184 replies to this topic

[Stevphfeniey]

I'm not sure whether this is what i'd do in the states, but i'd vote for Clinton. She has experience and knows what the hell is happening to the United States.

 

Let me give you some perspective on Hillary Clinton.

 

During her tenure as first lady in the 90s, he espoused a message that "we need to get tough on crime" and "we need to increase mandatory minimums". You know, that sort of deal. Now, probably in a bid to make her sound better relative to Sanders' record on civil rights, has done a complete 180 fairly recently.

 

Her biggest doners include the likes of Chase Bank, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Time Warner. Depending on the source you use, about 18% of her donors were "small donors", that is donors who contributed $200 or less at one time. Contrast this (again, depending on the source) about 75% of Bernie Sanders' donors being classified under the same definition of "small donors". This is, in fact, the highest by a gigantic margin of any of the candidates fielded by the Democratic or Republican Parties. 

 

Related to her reliance on massive donations through super-PACs funded by large financial, defense and media institutions is the fact that most Americans polled found her "untrustworthy". I, admittedly agree, and am biased in this regard. But her email scandal relating to her time as Secretary of State has cast a negative light on her, the fact that she'd be the second Clinton to be president in the past two decades, joining the ranks of two (possibly three after 2016) Bushes. The American people are keenly aware and weary of the potential for entrenched political dynasties to take hold here. I mean, preventing political dynasties from forming in the first place is why we became our own nation. 

 

Finally, you mention her "experience". I think you're confusing "experience" with name recognition. I'd argue that Sanders has as much if not more experience in several critical areas than Hillary Clinton, civil rights issues being one I already mentioned. Unlike Clinton, Sanders is keenly aware of the growing economic disparity between the rich and the poor not only in the United States, but globally. What's even better is that he's got plans to deal with this issue. So long story short, Clinton's got name recognition, but Sanders has the actual policy.

 

TL,DR: HILLARY "JET FUEL" CLINTON CANNOT MELT BERNIE "STEEL BEAMS" SANDERS

[The Apple Pie]

As long as it's not Hillary or Trump, i'm fine.

[bAnderson]

As long as it's not Hillary or Trump, i'm fine.

 

As long as it's a Republican, I'm fine. 

[bAnderson]

I'm not sure whether this is what i'd do in the states, but i'd vote for Clinton. She has experience and knows what the hell is happening to the United States.

She doesn't even know what's happening to her husband. Congress could cheat on her, and she'd look the other way. I would vote Trump for four years so we can avoid War with China for another 4 years. He'd give us a little leeway, maybe we'd have less debt, and we could vote a military general for the next four. Clinton will make welfare a lot worse. Already we are paying people to not get a job. They don't have to depend on their parents because the government gives them an iPhone, a house, all the McDonald's they want, and a free doctor. Meanwhile, the blue collars have a job and are paying the government to pay people to not get a job. Many of us are just wondering if working is even an option anymore. We have flip phones, have two mortgages, can only afford to eat out once a week, and don't have health insurance because it costs too much.

 

 

Here's the real problem...

If the Blue Collars go to welfare, we go into more debt because nobody pays taxes.

 

So what now? Should we support someone who wants to kill ourselves?

 

And who would vote for a socialist? Government won't control business, it will control the rise of unemployment, meaning they will fund it. Google will shut down because they won't have any workers because they're all on welfare. American Airlines will do the same. Our world will shut down if we don't stop welfare for everyone.

 

 

If we really want to get talking, the only reason we currently can't is because the government is corrupt. The welfare workers don't want to stop welfare because they won't have a job and they won't have welfare to fall back on.

 

Here's a clue.

GET OFF THE COUCH, YOU MORONS, AND GET A JOB!

[Stevphfeniey]

She doesn't even know what's happening to her husband. Congress could cheat on her, and she'd look the other way. I would vote Trump for four years so we can avoid War with China for another 4 years. He'd give us a little leeway, maybe we'd have less debt, and we could vote a military general for the next four. Clinton will make welfare a lot worse. Already we are paying people to not get a job. They don't have to depend on their parents because the government gives them an iPhone, a house, all the McDonald's they want, and a free doctor. Meanwhile, the blue collars have a job and are paying the government to pay people to not get a job. Many of us are just wondering if working is even an option anymore. We have flip phones, have two mortgages, can only afford to eat out once a week, and don't have health insurance because it costs too much.

 

 

Here's the real problem...

If the Blue Collars go to welfare, we go into more debt because nobody pays taxes.

 

So what now? Should we support someone who wants to kill ourselves?

