Total Posts:252|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why do you support your preferred candidate?

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 6:26:39 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
So now that we near the Primaries for the parties' respective nomination, I thought it'd be good for a reflection time on why we support our preferred candidate. And here we go:

---

Candidate: Senator Bernie Sanders

I'm going to give a bit of background on my political views. I first got political exposure during the 2012 election season - watching the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, then the Presidential debates, and then following the polls and Election Day religiously - it captivated me. I started out a bit left-of-centre: but not that much. In 2013, I started to follow things moderately closely, and by the end of the year I watched online talk shows nearly every day. I also started to read up on a few politicians - and while I did not agree with him then nearly as much as I do now, Bernie Sanders was my favorite of all. He's sort of like my childhood political hero - and he brought me to a few of my positions I currently hold. He brought me to shed party labels, and how to think beyond establishment leadership. So in 2014 I join DDO, more left than I was when I first started following politics. I became more informed, more engaged with both sides of the spectrum - and I still have moved left. Now, I agree - by far - the most with Sanders: much more than Clinton.

But that is not to say that my agreement is the only reason I support Sanders over Clinton - at least on its face.

Some people say that Sanders is unlikely to pass his reforms through the Republicans - and therefore we should support Clinton, who will get more done and will promote our ideals - as much as most people may agree more with Sanders.

But I have a question for those who are as left as me who support Clinton over Sanders - where does she actually promote your ideals? By your own admission you don't agree with her on a lot of major issues, so where does she actually help us push our ideals?

Next, when the hell did Republicans become willing to work with Hillary Clinton? Was there a sudden massive shift there? And even though she may even be slightly right-of-centre on economics, she'll probably be branded a fvcking socialist as much as Bernie. We're talking about the House GOP reps and Teabaggers here.

So in terms of the next eight years, the difference won't be how much more either one passes - and I think Bernie would even be better at reaching across party lines, as he respects the GOP as "opposition", not "enemies". But aside from that, the difference will be how left their agenda will be. Bernie gets the "we like him, but..." treatment, when there's no doubt he'd win. It's not a "HE'S A GODDAMNED PINKO" game - politics in the voting level have become polarized to the point Dems will elect a socialist. That's it. The attacks on Hillary will be just as vicious, if not more so.

So what's it going to be? Eight years of a crony capitalist administration, or an anti-corporate, anti-establishment administration - who would push for a more socially liberal agenda, and the end of our prison industry.

Regardless of how much he gets done, results in the next eight years are not the only things this Presidency will decide. The choice between Clinton or Sanders will have drastic difference in Supreme Court nominations - I don't want to see crony interests protected for more years to come when probably about 1 to 3 Justices will be replaced. Then, we will have Party leadership changes. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is incompetent - and should have already resigned after her utter failure in 2014 as the leader, and she *needs* to be replaced: or else we will have more years with a leader who is overconfident, vain, incompetent, and a cunt.

And then, we will see the difference between the two in their effects on the Party ideology in the long run. Let me compare this to the Blairites of the Labour Party in the UK. If Blair hadn't been made the leader of Labour, and Labour had stayed distinctly left, we wouldn't have a problem with Corbyn as the leader - who is as left as was normal decades ago - before Blair. Now, Labour MPs want their party to be Tory lite - right-of-centre, and not being a legitimate alternative to the Conservative Party.

http://www.mirror.co.uk...

Blair's type of view is not what I would like in the leader of our country. This holier-than-thou "moderate" view. The "pragmatic" leader. We shouldn't be relegated into complacency with a lack of vision. I become very cynical when people like Clinton take office? Will there be change? No. We will be living in the same sh!t for years, with no reforms to the prison industrial complex, no end to the war on drugs, no reforms to our below-par educational system, no reform to inefficient health care systems - and a lack of alternative to outrageously overpriced private plans, no campaign finance reform - the list is endless. Clinton would rather appease donors than push for an agenda with actual reforms that we as Americans need for our long-term well-being.

And before you say we can't afford a single-payer system...the US holds about 25% of the world's GDP. Many countries with far less wealth can afford to run single-payer health systems where nobody dies because of a lack of insurance. Obamacare is not efficient enough, it doesn't insure enough people, and while it was a step forward - it was at the end of the day, not good enough.

And what about the poor state of our inner-city education? Our rural education? These places that aren't some well-off town in Virginia where school budgets are sh!t, and as a result we aren't even in the top ten for education.

This is not a matter of pie-in-the-sky idealist vs realistic moderate. This is a matter of getting the change we *need*, not want. Not just change in the next eight years, but electing Bernie Sanders would get many young voters involved with the political process faster, and Democrats would be a huge step ahead of Republicans with the added voters. And in eight years, Democrats would be much further to the left than they otherwise would be if they elect Hillary Clinton - who would preserve the incompetent leadership and our pathetic compliance with lobbyists.

So this is what it boils down to: if Bernie Sanders got the Democratic nomination, I would be proud to call myself a Democrat. Otherwise, it's a Party that doesn't truly fight for what I stand for, and they should not call themselves progressive, left-wing, or even close to what many people believe who oppose the possibility of GOP leadership, which most definitely includes me.

