|
Post by Word™ on Apr 10, 2015 15:55:46 GMT -5
*sigh*.....this country is seriously ed up. This kind of comment bothers me. Sure our country isn't perfect and could do a lot to improve but it's not even close to ed up. Being a product of an immigrant mother, who happens to be from a truly ed up place, I can tell you first hand how awesome and lucky I feel to live here and not anywhere else. With the freedom we enjoy here, I feel extremely blessed. When my mom came here she didn't speak one word of English. Now she's successful in her career and bilingual. It's amazing what kind of opportunities we have if you're just willing to work hard for it. It's hardly freedom. It's the illusion of freedom.. And we aren't in the middle of religious wars, but we are definitely becoming more and more violent and a country divided by racism. Cops are killing people in the street, people are killing people and becoming famous, the news is constantly pushing fear. Everyone is offended by anything. This country, it's politics, it's citizens, America is a very ed up place. I know you've heard it before but I 100% believe that freedom is America's greatest lie. It could be worse, but the scary part is that we are have punched our ticket and are on our way to worse..And with all due respect I don't compare America to living situations of any other country. Absolutely there are places much, much worse.. But I don't live in any other country and I don't know anyone that lives in other countries. The people I have met from other countries talk about how much better their country is than America.. There is a TON of hatred towards us, and it doesn't have to do with jealousy.. I respect your stance, but by no means should my view bother you.. Your mom and your family made it out of a bad place and made a great life. She sounds like someone with strong character and incredible drive to better herself. I'm not taking anything away from you or her journey here. But I personally would rather live in a country and know up front what is going on and what to expect, than being lied to consistently by the people that have sworn to protect our nation and run our country.. I'm not a fan of being lied to on any level. Keep in mind that these are just my opinions. I don't want to be attacked for my view or get into an argument.. I'm just expressing my view.
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Apr 11, 2015 2:13:25 GMT -5
So Hillary Clinton is going to announcing that she is running this weekend.
Is this an automatic win for her?
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Apr 11, 2015 3:30:56 GMT -5
So Hillary Clinton is going to announcing that she is running this weekend. Is this an automatic win for her? I don't think so. I think her time has passed and her momentum is dead. I'll be surprised if she's their candidate going into the general.
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Apr 11, 2015 11:02:02 GMT -5
So Hillary Clinton is going to announcing that she is running this weekend. Is this an automatic win for her? I don't think so. I think her time has passed and her momentum is dead. I'll be surprised if she's their candidate going into the general. Really? I think her momentum is gone too, but I can't see anyone beating her in the Democratic primaries. I'm not sure what Democrat would even run. Sanders and Warren?
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Apr 11, 2015 12:01:04 GMT -5
So Hillary Clinton is going to announcing that she is running this weekend. Is this an automatic win for her? I don't think so. I think her time has passed and her momentum is dead. I'll be surprised if she's their candidate going into the general. There isn't a single Dem who can stand up to her financially. She's gonna have the Romney backing for this election. She's the most well known Dem. Dems need that. Warren and Sanders may run so she has someone to debate "the issues" with but it will largely be a one horse race like the GOP 2012.
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Apr 11, 2015 12:59:21 GMT -5
I don't think so. I think her time has passed and her momentum is dead. I'll be surprised if she's their candidate going into the general. There isn't a single Dem who can stand up to her financially. She's gonna have the Romney backing for this election. She's the most well known Dem. Dems need that. Warren and Sanders may run so she has someone to debate "the issues" with but it will largely be a one horse race like the GOP 2012. Could Hillary beat Sanders or Warren in a debate? I feel like Sanders and Warren are better representatives of Democratic issues and beliefs, but after seeing certain appearances by the two in the media they don't come off as the best talkers.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Apr 11, 2015 13:14:28 GMT -5
I don't think so. I think her time has passed and her momentum is dead. I'll be surprised if she's their candidate going into the general. Really? I think her momentum is gone too, but I can't see anyone beating her in the Democratic primaries. I'm not sure what Democrat would even run. Sanders and Warren? Could Sanders or Warren win the general election? Sanders' socialist tag is probably an automatic loss. Most Americans don't know what socialism really is. I'm sure most of them think socialism and communism are the same thing. I think Hillary would beat him in the primary just because Democrats would be afraid of Sanders losing. I normally agree that everyone should vote on issues and not by party but we cannot let the Republicans take back the White House. With several Supreme Court "justices" set to retire soon, too much is on the line. Those extremist tea party nuts won't stop until we're back in the 1800's.
