• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats/Hillary voters only --- Are you happy with Tim Kaine as the VP choice?

Are you happy with Tim Kaine as VP?


  • Total voters
    30

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
42,818
Reaction score
22,548
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Please vote and tell us why.
 

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Interesting question from an interesting perspective. While #ImWithNeither as well, and didn't vote in the poll, I will say here that if I WERE a Hillary supporter, I'd be thrilled with her choice. He's a true moderate who has a history of reaching across party lines to work with Republicans. If I were a Trumplodyte, which I obviously am not, and I was one of the few who had not yet partaken of the Kool-Aid and could still reason for myself,........I'd be scared as hell by her pick.

It was a wise move intended to win over a large number of Moderates and Conservative fence-sitters who've felt so alienated by Hillary's baggage of corruption and Trump's deranged, tyrannical behavior. Trump's pick for VP did nothing but helped him solidify his own base....which isn't going to be enough to get him the votes. Just my 2 cents.
 

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What the hell.....I voted anyway. So sue me. :lol:
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
42,818
Reaction score
22,548
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Interesting question from an interesting perspective. While #ImWithNeither as well, and didn't vote in the poll, I will say here that if I WERE a Hillary supporter, I'd be thrilled with her choice. He's a true moderate who has a history of reaching across party lines to work with Republicans. If I were a Trumplodyte, which I obviously am not, and I was one of the few who had not yet partaken of the Kool-Aid and could still reason for myself,........I'd be scared as hell by her pick.

It was a wise move intended to win over a large number of Moderates and Conservative fence-sitters who've felt so alienated by Hillary's baggage of corruption and Trump's deranged, tyrannical behavior. Trump's pick for VP did nothing but helped him solidify his own base....which isn't going to be enough to get him the votes. Just my 2 cents.

I thought it was an odd choice. I thought she was going to choose someone more like Bernie to really lock in those voters. Maybe she felt like they were all going to vote for her anyway, so she went the other way.
 

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I thought it was an odd choice. I thought she was going to choose someone more like Bernie to really lock in those voters. Maybe she felt like they were all going to vote for her anyway, so she went the other way.
I think its a smart move. The more logical and truly civic-minded element of Bernie voters will flock to her regardless. History, however has shown that the "Bernie crowd" has been typically one of the most unreliable demographic groups when it comes to actually turning out in large numbers on election day.

I suppose too many of them are either (a) still high or hungover from weekend college parties, (B) too caught up in a new level of an online game, or (C) too busy hanging out at Starbucks solving the world's problems one tweet at a time, to actually get out and vote. :shrug:
 

manise

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
407
Reaction score
199
Location
Northeast USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I thought it was an odd choice. I thought she was going to choose someone more like Bernie to really lock in those voters. Maybe she felt like they were all going to vote for her anyway, so she went the other way.
Good pick the more I learn about the man. I prefer VPs that "do no harm" and can govern on day one as needed. The presidential candidate will win or lose the actual election on their own merits by and large. John McCain ignored those details and paid the price in 2008. George Bush I almost suffered the same fate after nominating Dan Quayle, but lucked out with a politically incompetant Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis.

Potentially Kaine helps in Virginia and Florida. In Florida, Kaine can use his fluent Spanish to help boost turnout. In theory anyway. He may cost some embittered Bernie votes, but I don't expect mass defections to Trump or elsewhere unless Bernie himself publicly complains (which he won't) or the convention has problems. Hillary so far has done far better with her opponent's supporters than Obama did with his in 2008, largely thanks to Donald Trump. A unified convention will help, especially when details of the platform get publicized--one of the most liberal platforms in party history.

I liked Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, but both of their replacements would be appointed by Republican governors. Plus, I don't see Warren as a vice president. She wants the presidency some day. Bernie wouldn't be happy as a vice president either.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Please vote and tell us why.

I wasn't going to vote at all this election. Last week or so, I was just beginning to creak on it a bit, after a sufficiently large number of my American friends begged me to just vote defensively. I wasn't sold, because god do I hate her, but I was thinking about it.

Now?

No way in hell.

