JFC. GOP already talking about impeaching Hillary

[Huey Grey]

Do you also like her performance in the topic of supporting war? If she was graded on that, she would get an A for participation, because there isn't a war out there she hasn't wanted us to be part of.

Yes. Hillary voted for the Iraq War. So did pretty much everyone else at the time. And it was a mistake she freely admits to. So how else is Hillary like Bush? Does she believe in tax cuts for the rich? Privatizing SS? Is she against abortion? Against gay marriage?

You're stretching pretty badly here.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Bernie Sanders.

Caught ya..........whoops on your part. So why are you voting for Hilary then?...thanks luring yourself right into that. Check the list, see any names that make her more votable?

Was it this list that caught your eye?

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019

 

[HawktimusPrime]

I'm not so sure what you're trying to say here.

 

[slieb85]

Who should anyone vote for Slieb? Name one candidate not supported by Corporate America and other major lobbying. I love when people question my Libertarian ways. Keep showing me this proof against my Libertarian claims.

I'm just saying, besides your 1 "f*k the GOP" post, in all your time here, you've routinely spent it bashing the Ds and very infrequently, or almost never, bashing an R.

It's the reverse of something I'm accused of. I accept that I'm far more vocal about how crazy the GOP is, and there's a reason for that. I used to be a registered R. I want to be able to vote Republican. Their supposed ideals used to match up well for me. They've changed over the last 8 years and are full on crazy now, and it's disheartening. So it makes a lot more sense for me to point out how crazy these people are than it does to talk about the dems, when I'm not going to vote D.


In the last 2 elections I've voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

So, I guess my question is this: Are you a D who wants the D's to be better, and thus like me, but on the opposite side? Or are you an R masquerading as a libertarian?

Because it's pretty clear to me which one you are, and which one you have been since you've been here.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Interesting. You ask my opinion. I give it to you honestly and yet you still reject it. The Republicans have become insane. They're talking about building a literal wall around our country, are being led by two absolute clowns in their primary, and are so splintered that they cannot even elect a Speaker. You can pretend that the Dems are the same, but they are not. The Dems are still a united party capable of governing. I also find it ironic that you accuse me of ignoring things when you've literally ignored everything I've written in this thread. If you have a problem with my arguments, be an adult and debate the issue. Don't be a baby a throw out childish posts like the one above.

What does that have to do about me ridiculing you? You deserve it, you deserve every bit of it. You stated without hesitating, that you will vote for her despite the fact that I KNOW for a fact you've said you don't agree with her on many things. You simply played the 'lesser of evils' card. I just showed you that she's as supported by Wall Street as any GOP candidate, which is a huge sign as to where her allegiance ultimately lies, and what sort of moves she would make if she got elected.
Yet you vote for her, simply because, she's "NOT A REPUBLICAN". You fail to see how foolish that is? Any wonder why the country has fallen apart so badly under the watch of your generation?

 

[slieb85]

I'll vote 3rd party. Why vote in favor of the continued rise of the 1%?

So will I. I'll write in. Just like I have the last 2 elections.

My last post explains my reasoning a bit more. My Party abandoned me in favor of the religious nut jobs. I'm a man without a home.

Oh, and by the time 2016 rolls around, I'll be in a state where my vote matters not at all and the D will carry the day, so I may as well feel good about myself in voting for someone who I find to be decent (might write in Hunstman) as opposed to feeling terrible for supporting a lunatic like Carson/Trump/Firoina or terrible for supporting career politicians like Hillary, Jeb, Joe.

 

[Huey Grey]

Caught ya..........whoops on your part. So why are you voting for Hilary then?...thanks luring yourself right into that. Check the list, see any names that make her more votable?

Was it this list that caught your eye?

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019

Are you seriously this immature? These elections aren't about voting for who you want. They're about voting for who you can. I'll caucus for Bernie, but it's highly unlikely he will be the nominee, which means that I either have to vote for Hillary or the lunacy the GOP has to offer these days. So I choose Hillary. She's bad, but the Republicans are way worse.

 

[slieb85]

Are you seriously this immature? These elections aren't about voting for who you want. They're about voting for who you can. I'll caucus for Bernie, but it's highly unlikely he will be the nominee, which means that I either have to vote for Hillary or the lunacy the GOP has to offer these days. So I choose Hillary. She's bad, but the Republicans are way worse.

Why does this have to be the choice?

You say a lot of things that make people believe you're a person who stands up for what you believe in, but clearly, you just stand up for winning and getting 50% of what you believe in.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

I'm just saying, besides your 1 "f*k the GOP" post, in all your time here, you've routinely spent it bashing the Ds and very infrequently, or almost never, bashing an R.

