Presidential Candidates Debate

[drmevo]

8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Certainly.  Even more, I can guarantee that Hillary will nominate activist socialist judges.

Like the activist socialist Obama recently nominated?

[rkim291968]

The latest polls are echoing who won the debate.  Looking at the new numbers, Clinton has opened up a 3% lead.   It used to be almost dead heat before the debate.

[David in FL]

51 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

I understand your point that all politicians are dishonest to some degree. They promise the world during campaign speeches and often fail to deliver. It stopped surprising me long ago. As I posted earlier, I just feel like these two are way worse than typical.

Thanks for making it easy for me 'cause I'm too st-st-st-stupid to think for myself.

You think I'm happy with the prospect of liberal justices, changes to the 2nd amendment, bigger government, higher taxes, and 4 more years of "Obama"? You're right, there's nothing pragmatic about my decision other than to send a message to those who were so desperate for change that they'd offer this asshole as a candidate. You want to blame me for what happens, that's your opinion. I have a different one.

I really, really, really dislike Hillary and cannot vote for her, but I just don't trust this guy. I don't know what he would do if he got in. He was a democrat a few years ago, now he's just #@%ing insane.

 

Like it or not it's a 2 party system.  One of them is going to be president and nominate members to the Supreme Court.  One of their VP's will break ties in the Senate. 

I love the "I want to send a message" argument.  The only message the eventual winner hears, is that they won.  Decide who you want that to be, cuz there are only 2 choices.  A third party vote is no better or worse than staying home and not voting at all.  They message is the same.  "I don't want to have a vote in who eventually gets elected." 

[JonMA1]

6 hours ago, David in FL said:

 

Like it or not it's a 2 party system.

Like it or not, republicans can't put just anyone in and expect everyone else to go along with it.

6 hours ago, David in FL said:

I love the "I want to send a message" argument.  The only message the eventual winner hears, is that they won.

If true, it's unfortunate. Kind of like we're too stubborn to learn from our mistakes. Talk about a lack of pragmatism.

[boogielicious]

17 hours ago, imsys0042 said:

Shame Lyndon Larouche isn't running....

This guy?

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/28/us/larouche-receives-15-year-sentence.html

 

9 hours ago, David in FL said:

I'll make this easy for you.  Do you want a Supreme Court that believes in fiscal conservative principles, or fiscal socialist principles.  For the former, vote for Trump.  For the latter, vote for anyone else.

I didn't vote for a Trump in the primaries.  I think there were better conservative candidates,  but in the general election, there are only two candidates who can possibly win.   As I said, and sadly, you're demonstrating the point.  There are too many who just don't understand simple pragmatism.

Why do you feel the need to talk down to people who don't agree with you? You have a valid argument, but talking down lessens the potential that they will listen to your argument. 

I have very close friends that are conservative. They don't talk down to people who disagree with them. 

This applies to everyone in these types of threads (liberal and conservative). Once you start talking down, it cheapens your response.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, David in FL said:

There are too many who just don't understand simple pragmatism.

Cool it.

[imsys0042]

5 hours ago, boogielicious said:

This guy?

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/28/us/larouche-receives-15-year-sentence.html

Yes!   One of the oddest people in the public eye in the 20th century.   Great punch line in the Simpsons

[boogielicious]

6 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

 

Remember you must put your response outside the quote box or it will show up blank when someone quotes you.

[David in FL]

45 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

This guy?

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/28/us/larouche-receives-15-year-sentence.html

 

Why do you feel the need to talk down to people who don't agree with you? You have a valid argument, but talking down lessens the potential that they will listen to your argument. 

I have very close friends that are conservative. They don't talk down to people who disagree with them. 

This applies to everyone in these types of threads (liberal and conservative). Once you start talking down, it cheapens your response.

It wasn't my intent to talk down to anyone.  If it came across that way, I apologize.

The fact of the matter remains.  In the general election, a vote for anyone other than either of the 2 main candidates has the same impact as not voting at all.  

[imsys0042]

39 minutes ago, David in FL said:

The fact of the matter remains.  In the general election, a vote for anyone other than either of the 2 main candidates has the same impact as not voting at all.  

