Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, she is an elitist and corporatist does that count? It also describes both national parties.

So do you go with the corrupt status quo that has been selling America for decades at the expense of the middle class, or go with Trump as a desperation play to give the middle finger and burn it down? Scenic route or bullet train to hell.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You talking about Sanders going 3rd Party? o.O

I think it's not beyond the realm of possibility

It's totally possible.
Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.

News flash, Sanders IS a third party candidate. He's a Socialist, not a Democrat.

And HRC is a Republican, not a Democrat.

You mis-perceive. He's not actually a member of the Democratic Party.

 Ustrello wrote:
She is a blue dog pretty much. So yes whembly feeder is kinda right

No... that isn't right.

She represent the contemporary Democrat party.

One *could* argue that there isn't much separating the Democrats from the Republicans.

However, saying Clinton is a "Republican-lite" is taking waaay too many liberties.

EDIT: ninja'ed by jmurph a bit.

 Frazzled wrote:

Spoiler:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You talking about Sanders going 3rd Party? o.O

I think it's not beyond the realm of possibility

It's totally possible.
Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.

News flash, Sanders IS a third party candidate. He's a Socialist, not a Democrat.

And HRC is a Republican, not a Democrat.

You mis-perceive. He's not actually a member of the Democratic Party.

You are referring to his status as an Independent. Gotcha.

I thought he had joined the party in order to run. No?

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
She is a blue dog pretty much. So yes whembly feeder is kinda right

No... that isn't right.

She represent the contemporary Democrat party.

One *could* argue that there isn't much separating the Democrats from the Republicans.

However, saying Clinton is a "Republican-lite" is taking waaay too many liberties.

EDIT: ninja'ed by jmurph a bit.

The problem with this is, what is a Republican anymore? Can anyone say for sure at this point.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
She is a blue dog pretty much. So yes whembly feeder is kinda right

No... that isn't right.

She represent the contemporary Democrat party.

One *could* argue that there isn't much separating the Democrats from the Republicans.

However, saying Clinton is a "Republican-lite" is taking waaay too many liberties.

EDIT: ninja'ed by jmurph a bit.

The problem with this is, what is a Republican anymore? Can anyone say for sure at this point.

Indeed.

Here's the deal... I put the blame squarely on the voters. We're an instant gratification society and so we'd lose interest fast. You can't do that in politics.

Both parties suffers from this, but moreso the GOP now than the Democrats.

The truly sad thing, is that the GOP voters overlooked every gain made over the last few cycles via the Tea Party movement... and then traded it in to a lying huckster democrat for some magic beans.



Now... I get to batten down the hatches and get ready for the suckage.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
She is a blue dog pretty much. So yes whembly feeder is kinda right

No... that isn't right.

She represent the contemporary Democrat party.

One *could* argue that there isn't much separating the Democrats from the Republicans.

However, saying Clinton is a "Republican-lite" is taking waaay too many liberties.

EDIT: ninja'ed by jmurph a bit.

The problem with this is, what is a Republican anymore? Can anyone say for sure at this point.

Well, if we believe Trump, republicans are pro-abortion/anti abortion, pro war/antiwar, prohealthcare/antihealthcare, and evidently anti ugly people.
"Its about the jobs, so many jobs, you won't believe how many jobs, and how are you going to believe Hillary? Look at that face, and you know her grandfather killed Lincoln right? "

Or to weather the storm that is the death of the Republican party

The GOP isn't dying, its just being irrevocably transformed from the bottom up.

Don't be happy if thats so. One party states are dictatorships.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
She is a blue dog pretty much. So yes whembly feeder is kinda right

No... that isn't right.

She represent the contemporary Democrat party.

One *could* argue that there isn't much separating the Democrats from the Republicans.

However, saying Clinton is a "Republican-lite" is taking waaay too many liberties.

EDIT: ninja'ed by jmurph a bit.

The problem with this is, what is a Republican anymore? Can anyone say for sure at this point.

Well, if we believe Trump, republicans are pro-abortion/anti abortion, pro war/antiwar, prohealthcare/antihealthcare, and evidently anti ugly people.
"Its about the jobs, so many jobs, you won't believe how many jobs, and how are you going to believe Hillary? Look at that face, and you know her grandfather killed Lincoln right? "

I think among his supporters, her Grandfather killing Lincoln would sound like a good thing.

 whembly wrote:

Remember during GWB years? How harsh his critics were... especially the big media?