And I know that deep down, many Clinton supporters agree with a lot of what I just said. And the fact they won't support Sanders because they're unsure about whether he can win sickens me. If they stepped out of their complacent nature to settle on a "moderate", or Democrat in-name-only, there would be no question that Sanders could win.

---

Now, I would like to hear others.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 6:29:42 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Good thread. I'm interested in hearing the some diverse perspectives on familiar candidates. Hopefully it stays civil.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 6:38:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Leaning Hillary, but formally undecided.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 4:44:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Sanders or Trump.

I like them equally for their ability to destroy the systemic institutionalized establishment. Would have to wait towards the end to make a choice though.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 5:45:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Candidate: Donald Trump

My reason is simple. He is the only GOP candidate who has a decent chance of winning without causing the GOP to fracture.
He has said a lot of stupid things (his anti-illegal rhetoric not being one of those things) but:
1. He's probably a little bit less extreme than letting on; he knows what to say that will get him more voters and publicity and so he says that, so it's not guaranteed that he actually believes half of what he's saying.
2. If he can be "tamed" and he agrees to listen to the GOP establishment and take the advice of their experts in the decision-making process, then he can still be a president whose administration is roughly as good as that of Bush or Obama. It doesn't even matter how smart he is as long as he takes the advice of smart people (and to be fair he'd have to be fairly smart to win the office of President, so he probably isn't an idiot anyway).

Also, voting for him could serve to spite the overall Liberal media which tries to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech in this country.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 6:01:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
John Kasich.

Kasich's ideology seems to pretty much mirror my own; fairly moderate, especially on social issues.

He is experienced, has an excellent record, and he comes across as very real and genuine. . . And I think that that is because he is very real and genuine. I believe him to be a good and decent man, I think he would appeal to moderates in the general election while still being an acceptable candidate for the hard-liners, and I believe he would be a very great president.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 6:15:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Sanders/Rand Paul, and if they were the heads of their respective parties (and they should be, even if it probably won't happen), it'd be the closest thing to a win/win we'd get.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 7:01:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I would most likely support Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, but I don't fully support any of the candidates.

For one, I do not find that the vote plays any vital role in representation, as all the politicians act on majority rule and do not represent the people.

Second, I find that no man is fit to rule another.

Thirdly, none of the candidates running are as Libertarian as I would hope, other than Gary Johnson, who has no shot at winning.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 7:21:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Trump is a divider, Bernie is a uniter. It's not the Divided States of America, it's the United States of America.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 7:44:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Candidate: Hillary Clinton

Reason 1) No Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren

I was pulling HARD for Joe Biden to enter the race because even though he's a bit of a goof at times, because he seems far more human and honest than Hillary is, and can match Hillary in terms of experience in high levels of government. I would have switched allegiance to him right away if he decided to run, and was bummed when he declined not to run. Hillary in the first debate tipped her hand that her presidency would be a continuation of the Obama presidency, I imagine that Biden would have pledge to do the same since he was VP for 8 years to Obama. So If Hillary and Biden ran on pretty much the same platform like I think they would have if Biden entered the race, then Biden would have the edge because he seems more honest, human, trustworthy, etc. compared to Hillary despite being a bit nutty.

Elizabeth Warren on the other hand is a tad more to the left than Hillary or Biden is, but not so far to the left that its 'radical' for me. She may want to jack up the minimum wage and break up big banks, but I dont believe she wants to nationalize hospitals and college like Bernie does... She's close enough to the center but still left for me to have interest if she ran, but she didnt along with Biden, which leaves Hillary and two other candidates

Reason 2) O'Malley vs Hillary Level of Experience

O'Malley was a former governor from a state not doing so hot right now (Maryland) and Bernie is a Senator from a hard liberal state in Vermont. Hillary was been Senator of New York, the Secretary of State, she basically was co-president with Bill in the 1990's. O'Malley im sure has redeemable qualities, but Hillary absolutely has the edge on O'Malley when it comes to experience in high levels of government. She has the advantage over Bernie as well, but there are other reasons why I dont support Bernie whereas for O'Malley its just a lack of experience compared to Hillary that is the reason I dont support O'Malley...... Im sure he would make a fine cabinet member at a position no one really cares about, but I dont think he would make an exceptional president.

Reason 3) Bernie is too radical even for my taste

He wants to nationalize the healthcare system which I dont support, he wants to nationalize colleges which I dont support, he has no proposed means of funding either programs which I also am critical of, and even if he accepts that he would have to raise taxes to properly pay for all this, there's no way in hell he could get such legislation through a divided Congress like we have right now. He and his supporters seem to exist in a complete alternate reality where they think they can actually do ANY of what Bernie wants to do, and the plain facts are that they cant. No congress featuring as many republicans as the one Bernie would get if he became president would ever raise taxes, or nationalize the healthcare system, or nationalize colleges, or do any of the things Bernie is basing his entire campaign on....

His platform is a pipe dream, and a bad one as well.