It's the reverse of something I'm accused of. I accept that I'm far more vocal about how crazy the GOP is, and there's a reason for that. I used to be a registered R. I want to be able to vote Republican. Their supposed ideals used to match up well for me. They've changed over the last 8 years and are full on crazy now, and it's disheartening. So it makes a lot more sense for me to point out how crazy these people are than it does to talk about the dems, when I'm not going to vote D.


In the last 2 elections I've voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

So, I guess my question is this: Are you a D who wants the D's to be better, and thus like me, but on the opposite side? Or are you an R masquerading as a libertarian?

Because it's pretty clear to me which one you are, and which one you have been since you've been here.

I was more like you in my youth. Some what a follower of the Republicans, that was at least 10 years ago, when I was still naive about politics. Once I had my eyes opened, I never stopped seeing through the lies. So I became FULL BLOWN Libertarian.

The reason as to why I hammer on the Liberals the most? Simple,...they're in charge right now.

 

[Huey Grey]

What does that have to do about me ridiculing you? You deserve it, you deserve every bit of it. You stated without hesitating, that you will vote for her despite the fact that I KNOW for a fact you've said you don't agree with her on many things. You simply played the 'lesser of evils' card. I just showed you that she's as supported by Wall Street as any GOP candidate, which is a huge sign as to where her allegiance ultimately lies, and what sort of moves she would make if she got elected.
Yet you vote for her, simply because, she's "NOT A REPUBLICAN". You fail to see how foolish that is? Any wonder why the country has fallen apart so badly under the watch of your generation?

This post makes me think that you don't know how these elections work. Electing the President has almost always been the lesser of evils. Further, what world are you living in where you think that you will agree 100% with any candidate? I agree with Hillary far more than I agree with any of the Republicans. So I will vote for her. I'm not sure why you can't get this? The only way you can assure that you will agree 100% with the person you will vote for is to run yourself.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Are you seriously this immature? These elections aren't about voting for who you want. They're about voting for who you can. I'll caucus for Bernie, but it's highly unlikely he will be the nominee, which means that I either have to vote for Hillary or the lunacy the GOP has to offer these days. So I choose Hillary. She's bad, but the Republicans are way worse.

The electorals decide the vote Huey, something you should probably learn real quick, as it's the reason YOUR vote doesn't mean a #$# thing. Voting for who you can?....You accept that,..and I'm the one who is immature? Speaking of immmature,..you truly believe that Hilary is any better than the GOP candidates? Why? Because she's more in tune with the CFR? Because of her awesome record on voting for war? What's the difference between her and a NeoCon Huey? Please enlighten us.

 

[Huey Grey]

Why does this have to be the choice?

You say a lot of things that make people believe you're a person who stands up for what you believe in, but clearly, you just stand up for winning and getting 50% of what you believe in.

Of course I will try getting 50% of what I believe if my other choice is nothing. At least I still have 50%. Like it or not, but voting third party often costs the election for your side. Conservatives voted for Ross Perot and what happened? HW Bush lost. Liberals voted for Nader and what happened? Gore lost.

Unless you're very careful, voting third party can cost elections.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

[QUOTE="Huey Grey, post: 1029833, member: 15732"]This post makes me think that you don't know how these elections work. Electing the President has almost always been the lesser of evils. Further, what world are you living in where you think that you will agree 100% with any candidate? I agree with Hillary far more than I agree with any of the Republicans. So I will vote for her. I'm not sure why you can't get this? The only way you can assure that you will agree 100% with the person you will vote for is to run yourself.[/QUOTE]

The fact that you accept that, and challenge the fact that I have a problem with that, and want to change that, tells anyone paying attention, who the truly progressive mind is between me and you. It's not about agreeing 100% Huey, it's expecting the government to work for the people and not for the corporations and the military industrial complex.
It's expecting them to turn the focus on people, rather than doing just enough to keep them comfortable. This is not an unrealistic goal Huey. The difficulty we face is because of people like you. You've surrendered, you've given up. Where's your spirit? Where's your actual caring for the people? Nowhere, it's lost, systematically destroyed, and nothing but a waste of space. YOU and the GOP supporters are one and the same, simply because you refuse to believe that another way is possible.

 

[Huey Grey]

The electorals decide the vote Huey, something you should probably learn real quick, as it's the reason YOUR vote doesn't mean a #$# thing. Voting for who you can?....You accept that,..and I'm the one who is immature? Speaking of immmature,..you truly believe that Hilary is any better than the GOP candidates? Why? Because she's more in tune with the CFR? Because of her awesome record on voting for war? What's the difference between her and a NeoCon Huey? Please enlighten us.