 

And who would vote for a socialist? Government won't control business, it will control the rise of unemployment, meaning they will fund it. Google will shut down because they won't have any workers because they're all on welfare. American Airlines will do the same. Our world will shut down if we don't stop welfare for everyone.

 

 

If we really want to get talking, the only reason we currently can't is because the government is corrupt. The welfare workers don't want to stop welfare because they won't have a job and they won't have welfare to fall back on.

 

Here's a clue.

GET OFF THE COUCH, YOU MORONS, AND GET A JOB!

 

I'd like the point out that the last time we had a military general as president corporate taxes were upwards of 30%, he began the largest single public works project in American history, wanted to increase the social safety net, advocated against corporate welfare in the form of the military-industrial complex, fought institutional racism in our public education system and oversaw what many consider the golden age of American culture and prosperity.

 

The conservative argument against the expansion of the social safety net is based entirely off the assumption that people don't want to work. And I won't lie, I'd really rather not have to go to school or go to work. But nations that have a strong social safety net, Germany for example, aren't the unemployed anarchies that conservatives are constantly preaching.

 

I'd also point to the fact that the majority of welfare recipients come from Red states.

 

People want to work, every single person I know from any walk of life works so hard for their own reasons, but on the whole because of personal improvement. And most people I talk to agree that they're willing to pay a little more to the United States government to guarantee that every single person in the country has guaranteed low-cost healthcare. 

[Stevphfeniey]

And you know maybe I'm stupid, and maybe I'm naive. But you know I don't think it's too much to ask 325 million people to all pitch their fair share in to improve the nation's infrastructure, to guarantee free access to the greatest healthcare system on Earth, to ensure we are the best educated people on Earth and to guarantee our energy security not for the next year, or 10 years, but the rest of history. 

 

We've been trying the "I've got mine **** you" approach to running things for years, and the only things it has lead to is the stagnation of blue collar wages, the shrinking of the middle class and the increased the wealth of the richest among us. 

[Oggey]

She doesn't even know what's happening to her husband. Congress could cheat on her, and she'd look the other way. I would vote Trump for four years so we can avoid War with China for another 4 years. He'd give us a little leeway, maybe we'd have less debt, and we could vote a military general for the next four. Clinton will make welfare a lot worse. Already we are paying people to not get a job. They don't have to depend on their parents because the government gives them an iPhone, a house, all the McDonald's they want, and a free doctor. Meanwhile, the blue collars have a job and are paying the government to pay people to not get a job. Many of us are just wondering if working is even an option anymore. We have flip phones, have two mortgages, can only afford to eat out once a week, and don't have health insurance because it costs too much.

 

 

Here's the real problem...

If the Blue Collars go to welfare, we go into more debt because nobody pays taxes.

 

So what now? Should we support someone who wants to kill ourselves?

 

And who would vote for a socialist? Government won't control business, it will control the rise of unemployment, meaning they will fund it. Google will shut down because they won't have any workers because they're all on welfare. American Airlines will do the same. Our world will shut down if we don't stop welfare for everyone.

 

 

If we really want to get talking, the only reason we currently can't is because the government is corrupt. The welfare workers don't want to stop welfare because they won't have a job and they won't have welfare to fall back on.

 

Here's a clue.

GET OFF THE COUCH, YOU MORONS, AND GET A JOB!

 

 

Hi,

 

This is just a small, European notification:

 

We've managed just fine, and in a lot of aspects better than America with socialist governments. Making the government more powerful doesn't make billion dollar companies shut down. That would be all.

 

Love,

Europe

[TNT88]

This is what happen When Political beliefs became more important compared to solving the actual problems.

[Stevphfeniey]

This is what happen When Political beliefs became more important compared to solving the actual problems.

I don't see you offering any solutions.

You're Indonesian so topics like gun control or Social Security don't pertain to you. But issues like climate change do, as it effects every person on Earth. Our generation and the ones that will follow are the ones who are going to be dealing with the effects. So I feel understandably frustrated when conservative and pro-greed leaders turn their backs on overwhelming consensus of the experts in the field and not only deny its existence, but advocate for policies which will exacerbate its effects. Last night candidate Martin O'Malley called for 100% renewable electricity generation by 2050. A noble goal, insurmountable his opponents will say. But these are the same people who said African Americans would never have the same rights as white Americans, who called President Kennedy a fool when he said we'd put a man on the moon in a decade.

As Americans we are famous for tackling gigantic challenges, so to say nothing will change is simply useless negative thinking and simply unamerican.

[TNT88]

I don't see you offering any solutions.