Reason 4) GOP is insane

I could have maybe supported Kasich or Rubio, but seeing Rubio go hard right on abortion (where he said he would NOT allow abortion even in cases of rape) along with Rubio and Kasich denouncing planned parenthood were deal-breakers. Every other GOP candidate goes way further to the right than Kasich and Rubio, but just because those two are pretty moderate in their field doesnt mean they are moderate enough for my taste.

Basically: I support Hillary by process of elimination more than anything I actually like about Hillary. She has loads of experience at multiple levels of government which I like to see in a candidate, but thats about it.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 7:45:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 6:15:07 PM, Torton wrote:
Sanders/Rand Paul, and if they were the heads of their respective parties (and they should be, even if it probably won't happen), it'd be the closest thing to a win/win we'd get.

Are you kidding? How can you support a socialist and a libertarian? You would be hard-pressed to find two Americans who are further apart on economics.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 7:58:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 7:44:14 PM, imabench wrote:
Reason 3) Bernie is too radical even for my taste

He wants to nationalize the healthcare system which I dont support, he wants to nationalize colleges which I dont support, he has no proposed means of funding either programs which I also am critical of, and even if he accepts that he would have to raise taxes to properly pay for all this, there's no way in hell he could get such legislation through a divided Congress like we have right now. He and his supporters seem to exist in a complete alternate reality where they think they can actually do ANY of what Bernie wants to do, and the plain facts are that they cant. No congress featuring as many republicans as the one Bernie would get if he became president would ever raise taxes, or nationalize the healthcare system, or nationalize colleges, or do any of the things Bernie is basing his entire campaign on....

His platform is a pipe dream, and a bad one as well.

Hillary has been using this attack on Bernie recently and I find it pretty ironic to be perfectly honest. The GOP absolutely hates her living guts. On the other hand, there are Republicans who would vote for Bernie over Trump or Cruz. Bernie got 20% of the Republican vote during his past reelection. I don't think this is a strong line of attack from the Hillary machine.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 7:59:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 7:21:31 PM, stealspell wrote:
Trump is a divider, Bernie is a uniter. It's not the Divided States of America, it's the United States of America.

Trump unites the dividers :p
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 8:00:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 7:59:51 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/23/2016 7:21:31 PM, stealspell wrote:
Trump is a divider, Bernie is a uniter. It's not the Divided States of America, it's the United States of America.

Trump unites the dividers :p

I can't argue with that :)
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 8:11:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 7:58:44 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/23/2016 7:44:14 PM, imabench wrote:
Reason 3) Bernie is too radical even for my taste

He wants to nationalize the healthcare system which I dont support, he wants to nationalize colleges which I dont support, he has no proposed means of funding either programs which I also am critical of, and even if he accepts that he would have to raise taxes to properly pay for all this, there's no way in hell he could get such legislation through a divided Congress like we have right now. He and his supporters seem to exist in a complete alternate reality where they think they can actually do ANY of what Bernie wants to do, and the plain facts are that they cant. No congress featuring as many republicans as the one Bernie would get if he became president would ever raise taxes, or nationalize the healthcare system, or nationalize colleges, or do any of the things Bernie is basing his entire campaign on....

His platform is a pipe dream, and a bad one as well.

Hillary has been using this attack on Bernie recently and I find it pretty ironic to be perfectly honest. The GOP absolutely hates her living guts. On the other hand, there are Republicans who would vote for Bernie over Trump or Cruz.

Well theyre the absolute swine of the GOP party so I can see why theyd prefer anyone over those two.

Bernie got 20% of the Republican vote during his past reelection.

Im willing to bet that a Vermont Republican is a hell of a lot more liberal leaning than a Republican in an actual swing state

I don't think this is a strong line of attack from the Hillary machine.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 8:22:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 7:45:58 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:15:07 PM, Torton wrote:
Sanders/Rand Paul, and if they were the heads of their respective parties (and they should be, even if it probably won't happen), it'd be the closest thing to a win/win we'd get.

Are you kidding? How can you support a socialist and a libertarian? You would be hard-pressed to find two Americans who are further apart on economics.

I don't support both of them equally (i.e., Sander's socialist economics and a few of Rand's social positions). They're just the best candidates in their opposing parties, hence closest thing to a win/win we'll get.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 8:27:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Hillary Clinton

She is the one candidate that both represents my views and shows an ability to do the job.

I love Bernie, but he is a little too extreme for me, and I just have a hard time seeing him as commander and chief. I have heard the choice between Hilary and Bernie characterized as a choice between idealism and pragmatism. I agree with that assessment and I prefer pragmatism. Idealism makes for an inspiring speech. Pragmatism might actually get things done.

I could also see going for John Kasich. In fact between John and Bernie I would have a tough time choosing.

I like O'Malley too, but I admit that I just haven't paid enough attention to him.

