>Thinking she's gonna get electedLOL
Just #StandwithRand and get over it bitches. The man is a legend, a manlet with a chicken wing, but a legend.
Quote from: Kernel Kraut on May 20, 2015, 03:06:34 PMJust #StandwithRand and get over it bitches. The man is a legend, a manlet with a chicken wing, but a legend.um no thanks. Rand has some really nutty positions and beliefs. I can't vote for a climate change denier and someone who won't support lgbt rights.
Quote from: Mad Max on May 20, 2015, 03:07:27 PMQuote from: Kernel Kraut on May 20, 2015, 03:06:34 PMJust #StandwithRand and get over it bitches. The man is a legend, a manlet with a chicken wing, but a legend.um no thanks. Rand has some really nutty positions and beliefs. I can't vote for a climate change denier and someone who won't support lgbt rights.Do you want Hillary (Because Bernie will NEVER make it to election day) Or do you want someone who actively wants to kill the Patriot act?
I can't vote for a climate change denier and someone who won't support lgbt rights.
Quote from: Mad Max on May 20, 2015, 03:07:27 PMI can't vote for a climate change denier and someone who won't support lgbt rights.They seem like two relatively unimportant points to base your decision on. Of course politicians should acknowledge climate change and support LGBT rights, but it nonetheless seems either inconsequential or minor compared to other issues. Not that I'm trying to denigrate the content of those issues.
You seem to be missing the fact that not everyone values economic and foreign policy as highly as you.
Quote from: Mad Max on May 20, 2015, 03:23:44 PMYou seem to be missing the fact that not everyone values economic and foreign policy as highly as you.Not at all. I'm just interested in where you're coming from. I think people who totally ignore economic and foreign policy concerns are moronic, they're obviously massive important. I'm just questioning why you're placing so much emphasis on what I see as relatively unimportant issues. I'm not trying to say your values are incorrect in any way; I just find your priorities somewhat alien.
..because maybe different people see different things as priorities?
I want to know why you prioritise the things you do
Presidents really can't do that much to affect the social progress of the people.
Economic policies can be completely undone in four years by the next president
Not really. . .
Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 21, 2015, 08:58:37 AMNot really. . . How not? I think every Republican candidate is dead set on repealing Obamacare asap.
I'm talking about broad macroprudential policies, not microeconomic policies which affect a certain market. Like, you could be in the midst of a depression and have one candidate who wants to raise taxes and one candidate who wants to lower them. If the latter is elected, and his policy leads to the end of the depression then the next candidate can't undo that. They could reverse the tax cuts--or even implement a rise from the original--and there would be a whole debate about it, but they couldn't alter the macroeconomic benefits already won by the prior tax cut.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 21, 2015, 09:23:35 AMI'm talking about broad macroprudential policies, not microeconomic policies which affect a certain market. Like, you could be in the midst of a depression and have one candidate who wants to raise taxes and one candidate who wants to lower them. If the latter is elected, and his policy leads to the end of the depression then the next candidate can't undo that. They could reverse the tax cuts--or even implement a rise from the original--and there would be a whole debate about it, but they couldn't alter the macroeconomic benefits already won by the prior tax cut.I see your point, but how much of and effect does the president really have on macroeconomics and why would stances on social issues and the environment be considered unimportant by comparison?
I really don't think any individuals, no matter how much power they have, are going to defy public opinion like this.
When it comes to priorities, for me personally it's simply the fact that you must have a stable and functioning economy before you can address social or environmental issues. I'm not saying they're unimportant, per se, merely that a rational expectation of and confidence in long-run prosperity and stability has to be there before you can realistically form policy about much else.
I'll still likely vote for her.
Quote from: Icy on May 21, 2015, 05:50:33 PMI'll still likely vote for her.not sure if srs...
