Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: May 18 2016 at 12:54
^Yes, because it's just a matter of personal politics to be opposed to a misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, erratic, insulting, narcissistic billionaire who is part of socially-backward, extremely religious, homophobic, poor-o-phobic, political party, becoming President as opposed to (deeply flawed) but still civilized intelligent woman. Yes, such a hard choice....
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: May 18 2016 at 19:15
The T wrote:
^Yes, because it's just a matter of personal politics to be opposed to a misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, erratic, insulting, narcissistic billionaire who is part of socially-backward, extremely religious, homophobic, poor-o-phobic, political party, becoming President as opposed to (deeply flawed) but still civilized intelligent woman. Yes, such a hard choice....
I agree that the language and message Trump sends as a person is disgusting, and the violence it helps foster is despicable but I do not think that those qualities are going to translate to a different kind of presidency than any other person running on the republican ticket. The unique problem he causes is one that can only be answered by individuals standing up and deciding it is not ok, not by any vote or policy.
Joined: February 07 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18446
Posted: May 19 2016 at 10:59
The biggest thing I see (as an outsider mind you) is the media's inability or unwillingness to call out Trump and his minions on their hypocrisy. They're fine pointing a finger at Bill Clinton's behaviour in the 90's, but when this issue of him impersonating his own PR guy, admitting it and now denying it comes up they all scream "Oh that was 20 years ago, nobody cares" or "It's a non-story". And his whole excuse of "I'm a counter puncher is complete and utter BS. He started much of the rhetoric and is now paying the price. My heart bleeds for the American public in this election cycle.
Thank you for supporting independently produced music
In a general election he would obviously win all the blue states, and as for the swing states...I think his message would resonate and he's proven to do very well with working class voters, youth and independents. I have no doubt he'd do as well as Clinton, if not more. No one has addressed this, just throw out the usual "hes weak" or worse "hes unelectable" with no real argument. I've like to see someone tell me why I am wrong.
He hasn't been challenged. Sanders hasn't had to face an actual challenge from his rival. No deep scrutiny. No attack ads. If he was on the general election he would have to face the attacks of Republicans who would waste no time painting him as a full-blown communist (and putting his youth images for everybody to see). All his past decisions and actions would be exposed and he would also have to elaborate on his "free college" and "free everything" bullet points (which so far he hasn't, he has been as good at explaining how he is going to make good his promises as Donald Trump his.). If Trump, who has a low-level but certain talent to invent stupid nicknames that stick for rivals, gets to work on Sanders, the good guy will have an uphill battle.
OK, he'd be up against....Trump the guy who has an inconsistency/waffle attached to every position, 90% of his "plans" are literally made up, who has a personal record that is uh, less than sterling and has already provided a chain of bullets to be used against him.
The "free stuff" thing is stupid. Not only do A: lots of people like what he's offering, B: it's not free! We hear "omg he wants so much taxes!!" then "free stuff!!!!!" so which is it? People, well at least Sanders backers/democrats, are smart enough to understand he's not waving some magic wand and offering free candy from the sky. He's said from day 1 he wants higher taxes, mainly on finance and the wealthy, which will fund his plans. People know this
Why will Hillary do any better? This is a sincere question. Before Bernie, she had literally no platform, most don't really believe her new found progressivism of which she's already abandoning. She's admitted without saying: She's not even gunna try that hard, because it's difficult, even though gosh...those things would be nice wouldnt they? In terms of substance...I fail to see why she will fare any better. If anything she's far more inconsistent and vague.
The socialism thing, as I already said, is a non issue. I wish you hadn't have ignored it, since now I have to repeat it:
Only repubs/conservatives care. People that would not vote for him, or any Dem, anyway. Polls have been showing more and more people no longer care about the S word, that one even showing lots now prefer socialism to capitalism. Not gunna get into a debate about what people think these words mean, point is the S word has lost its impact. Sanders deserves credit for not running from it, and in fact embracing it. People can now say, "oh THIS is socialism??? Well, I kinda like this guy" the right has pushed their abuse of the word too far and it's finally backfiring.
There is no realistic way to slice it man, he is as electable and I'd say more so. He has a wider base, he will bring people into the party.
Do you deny he has strong support from the youth? Independents? The working class (which has been leaving the Democratic Party for years, increasingly since 2008).
