The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

grokit

well-worn member
The global economy is screwed, these are not my words but one of today's msm headlines.

"Stock markets are plunging, while China grinds to a halt.
Things may be even more dire than they were in 2007"


It's time to freak out about it. Hillary is great, but she's part of the status quo. We need to take on the bankers and improve the affordable care act to make it work for everyone, she will not do that.

"This article originally appeared on GlobalPost.


A fresh blast of cold air swept across global financial and commodity markets on Wednesday, raising fears that the world economy could be heading toward a recession — one perhaps even bigger than the last one.

Further falls in crude oil prices were the catalyst for the widespread sell-off as investors from New York to London dumped stocks. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down more than 500 points at one point, and US crude fell below $27 a barrel, its lowest level since May 2003.

The alarming combination of plunging stock markets, sinking oil prices, collapsing emerging market currencies and the slowdown in China has left many market participants wishing 2016 was over already.

The renewed panic comes as political and business leaders gather in the Swiss Alps town of Davos for the World Economic Forum, which is likely to be dominated by the turmoil in global markets.

“The situation is worse than it was in 2007. Our macroeconomic ammunition to fight downturns is essentially all used up,” William White, the Swiss-based chairman of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s policy review committee and former economic advisor at the Swiss-based Bank for International Settlements, told The Telegraph in Davos.

The signs were there before Wednesday’s market woes. US billionaire investor George Soros has warned that global markets are facing a 2008-style crisis as China makes the difficult transition from an export-driven economy to one that is more reliant on domestic consumption.

“China has a major adjustment problem,” Soros said. “I would say it amounts to a crisis. When I look at the financial markets there is a serious challenge which reminds me of the crisis we had in 2008,” Soros told an economic forum earlier this year, Bloomberg reported.

So, is it time to start stashing your savings under the mattress?

Here are four reasons why you should be very worried about the state of the global economy.

1. Emerging market debt crisis

Blame the US Federal Reserve for this one.

Since the Fed lowered interest rates to near zero during the financial crisis, the world has been flooded with cheap money. Emerging market companies, banks and governments have responded by taking out dollar-denominated loans. Now that US interest rates are rising again and the dollar is strengthening, those debts are becoming a lot more expensive to pay back.

“Emerging markets were part of the solution after the Lehman crisis. Now they are part of the problem too,” the OECD’s White told The Telegraph.

2. Stock markets are plunging

If you were thinking about taking an early retirement and living off the fat of your financial market investments, think again.

Wall Street is having its worst start to a year ever, with the S&P 500 falling more than 8 percent in less than three weeks. The losses have spread like a bad flu to other regions — China and Japan have tumbled into bear markets and London’s FTSE 100 looks set to join them. (The technical definition of a bear market is a fall of 20 percent or more from a recent high). European markets are deep in negative territory, too.

With the International Monetary Fund downgrading its global economic growth forecasts for this year and next, citing the ongoing problems with China and weak commodity prices, now is not the time to be perfecting your golf putt.

3. Super-low oil prices

Global oil prices have plunged in the past 18 months and key benchmarks have begun trading below $30 a barrel, the lowest level in more than a decade, as a global glut and China growth fears weigh on demand. The International Energy Agency warned Tuesday the oil market could “drown in oversupply.” Sounds scary, right? It is.

Many businesses and consumers are cheering the low oil prices because it means gasoline is cheaper, which reduces their costs and gives them more money to spend. But there’s a downside. When oil is too cheap it can fuel deflation. One reason that’s bad for an economy is that if consumers believe prices will fall further, they might delay making purchases, pushing down prices even more and creating a dangerous downward spiral. The domino effects can be devastating. Falling oil prices can also be a sign that economic activity is slowing.

4. China is slowing down

The latest data show China’s economy grew at its slowest pace in 25 years in 2015, confirming fears that the world’s growth engine is losing steam. It expanded by 6.9 percent last year, compared with 7.3 percent in 2014.

China’s deceleration has huge economic implications, now and in the long term. While the slowdown is partly a consequence of Beijing’s efforts to wean the country off its addiction to export-driven growth, there are fears that Chinese leaders could lose their nerve and further devalue the currency to prop up the country’s labor-intensive manufacturing sector. That could lead to a damaging global currency war and undermine confidence in China."