I already gave you numerous examples. You simply ignored them. Why should I do it a second time?

 

[slieb85]

The reason as to why I hammer on the Liberals the most? Simple,...they're in charge right now.

That doesn't make any sense though, on two different levels.

First, the GOP is in charge of the House, and has been for all but 4 years since 1995. They currently own a 247-188 advantage. They also own a 54-44 advantage in the Senate. Also a 5-4 advantage of the Supreme Court, if you believe in that. So.... pretty disingenuous to say the Democrats are "in charge right now."

Second, we're not even talking about Obama policies or actual government action. We're talking about candidates for President.


So, cut the shit. You're a Republican pretending to be a libertarian. It's become so painfully obvious.

 

[slieb85]

Of course I will try getting 50% of what I believe if my other choice is nothing. At least I still have 50%. Like it or not, but voting third party often costs the election for your side. Conservatives voted for Ross Perot and what happened? HW Bush lost. Liberals voted for Nader and what happened? Gore lost.

Unless you're very careful, voting third party can cost elections.

On the whole, yes. But you yourself, no.

Also, I'd rather lose the battle and win the war. Don't you think some of Perot's ideas subsequently filtered into the GOP? How about Nader's into the Democrats?

I think you're representing the worst part of politics. Party over country. If you truly believe Bernie Sanders is the best thing for this country, go out and show it.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

That doesn't make any sense though, on two different levels.

First, the GOP is in charge of the House, and has been for all but 4 years since 1995. They currently own a 247-188 advantage. They also own a 54-44 advantage in the Senate. Also a 5-4 advantage of the Supreme Court, if you believe in that. So.... pretty disingenuous to say the Democrats are "in charge right now."

Second, we're not even talking about Obama policies or actual government action. We're talking about candidates for President.


So, cut the shit. You're a Republican pretending to be a libertarian. It's become so painfully obvious.

I can't change your opinion, and since you don't actually know me, you can't be sure. Anyone who actually knows me, knows that I am not a Republican, ESPECIALLY with todays GOP.

It does make sense, as the major decisions that I dislike the most have come directly from the White House.

 

[Huey Grey]

On the whole, yes. But you yourself, no.

Also, I'd rather lose the battle and win the war. Don't you think some of Perot's ideas subsequently filtered into the GOP? How about Nader's into the Democrats?

I think you're representing the worst part of politics. Party over country. If you truly believe Bernie Sanders is the best thing for this country, go out and show it.

First of all, the bolded part is pure bullshit. Making the best of the choices you have is called being an adult, not representing the worse of anything.

Secondly, do some of their ideas filter in? Sure. But in exchange, you're handing the keys over to the other party which often takes things in the exact opposite direction of where you want to go.

Let's take Nader for example. He was a champion of the middle class. Higher minimum wage, more worker rights, raising taxes on the rich. And he got some people talking about this stuff. It's part of what made me vote for him in 2000. But his presence spoiled the election for Gore which allowed Bush to very narrowly get elected. What was the result? Stagnant minimum wages, an erosion of worker rights, and lower taxes on the rich. Was this a good trade-off for the things I care about? Absolutely not.

And I've been to many Bernie rallies. I've passed out Bernie buttons and Bernie bumper stickers. I even had a personal lunch with him the summer before he decided to run. I've been a Bernie fan for many years. I will caucus hard for him. But if he doesn't get in, I'll vote Hillary. And I'm sure Bernie will as well. I'll work hard to get the person I want elected. But if they don't get in the general, I also won't shoot myself in the foot by helping the other party, which I really disagree with, get in.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

First of all, the bolded part is pure bullshit. Making the best of the choices you have is called being an adult, not representing the worse of anything.

Secondly, do some of their ideas filter in? Sure. But in exchange, you're handing the keys over to the other party which often takes things in the exact opposite direction of where you want to go.

Let's take Nader for example. He was a champion of the middle class. Higher minimum wage, more worker rights, raising taxes on the rich. And he got some people talking about this stuff. It's part of what made me vote for him in 2000. But his presence spoiled the election for Gore which allowed Bush to very narrowly get elected. What was the result? Stagnant minimum wages, an erosion of worker rights, and lower taxes on the rich. Was this a good trade-off for the things I care about? Absolutely not.

And I've been to many Bernie rallies. I've passed out Bernie buttons and Bernie bumper stickers. I even had a personal lunch with him the summer before he decided to run. I've been a Bernie fan for many years. I will caucus hard for him. But if he doesn't get in, I'll vote Hillary. And I'm sure Bernie will as well. I'll work hard to get the person I want elected. But if they don't get in the general, I also won't shoot myself in the foot by helping the other party, which I really disagree with, get in.