All I know is, more than just a few polls currently show this race if not Trump slightly ahead. They've consistently shown Sanders ahead of him and by good margins. Given all I said above, there is no way anyone can really think he's less electable. He'll stand up to criticism fine. He's likable, sincere people trust and believe him even if they dont fully agree. That would be huge against Trump...
The biggest thing I see (as an outsider mind you) is the media's inability or unwillingness to call out Trump and his minions on their hypocrisy. They're fine pointing a finger at Bill Clinton's behaviour in the 90's, but when this issue of him impersonating his own PR guy, admitting it and now denying it comes up they all scream "Oh that was 20 years ago, nobody cares" or "It's a non-story". And his whole excuse of "I'm a counter puncher is complete and utter BS. He started much of the rhetoric and is now paying the price. My heart bleeds for the American public in this election cycle.
It is odd. All the Trump bashing I see is actually pretty light and fluffy. I still can't believe I've never seen (I only found this after doing some digging) no one say:
"Hey, Trump profits a ton from outsourced labor, including from China. He championed it back in the day" Seems pretty clear he's just pandering, right in front of our faces! In a weird way, the media loves Trump. Even if places "attack" him, they love the story.
He's pretty brilliant and twisted in that way, he's played the media like a fiddle.
I agree, the current perception seems to be very right wing, someone who is center-left at most like Sanders is considered unthinkably radical at this point, never mind that his positions are nothing extraordinary. I have only been alive to remember back to Bill, so maybe I am biased in that way, but to me it seems like since then the dems have basically just adopted a more moderate version of the GOP's economic policies, slapped on some more progressive wedge issues and called that being left wing. I think the dem party could attract the younger crowd if people like Sanders and Warren stay vocal and their supporters help vote in like minded candidates like Tim Canova (who is running against DWS), and use that support to build more explicitly new-deal-esque/Keynesian flavored policies. Letting slide austerity measures and having even Obummercare neutered from the start by immediately conceding defeat and then picking up a few crumbs off the floor and calling it a successful compromise is obviously not working, and people are more aware of it than ever.
That is exactly what has happened. Economically, the Democratic Party has become the Republican Party lite.
Even their liberal policies, are just schemes and different ways to trickle down or stimulate our dear job creators. No one (till Bernie) just said: Create the damn jobs directly!
Obama really was bold, for the first time in 30 years we pursued direct gov stimulus, (opposed to tax cuts/defense spending) but over half the stimulus was tax breaks and aid to state/local govs. This is good. However, it's not much of a stimulus.
Once it ended he did indeed cave in to austerity, and from the get go there was talk of a "grand bargain" he would accept various cuts/social security reforms in exchange for a tiny bit more tax on the wealthy...He's been open to Soc Security reforms, including raising the retirement age and obviously he's supported our trade bills.
Of course ACA is actually what conservatives pushed for in the 90s and Dodd-Frank seems to have largely failed. Another reason I feel we can't continue the status quo is the $ in politics has neutered/killed all these bills. It will be impossible for a Sanders, Warren or anyone to accomplish much long as Wall St and big $ interests retain this power
Oh and you saw me "joke" on Facebook about how austerity is gunna cause me grief the airport tomorrow, but it's true. TSA layoffs not only cost people jobs, but it's causing these 2 hour lines now. Or ya know, conservatives gripe about how the "Obama cuts" to the military have hurt their pay, states can't afford to repair their crappy roads, schools face cuts, universities hike tuition. Austerity causes very real pain and no one wants to deal with it The Dems moderation on this topic means they are accomplices. They should say no, I wont accept a 4.6% hike on the wealthy in exchange for spending cuts, if that is the choice that was faced, or maybe instead push for defense spending cuts, less corporate welfare etc If the GOP says no, then I'd say well enjoy the deficits you claim to hate.
2 hour lines?? For real? Which airport(s) and are these domestic or international flights? I have never seen 2 hour long queues for security check in India, not even in Chennai which is the worst of the major airports. When any of your amenities fall behind even India, you need to worry because that takes a lot of doing given how corrupt our govt is. I do remember encountering really long queues at O Hare, Chicago on a Sunday morning whilst flying to NY (this was two years back). But they opened more counters and quickly cleared the lines.