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/26/tim...completely_screwed_partner/?source=newsletter

:myday:
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Well, this didn't brighten my day... Long read, but worth it.

Why Silver Was Wrong About Trump
By Martin Longman

Back in November, I made a considerable effort to raise objections to Nate Silver’s assessment that Donald Trump had no better than a 20% chance of winning the Republican nomination. Partly, I thought Silver was underestimating Trump’s chances. But I also objected to him telling us to “stop freaking out” because, as I saw it, things wouldn’t be any less catastrophic if Cruz, Carson or Rubio were nominated.

You know, I take a holistic view, and I think it’s a bad thing when one of our two political parties goes so deeply batshit insane that their “safe” choices are opposed to rape victims having the right to an abortion. Maybe some people are willing to screw around on the theory that the Democrats can get some enormous LBJ-size victory if the Republicans nominate the modern equivalent of Barry Goldwater. But, let me tell you, Barry Goldwater was a moderate compared to these lunatics. And there’s no iron-clad rule that says that the Republican nominee can’t win.

Plus, it’s just dangerous and sad and needlessly difficult for everyone if one side of the political divide walks so far out on a limb that no one can reach them anymore. And that’s where we’re headed.

Well, Nate came around slowly, but the scales seem to have finally fallen from his eyes.
Recently, the race took an even stranger turn. There were stories like this one, from Philip Rucker and Robert Costa at The Washington Post, suggesting that party elites were warming to Trump. Soon after, Bob Dole was suggesting that Trump wasn’t such a bad guy, while Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley was appearing with Trump and urging voters to “make America great again.”
Importantly, these actions seem to have been taken mostly in opposition to Ted Cruz, instead of in support of Trump. Nonetheless, these reports caused me to renounce much of my remaining skepticism of Trump’s chances.​
Now, the way that Silver crafts his mea culpa here is interesting, in that he kind of shields himself from criticism by saying that he was relying on the analysis of political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel and John Zaller. Their 2008 book, The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform has been very influential and I’m not going to denigrate their work here.

Rather, I’m just going to explain why my instincts were a better indicator of where Trump would stand on the eve of Iowa than all Silver’s numbers and political science.
My experience with the modern Republican Party has been one of slowly growing awareness. I started out thinking that the Republicans were decent people who had different priorities and that it would be preferable to have a Democratic president but not catastrophic if we did not. The immediate excesses of the Gingrich Revolution began to make me wonder though. Shutting down the government seemed extreme. Their rhetoric about the Clintons and their investigations (remember Vince Foster, may he rest in peace) seemed deeply unhinged. But Bob Dole, as much as I distrusted him, wasn’t some Caligula.
Then they impeached President Clinton and published a salacious report about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. That’s when I knew that I’d misjudged these people. They were truly radicals.

I told anyone who would listen that George W. Bush was going to lead a radical revolution that would devastate this country. And that’s exactly what he did in every single way I could imagine and many ways that went beyond anything I could have ever imagined. You know the list: 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, Iraq occupation, Katrina, the Great Recession. Those were just the highlights. I have four years of archived material where I documented the atrocities of the Bush administration as they rolled in at sometimes a five-story-a-day clip. Environmental degradation, corrupt energy policies, politicization of the Justice Department, the Abramoff Scandal, Guantanamo and the corruption of our military justice system, the legalization of torture, rolling back the 1970’s intelligence reforms, Terri Schiavo and family privacy rights, outing CIA officers for no higher purpose than to win a 24-hour news cycle.

The whole enterprise was indistinguishable from a giant looting exercise, and all they left us was a smoldering husk of a country that was on its economic knees.

And, as much as I predicted this, what characterized it for me was the way I kept having to retreat from whatever credit I was willing to give Republicans. In the lead-up to the 2006 midterms, my greatest failure of analysis was that I believed that Republican lawmakers would have a sense of self-preservation and somehow distance themselves from the administration, particularly on a war that they knew had lost its casus belli from the get-go and was going horribly wrong. But they never did. They went right down with the ship.

