What Are Your Main Criticisms of the Top Candidates?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm heading to the Costco and hope to see a good discussion when I get back.

I'll start. Here are my top-of-the-head reasons why I almost certainly won't vote for Hillary:

1. She voted for the Iraq war; her extremely tardy and milquetoast repudiation of that horrible mistake seemed then and seems now to be pure expediency. If she looks like a neocon and talks like a neocon....

2. She is a corporate Democrat. Duh. Everybody on the GOP side is a corporate Republican. So she's no worse on that count (as far as I can tell). But I don't want a president who has been pre-sold to corporate power. Yes, I recognize that I might have to make a special exception for Trump. But he is clearly pro-corporate, so maybe not much.

3. She has totally kowtowed to the Netanyahu government. That might just have been her following orders, but my impression is that she was actually the one keeping Obama in line for Netanyahu.

4. While she has finally flip-flopped to say she opposes the TPP, her criticism was very generic, avoided the known awful problems with that pact, and she isn't speaking or acting in any way that makes her disavowal believable.

5. Ditto for the KXL Pipeline. Inexcusably late to the right decision, and without any force of conviction. She isn't a climate denier - so is an order of magnitude better on this score than any Republican - but I see no reason to expect anything like the aggressively green policies we'll need to face the coming environmental challenges.

Your turn.

 

[naturalmwa]

Pretty simple. They are all hawks with one exception. Im tried of spending trillions blowing up sandboxes. I would much rather spend that money educating your brats and treating diabetes for fat welfare queens.

 

[LuteHawk]

I could never vote for Ted Cruz:

As a U.S. Senator he endorsed the Federal Govt. shutdown
a few years ago.

His stance on illegal immigration depends on which group he
is talking with. He has flip-flopped on this issue several times.

His schemes in Iowa were sleaze politics: Sending every
voter a flyer that was not truthful about their voting records.
Telling caucus goers that Dr. Ben Carson was withdrawing
from the race and trying to get their vote for him. This was
a blatant lie.

His stupid comments about carpet bombing in the Middle-East.
to defeat ISIS.

 

[Huey Grey]

Republican field isn't racist enough.

 

[moral_victory]

Clinton is a neoliberal to the core. She is only a social liberal when the wind is blowing strong enough in that direction which is the behavior you expect out of someone so dishonest. I'm not sure that someone like Jeb is more conservative than her. She would pass the TPP without hesitation.

Cruz is a neocon to the core. He is only a socially conservative all the time which is the behavior you expect from a maniac that thinks God speaks to him. I'm not sure that someone like Charlie Manson is less sane than him. He would pass the TPP without hesitation, and turn his sights on starting the apocalypse.

 

[Huey Grey]

Clinton is a neoliberal to the core. She is only a social liberal when the wind is blowing strong enough in that direction which is the behavior you expect out of someone so dishonest. I'm not sure that someone like Jeb is more conservative than her. She would pass the TPP without hesitation.

Cruz is a neocon to the core. He is only a socially conservative all the time which is the behavior you expect from a maniac that thinks God speaks to him. I'm not sure that someone like Charlie Manson is less sane than him. He would pass the TPP without hesitation, and turn his sights on starting the apocalypse.

Hillary used to be Republican, transitioned to Centrist while in the White House, ran to Progressive during her own Presidential run, and is now back to Centrist. By March, she should be back to being a Republican again.

 

[jscott78]

My list:
Clinton is a slimy
Sanders a socialist, so unelectable.
Cruz a religious nutbird quasi fascist.
Trump a right wing bully and an a hole.
Rubio a wing nut and loves power more than his country.

I'm heading to the Costco and hope to see a good discussion when I get back.

I'll start. Here are my top-of-the-head reasons why I almost certainly won't vote for Hillary:

1. She voted for the Iraq war; her extremely tardy and milquetoast repudiation of that horrible mistake seemed then and seems now to be pure expediency. If she looks like a neocon and talks like a neocon....

2. She is a corporate Democrat. Duh. Everybody on the GOP side is a corporate Republican. So she's no worse on that count (as far as I can tell). But I don't want a president who has been pre-sold to corporate power. Yes, I recognize that I might have to make a special exception for Trump. But he is clearly pro-corporate, so maybe not much.

3. She has totally kowtowed to the Netanyahu government. That might just have been her following orders, but my impression is that she was actually the one keeping Obama in line for Netanyahu.

4. While she has finally flip-flopped to say she opposes the TPP, her criticism was very generic, avoided the known awful problems with that pact, and she isn't speaking or acting in any way that makes her disavowal believable.

