Who'll be the next president – Google Search

Post by madengr » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 12:22 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #59

ck2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hillary will be president for one reason. Do you really want a third Bush in the White House for a third Iraq war? Alternatively, do you really want a Bush picking the next two or three Supreme Court judges? It would set back the country into the 1960s. Voting rights, equality, access to abortion. All rolled back to 1960s with an imbalance of power in the supreme court.

Really? Set the country back to the 1960s? You also actually think Bush is going to be the nominee? You don't seem to know much about Republicans if you think that. As far as the 1960s goes, the economic picture was much better then than it has been over the past 8 years. The JFK tax cuts caused a decade of prosperity; the middle class was much stronger, wage growth was steady. What we have now is a generalized malai…

Post by saalweachter » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 12:33 PM UTC

joelrunyon wrote: post #7

visakanv wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do people really think like this? All you have to do is "pay your dues" and you "deserve" it instead of voting on issues, track record & potential to make real change? Yes. Source: Click around the Facebook comments of any substantially large digital publication. Tonnes of people don't even vote. Of those that do, most vote for the parties they're already loyal to. Of the few that are in the middle, most decide acc…

I get voting on party - what scares me is voting on someone because they "paid their dues" - which is especially mind boggling when you look at people's approval ratings of those same candidates in their previous jobs (typically congress - which is hanging out at around 16%).

Post by happyscrappy » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 12:41 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #72

MrDosu wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in my country multi party systems basically work like this: Unresolved issue comes up, party forms specializing in said issue, if party gets support big parties integrate unresolved issue, issue is now resolved. And you got it completely around! In america your mom gets the government she is been told to want. That is why you have a two party system. Barrier to entry is "spent multi hundred millions on media co…

My mom didn't grow up here, and she doesn't speak English as a first language so she barely consumes U.S. media. The idea that her viewpoints are the result of media indoctrination is ridiculous. The area that the media hammers hardest (foreign policy) is the one area where she disagrees with the government, and she opposes things the media is broadly in favor of (gay marriage, decriminalized marijuana).

Post by veidr » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 12:48 PM UTC

fixxer wrote: post #74

gjm11 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "She has paid her dues" is meant to be justifying the claim that she's fit to be a candidate , not that she should win . Last time around there were suggestions that Clinton didn't have the political experience necessary to make a good president, and that's a harder argument to make now. (I do think it's a pretty fatuous article, not that that's a huge surprise from the Huffington Post. But it's probably not…

As opposed to Obama, who had absolutely zero track record?

Post by veidr » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 12:52 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #69

gerty wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does read like an ode before a coronation. Though a poorly written one. Anything but Clinton/Bush. Sanders perhaps.

Sanders? An admitted Socialist? How about Rand Paul? Someone that has actually fought on the right side of issues important to the HN community. Sanders actually supports an 80% tax rate. If you want an economy that resembles Romania in the 1980s, vote for Sanders. If you want freedom, vote Rand Paul. Democrat values are inconsistent with entrepreneurial. They want to disincentivize success with higher taxes and they…