Go ahead and justify voting for the 1% all you want. You're still voting for the 1%.

 

[slieb85]

First of all, the bolded part is pure bullshit. Making the best of the choices you have is called being an adult, not representing the worse of anything.

Secondly, do some of their ideas filter in? Sure. But in exchange, you're handing the keys over to the other party which often takes things in the exact opposite direction of where you want to go.

Let's take Nader for example. He was a champion of the middle class. Higher minimum wage, more worker rights, raising taxes on the rich. And he got some people talking about this stuff. It's part of what made me vote for him in 2000. But his presence spoiled the election for Gore which allowed Bush to very narrowly get elected. What was the result? Stagnant minimum wages, an erosion of worker rights, and lower taxes on the rich. Was this a good trade-off for the things I care about? Absolutely not.

And I've been to many Bernie rallies. I've passed out Bernie buttons and Bernie bumper stickers. I even had a personal lunch with him the summer before he decided to run. I've been a Bernie fan for many years. I will caucus hard for him. But if he doesn't get in, I'll vote Hillary. And I'm sure Bernie will as well. I'll work hard to get the person I want elected. But if they don't get in the general, I also won't shoot myself in the foot by helping the other party, which I really disagree with, get in.

Nonsense. You're putting the Democratic machine over your own voice. That's now how this should work, and it's the childish thing to do.

 

[Huey Grey]

Nonsense. You're putting the Democratic machine over your own voice. That's now how this should work, and it's the childish thing to do.

You serious? Did you just ignore everything I just wrote? At the end of the day, there are just a handful of choices on the ballot. Choose wrong and you could give the election to the person you really don't like. Being mature is understanding that sometimes you don't get your exact way and you have to compromise.

 

[MitchL]

If HRC is the next President, she's going to need help with getting the Dems back in control of the Senate. If the GOP hold both, we're looking at the same ole gridlock. And it has nothing to do with what may be best for the country. The Republicans have spent the entire Obama years fighting absolutely EVERYTHING he's proposed.

The scenario gets even worse if the GOP elects a hard right guy to be Speaker, as it sounds what will happen.

Those damn social issues that the GOP always seems to be on the wrong side of, will doom them, once again.

Paul Ryan's hesitancy to run for Speaker tells me he's torn between bending to the wingers or doing what he knows could help the nation. Damned to fail almost either way because he will be labelled as JB2.

BTW: HawkPrime... why you so angry?

 

[cigaretteman]

You serious? Did you just ignore everything I just wrote? At the end of the day, there are just a handful of choices on the ballot. Choose wrong and you could give the election to the person you really don't like. Being mature is understanding that sometimes you don't get your exact way and you have to compromise.

This. Voting third party may make you feel pure and righteous while putting someone worse into office than the one you shunned for the third party candidate. It makes absolutely no sense unless you live in a state where the outcome would never be in doubt.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

This. Voting third party may make you feel pure and righteous while putting someone worse into office than the one you shunned for the third party candidate. It makes absolutely no sense unless you live in a state where the outcome would never be in doubt.

What if there's really not much difference between the two main candidates?

 

[Huey Grey]

This. Voting third party may make you feel pure and righteous while putting someone worse into office than the one you shunned for the third party candidate. It makes absolutely no sense unless you live in a state where the outcome would never be in doubt.

For example, I voted for Nader in 2008. Iowa was out of reach for McCain. Obama was trouncing him. So I decided to throw Nader a vote. But if Iowa was ever in question, it would have been a very risky vote. Nader taking the election would have been virtually non existent, even if he did somehow win Iowa. In contrast, Romney winning would have been a far larger result.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Nonsense. You're putting the Democratic machine over your own voice. That's now how this should work, and it's the childish thing to do.

Starting to see why I go after the Liberals on this board the most? In real life, most of the Liberals I speak with are MUCH more reasonable.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

For example, I voted for Nader in 2008. Iowa was out of reach for McCain. Obama was trouncing him. So I decided to throw Nader a vote. But if Iowa was ever in question, it would have been a very risky vote. Nader taking the election would have been virtually non existent, even if he did somehow win Iowa. In contrast, Romney winning would have been a far larger result.

The dumbest logic I have ever heard. Think about why for awhile.

 

[Huey Grey]

What if there's really not much difference between the two main candidates?

That's clearly not the case in this election. Democrats and Republicans are miles apart over almost every issue.