5. Ditto for the KXL Pipeline. Inexcusably late to the right decision, and without any force of conviction. She isn't a climate denier - so is an order of magnitude better on this score than any Republican - but I see no reason to expect anything like the aggressively green policies we'll need to face the coming environmental challenges.

Your turn.

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

My list:
Clinton is a slimy
Sanders a socialist, so unelectable.
Cruz a religious nutbird quasi fascist.
Trump a right wing bully and an a hole.
Rubio a wing nut and loves power more than his country.

Pretty much the way I feel as well.

 

[pablow]

My list:
Clinton is a slimy
Sanders a socialist, so unelectable.
Cruz a religious nutbird quasi fascist.
Trump a right wing bully and an a hole.
Rubio a wing nut and loves power more than his country.

Thanks pretty good.

 

[artradley]

Hillary goes wherever the political wind is blowing -- making sure she protects corporate interests.

Trump spouts lots of crazy stuff, not that he actually believes it because he's just an egotistical blowhard who will say whatever will get applause.

Cruz spouts lots of crazy stuff, but he's worse than Trump because he seriously believes it

Not a fan of Rubio or Bernie, but I would be happiest right now if those two were running against each other.

 

[moral_victory]

Sanders a socialist, so unelectable

He is probably less socialist than FDR. But whatever have fun with the oligarch.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

My list:
Clinton is a slimy
Sanders a socialist, so unelectable.
Cruz a religious nutbird quasi fascist.
Trump a right wing bully and an a hole.
Rubio a wing nut and loves power more than his country.

You actually make trump sound like the best of the bunch.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Republican field isn't racist enough.

And Democratic field is balancing that out.

 

[Huey Grey]

And Democratic field is balancing that out.

What can I say? One party believes in freedom of marriage and freedom of religion. The other thinks we should build a gigantic wall to keep these people out.

 

[The Tradition]

Hillary - She's in it for Hillary
Trump - Who knows why he's doing this?
Sanders - Socialist. NEXT....
Cruz - Too religious
Rubio - Too thirsty
Christie - Too hungry
Jeb - Bush

 

[Jakeleg Jake]

If I must endure a Democrat it would be Hillary hands down. She is only interested in power which means she won't bother to touch my meager retirement and 2 bank accounts. Bill is a Southern Baptist which means Franklin Graham will be back as a regular visitor in the White House. Sanders is a communist and I'm not sure I have ever lived under that...just an anti white racist and that hasn't been fun. Now for the Republicans...
Bush-liberal
Christie-Obama butt kisser and probably Paul Castellanos's love child
Rubio-my 2nd choice but still think he leans establishment
Carson-good guy but a space cadet
Fiorino-who is that?
Trump-moral degenerate...besides my mama hates him
Cruz-winner winner chicken dinner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[22*43*51]

My list:
Clinton is a slimy
Sanders a socialist, so unelectable.
Cruz a religious nutbird quasi fascist.
Trump a right wing bully and an a hole.
Rubio a wing nut and loves power more than his country.

I actually agree with all of this.

Cheers jscott.

 

[Vroom_C14]

What can I say? One party believes in freedom of marriage and freedom of religion. The other thinks we should build a gigantic wall to keep these people out.

Both sides say a wall is needed, don't play ignorant... or maybe you're not playing.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

All this adds up to jeb getting installed

 

[Nat Algren]

Pretty simple. They are all hawks with one exception. Im tried of spending trillions blowing up sandboxes. I would much rather spend that money educating your brats and treating diabetes for fat welfare queens.

Who is that one exception?

 

[naturalmwa]

Who is that one exception?

Bernie.

 

[Nat Algren]

Bernie.

He's a hawk.

Foreign policy is supposed to be one of Bernie’s saving points, clearly holding an edge over his main (read: bloodthirsty) competition. Although he often boasts that he voted against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, he forgets to mention that he voted to continue funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He also supported NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and more recently supported a $1 billion aid package to the Ukrainian rebels as well as air raids in Syria. Oh, and he also said he would continue drone policies similar to Obama’s and has repeatedly supported Israeli occupation and bombing of Palestine.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/will-tippens/bernie-sanders-another-phony/

The Pro-Empire Candidate.

We have heard Sanders’s defense of the Israeli atrocities in the bombing of Gaza, his call for Saudi Arabia to do even more killingand his concern about Putin for – well, being Putin and Russian. Thus Bernie is joining a cheering section that could root us right into nuclear war and oblivion. Here cited by Chris Hedges is a sample from an interview with Bill O’Reilly:

‘“The entire world has got to stand up to Putin. We’ve got to deal with sanctions, we’ve got to deal with freezing assets,” and “You’ve got to totally isolate them politically. You’ve got to totally isolate them economically… You freeze assets that the Russian government has all over the world… International corporations have huge investments in Russia, you could pull them out…”

Confirmation comes in an NPR interview with David Green:

BS: …..The United States has got to work with our European allies and allies throughout the world to come up with an intelligent, rational approach to deal with Russia, to deal with ISIS and deal with other national security threats.

