Democratic Presidential Primary
Posted by Exalted Buckaroo (+247) 4 years ago
Why are so many liberals addicted to hammering Republican presidential candidates right now? It's like shooting fish in a barrel, requiring as much thought and returning just as many stupid grins, a pastime for imbeciles at the expense of same. This is primary season and the focus of progressives must be on which Democratic candidate can beat all comers in the general election while advancing the interests of the free world.

You may argue that it doesn't matter who's nominated because in 2016 any Democratic nominee will be elected over any Republican nominee as long as progressives unite behind him or her, but what's your support for that assertion?

You can believe that a vigorous contest for the nomination will prove too divisive and ruinous to the prospects of a win in the general election but 2008 exposed that argument's fallacy.

So, Democrats, who should be your nominee and why?
Top
+4
-2
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14304) 4 years ago
Until last night, I was a strong advocate for Mr. Sanders. My enthusiasm has cooled significantly. At this point, both parties need to consider brokered conventions none of the above is my current preference. 

Can we get a Brian Schwitzer Jon Huntsman ticket?
Top
+3
-5
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 4 years ago
Reply to Exalted Buckaroo (#363603)
Exalted Buckaroo wrote:
So, Democrats, who should be your nominee and why?


Looks like your Democrats are all coasting on inflated hopes....

Provided she can stay out of orange coveralls, you're going to get Hillary Clinton whether you like it or not. It's the Democrats turn to choke on a seriously flawed candidate, as the Republicans were forced to do in 2008 and 2012.

In spite of the hype and wishful thinking, Hillary is un-electable for many reasons:

She has no accomplishments other than getting the Ambassador to Libya and 3 American defenders murdered in Benghazi, so her only hope would be to present herself as the lesser of two evils. This will not work for her because (A) she is grossly evil, and (B) she hasn't had to withstand 10's of millions of dollars in attack ads, which will be pointing that out. She's been around for 30 years and is a documented liar which will play endlessly in 30-second spots. The only thing that could improve Hillary's image is less exposure. The more she opens her mouth, the more people hate her.

Democrats have this pipe dream that the Obama coalition that worked for him in 2008 and 2012 is now a given for the Democrat Party. I beg to differ. For any number of reasons, the minority and youth coalition that carried Obama will not show up in 2016. They will take their lead from Obama who will be luke-warm to Hillary at best or openly hostile at worst. Conversely, the disaffected Republicans who were not there in 2008 and 2012, appear to have reemerged as shown by the support in the polls for Trump and Cruz. Count on them to vote this time around, for no other reason than their hatred for anything Clinton.

Richard hopes for a brokered convention. It won't happen on either side because there is nothing in either party like the Daley Machine, and hasn't been since 1968. The rules for both parties will never allow the power brokers the influence of the past, as there are too many vested interests.

I will predict that your worst nightmare will be victorious in the form of Trump or Cruz or both. By the time $2 billion is spent destroying what's left of Hillary Clinton, she may fare worse than Geo. McGovern.
Top
+4
-7
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1915) 4 years ago
Why are you happy that we are faced with such a lack of leadership and statesmanship in this country? You seem positively gleeful over the weak offerings. While I don't see Hillary Clinton as the anti-Christ or any other of the things conservatives fear (maybe because I share a XX chromosome, I am not as afraid of a strong woman as you are,) I think she is intelligent and qualified but does come with baggage. While I like many things about Bernie Sanders, I am not a huge supporter of his either.

I miss Hubert Humphrey and Dwight Eisenhower.
Top
+4
-5
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5048) 4 years ago
Hubert Humphrey was a hack.

I'm from Minnesota, so that hurts a little to say, but it's true...

Not old enough to remember Ike.

Oddjob is a delusional Republican nut job and should cut down a tad on the Fox News. I bet you voted for Sharron Angle, didn't you Oddjob.
Top
+4
-4
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14304) 4 years ago
Hey Bob L, what would be the appropriate over/under that we should give Oddjob on Hillary being the next POTUS?
Top
+2
-3
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5048) 4 years ago
Richard:

Just consulted my totally legal offshore investment account.


Hillary is currently at -190 to be our next President. This means an investor would have to wager $190 to win $100. Almost 1-2 odds. Seems a bit rich for me. I'd set it at about -150 or so, but that's just me...


Oddjob's boy Trump is a 3-1 shot (+300) to win the Republican nomination. You only have to risk $100 to win $300. He's 7-1 (+700) to be our next CINC.


Oddjob's other boy Cruz is +260 to win the Republican nomination. That looks like the best bet investment on the board. I might just plunk down a few $$$ on the Tailgunner in the hopes that I'll jinx him.
Top
+2
-2
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+15019) 4 years ago
As a moderate, not a progressive, I like Hillary or Kasich. Which means I will be voting for Hillary. Although it would be nice if the Rockefeller Republicans would stage a comeback.
Top
+4
-3
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 4 years ago
Reply to Gunnar Emilsson (#363742)
Gunnar Emilsson wrote:
As a moderate, not a progressive, I like Hillary or Kasich. Which means I will be voting for Hillary. Although it would be nice if the Rockefeller Republicans would stage a comeback.


"Rockefeller Republicans" = rich, country club old White men.

You have been demanding for years, that this group all die off to promote your Nirvana of "Hope and Change". They did and you got your wish. But even though you closed your eyes, crossed all your fingers and wished real hard, no unicorns appeared.