You're Indonesian so topics like gun control or Social Security don't pertain to you. But issues like climate change do, as it effects every person on Earth. Our generation and the ones that will follow are the ones who are going to be dealing with the effects. So I feel understandably frustrated when conservative and pro-greed leaders turn their backs on overwhelming consensus of the experts in the field and not only deny its existence, but advocate for policies which will exacerbate its effects. Last night candidate Martin O'Malley called for 100% renewable electricity generation by 2050. A noble goal, insurmountable his opponents will say. But these are the same people who said African Americans would never have the same rights as white Americans, who called President Kennedy a fool when he said we'd put a man on the moon in a decade.

As Americans we are famous for tackling gigantic challenges, so to say nothing will change is simply useless negative thinking and simply unamerican.

Exacty. No matter what you do. None of you will tackle the solutions because you're too busy being an ******* to each other and spend tons of money to promote each candidate that won't win. Like come on, why do you think the US keep hunting for Oil? For fun? It's a way for the government to control the world resources. One of the most important resources is oil. Look at bangladesh right now. Renewable energy would be a suicide for the US control over the world. It's a big no-no. Same goes for Russia, Saudi Arabia, or any other oil-producing countries.

 

So unamerican of you. And trust me, all the thing you need to do is look at my Government and do the exact opposite of what they do. Problem solved.

All of those candidates are just a puppets. They would just be the face of their political party and take most of the blame if something goes wrong. Don't look at the people personally, look at the whole party to get the actual view. 

[bAnderson]

I don't see you offering any solutions.

You're Indonesian so topics like gun control or Social Security don't pertain to you. But issues like climate change do, as it effects every person on Earth. Our generation and the ones that will follow are the ones who are going to be dealing with the effects. So I feel understandably frustrated when conservative and pro-greed leaders turn their backs on overwhelming consensus of the experts in the field and not only deny its existence, but advocate for policies which will exacerbate its effects. Last night candidate Martin O'Malley called for 100% renewable electricity generation by 2050. A noble goal, insurmountable his opponents will say. But these are the same people who said African Americans would never have the same rights as white Americans, who called President Kennedy a fool when he said we'd put a man on the moon in a decade.

As Americans we are famous for tackling gigantic challenges, so to say nothing will change is simply useless negative thinking and simply unamerican.

But O'Malley won't be around for another 35 years. Plus, 100% renewable energy screws Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and many other countries. Also, you are not from New York. While you are busy closing schools because white stuff falls from the sky, we are busy plowing our driveways in -30 Degree Weather. Climate Change? If anything, colder.

 

Hi,

 

This is just a small, European notification:

 

We've managed just fine, and in a lot of aspects better than America with socialist governments. Making the government more powerful doesn't make billion dollar companies shut down. That would be all.

 

Love,

Europe

I didn't say anything about making the government more powerful. We can't just let people who can have a job if they looked for one just sit on the couch. We can't be giving them all the things they want with our tax money. And who says people won't realize the futility of working when the government will pay them not to? We are giving money to those who should be earning it. That's why we are in debt.

 

 

I'd also point to the fact that the majority of welfare recipients come from Red states.

Yes, because the Liberals are trying to sway them. We just need to vote a Conservative. That's all the US really is asking for. Just vote.

 

And Hillary being the first woman president? The Republicans have one too. She's good, and hasn't been in any scandals lately. Not to mention that Clinton hasn't won a Primary in forever, if ever. And who even liked what Obama did in office. List the good things he did for the economy. It'll be pretty short.

[Hake.]

I'm not sure if he's trolling or serious...

[Stevphfeniey]

But O'Malley won't be around for another 35 years. Plus, 100% renewable energy screws Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and many other countries. Also, you are not from New York. While you are busy closing schools because white stuff falls from the sky, we are busy plowing our driveways in -30 Degree Weather. Climate Change? If anything, colder.

 

I've lived in Minneapolis and Chicago, and currently reside in Denver. In fact, I remember having ice days (not snow days) not too long ago.

 

When atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are reaching their highest levels in recorded history, passing critical levels set by scientists on many occasions, and coinciding with the hottest years on record in the past decade, then I think the arithmetic is pretty easy. The rest of the world but the United States agrees that climate change is a thing. 

 

And you know even from an economic and resources point of view the oil isn't going to be around forever. The Saudis and the UAE know this, Dubai's been trying to push its economy away from an oil based one to tourism. And you know maybe I don't want to support countries run by religious extremists who use slave labour to build magnificent palaces to the .01%.

 

You seem like an older person, correct me if I'm wrong, meaning you've got a few decades left. Not me, not every one of your descendants who will be dealing with the effects of climate change after you're gone. But maybe your attitude is a byproduct of the "**** you I've got mine" generation.