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Apr 11, 2015 13:16:42 GMT -5
There isn't a single Dem who can stand up to her financially. She's gonna have the Romney backing for this election. She's the most well known Dem. Dems need that. Warren and Sanders may run so she has someone to debate "the issues" with but it will largely be a one horse race like the GOP 2012. Could Hillary beat Sanders or Warren in a debate? I feel like Sanders and Warren are better representatives of Democratic issues and beliefs, but after seeing certain appearances by the two in the media they don't come off as the best talkers. That's how Hillary wins, she's an experienced talker. Warren can forget more about economics than you or I will ever know but if she can't explain in laymen terms how to fix it, problem. Sanders issue is when he gets on his high horse (normally a social issue) he gets belligerent sometimes. Him and Rand went at it for a seniors bill a while back; both made fabulous points but Rand used his cunning snarkyness to make Sanders come off as less snarky and more rude: similar to the Romney/Obama town hall debate in 2012 where they were about to go to to blows. That's not something the American people would knowingly vote for. Dems know all of this. Hence why they would be the perfect candidates to run against Hillary (though now that Hillary is confirmed, I could see them now protecting Warren and teaching her up). She will be President of the United States in our lifetime, or at least the party nominee, so they may want to wait on pulling the trigger. Paul Ryan ruined any future Presidential aspirations by allowing Biden to systematically demolish him to the point where he's still politically recovering four years later. The Dems won't let something similar happen to a potential future nom.
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Apr 11, 2015 13:30:30 GMT -5
Really? I think her momentum is gone too, but I can't see anyone beating her in the Democratic primaries. I'm not sure what Democrat would even run. Sanders and Warren? Could Sanders or Warren win the general election? Sanders' socialist tag is probably an automatic loss. Most Americans don't know what socialism really is. I'm sure most of them think socialism and communism are the same thing. I think Hillary would beat him in the primary just because Democrats would be afraid of Sanders losing. I normally agree that everyone should vote on issues and not by party but we cannot let the Republicans take back the White House. With several Supreme Court "justices" set to retire soon, too much is on the line. Those extremist tea party nuts won't stop until we're back in the 1800's. That's one of the biggest problems we have in America right now, in my opinion. Living in the south has shown me how uninformed people are on Socialism. Recently went to a debate where a few guys were very proud to share that they went to the local public schools growing up and then used their GI Bill to attend college, but genuinely seemed like Socialism was an evil, Anti-American idea. Could Hillary beat Sanders or Warren in a debate? I feel like Sanders and Warren are better representatives of Democratic issues and beliefs, but after seeing certain appearances by the two in the media they don't come off as the best talkers. That's how Hillary wins, she's an experienced talker. Warren can forget more about economics than you or I will ever know but if she can't explain in laymen terms how to fix it, problem. Sanders issue is when he gets on his high horse (normally a social issue) he gets belligerent sometimes. Him and Rand went at it for a seniors bill a while back; both made fabulous points but Rand used his cunning snarkyness to make Sanders come off as less snarky and more rude: similar to the Romney/Obama town hall debate in 2012 where they were about to go to to blows. That's not something the American people would knowingly vote for. Dems know all of this. Hence why they would be the perfect candidates to run against Hillary (though now that Hillary is confirmed, I could see them now protecting Warren and teaching her up). She will be President of the United States in our lifetime, or at least the party nominee, so they may want to wait on pulling the trigger. Paul Ryan ruined any future Presidential aspirations by allowing Biden to systematically demolish him to the point where he's still politically recovering four years later. The Dems won't let something similar happen to a potential future nom. Well that first paragraph summed up how I felt. Warren didn't come off as comfortable speaking in her Daily Show appearance. Sanders does go on tangents often about Socialism which is terrible if you're trying to win an election. It's great to actually hear someone with influence talk about infrastructure and other somewhat ignored issues, but I can't see him winning anyone with doubts over. EDIT: I think what I was originally getting at is that I think the Democrats putting up Sanders or Warren in the primaries as a poxy-war for Clinton could be a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by Nick the Quick on Apr 11, 2015 15:31:02 GMT -5
Really? I think her momentum is gone too, but I can't see anyone beating her in the Democratic primaries. I'm not sure what Democrat would even run. Sanders and Warren? Could Sanders or Warren win the general election? Sanders' socialist tag is probably an automatic loss. Most Americans don't know what socialism really is. I'm sure most of them think socialism and communism are the same thing. I think Hillary would beat him in the primary just because Democrats would be afraid of Sanders losing. I normally agree that everyone should vote on issues and not by party but we cannot let the Republicans take back the White House. With several Supreme Court "justices" set to retire soon, too much is on the line. Those extremist tea party nuts won't stop until we're back in the 1800's. This I cannot agree with enough, I'm genuinely terrified of what will happen to this country if that happens.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Apr 11, 2015 15:45:10 GMT -5
If the democrats want to win the presidency, they need to nominate someone who distances themselves greatly from Obama.