I am not voting for a supposed liberal who picked as veep a Wall Street shill who consistently supports deregulation of same, and has a questionable streak of war profiteering and putting up roadblocks to abortion against women.

Can't do it. She's pushing 70 and I am not taking a chance on that man being president. I'd vomit while I tried to sign the paperwork.

She has probably lost a good part of her base and just about everyone she might have been hoping to sway from the Sanders camp. She's sure as hell lost me.

She should be ashamed of herself, honestly. She's running as basically a Republican circa 1995. Safe, wishy washy, and extremely, incredibly lucrative. She seems to have chosen a veep based on nothing but what will make her the most money without causing too much controversy and endangering the flow of cash once she's in the presidency.

Well, I won't be helping her get there. I'd reckon I'm in good company.

And can I just say how ironic it is that she's spent her entire campaign implying that any woman who doesn't vote for her is a sexist, and now she's picked a running mate who has an incredibly questionable history of respecting women's healthcare? Can I just say how ****ing annoying that is?

If sincerity alone acted as a sort of beacon, she'd be able to see my raised middle finger all the way from London.
 
Last edited:

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Of course we all know that many far-left Liberals and Progressives won't be happy with Kaine because he's a big supporter of free trade and no enemy to Wall Street. The far-left, hippy-types will undoubtedly label him a "sellout" of sorts.
 

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
She has probably lost a good part of her base and just about everyone she might have been hoping to sway from the Sanders camp. She's sure as hell lost me.
I respect your opinion completely! I just have two real issues with what you say and this is one. I think you may be confused...HER base is not the 99-percenter crowd nor are they the Bernie Bot Utopians. So, I don't think this choice will scare away HER base.

She should be ashamed of herself, honestly.
And then there is this..... She should be ashamed for what? Attempting to perhaps bring her party back closer to center....like her husband did? (Who was, incidentally, one of the most successful US presidents of the past 50 years....fiscally speaking.) :thinking
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I respect your opinion completely! I just have two real issues with what you say and this is one. I think you may be confused...HER base is not the 99-percenter crowd nor are they the Bernie Bot Utopians. So, I don't think this choice will scare away HER base.

Her base is Democrats, a significant chunk of whom preferred Bernie to her (how many, we'll never know, since the DNC worked so hard to suppress that, but enough to give her a run for her money during the campaign despite all the suppression). Democrat American citizens are much more liberal than Democrat politicians. For proof of that, you need look no further than the mid-terms.

Democrats lost tons of seats. Why? Because liberals don't vote if there's no one actually liberal to vote for.

But you know what they did do? Vote on ballots. And they won on almost everything they touched, from gun control to worker reforms to gay marriage. There's enough truly liberal people in America to win on all those things, even though conservatives are more consistent voters.

America has tons of liberals. But Democrat politicians really like the money of corporatist conservatism, and Democrat citizens won't vote if they don't see a real liberal in the race.

And then there is this..... She should be ashamed for what? Attempting to perhaps bring her party back closer to center....like her husband did? (Who was, incidentally, one of the most successful US presidents of the past 50 years....fiscally speaking.) :thinking

Bill Clinton also destroyed the black community and is probably just as responsible for 2008 as Bush is, if not more so. He can swivel on it just as much as his wife can. The only thing he was "successful" at was setting the stage for the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression, and giving the LGBT community a bunch more work to do to get to equality.

Pandering to feudalism in disguise is not "closer to center." I know it seems that way compared to what the other side is serving, but reality does not shift with political platforms. It stays in the same spot. Pandering to the increasingly insane and anti-middle class GOP does not make her "reasonable." It makes her a muppet.

Even if you just look at a political scale where politicians are assessed on their stances, today's Democrats all plot as center-right.

Bill was just a corporatist moderate Republican in a nice pair of shades, and Hillary isn't even that.

Like all presidencies, it took us a couple decades to start seeing the damage that Clinton did. And if Hillary is trying to show us she's gonna be another Bill, then I want no part of it. Might as well just vote for a Republican at that point.