The rest of the field (all GOP) are just nuts, especially Trump. How anyone can take his candidacy seriously is beyond me.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 8:52:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I support my candidate because Liberal candidates will get us all killed. The anti war at all costs stance is nieve and gets your people attacked and killed. Going to Iraq was a mistake. Pulling out before ready was worse. Now all Hell is breaking loose. A U.S. presence in the Middle East would have prevented the chaos we now see. Sometimes passivism equals more death, not less. Obama's stance was no conflict and tolerance at all costs. It's a false morality. Tollerance of intollerance is intollerance.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 8:55:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Ayaan Hirsi Ali(Former Muslim)

It's not that I'm anti Islam. It's that Islam is anti democracy and anti me.

"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice." -Ayaan Hirsi Ali
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 9:12:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 7:44:14 PM, imabench wrote:
Candidate: Hillary Clinton

Reason 1) No Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren

Fair assessment, but I don't think Warren is as moderate as you give her credit for.

Reason 2) O'Malley vs Hillary Level of Experience

He's probably in it right now for the Cabinet position more than anything, so I'll agree on most points.

Reason 3) Bernie is too radical even for my taste

He wants to nationalize the healthcare system which I dont support, he wants to nationalize colleges which I dont support, he has no proposed means of funding either programs which I also am critical of, and even if he accepts that he would have to raise taxes to properly pay for all this, there's no way in hell he could get such legislation through a divided Congress like we have right now. He and his supporters seem to exist in a complete alternate reality where they think they can actually do ANY of what Bernie wants to do, and the plain facts are that they cant. No congress featuring as many republicans as the one Bernie would get if he became president would ever raise taxes, or nationalize the healthcare system, or nationalize colleges, or do any of the things Bernie is basing his entire campaign on....

His platform is a pipe dream, and a bad one as well.

This is where I take issue. I'm not delusional - I know not everything he wants will be passed. But, you have to remember that with a higher turnout on Election Day (and perhaps more if Sanders is the nominee), the Democrats will at least make gains in the House, and probably take the Senate back. While that is not sufficient to pass his agenda, and it would take effort Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn't have in her to pull off complete Congress control, know that it at least won't be *as* Republican dominated as it is now.

Then, if Sanders supporters are living in a pipe dream, Clinton supporters delude themselves a lot as well. Do you think that, if the Congress is divided, more on Hillary's agenda will be passed - if people who talk like FOX and Friends pundits control the House?

Lastly, why do you oppose a single-payer system for healthcare? It strikes me as odd that you would oppose that.

Reason 4) GOP is insane

No disagreement.

Basically: I support Hillary by process of elimination more than anything I actually like about Hillary. She has loads of experience at multiple levels of government which I like to see in a candidate, but thats about it.

Your reasoning on a lot of it is valid, but I want to hear responses to my question on Reason 3.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 9:44:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 4:44:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Sanders or Trump.

I like them equally for their ability to destroy the systemic institutionalized establishment. Would have to wait towards the end to make a choice though.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 10:12:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 9:12:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 7:44:14 PM, imabench wrote:
Candidate: Hillary Clinton

Reason 3) Bernie is too radical even for my taste

He wants to nationalize the healthcare system which I dont support, he wants to nationalize colleges which I dont support, he has no proposed means of funding either programs which I also am critical of, and even if he accepts that he would have to raise taxes to properly pay for all this, there's no way in hell he could get such legislation through a divided Congress like we have right now. He and his supporters seem to exist in a complete alternate reality where they think they can actually do ANY of what Bernie wants to do, and the plain facts are that they cant. No congress featuring as many republicans as the one Bernie would get if he became president would ever raise taxes, or nationalize the healthcare system, or nationalize colleges, or do any of the things Bernie is basing his entire campaign on....

His platform is a pipe dream, and a bad one as well.

This is where I take issue. I'm not delusional - I know not everything he wants will be passed.

What do you think actually WOULD get passed that Bernie wants to pass? It sure as hell wont be any tax increases or anything that dramatically expands government influence over healthcare or education

But, you have to remember that with a higher turnout on Election Day (and perhaps more if Sanders is the nominee), the Democrats will at least make gains in the House, and probably take the Senate back.

Dems are probably not going to take the Senate back since the Senate seats up for grabs are in safe GOP states. Even if Dems did get to 50 though it doesnt matter because a party needs at least 60 people in the Senate to move any legislation they want. The House meanwhile is projected to stay exactly the same it is

http://www.electionprojection.com...
http://www.electionprojection.com...

While that is not sufficient to pass his agenda, and it would take effort Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn't have in her to pull off complete Congress control, know that it at least won't be *as* Republican dominated as it is now.

By a smidge maybe, but not nearly by enough where there is any forseeable route for any of Bernie's agenda can pass. This isnt 2008 where the country was so sick of Bush's screwups that they overwhelmingly put democrats in both houses of congress... Congress will stay about the same and be as polarized as ever, especially if the GOP loses the general election and their base get furious

Then, if Sanders supporters are living in a pipe dream, Clinton supporters delude themselves a lot as well. Do you think that, if the Congress is divided, more on Hillary's agenda will be passed - if people who talk like FOX and Friends pundits control the House?

Well of course not..... Both candidates no matter what major legislation they try to move will have it be shut down in Congress due to partisanship, so I dont weigh my support by who will get legislation passed, because thats not going to happen no matter who we try to put into office. I only pointed out that Bernie's policies have no shot in hell of passing, I never meant to suggest Hillary has better odds.