That was a clue, and I learned from it. As a political movement, these folks are much less concerned with self-preservation than you would think. They are much more inclined to follow leadership than you’d expect. And, however bad you think they are, they’re actually worse.

Give them credit today, and your reward will be to apologize tomorrow.

That’s how things stood the day John McCain nominated Sarah Palin as his running mate. And that was the last day that the Republican Party of old existed even on paper.

next
 
cybrguy,
  • Like
Reactions: Gunky

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
The moment the organs of the GOP had to shift over to defending her preparedness and suitability to be a heartbeat away from the nuclear codes was the moment that their brain was disconnected from the rest of their central nervous system. From there, it was a short hop to climate science denialism, Birtherism, rape-don’t-get-you-pregnantism, Benghazism, and all the rest.

This is all a long way of saying that Donald Trump actually is an ideological match for the modern conservative movement. Silver insists that he is not and that this is one of the biggest reasons why he’s been predicting that Trump would peter out.
But that assumes that the key animators of the conservative movement are the familiar things like low taxes, a strong national defense, and a ban on abortion. Those aren’t the keys. The keys are 1) fear 2) hatred 3) greed and 4) a need to be led.
Trump encapsulates those almost perfectly.

Now, you can call my assessment harsh, but I didn’t get here lightly. I did not want to believe this. I came to this way of thinking kicking and screaming. But, since I gave up giving the Republicans credit for anything more, I haven’t been wrong yet.
So, when I saw Trump badmouthing McCain, I said it would help him when most people said it would sink his campaign.

I knew the base hated McCain to begin with, hated him twice-over for losing, and they’d love seeing a strong leader kick him in the teeth.

This isn’t the kind of analysis you’ll find in a political science paper or by poring over statistics. It’s raw and visceral and human. People are responding to Trump because they’re feeling xenophobic and because they want to see the Republican establishment insulted. They don’t really care about marginal tax rates or who’s been a consistent opponent of gay rights. They want someone who will get some revenge on their enemies.

So, if you start with the assumption that the base of the party likes a guy who spouts Birther nonsense more than a guy who is consistent on conservative issues and you understand that this is because he spouts Birther nonsense, you’ll do better predicting the outcome of these primaries. Hate trumps virtually everything with conservatives. But strength is important, too. Rick Santorum couldn’t get away with what Trump is doing because he doesn’t have the chutzpah for it. People would see right through Little Ricky, but Trump’s basically correct when he says that his followers are so blind that they’d support him even if he started shooting random people on Fifth Avenue.

People are coming around to this idea now because they have no other choice. They call it fascism or whatever, and you can call it what you want. But it’s not really new. It’s what’s been brewing here all along.

Now, finally, I don’t know that Trump will win the nomination. Maybe he won’t. But I don’t see a whole lot of distance between what he’s doing and what the rest of the candidates are doing. They’re all at least as radical as George W. Bush, and the gang they’d bring in with them is unquestionably much worse that the gang that came in in 2001. Most of these candidates are far, far to the right of Dubya on a host of issues, from Israel to climate to Islamophobia to the role of the federal government in education or medical policy.
There’s no longer even the pretense of anything compassionate about the conservatism of Ted Cruz or Ben Carson or Marco Rubio.

What I’m saying is, no system of analysis is perfect and even a solid one is only good until it isn’t. But, if you go on the theory that the conservative movement now controls the Republican Party completely, and that the conservative movement is mainly motivated by fear, avarice and a thirst for revenge, then you’ll do a lot better at predicting the winner of this nomination than the authors of The Party Decides.
 

Farid

Well-Known Member
To me it seems like Hillary's campaign relies on scare tactics -- make people afraid that Bernie won't be able to defeat the Republicans. Everything is about the Republicans. It's like they'd rather discuss the Republican shit show than discuss the real issues of the democratic primary. I feel like it's going to backfire, however, as lots of Americans are sick of career politicians using the party divide to their own gain.
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
To me it seems like Hillary's campaign relies on scare tactics -- make people afraid that Bernie won't be able to defeat the Republicans. Everything is about the Republicans. It's like they'd rather discuss the Republican shit show than discuss the real issues of the democratic primary. I feel like it's going to backfire, however, as lots of Americans are sick of career politicians using the party divide to their own gain.