Yeah that's not normal at all. It's been apparently happening all over the country. I heard there have been TSA layoffs...thanks austerity
Supposedly they now are scrambling to hire more people, brilliant eh?
But really, people want austerity because of the generic bullet points/it sounds good.
No one realizes A: what it means or B: doesn't want to deal with the impact. It drives me nuts.
The Republican Party plays hot potato with it as well...Clinton and Obama both had to deal with these hordes of politicians that demand every penny be paid for and get run through the gauntlet for each, but when it was Reagan and Bush they spent like drunken rich kids Then whenever these Democrats deal with that mess, they are obviously hit with being "tax raisers" and making cuts to defense and etc the most enraging thing is despite all that, the GOP still takes credit! Even though fiscal restraint started with Democrats in 1990...somehow the Republican congress after 1994 is why we achieved a balanced budget, and its the House Republicans that have reduced the deficit today...no one bothered to notice/report that the Tea Partiers have opposed most recent budgets, it's been the Dems and less hardline Republicans that keep passing them. US politics is infuriating man!
^ Yes because the Clinton years were so impecunious.
Other good reasons to want to vote for Hillary.
Eh, the late 90s were a good time for many but it was fueled by a bubble, which of course can't last and the popping of it in 2001 undid the success many found, many of whom never did fully recover.
While bubbles are multi faceted, Clinton policies actually had a lot to do with it. I read a fascinating article explaining how portfolios and the like often use government debt, which is a very safe investment. Thanks to Clinton fiscal restraint...as budgets go to neutral and even surplus, this takes away an avenue for many investors, who could've turned to housing which thanks to Clinton de regulations...was a market ripe for abuse.
Fiscal restraint also holds an economy back. It's forgotten the first half the 90s saw sluggish growth, lingering unemployment and stagnant wages. Economic anger is what swept in Republicans in 1994. I find it no coincidence the early 90s and post 2009 recoveries have been so weak and fiscal restraint has been adopted, while most other recoveries have been stronger/the recessions less painful when we ran large deficits and spent alot.
Oh: And this is bit whacky at first but I encourage you to think about this: Government deficits are actually a private sector surplus. If the gov is spending more than it taxes, overall it's putting $ into the economy. Soc Security, food stamps, medicare, unemployment all is stuff that either lets people live OR allows them to use their money for other consumption, or saving for later. So a government surplus like Clinton achieved, is draining money out of the economy. This should only happen at a peak, and a hot peak at that, not an economy trying to leave a recession and one where tens of millions of people were still left without work.
Also, while poverty improved overall thanks to a growing economy, Clinton's welfare laws made extreme poverty worse. He pursued generally anti labor/pro business and growth policies, he signed NAFTA and supported trade deals that we now know have been a net cost of jobs and depressed wages.
I don't blame Clinton per se, he was caught up in the Reagan wave. Most democrats, (the progressive caucus being an exception) embraced this stuff as well. If anything, I guess Clinton deserves applause for maintaining SOME semblance of the Democratic Party and liberalism in a world when Reagan was now god.... but it's not an era we should want to return to. We should learn from this era, and now that Reagan is being rejected we should move forward, not back
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: May 19 2016 at 13:50
JJLehto wrote:
The T wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
In a general election he would obviously win all the blue states, and as for the swing states...I think his message would resonate and he's proven to do very well with working class voters, youth and independents. I have no doubt he'd do as well as Clinton, if not more. No one has addressed this, just throw out the usual "hes weak" or worse "hes unelectable" with no real argument. I've like to see someone tell me why I am wrong.
He hasn't been challenged. Sanders hasn't had to face an actual challenge from his rival. No deep scrutiny. No attack ads. If he was on the general election he would have to face the attacks of Republicans who would waste no time painting him as a full-blown communist (and putting his youth images for everybody to see). All his past decisions and actions would be exposed and he would also have to elaborate on his "free college" and "free everything" bullet points (which so far he hasn't, he has been as good at explaining how he is going to make good his promises as Donald Trump his.). If Trump, who has a low-level but certain talent to invent stupid nicknames that stick for rivals, gets to work on Sanders, the good guy will have an uphill battle.