 

[Huey Grey]

The dumbest logic I have ever heard. Think about why for awhile.

I'm curious how old you are. If it's anymore than your early twenties, you have a lot of growing up to do.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

This. Voting third party may make you feel pure and righteous while putting someone worse into office than the one you shunned for the third party candidate. It makes absolutely no sense unless you live in a state where the outcome would never be in doubt.

There is no better or worse, if the candidates are paid for by the same lobbying you moron. Have we suddenly become less involved in the ME? Have we suddenly regained the freedoms we lost during the Bush administration? Has the growth of Corporate American slowed down? Is the 1% any less rich than before?
How about the state of racial relations? Are they any better? What's better now than before Ciggy?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

That's clearly not the case in this election. Democrats and Republicans are miles apart over almost every issue.

Like war, and helping the 1% at the expense of the poor and middle class?

 

[slieb85]

What if there's really not much difference between the two main candidates?

That's true. HRC and Jeb Bush are far more alike than HRC and Sanders. I see why people like Huey think it's better to vote for someone who captures some of your interests rather than see someone who captures fewer of your interests elected, but it's not the way the system was designed.

If you settle for a candidate that only represents a portion of your views, then you'll never live in a country that can elect a candidate that represents the majority/all of your views.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

I'm curious how old you are. If it's anymore than your early twenties, you have a lot of growing up to do.

Doesn't matter, because my wisdom is so far beyond yours, that me revealing my age will only embarrass you further.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

That's true. HRC and Jeb Bush are far more alike than HRC and Sanders. I see why people like Huey think it's better to vote for someone who captures some of your interests rather than see someone who captures fewer of your interests elected, but it's not the way the system was designed.

If you settle for a candidate that only represents a portion of your views, then you'll never live in a country that can elect a candidate that represents the majority/all of your views.

The similarities between Jeb and Hilary are very obvious.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

That's clearly not the case in this election. Democrats and Republicans are miles apart over almost every issue.

Really? Then why are Bushs worst policies still around, and why were they actually modified to be even worse than before?

 

[slieb85]

You serious? Did you just ignore everything I just wrote? At the end of the day, there are just a handful of choices on the ballot. Choose wrong and you could give the election to the person you really don't like. Being mature is understanding that sometimes you don't get your exact way and you have to compromise.

It's pretty embarassing that you're openly admitting that you're going to vote for someone who, you yourself, like 8 posts ago, called "bad."

That's some low ass partisan hackery.

Stand up for your beliefs. Or watch them all erode away while the democratic machine chugs along.

 

[slieb85]

Starting to see why I go after the Liberals on this board the most? In real life, most of the Liberals I speak with are MUCH more reasonable.

Huey has always been fairly unreasonable. Look for Devil, natural, lucas as liberals who are reasonable.

And Huey, for all his faults, is like 1/15th as bad as IMCC, Phantom, or any of the other crazy neo-cons (he's like the Jan Itor of the left, IMO). Yet you're never really at their throats...

Honestly, your political posting reminds me a lot of OiT. You claim all these views, but when the shit hits the fan, you wind up siding with the cons, almost every single time.

 

[Huey Grey]

That's true. HRC and Jeb Bush are far more alike than HRC and Sanders. I see why people like Huey think it's better to vote for someone who captures some of your interests rather than see someone who captures fewer of your interests elected, but it's not the way the system was designed.

If you settle for a candidate that only represents a portion of your views, then you'll never live in a country that can elect a candidate that represents the majority/all of your views.

Please explain how Hillary is closer to Bush than Sanders? And don't simply cop-out with their establishment ties. I want specific issue by issue comparisons. I'll even start us out. Both Bernie and Hillary believe in gay rights, making it easier to vote, and easier access to education. They also both believe in raising the minimum wage and moving healthcare into the public rather than private realm. Bush opposes all of these thing.

 

[Huey Grey]

Huey has always been fairly unreasonable. Look for Devil, natural, lucas as liberals who are reasonable.

And Huey, for all his faults, is like 1/15th as bad as IMCC, Phantom, or any of the other crazy neo-cons (he's like the Jan Itor of the left, IMO). Yet you're never really at their throats...

Honestly, your political posting reminds me a lot of OiT. You claim all these views, but when the shit hits the fan, you wind up siding with the cons, almost every single time.

Nice to see you join hawk prime as being a bitter child in these threads.

 

[naturalmwa]

Which Republican candidate with a chance of getting the nomination will independents and moderate Republican women turn to? Keep in mind the Republican platform will be far right on social issues, and the winner of the nomination will have to parrot the platform even if they don't believe it.

Rubio, he's cute. Chicks would hit that.