Without any major legislation passing, whoever the Dems elect will have their presidency be focused entirely on one thing and one thing only: Foreign policy, since what happens nation and nation around the world doesnt have to go through the sh*thole that is Congress beforehand.

When it comes to foreign policy, Id MUCH rather have a former Secretary of State who was in the room when Bin Laden was getting shot be at the reigns, than a hard-left wing Senator from Vermont who has jack sh** foreign policy experience to bring to the table.

Lastly, why do you oppose a single-payer system for healthcare? It strikes me as odd that you would oppose that.

I oppose it because a single-payer system for the US would be so expensive that a tax increase along every bracket of the US would be the only way to fund it, which we are completely unlikely to get, along with whatever else Bernie wants to go spending crazy on.

I would be okay with a hybrid model, where instead of the US making ALL healthcare free, it only stepped in and allowed for giving birth at hospitals to be free (for women over 25) and certain other services like that, but not every procedure imaginable because that is just way too damn expensive at that point.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 10:57:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 10:12:58 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/23/2016 9:12:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 7:44:14 PM, imabench wrote:
Candidate: Hillary Clinton

Reason 3) Bernie is too radical even for my taste

He wants to nationalize the healthcare system which I dont support, he wants to nationalize colleges which I dont support, he has no proposed means of funding either programs which I also am critical of, and even if he accepts that he would have to raise taxes to properly pay for all this, there's no way in hell he could get such legislation through a divided Congress like we have right now. He and his supporters seem to exist in a complete alternate reality where they think they can actually do ANY of what Bernie wants to do, and the plain facts are that they cant. No congress featuring as many republicans as the one Bernie would get if he became president would ever raise taxes, or nationalize the healthcare system, or nationalize colleges, or do any of the things Bernie is basing his entire campaign on....

His platform is a pipe dream, and a bad one as well.

This is where I take issue. I'm not delusional - I know not everything he wants will be passed.

What do you think actually WOULD get passed that Bernie wants to pass? It sure as hell wont be any tax increases or anything that dramatically expands government influence over healthcare or education

That heavily depends on the Congress outcomes, but that's not any different for Clinton.

But, you have to remember that with a higher turnout on Election Day (and perhaps more if Sanders is the nominee), the Democrats will at least make gains in the House, and probably take the Senate back.

Dems are probably not going to take the Senate back since the Senate seats up for grabs are in safe GOP states. Even if Dems did get to 50 though it doesnt matter because a party needs at least 60 people in the Senate to move any legislation they want. The House meanwhile is projected to stay exactly the same it is

http://www.electionprojection.com...

A few problems here. These are not safe GOP states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida, Missouri, and maybe even Louisiana after electing a Democratic governor by a margin of 12.2%, And, this is a year where turnout will be be much higher than midterms, so wins for those 6-7 states in the 2010 midterm is not safe to bet on for a Presidential Election year.

http://www.electionprojection.com...

This would require me to go through each district, and I don't feel like doing that.

While that is not sufficient to pass his agenda, and it would take effort Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn't have in her to pull off complete Congress control, know that it at least won't be *as* Republican dominated as it is now.

By a smidge maybe, but not nearly by enough where there is any forseeable route for any of Bernie's agenda can pass. This isnt 2008 where the country was so sick of Bush's screwups that they overwhelmingly put democrats in both houses of congress... Congress will stay about the same and be as polarized as ever, especially if the GOP loses the general election and their base get furious

Then, if Sanders supporters are living in a pipe dream, Clinton supporters delude themselves a lot as well. Do you think that, if the Congress is divided, more on Hillary's agenda will be passed - if people who talk like FOX and Friends pundits control the House?

Well of course not..... Both candidates no matter what major legislation they try to move will have it be shut down in Congress due to partisanship, so I dont weigh my support by who will get legislation passed, because thats not going to happen no matter who we try to put into office. I only pointed out that Bernie's policies have no shot in hell of passing, I never meant to suggest Hillary has better odds.

Ok.

Without any major legislation passing, whoever the Dems elect will have their presidency be focused entirely on one thing and one thing only: Foreign policy, since what happens nation and nation around the world doesnt have to go through the sh*thole that is Congress beforehand.

When it comes to foreign policy, Id MUCH rather have a former Secretary of State who was in the room when Bin Laden was getting shot be at the reigns, than a hard-left wing Senator from Vermont who has jack sh** foreign policy experience to bring to the table.

Foreogn policy is the only thing that'll matter?

In terms of the shape of our government for decades to come, this is the most important election you will see for a very, very long time. It's not because of foreign policy, it's because the US is basically electing probably 3 or 4 Supreme Court justices. Scalia, Kennedy, Bader Ginsberg, and Breyer are reaching retirement/death age. Thomas might be old enough to retire by the end of 2024.

Lastly, why do you oppose a single-payer system for healthcare? It strikes me as odd that you would oppose that.

I oppose it because a single-payer system for the US would be so expensive that a tax increase along every bracket of the US would be the only way to fund it, which we are completely unlikely to get, along with whatever else Bernie wants to go spending crazy on.