Like the man said "Fear and loathing".
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Trump is having another temper tantrum, he is refusing to do Fox's debate because they won't replace Megyn Kelly. He said that Fox News has been making fun of him.:lol:.:popcorn: He's full of answers but lacking any ideas how to get it done.
 
Last edited:

lwien

Well-Known Member
Trump is having another temper tantrum, he is refusing to do Fox's debate because they won't replace Megyn Kelly. He said that Fox News has been making fun of him.:lol:.:popcorn: He's full of answers but lacking any ideas how to get it done.

The only word that comes to mind is.................childish. He's like a spoiled little brat on the playground.

On the other hand, this whole fiasco could be orchestrated by Fox to up their viewership by creating tension between a candidate and one of their moderators.
 

Derrrpp

For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky
Robert Reich: Why the 2016 Election Is a Political Volcano in Full Eruption
This election is about ending the choke hold of big money on our political system.
By Robert Reich / Robert Reich's Blog
January 26, 2016

Not a day passes that I don’t get a call from the media asking me to compare Bernie Sanders’s and Hillary Clinton’s tax plans, or bank plans, or health-care plans.

I don’t mind. I’ve been teaching public policy for much of the last thirty-five years. I’m a policy wonk.

But detailed policy proposals are as relevant to the election of 2016 as is that gaseous planet beyond Pluto. They don’t have a chance of making it, as things are now.

The other day Bill Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders’s proposal for a single-payer health plan as unfeasible and a “recipe for gridlock.”

Yet these days, nothing of any significance is feasible and every bold idea is a recipe for gridlock.

This election is about changing the parameters of what’s feasible and ending the choke hold of big money on our political system.

I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.

But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.

The upcoming election isn’t about detailed policy proposals. It’s about power – whether those who have it will keep it, or whether average Americans will get some as well.

A study published in the fall of 2014 by Princeton professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern’s Benjamin Page reveals the scale of the challenge.

Gilens and Page analyzed 1,799 policy issues in detail, determining the relative influence on them of economic elites, business groups, mass-based interest groups, and average citizens.

Their conclusion: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically nonsignificant impact upon public policy.”

Instead, lawmakers respond to the moneyed interests – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.

It’s sobering that Gilens and Page’s data come from the period 1981 to 2002, before the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to big money in its “Citizens United” and“McCutcheon” decisions. Their study also predated the advent of super PACs and “dark money,” and even the Wall Street bailout.

If average Americans had a “near-zero” impact on public policy then, their impact is now zero.

Which explains a paradox I found a few months ago when I was on book tour in the nation’s heartland: I kept bumping into people who told me they were trying to make up their minds in the upcoming election between Sanders and Trump.

At first I was dumbfounded. The two are at opposite ends of the political divide.
But as I talked with these people, I kept hearing the same refrains. They wanted to end “crony capitalism.” They detested “corporate welfare,” such as the Wall Street bailout.

They wanted to prevent the big banks from extorting us ever again. Close tax loopholes for hedge-fund partners. Stop the drug companies and health insurers from ripping off American consumers. End trade treaties that sell out American workers. Get big money out of politics.

Somewhere in all this I came to see the volcanic core of what’s fueling this election.

If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who are working harder than ever but getting nowhere, and who understand that the political-economic system is rigged against you and in favor of the rich and powerful, what are you going to do?

Either you’re going to be attracted to an authoritarian son-of-a-bitch who promises to make America great again by keeping out people different from you and creating “great” jobs in America, who sounds like he won’t let anything or anybody stand in his way, and who’s so rich he can’t be bought off.

Or you’ll go for a political activist who tells it like it is, who has lived by his convictions for fifty years, who won’t take a dime of money from big corporations or Wall Street or the very rich, and who is leading a grass-roots “political revolution” to regain control over our democracy and economy.

In other words, either a dictator who promises to bring power back to the people, or a movement leader who asks us to join together to bring power back to the people.

You don’t care about the details of proposed policies and programs.

You just want a system that works for you.



Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. His latest book is "Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few." His website is www.robertreich.org.
 

grokit

well-worn member
I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.