And I'm thinking about it. I think Trump is an abomination, but maybe that's what America needs. Maybe it needs to be shook so hard it can barely stand, and that will be what finally wakes everyone up.

I don't know. But if I vote at all, which I probably won't, I think I'd rather just try that crazy theory than vote for another corporatist Republican in nice shades.
 
Last edited:

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,757
Reaction score
16,641
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Tim Caine is a smart guy, with tons of experience, obviously knowledgable, a history of working across party lines, fairly moderate, does not exhibit any obvious personality disorders or routinely say racist, bigoted, or sexist things.... So yeah, I think he is a good pick. He is pretty much what you want in a VP.
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,720
Reaction score
6,276
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Her base is Democrats, a significant chunk of whom preferred Bernie to her (how many, we'll never know, since the DNC worked so hard to suppress that, but enough to give her a run for her money during the campaign despite all the suppression). Democrat American citizens are much more liberal than Democrat politicians. For proof of that, you need look no further than the mid-terms.

Democrats lost tons of seats. Why? Because liberals don't vote if there's no one actually liberal to vote for.

But you know what they did do? Vote on ballots. And they won on almost everything they touched, from gun control to worker reforms to gay marriage. There's enough truly liberal people in America to win on all those things, even though conservatives are more consistent voters.

America has tons of liberals. But Democrat politicians really like the money of corporatist conservatism, and Democrat citizens won't vote if they don't see a real liberal in the race.



Bill Clinton also destroyed the black community and is probably just as responsible for 2008 as Bush is, if not more so. He can swivel on it just as much as his wife can. The only thing he was "successful" at was setting the stage for the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression, and giving the LGBT community a bunch more work to do to get to equality.

Pandering to feudalism in disguise is not "closer to center." I know it seems that way compared to what the other side is serving, but reality does not shift with political platforms. It stays in the same spot. Pandering to the increasingly insane and anti-middle class GOP does not make her "reasonable." It makes her a muppet.

Even if you just look at a political scale where politicians are assessed on their stances, today's Democrats all plot as center-right.

Bill was just a corporatist moderate Republican in a nice pair of shades, and Hillary isn't even that.

Like all presidencies, it took us a couple decades to start seeing the damage that Clinton did. And if Hillary is trying to show us she's gonna be another Bill, then I want no part of it. Might as well just vote for a Republican at that point.

And I'm thinking about it. I think Trump is an abomination, but maybe that's what America needs. Maybe it needs to be shook so hard it can barely stand, and that will be what finally wakes everyone up.

I don't know. But I'd rather just try that crazy theory than vote for another corporatist Republican in nice shades.

I am going to vote for Hilliary.

Trump can not be allowed to win, he is dangerous and shows tendencies that do not suite being leader of this country.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I am going to vote for Hilliary.

Trump can not be allowed to win, he is dangerous and shows tendencies that do not suite being leader of this country.

Yup, he sure is. But how long do you think we can sustain this mess?
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,757
Reaction score
16,641
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Bill Clinton also destroyed the black community and is probably just as responsible for 2008 as Bush is, if not more so. He can swivel on it just as much as his wife can. The only thing he was "successful" at was setting the stage for the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression, and giving the LGBT community a bunch more work to do to get to equality.

The only people that say this crap are those that were not around in 1994 when the 94 Crime Bill was passed. The biggest proponents of the 1994 Crime Bill at the time were Blacks living in the inner city. Violent crime rates prior to the 94 Crime Bill were over twice as high as they are now. In fact, in many communities murder rates and violent crime rates were exponentially higher than they are now. Members of the black community at the time were begging the government to do something and were hugely supportive of that bill. It's easy for those that did live through that to now criticize it.

There is a reason why the Clinton's have so much support in the African American Community. While Bill Clinton was in office:

Violent crime rates dropped faster than they had in American history.
The Poverty Rate went down every single year and reached its lowest level in US history.
Teen pregnancy rates went down.
Inner city literacy rates improved.
Median household income went up every single year.