I would be okay with a hybrid model, where instead of the US making ALL healthcare free, it only stepped in and allowed for giving birth at hospitals to be free (for women over 25) and certain other services like that, but not every procedure imaginable because that is just way too damn expensive at that point.

Does it really mean raising taxes, or spending in a smarter way?

http://www-tc.pbs.org...

What do you notice about most-all of those countries right of us?

A better system needs to be devised - it's not Obamacare.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 11:12:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 10:57:18 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:12:58 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/23/2016 9:12:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 7:44:14 PM, imabench wrote:
Candidate: Hillary Clinton

Reason 3) Bernie is too radical even for my taste

He wants to nationalize the healthcare system which I dont support, he wants to nationalize colleges which I dont support, he has no proposed means of funding either programs which I also am critical of, and even if he accepts that he would have to raise taxes to properly pay for all this, there's no way in hell he could get such legislation through a divided Congress like we have right now. He and his supporters seem to exist in a complete alternate reality where they think they can actually do ANY of what Bernie wants to do, and the plain facts are that they cant. No congress featuring as many republicans as the one Bernie would get if he became president would ever raise taxes, or nationalize the healthcare system, or nationalize colleges, or do any of the things Bernie is basing his entire campaign on....

His platform is a pipe dream, and a bad one as well.

This is where I take issue. I'm not delusional - I know not everything he wants will be passed.

What do you think actually WOULD get passed that Bernie wants to pass? It sure as hell wont be any tax increases or anything that dramatically expands government influence over healthcare or education

That heavily depends on the Congress outcomes

No it doesnt, because Congress is going to be the same as always and that makes Bernie's pipe dreams exactly that, pipe dreams, which his fanbase seems to be completely unaware of

But, you have to remember that with a higher turnout on Election Day (and perhaps more if Sanders is the nominee), the Democrats will at least make gains in the House, and probably take the Senate back.

Dems are probably not going to take the Senate back since the Senate seats up for grabs are in safe GOP states. Even if Dems did get to 50 though it doesnt matter because a party needs at least 60 people in the Senate to move any legislation they want. The House meanwhile is projected to stay exactly the same it is

http://www.electionprojection.com...

A few problems here. These are not safe GOP states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida, Missouri, and maybe even Louisiana after electing a Democratic governor by a margin of 12.2%, And, this is a year where turnout will be be much higher than midterms, so wins for those 6-7 states in the 2010 midterm is not safe to bet on for a Presidential Election year.

Even if each and every one of those states flipped to Democratic Senators, that would only make Congress be 53-47 in favor of Dems, well short of the 60 needed to pass any major legislation, and you could even bet a few of those senators would break rank and not support some of Bernie's agenda if its too far to the left for their taste.

http://www.electionprojection.com...

This would require me to go through each district, and I don't feel like doing that.

Its projected to stay the same regardless.

Without any major legislation passing, whoever the Dems elect will have their presidency be focused entirely on one thing and one thing only: Foreign policy, since what happens nation and nation around the world doesnt have to go through the sh*thole that is Congress beforehand.

When it comes to foreign policy, Id MUCH rather have a former Secretary of State who was in the room when Bin Laden was getting shot be at the reigns, than a hard-left wing Senator from Vermont who has jack sh** foreign policy experience to bring to the table.

Foreogn policy is the only thing that'll matter?

The president does two things, try to lead legislation through congress (which is already a given to not gonna happen) and represent/act for US interests on foreign affairs (where Clinton has a decisive advantage over Bernie in experience)

In terms of the shape of our government for decades to come, this is the most important election you will see for a very, very long time. It's not because of foreign policy, it's because the US is basically electing probably 3 or 4 Supreme Court justices. Scalia, Kennedy, Bader Ginsberg, and Breyer are reaching retirement/death age. Thomas might be old enough to retire by the end of 2024.

A democratic president will nominate democratic-leaning justices so this is a moot point anyways. A Clinton nominee probably wont be all that different from a Sanders nominee, which brings us right back to the one function of the presidncy where there IS a noticable gap between the two: Foreign Policy

I would be okay with a hybrid model, where instead of the US making ALL healthcare free, it only stepped in and allowed for giving birth at hospitals to be free (for women over 25) and certain other services like that, but not every procedure imaginable because that is just way too damn expensive at that point.

Does it really mean raising taxes, or spending in a smarter way?

http://www-tc.pbs.org...

What do you notice about most-all of those countries right of us?

A better system needs to be devised - it's not Obamacare.

And a better system isnt going to waltz its way through Congress anytime in the next 4 years, and those who think Bernie will do so are what I said they were before: delusional
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 11:27:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 11:12:21 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:57:18 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:12:58 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/23/2016 9:12:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Without any major legislation passing, whoever the Dems elect will have their presidency be focused entirely on one thing and one thing only: Foreign policy, since what happens nation and nation around the world doesnt have to go through the sh*thole that is Congress beforehand.