The persecution narrative didn't hold for Cruz, and he is way better at this game than you are.

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to drop that shtick.

 whembly wrote:

GWB and "his team" never really addressed those criticism head-on, instead, mostly employed the strategy of "I'm not going to dignify that with a response".

Was Dick Cheney not on Bush's team?

 whembly wrote:

Same with McCain/Romney refusing to hit Obama *hard* during the '08 / '12 election. The GOP Primary was nastier than the General Election.

Palin lost McCain the election explicitly because she is ridiculously conservative.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
However, saying Clinton is a "Republican-lite" is taking waaay too many liberties.

The problem with this is, what is a Republican anymore? Can anyone say for sure at this point.

Well, what would you call these stances?

Supports a ban on abortions after 24 weeks, with exceptions for the life of the mother.

Didn't support gay marriage until 2013.

Would support military action against Iran.

Voted for the Iraq war

Supports sending weapons to rebels in Syria

Co-sponsored a bill to criminalize flag burning

Voted to loosen restrictions on wiretapping.

Deeply religious and says her faith guides her

Advocates for the death penalty.

Pushed for 3-strikes laws

Supported keeping the Cuban embargo in place

Pledged more support for Israel

Would not ask Israel to stop building settlements

Supported removing habeas corpus for foreign detainees

Voted for the Patriot Act, and then voted to re-authorize it.

The only reason she's not considered a moderate Republican is because in the last few years, the brakes have come off the Republican crazy-train. Despite that, I'm already seeing people say that the only reason that they're in trouble is that they're just not being conservative enough. I truly cannot fathom what is workably to the right of Ted Cruz.

Man, that sounds an awful lot like Whembly!

I truly cannot fathom what is workably to the right of Ted Cruz.

Darth Vader. He's a hit among the militant Neo Cons, the Law and Order Crowd, and his faith based philosophy is a real hit with the evangelicals. We'd have to see what his stance is on gun control though.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, what would you call these stances?

I can make Trump look like a member of the Green Party as long as I cherry pick issues.

Doesn't make it so.

 Frazzled wrote:

I truly cannot fathom what is workably to the right of Ted Cruz.

Darth Vader. He's a hit among the militant Neo Cons, the Law and Order Crowd, and his faith based philosophy is a real hit with the evangelicals. We'd have to see what his stance is on gun control though.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side" #writeinHan #frommycolddeadhands #NeverVader

Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, what would you call these stances?

I can make Trump look like a member of the Green Party as long as I cherry pick issues.

I don't believe you. Do it.

I support the Man in Black.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I don't believe you. Do it.

You also believe that someone who had a voting record nearly identical to Sanders' when she was a senator is basically a Republican. I'm not sure what you believe is a relevant barometer for anything.

You said that you could do something, and I asked you to do what you claimed.

What's the problem, senpai?

I lay out good money for pay per view for Hunger Games in 2020..

 Ouze wrote:

Well, what would you call these stances?

Supports a ban on abortions after 24 weeks, with exceptions for the life of the mother.

Didn't support gay marriage until 2013.

Would support military action against Iran.

Voted for the Iraq war

Supports sending weapons to rebels in Syria

Co-sponsored a bill to criminalize flag burning

Voted to loosen restrictions on wiretapping.

Deeply religious and says her faith guides her

Advocates for the death penalty.

Pushed for 3-strikes laws

Supported keeping the Cuban embargo in place

Pledged more support for Israel

Would not ask Israel to stop building settlements

Supported removing habeas corpus for foreign detainees

Voted for the Patriot Act, and then voted to re-authorize it.

A creature of the politics at the time of the vote?

I keep going back to dw-nominate, which is based partly by voting records:


Or, try yougov's next 3 images, which is based on identified party's perception:

From the British perspective there's never been a lot of blue water between Republican and Democrat. An old saying is that the Republicans are a bit like our Conservative party, while the Democrats are a bit like our Conservative party.

The key difference is that in the past 20 years or so, the Republicans seem to have attracted a spectrum of (from our perspective) seriously way out fringe operators; Creationists, anti-gay rights people, gold standard loonies, climate change deniers and so on.