Quote from: Mad Max on May 21, 2015, 05:55:48 PMQuote from: Icy on May 21, 2015, 05:50:33 PMI'll still likely vote for her.not sure if srs...The way I look at it, and justify voting for her, is this: Whoever wins could leave one of the longest lasting legacies for this generation via the Supreme Court.Come 2016, in a year and a half, roughly 3-4 of the justices will be in their 80's. Assuming the next President, be it Democrat or Republican, serves out a full eight years in office, there is a strong likelyhood that they will have the opportunity to nominate at least two people, if not more, to the bench. As much as I may prefer others over Clinton, the fact is that I agree with her ideologically far more than I agree with any of the GOP candidates - and I would prefer to see her put someone of similar ideological thinking on the court for the remainder of their lives.Selfish, maybe. But SCOTUS has had an increasing role in recent years, so they do come into play.
Quote from: Icy on May 21, 2015, 06:01:24 PMQuote from: Mad Max on May 21, 2015, 05:55:48 PMQuote from: Icy on May 21, 2015, 05:50:33 PMI'll still likely vote for her.not sure if srs...The way I look at it, and justify voting for her, is this: Whoever wins could leave one of the longest lasting legacies for this generation via the Supreme Court.Come 2016, in a year and a half, roughly 3-4 of the justices will be in their 80's. Assuming the next President, be it Democrat or Republican, serves out a full eight years in office, there is a strong likelyhood that they will have the opportunity to nominate at least two people, if not more, to the bench. As much as I may prefer others over Clinton, the fact is that I agree with her ideologically far more than I agree with any of the GOP candidates - and I would prefer to see her put someone of similar ideological thinking on the court for the remainder of their lives.Selfish, maybe. But SCOTUS has had an increasing role in recent years, so they do come into play.Why Hillary and not Bernie?
Quote from: Mad Max on May 21, 2015, 06:03:33 PMQuote from: Icy on May 21, 2015, 06:01:24 PMQuote from: Mad Max on May 21, 2015, 05:55:48 PMQuote from: Icy on May 21, 2015, 05:50:33 PMI'll still likely vote for her.not sure if srs...The way I look at it, and justify voting for her, is this: Whoever wins could leave one of the longest lasting legacies for this generation via the Supreme Court.Come 2016, in a year and a half, roughly 3-4 of the justices will be in their 80's. Assuming the next President, be it Democrat or Republican, serves out a full eight years in office, there is a strong likelyhood that they will have the opportunity to nominate at least two people, if not more, to the bench. As much as I may prefer others over Clinton, the fact is that I agree with her ideologically far more than I agree with any of the GOP candidates - and I would prefer to see her put someone of similar ideological thinking on the court for the remainder of their lives.Selfish, maybe. But SCOTUS has had an increasing role in recent years, so they do come into play.Why Hillary and not Bernie?Because Bernie has three things that are going hold him back from winning the primary, and even moreso, the general: Money, Political Affiliation, and Age.
Quote from: Icy on May 21, 2015, 06:07:52 PMQuote from: Mad Max on May 21, 2015, 06:03:33 PMQuote from: Icy on May 21, 2015, 06:01:24 PMQuote from: Mad Max on May 21, 2015, 05:55:48 PMQuote from: Icy on May 21, 2015, 05:50:33 PMI'll still likely vote for her.not sure if srs...The way I look at it, and justify voting for her, is this: Whoever wins could leave one of the longest lasting legacies for this generation via the Supreme Court.Come 2016, in a year and a half, roughly 3-4 of the justices will be in their 80's. Assuming the next President, be it Democrat or Republican, serves out a full eight years in office, there is a strong likelyhood that they will have the opportunity to nominate at least two people, if not more, to the bench. As much as I may prefer others over Clinton, the fact is that I agree with her ideologically far more than I agree with any of the GOP candidates - and I would prefer to see her put someone of similar ideological thinking on the court for the remainder of their lives.Selfish, maybe. But SCOTUS has had an increasing role in recent years, so they do come into play.Why Hillary and not Bernie?Because Bernie has three things that are going hold him back from winning the primary, and even moreso, the general: Money, Political Affiliation, and Age.Bernie's biggest campaign foundation is the fact he doesn't answer to billionaires like Hillary does. Of course he'll be running on fewer campaign funds, but at least it's honest money [comparatively]What's wrong with his political affiliation? He's been an independent for so long, but running under the democrats.Age? Yeah, he's older. I don't think he'll die in office or anything, though.
but more Millenials relate to her for some reason.
Hillary Clinton had second secret email address