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Apr 11, 2015 16:38:44 GMT -5
If the democrats want to win the presidency, they need to nominate someone who distances themselves greatly from Obama. Eh. They need to nominate someone who will keep the economic upturn. That's the major issue. The fact that Rand Paul can do a platform on term limits shows that this election is, while incredibly important, not nearly as "For the love of god someone save us" as 2008 was. No Dem will fight Obamacare. Most politicians on both sides are in favor of strategic assaults on ISIS. Education's gonna be a major thing. Obama's free Community College idea is gonna be a hot topic because universal education's been massive WANT for Dems for, well, ever, I think Hillary benefits because she used to be a republican. She's a Wall Street Democrat with Liberal social ideas. It's a smart nomination, whether people feel she is "trustworthy" or not is just the different story.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Apr 11, 2015 19:52:59 GMT -5
If the democrats want to win the presidency, they need to nominate someone who distances themselves greatly from Obama. Eh. They need to nominate someone who will keep the economic upturn. That's the major issue. The fact that Rand Paul can do a platform on term limits shows that this election is, while incredibly important, not nearly as "For the love of god someone save us" as 2008 was. That's just how presidential elections have been in the past because of the presidential life cycle. The incumbent party usually needs to run from the previous admin, especially if the party that holds office is showing unfavorable ratings. on a side note, I think people are being a bit too dramatic about this republican vs democrat thing in this thread republicans aren't bad people and don't want to harm you like Aaron Rodgers says "relax" I live in possibly the most liberal state in the country but I don't wake up everyday feeling like the world is ending
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Apr 11, 2015 20:44:37 GMT -5
Eh. They need to nominate someone who will keep the economic upturn. That's the major issue. The fact that Rand Paul can do a platform on term limits shows that this election is, while incredibly important, not nearly as "For the love of god someone save us" as 2008 was. That's just how presidential elections have been in the past because of the presidential life cycle. The incumbent party usually needs to run from the previous admin, especially if the party that holds office is showing unfavorable ratings. on a side note, I think people are being a bit too dramatic about this republican vs democrat thing in this thread republicans aren't bad people and don't want to harm you like Aaron Rodgers says "relax" I live in possibly the most liberal state in the country but I don't wake up everyday feeling like the world is ending I think a lot of people are just frustrated with how the current congress has performed and are ready for something new.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Apr 11, 2015 20:51:39 GMT -5
I don't think being against gay marriage should be a deciding factor for gay people that vote.. If the candidate is against gay marriage, but (hypothetically) also happens to be hands down one of the best presidential candidates in the last 16 years.. Would they still not vote for him? Would his stance on sexual orientation be held against him if he was 100% able to get this country going again in the right direction? I'll never understand.. We separate church and state, yet the bible still plays a huge hand in how we treat the laws or "sanctity" of marriage.. Gay marriage is frowned upon still to this day because of what the bible says.. Our views are terrible, and it's amazing that we still live amongst people with that mindset. Marriage has become a giant joke anyways. I think we as a civilization would be much better if we were to reevaluate the ways and meaning of marriage. *sigh*.....this country is seriously ed up. If there was a candidate who was "hands down one of the best presidential candidates in the last 16 years" but also in favor of resegregating the country and making whites-only establishments, would you vote for them? "Liberty and justice for all" isn't conditional. Eh. They need to nominate someone who will keep the economic upturn. That's the major issue. The fact that Rand Paul can do a platform on term limits shows that this election is, while incredibly important, not nearly as "For the love of god someone save us" as 2008 was. That's just how presidential elections have been in the past because of the presidential life cycle. The incumbent party usually needs to run from the previous admin, especially if the party that holds office is showing unfavorable ratings. on a side note, I think people are being a bit too dramatic about this republican vs democrat thing in this thread republicans aren't bad people and don't want to harm you like Aaron Rodgers says "relax" I live in possibly the most liberal state in the country but I don't wake up everyday feeling like the world is ending The problem isn't sensible Republicans like you seem to be. The proven is that your party has been hijacked by a fringe minority of nut jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Apr 11, 2015 21:21:26 GMT -5