But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.
This was my favorite part :tup:
If you want to "tweak" a broken system, vote for hillary :\
But if you want a return to actual democracy, sanders is the only choice :2c:
I like reich, he's been a voice of reason during 16 years of bush/obama fiscal insanity.
 

Farid

Well-Known Member
"I can see why they gave you this question" Apparently CNN didn't pick the question, the kid did, but CNN directed him to ask Clinton rather than Sanders.

 
Farid,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Actually I thought she handled that question pretty well...

And the ancillary idea that she will have 2 previous Presidents that she is close to and can use as advisers is a significant gift to America. And at least one of them agrees with her that Lincoln was probably the most inspirational President.
 

Farid

Well-Known Member
I think the "I can see why they gave you this question" comment was important to note NOT because of the content of the question, but because it shows CNN, not the people asking the questions, is deciding who gets asked what question. Clinton's answer is irrelevant to the point I was trying to address. It seemed to me like the Cuomo was giving Clinton softball questions, and he seemed to berate Sanders (what the hell was that with him and asking if the era of Big Government is back, might as well ask him "do you still beat your wife").

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the debate didn't seem fair... Chris Cuomo's brother, Andrew Cuomo is very close to the Clintons. Clinton even makes refence to Chris' father in the debate: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/10/8579614/cuomo-attacks-sanders-clintons-behalf

Is every player in this act bought by the Clintons? Before it was Wasserman Shultz I knew about, but I had no idea the Clinton claws dug this deep. It seems like every time I read a pro Clinton article I can google the author's name and it turns out they worked for either Bill's administration or one of the campaigns.
 
Last edited:

Gunky

Well-Known Member
This was my favorite part :tup:
If you want to "tweak" a broken system, vote for hillary :\
But if you want a return to actual democracy, sanders is the only choice :2c:
I like reich, he's been a voice of reason during 16 years of bush/obama fiscal insanity.

If you want somebody who says all the right things about return to democracy and proposes big things but does not have a practical agenda that can actually be enacted under the congress he will have to work with, Sanders is the only choice. The president is not a lone actor doing things unilaterally. If you want somebody whose rhetoric is not so high flying but who might actually be able to get things done as president, Clinton is a better choice.

I voted for George McGovern. Those of you who did likewise probably understand how I feel about Bernie. He was a good man and an anti-war candidate running against Richard Nixon, for pete's sake, and lost in a landslide.
 
Last edited:

Farid

Well-Known Member
Sanders' practical agenda: Legalize cannabis, end the tax cap, take on the prison lobby.

Clinton's practical agenda: Bomb ISIS, and the people fighting ISIS, while funding Turkey and KSA the two countries funding ISIS. Keep enforcing laws which tighten the insurance companies grip on the American medical system. Talk about race relations, but go after guns instead of the ending private prisons and the war on drugs.

I like Obama, but I believe that because he was the first black president he was not able to make many major changes, as that could be manipulated by racists trying to discredit him. I see Obama as the Hope, and Sanders as the change.
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
Actually I thought she handled that question pretty well...

And the ancillary idea that she will have 2 previous Presidents that she is close to and can use as advisers is a significant gift to America. And at least one of them agrees with her that Lincoln was probably the most inspirational President.

Yes one can advise her to sign
Oh I knew the Clintons were well connected, but this kind of connected is bordering on conspiracy.

I suspect it would be hard to find anyone in elected office that isn't connected to someone or some group regardless of their party. Sadly its often part of getting elected.
 

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
Sanders' practical agenda: Legalize cannabis, end the tax cap, take on the prison lobby.

Clinton's practical agenda: Bomb ISIS, and the people fighting ISIS, while funding Turkey and KSA the two countries funding ISIS. Keep enforcing laws which tighten the insurance companies grip on the American medical system. Talk about race relations, but go after guns instead of the ending private prisons and the war on drugs.

I like Obama, but I believe that because he was the first black president he was not able to make many major changes, as that could be manipulated by racists trying to discredit him. I see Obama as the Hope, and Sanders as the change.