OK, he'd be up against....Trump the guy who has an inconsistency/waffle attached to every position, 90% of his "plans" are literally made up, who has a personal record that is uh, less than sterling and has already provided a chain of bullets to be used against him. All of that is true. Yet it's also the guy who does all of those things and continues to move up in polls. The worst thing democrats or left-leaning people can do is think this is won already. This is not won.
The "free stuff" thing is stupid. Not only do A: lots of people like what he's offering, Of course. I would like it too. B: it's not free! I know, yet his explanations leave a lot to be desired. We hear "omg he wants so much taxes!!" then "free stuff!!!!!" so which is it? People, well at least Sanders backers/democrats, are smart enough to understand he's not waving some magic wand and offering free candy from the sky. He's said from day 1 he wants higher taxes, mainly on finance and the wealthy, which will fund his plans. People know this No. People don't. If they knew they would watch less bullsh*t and believe less bullsh*t from everybody. Also, his numbers in support of his plan are shaky, to say the least. Again, I fully 100% support the idea of "free" college and health care as in civilized countries (and some not so developed) around the world, but I want to know how he plans to effect such changes in capitalistic paradise USA where education and heathcare are gigantic businesses.
Why will Hillary do any better? This is a sincere question. Before Bernie, she had literally no platform, most don't really believe her new found progressivism of which she's already abandoning. She's admitted without saying: She's not even gunna try that hard, because it's difficult, even though gosh...those things would be nice wouldnt they? In terms of substance...I fail to see why she will fare any better. If anything she's far more inconsistent and vague. I can afree with that. But being consistent with air is not quite the guarantee of change either...
The socialism thing, as I already said, is a non issue. I wish you hadn't have ignored it, since now I have to repeat it: I didn't read all past posts sorry
Only repubs/conservatives care. People that would not vote for him, or any Dem, anyway. Polls have been showing more and more people no longer care about the S word, that one even showing lots now prefer socialism to capitalism. Not gunna get into a debate about what people think these words mean, point is the S word has lost its impact. Sanders deserves credit for not running from it, and in fact embracing it. People can now say, "oh THIS is socialism??? Well, I kinda like this guy" the right has pushed their abuse of the word too far and it's finally backfiring. I can give you this but only partially. Where images of Sanders with Che Guevara shirts (hypothetical example) arise, some voters will be turned away with propaganda. College students don't make the majority of actual voters after all.
There is no realistic way to slice it man, he is as electable and I'd say more so. He has a wider base, he will bring people into the party. He has scared me, a guy who runs to the left of Stalin (hyperbole) away. And not so much himself but his supporters (not all of them of course)
Do you deny he has strong support from the youth? No. He has it. Independents? No, he has it. The working class (which has been leaving the Democratic Party for years, increasingly since 2008). Make it black and brown working class. The white working class is probably with the Orange
All I know is, more than just a few polls currently show this race if not Trump slightly ahead. They've consistently shown Sanders ahead of him and by good margins. Given all I said above, there is no way anyone can really think he's less electable. He'll stand up to criticism fine. He's likable, sincere people trust and believe him even if they dont fully agree. That would be huge against Trump... Maybe. This I can't say anything about.
Joined: November 09 2014
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 8642
Posted: May 19 2016 at 14:00
The T wrote:
Make it black and brown working class. The white working class is probably with the Orange
[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, Sanders has import with the white working class. And when Hillary has managed to get within about two points short of Trump with the total white vote, Sanders could've done the unthinkable and leveled with a GOP candidate in that demographic. With Michigan and Pennsylvania coming into swing due to Trump, that is a massive advantage, even before the potential that could unlock in other northern swing states.
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: May 19 2016 at 16:53
From what I've seen Sanders does better with black/Mexican minorities when there is more exposure, but unfortunately a single election cycle is not enough time to establish yourself enough to make huge differences.
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: May 19 2016 at 19:36
Smurph wrote:
micky wrote:
Smurph wrote:
Are you saying that other countries are non interventionist with us? I don't see Chinese or British military bases on American soil? it's almost like we can trade with other countries instead
not to leave you hanging..
perhaps it is late... but that made no sense to me. Usually a good clue I'm up past my bed time.
Hahah. I understand. I didn't mean to get heated. My thoughts is that just because we decreased our military involvement wouldn't make us isolationist. We could stand to trade even more. Trade is good. Traditionally isolationist countries like Japan had extremely limited trade as well.