When it comes to foreign policy, Id MUCH rather have a former Secretary of State who was in the room when Bin Laden was getting shot be at the reigns, than a hard-left wing Senator from Vermont who has jack sh** foreign policy experience to bring to the table.

Foreogn policy is the only thing that'll matter?

The president does two things, try to lead legislation through congress (which is already a given to not gonna happen) and represent/act for US interests on foreign affairs (where Clinton has a decisive advantage over Bernie in experience)

First off, experience doesn't make me more likely to support her - especially when I disagree with her on so many foreign policy issues. Bernie isn't unknowing on foreign policy - he's been in Congress for a quarter-century, and he was Chair of the Senate Comission of Veterans' Affairs. He's given his fair share of views on military intervention that I happen to agree with. But he doesn't speak about it now because that s not how he wins voters during the primaries.

In terms of the shape of our government for decades to come, this is the most important election you will see for a very, very long time. It's not because of foreign policy, it's because the US is basically electing probably 3 or 4 Supreme Court justices. Scalia, Kennedy, Bader Ginsberg, and Breyer are reaching retirement/death age. Thomas might be old enough to retire by the end of 2024.

A democratic president will nominate democratic-leaning justices so this is a moot point anyways. A Clinton nominee probably wont be all that different from a Sanders nominee, which brings us right back to the one function of the presidncy where there IS a noticable gap between the two: Foreign Policy

A Sanders nominee and a Clinton nominee is the difference between something like Citizens United being overturned (after legal process to get it to the Court).

I would be okay with a hybrid model, where instead of the US making ALL healthcare free, it only stepped in and allowed for giving birth at hospitals to be free (for women over 25) and certain other services like that, but not every procedure imaginable because that is just way too damn expensive at that point.

Does it really mean raising taxes, or spending in a smarter way?

http://www-tc.pbs.org...

What do you notice about most-all of those countries right of us?

A better system needs to be devised - it's not Obamacare.

And a better system isnt going to waltz its way through Congress anytime in the next 4 years, and those who think Bernie will do so are what I said they were before: delusional

I'm not saying it will pass in the next four years, I just want to know why you oppose it - and whether your reasoning can be supported.

Regardless, if this type of legislation isn't passed in the next four or eight years, then I still point to the reason that if Bernie is elected, it makes it much more likely for such legislation to be passed in future administrations.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 11:39:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 11:27:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:12:21 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:57:18 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:12:58 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/23/2016 9:12:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Without any major legislation passing, whoever the Dems elect will have their presidency be focused entirely on one thing and one thing only: Foreign policy, since what happens nation and nation around the world doesnt have to go through the sh*thole that is Congress beforehand.

When it comes to foreign policy, Id MUCH rather have a former Secretary of State who was in the room when Bin Laden was getting shot be at the reigns, than a hard-left wing Senator from Vermont who has jack sh** foreign policy experience to bring to the table.

Foreogn policy is the only thing that'll matter?

The president does two things, try to lead legislation through congress (which is already a given to not gonna happen) and represent/act for US interests on foreign affairs (where Clinton has a decisive advantage over Bernie in experience)

First off, experience doesn't make me more likely to support her - especially when I disagree with her on so many foreign policy issues. Bernie isn't unknowing on foreign policy - he's been in Congress for a quarter-century, and he was Chair of the Senate Comission of Veterans' Affairs.

That doesnt hold a candle to being Secretary of State though

He's given his fair share of views on military intervention that I happen to agree with. But he doesn't speak about it now because that s not how he wins voters during the primaries.

He does that by making loads of promises he cant keep to voters who are unreasonably optimistic that his legislation could even be passed.

A democratic president will nominate democratic-leaning justices so this is a moot point anyways. A Clinton nominee probably wont be all that different from a Sanders nominee, which brings us right back to the one function of the presidncy where there IS a noticable gap between the two: Foreign Policy

A Sanders nominee and a Clinton nominee is the difference between something like Citizens United being overturned (after legal process to get it to the Court).

Im fairly certain Hillary would elect someone who opposes Citizens United since she opposes it herself https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

Regardless, if this type of legislation isn't passed in the next four or eight years, then I still point to the reason that if Bernie is elected, it makes it much more likely for such legislation to be passed in future administrations.

That's literally a pipe dream.... Electing someone to be president now in the hopes that the NEXT president finally brings around what Bernie is proposing is completely unrealistic
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 11:49:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 11:39:09 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:27:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:12:21 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:57:18 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
The president does two things, try to lead legislation through congress (which is already a given to not gonna happen) and represent/act for US interests on foreign affairs (where Clinton has a decisive advantage over Bernie in experience)

First off, experience doesn't make me more likely to support her - especially when I disagree with her on so many foreign policy issues. Bernie isn't unknowing on foreign policy - he's been in Congress for a quarter-century, and he was Chair of the Senate Comission of Veterans' Affairs.

That doesnt hold a candle to being Secretary of State though

He's given his fair share of views on military intervention that I happen to agree with. But he doesn't speak about it now because that s not how he wins voters during the primaries.

He does that by making loads of promises he cant keep to voters who are unreasonably optimistic that his legislation could even be passed.

