Hillary Clinton

• sleeper

  

  I don't think Donald would be a good President either. In fact, he would be a national embarrassment and wouldn't accomplish anything.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  isadore;1784004 wrote:gosh a ruddies Apple in Germany in November, 1932 election "it would be quite and accomplishment for Anyone to knock out Wels and those damn liberal socials SPDers. Even if we end up with Hilter, on the whole, Germany would be a better place."

  When you've got nothing constructive to say, pull the Hitler card. It's like playing the race card at every turn.
• Apple

  

  sleeper;1784016 wrote:I don't think Donald would be a good President either. In fact, he would be a national embarrassment and wouldn't accomplish anything.

  I'm not sure Trump would be that good of a president either. If he wins in the end it will be great to see both the Bush and Clinton dynasties fade away.
  
  Many voters aren't old enough to remember it, or may not have even been alive, but prior to the 1980 election the opposition to Ronald Reagan made comments about him that are similar to what we are now hearing about Trump. …Not comparing Trump to Reagan, just comparing how those who oppose(d) them reacted to their candidacy.
• Heretic

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1784032 wrote:When you've got nothing constructive to say, pull the Hitler card. It's like playing the race card at every turn.

  He didn't pull the Hitler card, he pulled the HILTER card!
  
  [video=youtube;XQkcP0olmQY][/video]
• sleeper

  

  Apple;1784054 wrote:I'm not sure Trump would be that good of a president either. If he wins in the end it will be great to see both the Bush and Clinton dynasties fade away.
  
  Many voters aren't old enough to remember it, or may not have even been alive, but prior to the 1980 election the opposition to Ronald Reagan made comments about him that are similar to what we are now hearing about Trump. …Not comparing Trump to Reagan, just comparing how those who oppose(d) them reacted to their candidacy.

  There really isn't a good option on either side. Sanders would be an absolute disaster and Hillary is owned by the banks(and never tells the truth). Rubio is more raw and inexperienced than Obama ever was and Cruz is a religious nut job. Kasich is an okay candidate but he doesn't seem to be getting enough hype to propel himself anywhere.
  
  And then there's Carson who is perhaps the worst candidate of them all but thankfully has zero chance of winning.
• BR1986FB

  sleeper;1784058 wrote:There really isn't a good option on either side. Sanders would be an absolute disaster and Hillary is owned by the banks(and never tells the truth). Rubio is more raw and inexperienced than Obama ever was and Cruz is a religious nut job. Kasich is an okay candidate but he doesn't seem to be getting enough hype to propel himself anywhere.
  
  And then there's Carson who is perhaps the worst candidate of them all but thankfully has zero chance of winning.

  I'm pretty much in this boat but would disagree and say Sanders is the worst of them all. Dude needs to be wearing a tin foil hat.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  BR1986FB;1784064 wrote:I'm pretty much in this boat but would disagree and say Sanders is the worst of them all. Dude needs to be wearing a tin foil hat.

  id love to hear the logic of why you think he's paranoid?
• BR1986FB

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784065 wrote:id love to hear the logic of why you think he's paranoid?

  Sorry, when I think tin foil hat, I think "batshit crazy" more than paranoid.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  sleeper;1784058 wrote:There really isn't a good option on either side. Sanders would be an absolute disaster and Hillary is owned by the banks(and never tells the truth). Rubio is more raw and inexperienced than Obama ever was and Cruz is a religious nut job. Kasich is an okay candidate but he doesn't seem to be getting enough hype to propel himself anywhere.
  
  And then there's Carson who is perhaps the worst candidate of them all but thankfully has zero chance of winning.

  Agree here as well.
  Said it before, if it is between Trump, or Drumpf, and Clinton, give me Clinton, because at least I know what I am getting.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  BR1986FB;1784067 wrote:Sorry, when I think tin foil hat, I think "batshit crazy" more than paranoid.

  well that's kind of the definition of someone wearing a tin foil hat..
• queencitybuckeye

  ptown_trojans_1;1784068 wrote:Agree here as well.
  Said it before, if it is between Trump, or Drumpf, and Clinton, give me Clinton, because at least I know what I am getting.

  A sociopath?
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Bernies the only candidate against Citizens United. Wonder why that is? Must be because he's "batshit crazy".
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  queencitybuckeye;1784070 wrote:A sociopath?

  Less than Trump is.
• Con_Alma

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784073 wrote:Bernies the only candidate against Citizens United. Wonder why that is? Must be because he's "batshit crazy".

  Is Mr. Sanders truly opposed to these principles?
  
  Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Con_Alma;1784077 wrote:Is Mr. Sanders truly opposed to these principles?
  
  Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.

  And Citizens United accomplishes this through PAC's and Super PAC's eh?
• BR1986FB

  Doesn't really matter because your boy, Karl Marx, isn't getting the nomination.
• Con_Alma

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784078 wrote:And Citizens United accomplishes this through PAC's and Super PAC's eh?

  ...possibly one of many ways.
  
  I'd like to read Mr. Sanders' comments opposing them if they are out there. I'm surprised he would be opposed to them instead of seeking to change how they might do things. It seems the desire to change things is his MO. It would be surprising to read that a candidate was against the citizens being in control and or restoring the original vision of the nation.
• Con_Alma

  BR1986FB;1784079 wrote:Doesn't really matter because your boy, Karl Marx, isn't getting the nomination.

  I tend to agree and many have said that from the beginning but I support people backing candidates that reflect their own views whether that candidate can win or not.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  BR1986FB;1784079 wrote:Doesn't really matter because your boy, Karl Marx, isn't getting the nomination.

  I wonder if people likened FDR to Karl Marx on his way to 4 terms?
• Con_Alma

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784082 wrote:I wonder if people likened FDR to Karl Marx on his way to 4 terms?

  I think if FDR ran today they probably would.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Con_Alma;1784080 wrote:...possibly one of many ways.
  
  I'd like to read Mr. Sanders' comments opposing them if they are out there. I'm surprised he would be opposed to them instead of seeking to change how they might do things. It seems the desire to change things is his MO. It would be surprising to read that a candidate was against the citizens being in control and or restoring the original vision of the nation.

  A question to you... you don't see any downfalls of PAC's and Super PAC's?
• Con_Alma

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784084 wrote:A question to you... you don't see any downfalls of PAC's and Super PAC's?

  Of course. Do any of my above statements imply otherwise?
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Con_Alma;1784083 wrote:I think if FDR ran today they probably would.

  
  So in 2016 FDR is Karl Marx and in 1933 he's a future 4 term president?
  Did Karl Marx evolve much after he died in the 1800's to change ones view in 80 years?
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Con_Alma;1784086 wrote:Of course. Do any of my above statements imply otherwise?

  No but you questioned why Bernie would have a problem with Citizens United, but failed to mention anything about PAC's. Just wondered if you felt they have no issues.
• Con_Alma

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784087 wrote:So in 2016 FDR is Karl Marx and in 1933 he's a future 4 term president?
  Did Karl Marx evolve much after he died in the 1800's to change ones view in 80 years?

  No but they way current culture views current issues and how best to address them probably has.
  You don't think people would liken FDR's policies to Marxism if he ran today?