DG: Sounds like you would intervene less than this president has?

BS: No, I didn’t say that. You’ve got to look at each particular case, obviously.

And, obviously also, there is not a shred of anti-interventionist or anti-imperial philosophy displayed here.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/09/john-v-walsh/agent-of-the-warmongering-imperial-state/

 

[MitchL]

We learned a couple things from the Iowa caucus... Trump's supporters in Iowa are likely just mad at politics, in general. A relatively uneducated group of people who apparently might not even be registered voters. And Cruz... well, we confirmed he's slimy, dishonest, and willing to lie to win an election. Oh wait... we already knew this.

Bernie's group confuses me. Those same voters supported Obama but didn't turn out enough to help Sanders. Plus... Bernie didn't have the organization to actually get all his people out to caucus.

 

[moral_victory]

Although he often boasts that he voted against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars

He voted for the war in Afghanistan. So he doesn't make that boast too often.

It is also important to understand the type of legislation they tie to funding bills. In a perfect world these would be up and down votes for or against war funding, but they are not. Though I appreciate your anti-war stances, and I share them; you must withdraw your head from the quasi principled libertarian echo chamber, and put things into the context of the actual reality of the world we are in. If Sanders votes against these funding bills he is already out of this election because he would have a record of voting against Veterans assistance, Katrina relief, and whatever else our sleazy legislators bound to murder funding.

"The Bush administration, backed by a Republican-controlled House and Senate, made a nasty habit of funding its disastrous occupation of Iraq on an emergency basis in order to minimize Congressional scrutiny, circumvent legal limits on the federal government’s debt ceiling, and understate the true cost of the war. The first time Sanders voted ‘yea’ to an Iraq war spending bill came in 2006 when the bill included funding for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. The second time he voted ‘yea’ was when an amendment he inserted into the bill giving a $1 million grant to the Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) to help returning veterans cope with their health care and mental health needs upon returning home. The third time he voted ‘yea’ was when the legislation incorporated a massive expansion of G.I. Bill benefits that Sanders co-sponsored and the Bush administration opposed guaranteeing full scholarships to veterans, including activated National Guard troops and reservists, with three years of service attending any public, in-state university and expanded benefits for students at private colleges and for graduate schools. The last time he voted ‘yea’ was when he gave his consent, along with the entire U.S. Senate, to fund the Iraq war’s end as President Barack Obama removed all U.S. troops from the country."

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Bernie's group confuses me. Those same voters supported Obama but didn't turn out enough to help Sanders. Plus... Bernie didn't have the organization to actually get all his people out to caucus.

they showed up but they got the shaft by Hillary winning 6 coin tosses in a row

 

[moral_victory]

they showed up but they got the shaft by Hillary winning 6 coin tosses in a row

The coin tosses are bothersome to me. My sister said the Eldridge precinct tied 61-61 and split delegates 2-2. They could have flipped a coin and sent delegates 3-1 to one of the candidates. To me this seems like a stupid way to negate 20 or 30 some votes that were in favor of a candidate to another with chance.

In Davenport the Hillary people sacrificed 20 of their own by sending them to the O'Malley side to make O'Malley viable. In this case the Delegates went 2 HC, 1BS, 1 MO'M. It feels like dishonest behavior to me, but it is to be expected from the elderly neoliberals.

I wonder is the precinct that went 7-5 in Sander's favor still hanging out there?

 

[B1GDeal]

My list:
Clinton is a slimy
Sanders a socialist, so unelectable.
Cruz a religious nutbird quasi fascist.
Trump a right wing bully and an a hole.
Rubio a wing nut and loves power more than his country.

Well, one of them is going to win. As for Sanders voting to continue to fund the wars... of course you would do that seeing how we have troops there that needs the funding to operate. You wouldn't hang them out to dry. I just find it more interesting that these are the folks we have running for the POTUS... in a country this large we can't find anyone better???

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I have a lot of repect for bern although I disagree with him politically but he seems genuine, hill is a fraud and a fake. I don't think there was any problem at all with people showing up for him, I think the problem was the shenanigans with hill

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Well, one of them is going to win.

or jeb

 

[jscott78]

Well, one of them is going to win. As for Sanders voting to continue to fund the wars... of course you would do that seeing how we have troops there that needs the funding to operate. You wouldn't hang them out to dry. I just find it more interesting that these are the folks we have running for the POTUS... in a country this large we can't find anyone better???