The Clinton's did more while in office for the African American Community than any other president in the last century other than LBJ. I don't know anyone other than some nutjobs on the right that would not trade the Clinton years for anytime since then.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
The only people that say this crap are those that were not around in 1994 when the 94 Crime Bill was passed. The biggest proponents of the 1994 Crime Bill at the time were Blacks living in the inner city. Violent crime rates prior to the 94 Crime Bill were over twice as high as they are now. In fact, in many communities murder rates and violent crime rates were exponentially higher than they are now. Members of the black community at the time were begging the government to do something and were hugely supportive of that bill. It's easy for those that did live through that to now criticize it.

There is a reason why the Clinton's have so much support in the African American Community. While Bill Clinton was in office:

Violent crime rates dropped faster than they had in American history.
The Poverty Rate went down every single year and reached its lowest level in US history.
Teen pregnancy rates went down.
Inner city literacy rates improved.
Median household income went up every single year.

The Clinton's did more while in office for the African American Community than any other president in the last century other than LBJ. I don't know anyone other than some nutjobs on the right that would not trade the Clinton years for anytime since then.

Yeah, because they all live in prison now -- prisons which now openly declare increasing recidivism as their goal on their pamphlets -- because they can't even find a place to live upon release.

America is the most incarcerated population in the world now, and made no effort to try to rehabilitate or provide opportunity to the community.

And if you'll note, now that everyone has seen what his policies have really done, Bill Clinton is rather hated by much of the black community.
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
23,041
Reaction score
13,354
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not a Clinton supporter so I did not vote in poll.

It looks to me that this election, people are not voting FOR anybody. But, rather, voting AGAINST one or the other.

With the exception of a hand full of whackos, nobody, from either party, seems to be very happy about the candidate their party is running.

I absolutely abhor the DNC and the GOP. I really do. :2mad:
 
Last edited:

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
A lot more than what a trump presidency would look like.

Stability is not a vice in of itself.

No. But it's a question of how far it's acceptable for us to slowly, stably fall before we decide it's time to overhaul.

America is already sitting at the bottom of the developed world on quite a number of metrics. Where is the point where it's one too many?

Everyone's answer to that, I suppose, will be different. But to my mind, the further down we go, the harder it will be when the overhaul inevitably happens.

No empire upon which the sun is setting has ever gotten out without having one. And the ones that did it sooner rather than later have historically done better.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,757
Reaction score
16,641
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yeah, because they all live in prison now -- prisons which now openly declare increasing recidivism as their goal on their pamphlets -- because they can't even find a place to live upon release.

America is the most incarcerated population in the world now, and made no effort to try to rehabilitate or provide opportunity to the community.

And if you'll note, now that everyone has seen what his policies have really done, Bill Clinton is rather hated by much of the black community.

By much? His wife is enjoying nearly 100% support in polling by the black community. She may well end up doing better with blacks come November than even Obama did. Our high prison rate is primarily due to laws passed over the last 25 years in state legislators, not the 94 crime bill. What the 94 crime bill did was put 100,000 new officers on the streets, put billions into crime prevention programs, established sex offender registries, targeted gangs, banned assault weapons, and established the death penalty for drive by shooting deaths, terrorism, and civil rights murders. It also established hate crimes. There was also the Violence Against Women Act that made it much easier to prosecute men that abused women. The portion that Bill Clinton now regrets was the 3 strikes provision. Even that had huge support in the minority communities at the time though.

The biggest problem with prison overcrowding though was all the state 3 strikes laws that were passed. Like I say though, it's easy to criticize it all now, but back in the 80s and early 90s there were inner cities that were literally so dangerous that you would have better luck trying to walk through ISIS controlled territory than walking through one of them unscathed.
 

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
America has tons of liberals. But Democrat politicians really like the money of corporatist conservatism, and Democrat citizens won't vote if they don't see a real liberal in the race.
This is why it makes no sense for her to pander to the far left. They're a very unreliable, and unpredictable group of voters who tend to hover around single issues for which they feel passionately. If you cant find the right liberal issue to strike a nerve...you cant count on their support. You just said it yourself. and history has shown that this group is one of the most unreliable when it comes to actual turnout on General Election day.



