2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries

[Askold]

Did you know that some Republicans are now supporting Clinton rather than Trump? And not just the average voters, some Republican politicians also prefer her rather than Trump or Sanders.

I'll try to link the article after work.

[lord gibbon]

Frankly, that makes me uncomfortable. The modern Republican party is utterly vile. The idea that a democratic candidate could get support from anyone to the right of Eisenhower is worrying.

[Askold]

Would you prefer that they all support Trump?

[lord gibbon]

As long as it's just conservatives, sure. It would help invalidate their political movement.

[The_Queen]

Did you know that some Republicans are now supporting Clinton rather than Trump? And not just the average voters, some Republican politicians also prefer her rather than Trump or Sanders.

I'll try to link the article after work.

makes sense, Clinton talks a lot about she'll be big into doing things to appeal to Conservatives, and make as many concessions as she can as to avoid threatening conservatives.

I mean, lots of her supporters like her (at least in part) because she's moderate.

1. Republicans that endorse her are not doing so because they think she's their BFF. They're supporting her because they find the idea of a liberal democrat to be less repugnant than whatever the fuck Trump is.

2. Lizard, you're 2/10 on the troll meter. Go back to troll school. Or at least back a few pages where I posted this. Turns out, she's a hardcore liberal. Seriously, if people just did basic research, they would find out that there isn't any evidence in her voting record of being in the pocket of the big banks, and if people just looked at politifact, they'd find out she's fundamentally honest. I'm not saying she's perfect, but the most common criticisms of her have little to no basis in reality.

3. I'm gonna stay on Lizard. You've admitted to being wrong about Clinton so many times before that I'm not going to rehash. Actually, yes I will. First it was about Haiti, then you posted contradictory things about Honduras* and Libya, then you say we "shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place" only to flip-flop when you found out Sanders supported intervention in Libya. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say Clinton is perfect; she isn't. She, like Sanders and EVERY other politician, has made mistakes, but the fact that you spout a reason to dislike her, find out it is wrong, and then come back with a new (and equally incorrect) reason to dislike her, really does give off the appearance that your opposition is not due to coherent reasoning, but something else.

*showing you had a fundamental misunderstanding about the Honduran coup, since you thought we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, which is the precise reason that Clinton was criticized.

[ironbite]

Oh come on Queen.  You know Clinton is a hardcore politician who'll do anything to get ahead.  Yeah her voting record might show her to be a liberal agitator but she still voted for the Iraq war.

Ironbite-that's a huge hit to her being a liberal.

[The_Queen]

Oh come on Queen.  You know Clinton is a hardcore politician who'll do anything to get ahead.  Yeah her voting record might show her to be a liberal agitator but she still voted for the Iraq war.

Ironbite-that's a huge hit to her being a liberal.

Yeah, cause that is how a "record" works: we look at the worst event in isolation and go from there. By that logic, Bernie isn't a Wall Street crony because he voted for the largest wall street deregulation bill in American history.

[dpareja]

Whatever arguments are made for or against Clinton, for or against Trump, or for or against any third-party candidate, I predict that this election will set the record for most noses held (at least mentally) while voting.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Whatever arguments are made for or against Clinton, for or against Trump, or for or against any third-party candidate, I predict that this election will set the record for most noses held (at least mentally) while voting.

Do you think this will shake up the two-party system?

[RavynousHunter]

No.  First past the post ensures a two-party system.  The parties themselves (esp. the Republicans) might see a significant schism, but the number of parties will not change in any effective or meaningful way.

[dpareja]

No.  First past the post ensures a two-party system.  The parties themselves (esp. the Republicans) might see a significant schism, but the number of parties will not change in any effective or meaningful way.

Yeah, this might presage a realignment of the coalitions, but introducing a true multi-party system requires significant electoral reform.

[pyro]

Frankly, that makes me uncomfortable. The modern Republican party is utterly vile. The idea that a democratic candidate could get support from anyone to the right of Eisenhower is worrying.

Yeah! Same reason I oppose animal rights, considering how utterly vile the Nazi party was.

[Askold]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/the-gops-top-national-security-icon-just-announced-hes-backing-clinton-over-trump/

[The_Queen]

No, originally you said Honduras alongside Libya and saying "we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place." 

But, even then, your Honduras argument about aid is a half truth. It was not giving aid, but continuing aid that should have been ceased after the coup. And this criticism doesn't mesh with your criticism of Hillary for Iran's sanction, as ceasing aid to Honduras would disproportionately affect the people who are already under a military dictatorship. Your argument seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't, so long as your name is Hillary: that is the only consistent part of your position.

[Lt. Fred]

Whatever arguments are made for or against Clinton, for or against Trump, or for or against any third-party candidate, I predict that this election will set the record for most noses held (at least mentally) while voting.

Do you think this will shake up the two-party system?

Hopefully the Republican party will burn.