That's true for the outcome of the election, however there is a wider implication.  By pulling enough votes away from the 2 main candidates it can set the stage for other political parties to emerge and greater influence the 2 party system.   The US has never effectively had to deal with coalition governing, however as the parties are moving to their more extreme endpoints (policy wise), it leaves a lot of people in the middle outside of many policy points.

Consider the Tea Party.  They identify as Republicans, however they zero in on a subset of issues within the party platform. If they decided to switch to "I" for independent tomorrow, that affects the balance of power in the House.   Or just as Independents in the Senate will caucus with the Democrats, but are not labeled as such and could not affiliate with neither party.

It would be extremely difficult, but if over 2-4 general election cycles a small, but if significant number of a third party candidates won seats in Congress you would have a position where one of the 2 parties would have to compromise with them to govern.

What makes the Presidency attractive to promote these parties is that it is the highest visibility contest to get supporters.  

[boogielicious]

47 minutes ago, David in FL said:

It wasn't my intent to talk down to anyone.  If it came across that way, I apologize.

The fact of the matter remains.  In the general election, a vote for anyone other than either of the 2 main candidates has the same impact as not voting at all.  

It is easy to get emotional when talking politics. I am guilty of that at times too. 

[imsys0042]

52 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Remember you must put your response outside the quote box or it will show up blank when someone quotes you.

Doh!   

Actually the Simpsons quote I was referring to was the Halloween special where the aliens Kang and Kodos ran for office, replacing Bob Dole and Bill Clinton.   The quote was:

Oh, no! Aliens, bio-duplication, nude conspiracies! Oh my God! Lyndon LaRouche was right!

And this page has a lot of goodies from it:

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_VII/Quotes

[newtogolf]

At this point it's a lesser of two evils.  I don't want Hillary to nominate our next 2-3 SCOTUS and set this country in the direction of a socialist country.  

[David in FL]

19 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

That's true for the outcome of the election, however there is a wider implication.  By pulling enough votes away from the 2 main candidates it can set the stage for other political parties to emerge and greater influence the 2 party system.   The US has never effectively had to deal with coalition governing, however as the parties are moving to their more extreme endpoints (policy wise), it leaves a lot of people in the middle outside of many policy points.

Consider the Tea Party.  They identify as Republicans, however they zero in on a subset of issues within the party platform. If they decided to switch to "I" for independent tomorrow, that affects the balance of power in the House.   Or just as Independents in the Senate will caucus with the Democrats, but are not labeled as such and could not affiliate with neither party.

It would be extremely difficult, but if over 2-4 general election cycles a small, but if significant number of a third party candidates won seats in Congress you would have a position where one of the 2 parties would have to compromise with them to govern.

What makes the Presidency attractive to promote these parties is that it is the highest visibility contest to get supporters.  

From a pragmatic standpoint, the primaries are the time to send that message.  In a general election, especially one like this, with all that hangs in the balance for potentially the next generation, it's time to vote for the candidate that will best advance whichever strategic, social and economic policies matter the most to each voter.

Credit where it's due.  Democrats understand that, and generally do a much better job of it than republicans do.  

[imsys0042]

16 minutes ago, David in FL said:

From a pragmatic standpoint, the primaries are the time to send that message.

And we need more people to go out and vote in the primaries!!!  

[David in FL]

5 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

And we need more people to go out and vote in the primaries!!!  

Absolutely!  That's where the real opportunity for significant change lies.

[drmevo]

20 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

At this point it's a lesser of two evils.  I don't want Hillary to nominate our next 2-3 SCOTUS and set this country in the direction of a socialist country.  

Congressional Republicans could do a lot to avert that risk by simply moving forward with hearings for Merrick Garland.  He is widely regarded as a centrist and there are many Republicans who thought he would make a great SCOTUS pick before Obama nominated him. I would bet, if Clinton wins, Republicans will move forward with the nominating process during the lame duck session to try to prevent a more liberal pick from Clinton.

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Congressional Republicans could do a lot to avert that risk by simply moving forward with hearings for Merrick Garland.  He is widely regarded as a centrist and there are many Republicans who thought he would make a great SCOTUS pick before Obama nominated him. I would bet, if Clinton wins, Republicans will move forward with the nominating process during the lame duck session to try to prevent a more liberal pick from Clinton.

Accepting Garland is like eating something you don't like because you fear the next course could be even worse.  

Garland is still left of center and not the person we want to see sitting on the court for many years to come.