"Rockefeller Republicans" were replaced by Tea Party bomb-throwers fed up with Socialists (re: "moderate-not progressives").

Sometimes you get what you wish for.
Top
+3
-5
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8477) 4 years ago
Oh oddly, it's so cute to watch you try and fail to grapple with any sort of nuance. One Muslim does something bad and it's towelhead this and goatherder that. Gunnar claims a desire for fiscally responsible albeit WASPish republican moderation, and you demand he face up to the realities that his slavish obitism has wrought. You must be AMAZING at parties.
Top
+5
-4
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 4 years ago
What measure of nuance is contained in direct claims that the World will be a better place when a certain class of people are all dead?

No Bridgier. I know exactly what it is. It's the overt expression of Leftisr/Progressive bigotry and hate that miraculously transforms into "nuance" or "making a joke" when held to account.

And we are all "idiots" because we don't "get it".

Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
Top
+2
-5
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+15019) 4 years ago
What a bundle of joy you are, old man.

Your share of the electorate will drop another 4% in 2016. That is a good thing.

You have no political solutions, as is the case with all your ilk. It's all about hating the other guy.
Top
+4
-1
Posted by Exalted Buckaroo (+247) 4 years ago
So far, we have vague and unsupported opinions from self-identified progressives and we have a defined and supported opinion against Hillary from a self-identified conservative. The needle is not moving.

Let me put this another way:

In 10 words or less, what is the compelling reason to support the nomination of Clinton or Sanders or O'Malley?

In 10 words or less, what is the compelling reason to oppose the nomination of Clinton or Sanders or O'Malley?
Top
+1
-1
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 4 years ago
Reply to Gunnar Emilsson (#363855)
Gunnar Emilsson wrote:
What a bundle of joy you are, old man.

Your share of the electorate will drop another 4% in 2016. That is a good thing.

You have no political solutions, as is the case with all your ilk. It's all about hating the other guy.


Where's the hate Gunnar? You are the one who sees political solutions in people dying. The Leftist/Progressive solution to promoting the agenda is always mass murder.

You certainly get testy when people take exception. I would think it should be the other way around.
Top
+2
-7
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+15019) 4 years ago
Umm. Err. I do believe you were the one espousing the hate towards Syrian refuges, and ignored Dave's question on whether you knew the difference between a migrant and a refugee. Clearly you do not.

And my comments on the passing of old white ignorant people - well, you leave me speechless. Are you so stupid that you actually think I espoused a Final Solution to turn old people into soylent green? Instead of the natural passing of age.

Wow. Just wow.
Top
+6
-3
founder
supporter
Posted by Tucker Bolton (+3334) 4 years ago
Ex salted buck ahroo, I hope this is what you are looking for.

I like H Clinton as the democratic choice. She is a sexy beast and looks hot in a pant suit.

I'm not crazy about Bernie. He is a small balding man though I admit, I haven't seen him in a pant suit as yet.
Top
+3
-1
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14304) 4 years ago
In 10 words or less, what is the compelling reason to support the nomination of Clinton or Sanders or O'Malley?

In 10 words or less, what is the compelling reason to oppose the nomination of Clinton or Sanders or O'Malley?


Reason to support:

Clinton: Best grasp on foreign policy

Sanders: Mostly likely to implement something close to a Keynesian economic policy and take-on income disparity issues

O'Mally: He is Irish

Reasons to oppose:

Clinton: Too much bagage, was for too many issues until she was against them or vise-versa

Sanders: Too much of a nuanced approach to middle east foreign policy

O'Mally: He is Irish
Top
+7
-2
Posted by Exalted Buckaroo (+247) 4 years ago
The train has finally left the station!

Thank you, Tucker and Richard.
Top
+2
-1
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 4 years ago
Reply to Gunnar Emilsson (#363873)
Gunnar Emilsson wrote:
Umm. Err. I do believe you were the one espousing the hate towards Syrian refuges, and ignored Dave's question on whether you knew the difference between a migrant and a refugee. Clearly you do not.

And my comments on the passing of old white ignorant people - well, you leave me speechless. Are you so stupid that you actually think I espoused a Final Solution to turn old people into soylent green? Instead of the natural passing of age.

Wow. Just wow.


Do you have a quote or are you just running your mouth?

I don't believe I ever said anything about Syrian or any other kind of refugee and Dave's question was an irrelevant assertion that didn't deserve a response. I have never been told more about what I think and what I am, than here at milescity.com so its easy to ignore most of the made up crap.

But your assertions about old White guys getting out of the way by dying off has always left the impression that you are in a hurry for that to happen. What else is there to think of an asshat who would make such a statement.

Exhalted Buckaroo

What is there to say about the Stooge lineup for the Democrats? You can't speak to policy because you have Tony Soprano in a pantsuit, a third-rate Karl Marx and Mr. Nobody, Martin (I'll run the Country like Baltimore!) O'Malley.

Crooks, Communists and idiots. There's something to be jumping on the bandwagon for.
Top
+3
-7
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5048) 4 years ago
You DID vote for Sharron Angle, didn't you??

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Loser
Top
+6
-2
Posted by Exalted Buckaroo (+247) 4 years ago
Sanders is our most trustworthy, experienced, informed and committed candidate.
Top
+3
-4
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5048) 4 years ago
And Oddjob, you really should take down that 2016 Michele Fiore Gun Calendar you have taped on the ceiling above your bed.

That's just gross.

On the other hand, anything happening between a consenting adult and a calendar image is probably OK. Carry on.
Top
+4
-3