Obama managed to make very significant changes (not close to the campaign rhetoric, but my point is that it never is) but Bernie's promises are simply too big to count on. His ideas aren't the problem; the feasibility of actually being able to show progress on those things is. Finally, and most importantly, is the likelihood of being elected. Sanders shows promise in those head-to-head polls with the Republicans but I'm not sure if I believe those. Electing Sanders wouldn't be the political revolution needed to make progress. There has to be a revolution to make his platform realistic. I fear all the good stuff Sanders proposes would first need the removal of money from American politics in order to subvert the special interests that end up deciding so many huge things.

The most important thing is to prevent a Republican president who will be able to make Supreme Court appointments. If Bernie captures the nomination I will be happy to cast my meaningless CA Democrat vote his way. I just hope those who love Bernie but don't like Hillary realize they hate all the Republicans more.
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
The most important thing is to prevent a Republican president who will be able to make Supreme Court appointments. If Bernie captures the nomination I will be happy to cast my meaningless CA Democrat vote his way. I just hope those who love Bernie but don't like Hillary realize they hate all the Republicans more.

With respect the most important thing is that the country gets the president it votes for, political views aside if that fails we really have lost our country.
 

Farid

Well-Known Member
With respect the most important thing is that the country gets the president it votes for, political views aside if that fails we really have lost our country.

That's the thing that scares me about Hillary more than Trump. Trump's success shows me that some Americans are stupid, something I already knew from Sarah Palin getting the VP nomination. That doesn't, however, make me lose faith in the country's system.

The thing about Clinton's campaign that really makes me lose faith in the system is how people act like she's the presumptive nominee. I wasn't pro Sanders for the longest time, because I didn't think he had a chance against her, and I was turned off from the whole election process - I wasn't even planning to vote. It wasn't until I realized some of my conservative friends as well as most of my liberal friends were voting Sanders that I really started to support him. I don't think he will cause a revolution, I think he will cause change in certain areas that most Americans agree need change.

Obama managed to make very significant changes (not close to the campaign rhetoric, but my point is that it never is) but Bernie's promises are simply too big to count on.
So your point that it never is can be applied to Sanders' campaign rhetoric as well, is that not correct?
 
Farid,

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
Bernie's goals are not feasible and I have doubts about his relative viability in a general election. That's all.

With respect the most important thing is that the country gets the president it votes for, political views aside if that fails we really have lost our country.

I don't really understand the relevance of this comment. You may as well have interjected that the most important thing is that the sun doesn't explode, precluding the election. Of course it's important that our electoral system has integrity but that's really an entirely different discussion. Was the goal here to make my partisan comment look petty?
 
KimDracula,
  • Like
Reactions: Gunky

TeeJay1952

Well-Known Member
@Farid That is what I thought when I voted Obama,Obama,Kerry,Gore,Clinton, Clinton, and it Starts to get foggy but I always felt I survived the dire rhetoric when Nixon and Reagan and Bush, Bush, Bush won and we will survive these dark ages.
 

Farid

Well-Known Member
Your words, Kim, not mine, but if you're saying you're partisan, then that should explain why Sanders' isn't getting your vote. He's not trying to run a partisan campaign. He's reaching out to Democrats, Libertarians, independents, socialists (of course), and even Republicans who no longer feel represented by their party.
 
Farid,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit

howie105

Well-Known Member
That's the thing that scares me about Hillary more than Trump. Trump's success shows me that some Americans are stupid, something I already knew from Sarah Palin getting the VP nomination. That doesn't, however, make me lose faith in the country's system....Many folks from both the right and the left feel that the other guys have more then their fair share of stupid people. In my estimate I think the stupid is pretty darn close to being balanced between the two groups.

The thing about Clinton's campaign that really makes me lose faith in the system is how people act like she's the presumptive nominee...Two of the things that drive that opinion, first her campaign organization is doing a good job on her behalf and second she is running a classic campaign which makes the party shot callers happy.

It wasn't until I realized some of my conservative friends as well as most of my liberal friends were voting Sanders that I really started to support him. I don't think he will cause a revolution, I think he will cause change in certain areas that most Americans agree need change....Any candidate that manages to pull significantly from both liberals and conservatives has my attention. :)
 
Top Bottom