A democratic president will nominate democratic-leaning justices so this is a moot point anyways. A Clinton nominee probably wont be all that different from a Sanders nominee, which brings us right back to the one function of the presidncy where there IS a noticable gap between the two: Foreign Policy

A Sanders nominee and a Clinton nominee is the difference between something like Citizens United being overturned (after legal process to get it to the Court).

Im fairly certain Hillary would elect someone who opposes Citizens United since she opposes it herself https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

Do you want me to read you a list of her Super-PACs?

Regardless, if this type of legislation isn't passed in the next four or eight years, then I still point to the reason that if Bernie is elected, it makes it much more likely for such legislation to be passed in future administrations.

That's literally a pipe dream.... Electing someone to be president now in the hopes that the NEXT president finally brings around what Bernie is proposing is completely unrealistic

No, it's not.

Take the effect of Barry Goldwater on the Republican Party. He had *immense* effects on it even with losing the election, despite the numerous headlines from when he lost on how the conservative cause didn't want to listen to him. He was the "most consequential loser", with an outstanding legacy that is not talked enough about today.

So is it really a pipe dream to say a socialist in the White House for eight years would transform the Party?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 11:55:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 11:39:09 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:27:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:12:21 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:57:18 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:12:58 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/23/2016 9:12:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Without any major legislation passing, whoever the Dems elect will have their presidency be focused entirely on one thing and one thing only: Foreign policy, since what happens nation and nation around the world doesnt have to go through the sh*thole that is Congress beforehand.

When it comes to foreign policy, Id MUCH rather have a former Secretary of State who was in the room when Bin Laden was getting shot be at the reigns, than a hard-left wing Senator from Vermont who has jack sh** foreign policy experience to bring to the table.

Foreogn policy is the only thing that'll matter?

The president does two things, try to lead legislation through congress (which is already a given to not gonna happen) and represent/act for US interests on foreign affairs (where Clinton has a decisive advantage over Bernie in experience)

First off, experience doesn't make me more likely to support her - especially when I disagree with her on so many foreign policy issues. Bernie isn't unknowing on foreign policy - he's been in Congress for a quarter-century, and he was Chair of the Senate Comission of Veterans' Affairs.

That doesnt hold a candle to being Secretary of State though

He's given his fair share of views on military intervention that I happen to agree with. But he doesn't speak about it now because that s not how he wins voters during the primaries.

He does that by making loads of promises he cant keep to voters who are unreasonably optimistic that his legislation could even be passed.

A democratic president will nominate democratic-leaning justices so this is a moot point anyways. A Clinton nominee probably wont be all that different from a Sanders nominee, which brings us right back to the one function of the presidncy where there IS a noticable gap between the two: Foreign Policy

A Sanders nominee and a Clinton nominee is the difference between something like Citizens United being overturned (after legal process to get it to the Court).

Im fairly certain Hillary would elect someone who opposes Citizens United since she opposes it herself https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*huge inhale*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm for campaign finance reform (oh, yes, Goldman-Sachs, deeper. Deeper. OH. OOOOH.), guys, I promise. I mean it. I will (OOOH, DREAMWORKS, THAT'S SOOOO GOOD) reform financial (SABAN CAPITAL, TAKE ME!!!) stuff and...yeah,


Regardless, if this type of legislation isn't passed in the next four or eight years, then I still point to the reason that if Bernie is elected, it makes it much more likely for such legislation to be passed in future administrations.

That's literally a pipe dream.... Electing someone to be president now in the hopes that the NEXT president finally brings around what Bernie is proposing is completely unrealistic
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 12:00:35 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 11:49:33 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:39:09 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:27:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

A Sanders nominee and a Clinton nominee is the difference between something like Citizens United being overturned (after legal process to get it to the Court).

Im fairly certain Hillary would elect someone who opposes Citizens United since she opposes it herself https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

Do you want me to read you a list of her Super-PACs?

Do you want me to read you a list of Bernie's proposals that have no chance of being enacted?

Regardless, if this type of legislation isn't passed in the next four or eight years, then I still point to the reason that if Bernie is elected, it makes it much more likely for such legislation to be passed in future administrations.

That's literally a pipe dream.... Electing someone to be president now in the hopes that the NEXT president finally brings around what Bernie is proposing is completely unrealistic

No, it's not.

Take the effect of Barry Goldwater on the Republican Party. He had *immense* effects on it even with losing the election, despite the numerous headlines from when he lost on how the conservative cause didn't want to listen to him. He was the "most consequential loser", with an outstanding legacy that is not talked enough about today.

So is it really a pipe dream to say a socialist in the White House for eight years would transform the Party?

The fact that you're blindly assuming he would be a two term president suggests that, yes, it's a complete pipe-dream.

"Lets elect Bernie because a decade or more from now someone else will hopefully maybe instill the policies that Bernie first ran on!"

Lets look at this as if we were arguing as Republicans instead of Democrats

"Lets elect Trump because a decade or more from now someone else will hopefully maybe instill the policies that Trump first ran on!"

Sound kinda like a ludicrous to support Trump?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015