It wouldn't be a good threat.. or a proper political one if it wasn't passionately and more than a little heated. Just like sex...
excellent point about trade. Not that I agree of course. I wouldn't mistake the all driving passion we Americans have for material things, for wealth and a second yacht to water ski behind for the rest of the world. Most conflicts.. most of the baddies aren't driven by greed or money. Much less whether their citizens have access to cheap flat screen tv's or Ford vehicles.
Trade isn't buying them off... the only way you deal effectively with bullies and thugs is by hitting them over the head with a 2x4 repeatably until you splatter their brains all over your Burberry's.
then there are the rare ones you have to tread very carefully with...
bringing it back home again... to American politics. One thing I am really surprised about. One can argue, more than a few probably have, is that the GOP really lost its way and proceeded into the black hole of having the religious right take over the party, and focusing on social issues when it lost the Soviet Union, its threat, and its historically very strong stance on military strength. Then again it might have been when whole economic theory (ummm insanity) of trickle down economics was proven to be the sham we all (even Bush classic ) knew it to be. Give a rich man more money and what is he going to do with. Hahaha.. and people actually thought they would pay workers more. Hell no.. they just bought bigger homes, more yachts.....
bah..
Anyhow Be it MAD or at least being able one of the cornerstones of GOP politics was having, unlike the 70's, a military strong enough to provide enough of a threat to keep the Soviets honest. A strong plank of security and a strong military. One I agreed with then, still do today, and most people outside of many liberals still do.
Where has that gone today? I suppose they are so ingrained now on focusing on fear, appealing to bigots, racists and the religously intolerant that that appears lost. One can, I know I have, argued that Russia under Putin is far more dangerous today than the Soviet Union ever was. Yet where is that realization, that seems as clear to me as the lines on my face. One of the fears, of the many of having a political hack, an amateur like Trump (or Sanders to be perfectly honest) is Putin is probably rooting for anyone but Hillary to be elected. Suspecting, knowing, they would not be up to the challenge of containing a Russia under Puttin that is expansionist and thus more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was.
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 19 2016 at 19:49
JJLehto wrote:
Yeah that's not normal at all. It's been apparently happening all over the country. I heard there have been TSA layoffs...thanks austerity
Supposedly they now are scrambling to hire more people, brilliant eh?
But really, people want austerity because of the generic bullet points/it sounds good.
No one realizes A: what it means or B: doesn't want to deal with the impact. It drives me nuts.
The Republican Party plays hot potato with it as well...Clinton and Obama both had to deal with these hordes of politicians that demand every penny be paid for and get run through the gauntlet for each, but when it was Reagan and Bush they spent like drunken rich kids Then whenever these Democrats deal with that mess, they are obviously hit with being "tax raisers" and making cuts to defense and etc the most enraging thing is despite all that, the GOP still takes credit! Even though fiscal restraint started with Democrats in 1990...somehow the Republican congress after 1994 is why we achieved a balanced budget, and its the House Republicans that have reduced the deficit today...no one bothered to notice/report that the Tea Partiers have opposed most recent budgets, it's been the Dems and less hardline Republicans that keep passing them. US politics is infuriating man!
When austerity makes planning a flight trip impossible (I wouldn't be able to if I had to factor in traffic + security check delay of 2 hours), it no longer serves its purpose and the cost begins to outweigh whatever the benefits are. The better thing would be to hand over airport security to private parties and get it off govt's back. But if, owing to things like terrorism, govt is not comfortable with that, they have to spend enough to make sure the process doesn't inconvenience flyers. I am sure America makes a ton from tourism (by foreign visitors) even if it is insignificant on a relative scale; I saw plenty of them in NYC and even in Chicago. If any of them had to encounter such problems on a visit, they probably wouldn't come back next time. I was already quite surprised at the revelation that of all the international airports I passed through from Mumbai to London Heathrow to Chicago to JFK, NYC, Mumbai was probably the best. Not what I had expected to see. London wasn't bad per se, just terribly crowded.
Yeah that's not normal at all. It's been apparently happening all over the country. I heard there have been TSA layoffs...thanks austerity
Supposedly they now are scrambling to hire more people, brilliant eh?
But really, people want austerity because of the generic bullet points/it sounds good.
No one realizes A: what it means or B: doesn't want to deal with the impact. It drives me nuts.