The Democrats haven't.

All that being said, how much damage could Trump actually do in four years if elected? To be sure, he would wreck all the good Obama did in resuscitating America's PR image abroad from the disastrous Bush years, but does that matter? Traditionally Americans don't give a crap what everyone else thinks of them anyway.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All that being said, how much damage could Trump actually do in four years if elected?

He would definitely be able to appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court, and more likely two. Maybe more - some are really old at this point, 83, 79, 77.

That's a pretty big deal, they are lifetime appointments and the effects will be felt for decades.

Otherwise, the POTUS has very wide powers with regards to the military and foreign excursions.

Those are the only real big ones, in my opinion. I mean, don't get me wrong, the office can technically DO tons of stuff - there is a lot of power through the way the executive guides it's various departments - but I think those are the ones where he would have the most latitude to do what he wants in the face of a presumably hostile congress. On issues of budget or otherwise, Congress is more likely to interfere with any plans they don't like.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All that being said, how much damage could Trump actually do in four years if elected?

He would definitely be able to appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court, and more likely two. Maybe more - some are really old at this point, 83, 79, 77.

That's a pretty big deal, they are lifetime appointments and the effects will be felt for decades.

Otherwise, the POTUS has very wide powers with regards to the military and foreign excursions.

Those are the only real big ones, in my opinion. I mean, don't get me wrong, the office can technically DO tons of stuff - there is a lot of power through the way the executive guides it's various departments - but I think those are the ones where he would have the most latitude to do what he wants in the face of a presumably hostile congress. On issues of budget or otherwise, Congress is more likely to interfere with any plans they don't like.

While I certainly don't want Trump picking one or two SCOTUS justices as PotUS I can't think of any candidates for SCOTUS that would garner enough support with both parties in Congress to get confirmed. The campaign between Trump and Clinton is going to be extremely contentious and likely very dirty. I can easily imagine that the upcoming election is going to see very low turnout by the time Trump and Clinton are done spending months eviserating each other in the media and reminding everyone in the country how awful partison politics can be. We're going to have an even more polarized Congress and even within the Republican party there will be members of Congress strongly opposed to Trump. Congress is going to create a new level of gridlock after this year's election.

The gridlock would be there with Clinton or Bernie. I just think Clinton would be able to deal with it better.

Prestor Jon wrote:
While I certainly don't want Trump picking one or two SCOTUS justices as PotUS I can't think of any candidates for SCOTUS that would garner enough support with both parties in Congress to get confirmed.

it depends on who has control of the Senate come 2017. Regardless, I don't see Congress scuttling very many nominations unless something serious shows up in the background check.

 jasper76 wrote:

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
BREAKING NEWS!!!

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/04/john-kasich-drop-out-republican-presidential-race-donald-trump-nomination

John Kasich is out!

All I can say is: It's about time for John K to drop out (not that I support Donald Trump, which I don't, I support Bernie)

It's time for Bernie to drop out, as well. It's practically impossible that he will get nominated, yet he's leading his supporters on that he still has a chance...and presumably still accepting their money.

Something to consider. Conventions and convention delegates aren't just about the nomination, they are also about putting together the party platform plank by plank. Bernie claimed he was running on issues and wanted to move the party tot he left. The more delegates he can send to the Convention the more he can theoretically do that.

However, I am unclear if this is his motivation still. If it was, you think he would start funneling some of his campaign money into making grass-roots organizations and supporting down ticket races. he hasn;t really done that in any meaningful way that I am aware of. At this point, I am not really sure what Bernie is trying to do.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
From the British perspective there's never been a lot of blue water between Republican and Democrat. An old saying is that the Republicans are a bit like our Conservative party, while the Democrats are a bit like our Conservative party.

The key difference is that in the past 20 years or so, the Republicans seem to have attracted a spectrum of (from our perspective) seriously way out fringe operators; Creationists, anti-gay rights people, gold standard loonies, climate change deniers and so on.

The Democrats haven't.

All that being said, how much damage could Trump actually do in four years if elected? To be sure, he would wreck all the good Obama did in resuscitating America's PR image abroad from the disastrous Bush years, but does that matter? Traditionally Americans don't give a crap what everyone else thinks of them anyway.

***Shall we play a game?
***How about Global Thermonuclear War?
***Fun