 

 

I didn't say anything about making the government more powerful. We can't just let people who can have a job if they looked for one just sit on the couch. We can't be giving them all the things they want with our tax money. And who says people won't realize the futility of working when the government will pay them not to? We are giving money to those who should be earning it. That's why we are in debt.

 

Take a look at literally any graph showing our nation's deficit per year, and notice when the largest increase took place. In case you're too lazy it was 2008 and 2009 which, if I recall, is when the economy tanked and we poured billions upon billions into keeping the financial institutions which destroyed our economy afloat. Yes, a quarter of Federal spending is on Social Security, and yet another quarter or so is on healthcare benefits, but unless I'm mistaken only retired people who have been paying into SS and Medicare for decades can utilize it (barring extenuating circumstances). 

 

The Welfare Queen is a borderline myth. Yes people cheat the system (I'd also like to point out that the majority of entitlements fraud takes place in Red states), but not enough people to justify cutting benefits for the millions who rely on benefits to get by.

 

 

Yes, because the Liberals are trying to sway them. We just need to vote a Conservative. That's all the US really is asking for. Just vote.

 

And Hillary being the first woman president? The Republicans have one too. She's good, and hasn't been in any scandals lately. Not to mention that Clinton hasn't won a Primary in forever, if ever. And who even liked what Obama did in office. List the good things he did for the economy. It'll be pretty short.

 

Conservatives enacted "reforms" which have gut the building blocks of the working and middle classes while funneling their lost income to the very richest among us. 

 

Carly Fiorina bankrupted HP, a once great American tech company. And you know, she, Carson and Trump have never won primaries, which is less than what they can say compared to Clinton. 

 

Obama's been juggling an economy in repair, 3 wars and an incessantly obstructive Congress in his 7 years. And you know, conservatives always say that the private sector drives the economy, yet are incredibly ready to blame the president on our economic woes. 

[Perseco]

The only Republican remotely worthy of office is Rand Paul... because he's actually competent enough to realize that encryption should never be compromised, even if it would stop some terrorists (which it doesn't). In Bernie vs. Clinton, I would choose Bernie.

[TNT88]

Seems like Burnie have problems convincing the rich or the old generations. He is pretty popular among the youngster, but he need to grab the oldies as well to win.

 

Also, Universal healthcare is a no-no for a country the size of the US. 74.1% of them are overweight, while 34.9% of the population are Obese. It would drain the tax money soo much unless people get healthier. Which would probably never gonna happen. 

[Mattéo]

"Ich bin ein Amerikaner"

From the other side of the world I would give my vote on Bernie. Has a better global political view and international policy-taking than former Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton and turned O'Malley from a virtually unknown candidate into, er, virtually unknown last-placed Democrat candidate. Personally hope that Sanders gets the nomination but I think the Democrat ticket was destined for Hillary after all

The GOP debate coverage from Fox News and CNN gives the impression that the Republican race is a circus, or is it? All Trump's remarks and slurs aside, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are both promising for the GOP and stands (at least) a chance to defeat Hillary/Bernie, and they're ridiculously young for the White House. Which is good, I guess. Either both of them can make the election a toss-up of Reps against Dems and hopefully Ted and Marco can schlong The Donald to death

Final verdict: I'm rooting for a Sanders vs Rubio battle but cheap healthcare is good, so come on Bernie

[Aviator48]

Sigh.... The debates are so back and forth it just messes your head up sometimes, but if I were to choose I would probably have any democratic hopefully Bernie. Happy New Year everyone!

[Adam.Bomb]

A Trump candidacy would be the death of the Republican party, and if elected would be the nail in the coffin of America's world standing. With that being said politics aside, internally a Bernie presidency would frankly be a disaster. Not only because the ethics and practicality of his worldview are off base in my opinion, but this is not even my main issue with him (because this is purely subjective and arguable). My biggest issue is that Bernie does not belong in today's America. Now this is objective in scheme of things, you may claim America has changed and if this is true its not "the right thing". We can have constructive debate about whether the absolute incompatibility between typical western economics and socialism is "the right thing", but that doesn't change the fact that its true. The changes needed to accommodate Bernie's politics are simply to vast, and if implemented on the American economy we have today would spell DISASTER.  Just like much of the euro-zone has experienced, you can't change the scope of an economic system overnight, and with that said even 8 years. If you think we need a economic system solely based on redistribution you need maybe another 16-20 years of Obama-like candidates in order to SAFELY feel the Bern. Even then the debate is do the American people truly want socialism do they want to live like swedes? I think the answer is no. 

[Adam.Bomb]

The money will run out like it has in Italy, Greece, Spain, and France.

 

 

 

[Hake.]

I second what Adam have said. As a member of the 99% I can confirm that I'm better off barely being able to afford to get into university.