We are simply too torn ideologically to have quality people run for office. Sara Palin? c'mon! I have said for years we need a bloody war to make us grow up in this country.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

We are simply too torn ideologically to have quality people run for office. Sara Palin? c'mon! I have said for years we need a bloody war to make us grow up in this country.

100% of all the votes for McCain- were actually votes for palin

 

[theiacowtipper]

He voted for the war in Afghanistan. So he doesn't make that boast too often.

It is also important to understand the type of legislation they tie to funding bills. In a perfect world these would be up and down votes for or against war funding, but they are not. Though I appreciate your anti-war stances, and I share them; you must withdraw your head from the quasi principled libertarian echo chamber, and put things into the context of the actual reality of the world we are in. If Sanders votes against these funding bills he is already out of this election because he would have a record of voting against Veterans assistance, Katrina relief, and whatever else our sleazy legislators bound to murder funding.

"The Bush administration, backed by a Republican-controlled House and Senate, made a nasty habit of funding its disastrous occupation of Iraq on an emergency basis in order to minimize Congressional scrutiny, circumvent legal limits on the federal government’s debt ceiling, and understate the true cost of the war. The first time Sanders voted ‘yea’ to an Iraq war spending bill came in 2006 when the bill included funding for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. The second time he voted ‘yea’ was when an amendment he inserted into the bill giving a $1 million grant to the Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) to help returning veterans cope with their health care and mental health needs upon returning home. The third time he voted ‘yea’ was when the legislation incorporated a massive expansion of G.I. Bill benefits that Sanders co-sponsored and the Bush administration opposed guaranteeing full scholarships to veterans, including activated National Guard troops and reservists, with three years of service attending any public, in-state university and expanded benefits for students at private colleges and for graduate schools. The last time he voted ‘yea’ was when he gave his consent, along with the entire U.S. Senate, to fund the Iraq war’s end as President Barack Obama removed all U.S. troops from the country."

The war in Afghanistan was reasonable and conducted fairly well. After all, they were harboring people who attacked our country. Of course, by that measure, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia should have been next, not Iraq.

 

[Greenway4Prez]

My list:
Clinton is a slimy
Sanders a socialist, so unelectable.
Cruz a religious nutbird quasi fascist.
Trump a right wing bully and an a hole.
Rubio a wing nut and loves power more than his country.

We are simply too torn ideologically to have quality people run for office. Sara Palin? c'mon! I have said for years we need a bloody war to make us grow up in this country.

OK, you've made a few posts now in this thread with points that I agree with.

What did you do with the real jscott?

 

[moral_victory]

OK, you've made a few posts now in this thread with points that I agree with.

What did you do with the real jscott?

Here he is.

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/unemployment-rate-under-5.94063/

 

[Greenway4Prez]

Here he is.

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/unemployment-rate-under-5.94063/

I needed that, thank you.

I was starting to soften up a bit.

 

[Nat Algren]

He voted for the war in Afghanistan. So he doesn't make that boast too often.

It is also important to understand the type of legislation they tie to funding bills. In a perfect world these would be up and down votes for or against war funding, but they are not. Though I appreciate your anti-war stances, and I share them; you must withdraw your head from the quasi principled libertarian echo chamber, and put things into the context of the actual reality of the world we are in. If Sanders votes against these funding bills he is already out of this election because he would have a record of voting against Veterans assistance, Katrina relief, and whatever else our sleazy legislators bound to murder funding.

"The Bush administration, backed by a Republican-controlled House and Senate, made a nasty habit of funding its disastrous occupation of Iraq on an emergency basis in order to minimize Congressional scrutiny, circumvent legal limits on the federal government’s debt ceiling, and understate the true cost of the war. The first time Sanders voted ‘yea’ to an Iraq war spending bill came in 2006 when the bill included funding for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. The second time he voted ‘yea’ was when an amendment he inserted into the bill giving a $1 million grant to the Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) to help returning veterans cope with their health care and mental health needs upon returning home. The third time he voted ‘yea’ was when the legislation incorporated a massive expansion of G.I. Bill benefits that Sanders co-sponsored and the Bush administration opposed guaranteeing full scholarships to veterans, including activated National Guard troops and reservists, with three years of service attending any public, in-state university and expanded benefits for students at private colleges and for graduate schools. The last time he voted ‘yea’ was when he gave his consent, along with the entire U.S. Senate, to fund the Iraq war’s end as President Barack Obama removed all U.S. troops from the country."

What you have said is true. But, much of that other spending is unconstitutional as well and speaks to his being just more of the same. He could have taken a principled stance and voted nay. But, that's the point.

The comments below that clearly state what an interventionist he is now and will be, if elected. He is also clueless about Ukraine and ISIS.