well entered an era in which socialism is on the rise and the social paradigm is now one in which socialist tendencies are now very much the center-left, and that's the case around the world.
My guess is that if she doesn't do as she has promised, a much more progressive candidate will primary her, and even if she manages to win the primary (doubt it), she is going to be probably facing Pence in the GE, which she will lose without the support of those willing to give her a chance in this GE.
So, the question is, does she have what it takes to begin the process of making clean renewable energy the norm, college tuition mostly free, to expand & develop Obamacare, and to take on criminal justice reform. She's got a hell of a challenge on her hands.
Of course, I don't want to get ahead of myself here. Although, I'm becoming increasingly confident that Hillary is going to win this GE and win it by quite a large margin.
As long as nothing TERRIBLE happens (major terror attack or awful email leak), she will win. However, something like what I just mentioned could result in a Trump victory--but thats all hypothetical.
I think everyone learned from the lesson of Ted Kennedy attempting to primary Jimmy Carter in 1980. Sure, Carter was going to lose reelection either way, but it split Democrats in a spectacular fashion. You roll with what you've got and hope for the best, at least you can salvage down-ticket races that way.
Everyone talks about JFK and the what-ifs (look at my avatar lol) but I think the RFK assassination was even more horrifying and interesting to think about. He was very possibly going to become the Democrat nominee and then shot immediately after the California primary. It ruined the hopes of Democrats for a decade.
Numerous bankruptcies with an empire started thanks to a multi-million dollar loan from his family isn't a self-made man, nor do we want someone with zero political experience leading one of the most powerful nations in the world. How DENSE does someone need to be to not understand this? It's like they want to see the country they claim to love so much crash and burn harder than ever before. 
Maybe in America. But certainly not in Canada, some South American countries or Europe.