I don't think being against gay marriage should be a deciding factor for gay people that vote.. If the candidate is against gay marriage, but (hypothetically) also happens to be hands down one of the best presidential candidates in the last 16 years.. Would they still not vote for him? Would his stance on sexual orientation be held against him if he was 100% able to get this country going again in the right direction? I'll never understand.. We separate church and state, yet the bible still plays a huge hand in how we treat the laws or "sanctity" of marriage.. Gay marriage is frowned upon still to this day because of what the bible says.. Our views are terrible, and it's amazing that we still live amongst people with that mindset. Marriage has become a giant joke anyways. I think we as a civilization would be much better if we were to reevaluate the ways and meaning of marriage. *sigh*.....this country is seriously ed up. If there was a candidate who was "hands down one of the best presidential candidates in the last 16 years" but also in favor of resegregating the country and making whites-only establishments, would you vote for them? "Liberty and justice for all" isn't conditional. That's just how presidential elections have been in the past because of the presidential life cycle. The incumbent party usually needs to run from the previous admin, especially if the party that holds office is showing unfavorable ratings. on a side note, I think people are being a bit too dramatic about this republican vs democrat thing in this thread republicans aren't bad people and don't want to harm you like Aaron Rodgers says "relax" I live in possibly the most liberal state in the country but I don't wake up everyday feeling like the world is ending The problem isn't sensible Republicans like you seem to be. The proven is that your party has been hijacked by a fringe minority of nut jobs. Haha! I'm actually a registered independent. I don't feel like either party properly represents me. I actually think the problem is sensible politicians, republican and democrat. Both parties, for me, have some serious work to do in order to win back my trust as well as the trust of millions of others. I don't care what you party is, tell me what you stand for.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Apr 11, 2015 21:29:39 GMT -5
That's just how presidential elections have been in the past because of the presidential life cycle. The incumbent party usually needs to run from the previous admin, especially if the party that holds office is showing unfavorable ratings. on a side note, I think people are being a bit too dramatic about this republican vs democrat thing in this thread republicans aren't bad people and don't want to harm you like Aaron Rodgers says "relax" I live in possibly the most liberal state in the country but I don't wake up everyday feeling like the world is ending I think a lot of people are just frustrated with how the current congress has performed and are ready for something new. People are frustrated and disenchanted by party politics. I discovered that voting on conscience, I have felt so much better about the outlook of the country. Also, traveling the country has given me a whole lot of context about the people and their beliefs. It's amazing what happens when you talk to people and hear their story, where they're from, etc..
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Apr 11, 2015 21:52:56 GMT -5
That's just how presidential elections have been in the past because of the presidential life cycle. The incumbent party usually needs to run from the previous admin, especially if the party that holds office is showing unfavorable ratings. on a side note, I think people are being a bit too dramatic about this republican vs democrat thing in this thread republicans aren't bad people and don't want to harm you like Aaron Rodgers says "relax" I live in possibly the most liberal state in the country but I don't wake up everyday feeling like the world is ending I think a lot of people are just frustrated with how the current congress has performed and are ready for something new. Those people has their chance in this past midterm yet practically every congressmen/women was re-elected.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Apr 11, 2015 22:01:06 GMT -5
So Hillary Clinton is going to announcing that she is running this weekend. Is this an automatic win for her? I think so. I would be curious who Hillary would pick for her VP. Anyone know any top contenders?
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Apr 11, 2015 22:07:52 GMT -5
I think a lot of people are just frustrated with how the current congress has performed and are ready for something new. Those people has their chance in this past midterm yet practically every congressmen/women was re-elected. Yeah, that's one of the big issues. This has to be one of the lowest approval ratings a congress has ever gotten, yet absolutely no one shows up to the polls.
|
|