The Republican Party plays hot potato with it as well...Clinton and Obama both had to deal with these hordes of politicians that demand every penny be paid for and get run through the gauntlet for each, but when it was Reagan and Bush they spent like drunken rich kids Then whenever these Democrats deal with that mess, they are obviously hit with being "tax raisers" and making cuts to defense and etc the most enraging thing is despite all that, the GOP still takes credit! Even though fiscal restraint started with Democrats in 1990...somehow the Republican congress after 1994 is why we achieved a balanced budget, and its the House Republicans that have reduced the deficit today...no one bothered to notice/report that the Tea Partiers have opposed most recent budgets, it's been the Dems and less hardline Republicans that keep passing them. US politics is infuriating man!
When austerity makes planning a flight trip impossible (I wouldn't be able to if I had to factor in traffic + security check delay of 2 hours), it no longer serves its purpose and the cost begins to outweigh whatever the benefits are. The better thing would be to hand over airport security to private parties and get it off govt's back. But if, owing to things like terrorism, govt is not comfortable with that, they have to spend enough to make sure the process doesn't inconvenience flyers. I am sure America makes a ton from tourism (by foreign visitors) even if it is insignificant on a relative scale; I saw plenty of them in NYC and even in Chicago. If any of them had to encounter such problems on a visit, they probably wouldn't come back next time. I was already quite surprised at the revelation that of all the international airports I passed through from Mumbai to London Heathrow to Chicago to JFK, NYC, Mumbai was probably the best. Not what I had expected to see. London wasn't bad per se, just terribly crowded.
I could be wrong, just all over the news I've been hearing about crazy lines, and I got an email saying to allow 2 hours (though I just went VERY early, brought books and avoided whatever may have happened) and it was due to "TSA capacity" I found that odd...I dont think there'd be a random surge in travelers and indeed I heard about TSA layoffs, it has to be the reason.
Ha yeah never been to Chicago but I hear their airport is a nightmare and NY well....I am lucky I never needed to fly into there!
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 20 2016 at 00:30
Arriving 2 hours before departure is a bit excessive but normal (not worth missing a flight for). Allowing 2 hours for security check is, as I said, really problematic IF that is what they expect flyers to do.
Would just like to say, I didn't specify race but working class people of all kinds like Sanders, and I do believe many, many white working class voters do as well. They most certainly DONT all go to Trump.
Hell, we keep hearing constantly he only wins white people (quite an exaggeration to say the least but I'll let it go for now) so yeah, pretty sure he does win a lot of white working class voters. Though I did find it interesting the state he did best with in regards to African Americans was Michigan....hmmmm
Anywho:
There's no reason to think his policies are too out there either, quite the contrary he's proven America is more accepting of them than we imagined, and despite how hard people try to claim otherwise...he really does have numbers, facts and plans behind his ideas. Against Trump he would do fine. 100% true he hasn't done the best job explaining them, sometimes he's done poorly...but they are far more developed and planned out than anything Trump has.
Anyway, I shan't continue. I see no realistic reason to think Sanders is unelectable.
I do believe he's more so than Clinton and has a real chance to grow the party, not just in terms of bringing people into the fold but scoring Congressional success.
The Dems are likely to win the Senate this year, maybe even the House too. If the Dems continue along the same path and don't embrace the progressive wing...I expect they'll lose it in 2 years a la 1994 and 2010. Dems keep holding the White House so thankfully they haven't gotten their way but we should be glad they keep finding Romney's, Ryan's, Palin's, Cruz's that are garbage candidates, and Trump (the longtime clinton ally and donor) came in to knock out Jeb, Rubio and Christie. I hope we continue to be so lucky in the future.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.265 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
American Politics the 2016 edition
Topic Options
The T wrote:
the guy who has an inconsistency/waffle attached to every position, 90% of his "plans" are literally made up, who has a personal record that is uh, less than sterling and has already provided a chain of bullets to be used against him. 
The Dems moderation on this topic means they are accomplices. They should say no, I wont accept a 4.6% hike on the wealthy in exchange for spending cuts, if that is the choice that was faced, or maybe instead push for defense spending cuts, less corporate welfare etc If the GOP says no, then I'd say well enjoy the deficits you claim to hate.
Not what I had expected to see. London wasn't bad per se, just terribly crowded.