Bill Clinton also destroyed the black community and is probably just as responsible for 2008 as Bush is, if not more so. He can swivel on it just as much as his wife can. The only thing he was "successful" at was setting the stage for the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression, and giving the LGBT community a bunch more work to do to get to equality.
You obviously understand very little about the economy and modern history in-general. Clinton built up a surplus...you know what that means? NO DEFICIT. I challenge you to name ANY modern president whose administration was able to even come close to accomplishing that. Minimum wage and wages in general went up under Bill, trade increased as did GDP. Housing plans were put in place to help increase home ownership...I could go on. Read some history before making such inflammatory and dishonest statements.

Bill was just a corporatist moderate Republican in a nice pair of shades, and Hillary isn't even that.
Your college professor would likely be proud, but please stop it with titles and classifications already. Bill was AN EFFECTIVE president, and I could give a damn about party or title...THAT is what America needs right now.

And I'm thinking about it. I think Trump is an abomination, but maybe that's what America needs. Maybe it needs to be shook so hard it can barely stand, and that will be what finally wakes everyone up.
You cant be serious? You know, the German people felt the very same way in 1932 when they handed over power to a new Chancellor, effectively "cutting the throat" of the Weimar Republic. Lack of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.....especially if one is a registered voter.

I don't know. But if I vote at all, which I probably won't, I think I'd rather just try that crazy theory than vote for another corporatist Republican in nice shades.
I hear you. I feel the same way. I certainly would never discourage you from voting however. Cruz says, "vote your conscience!" Hard to do when there's not a serious candidate left in the race that wouldn't make me feel like a terrible person if I cast a vote for them, Sad.
 
Last edited:

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
By much? His wife is enjoying nearly 100% support in polling by the black community. She may well end up doing better with blacks come November than even Obama did. Our high prison rate is primarily due to laws passed over the last 25 years in state legislators, not the 94 crime bill. What the 94 crime bill did was put 100,000 new officers on the streets, put billions into crime prevention programs, established sex offender registries, targeted gangs, banned assault weapons, and established the death penalty for drive by shooting deaths, terrorism, and civil rights murders. It also established hate crimes. There was also the Violence Against Women Act that made it much easier to prosecute men that abused women. The portion that Bill Clinton now regrets was the 3 strikes provision. Even that had huge support in the minority communities at the time though.

The biggest problem with prison overcrowding though was all the state 3 strikes laws that were passed. Like I say though, it's easy to criticize it all now, but back in the 80s and early 90s there were inner cities that were literally so dangerous that you would have better luck trying to walk through ISIS controlled territory than walking through one of them unscathed.

...And a lot of that other legislation was also passed by Clinton, including the stuff that makes it so difficult for poor blacks to go to school, get a job, or live with family after release, and the deregulation that allowed private prisons to gain the stranglehold they now have.

Shutting them all in prison and throwing away the key -- or taking away their keys when they're released -- is not fixing the problem. Not in a country that purports itself to be based on "freedom."

Does she really? This one says less than 70.

Race, Gender Biggest Differentiators in Views of Clinton, Trump

Still a good number. But she's a Democrat running against an openly racist Republican. A Cabbage Patch doll with a donkey pin could probably get 70% of the black vote just as easily, under these circumstances.
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,720
Reaction score
6,276
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No. But it's a question of how far it's acceptable for us to slowly, stably fall before we decide it's time to overhaul.

America is already sitting at the bottom of the developed world on quite a number of metrics. Where is the point where it's one too many?

Everyone's answer to that, I suppose, will be different. But to my mind, the further down we go, the harder it will be when the overhaul inevitably happens.

No empire upon which the sun is setting has ever gotten out without having one. And the ones that did it sooner rather than later have historically done better.

Why try to relive old greatness? Every generation diserves to make their own path and achieve their greatness.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
This is why it makes no sense for her to pander to the far left. They're a very unreliable, and unpredictable group of voters who tend to hover around single issues for which they feel passionately. If you cant find the right liberal issue to strike a nerve...you cant count on their support. You just said it yourself. and history has shown that this group is one of the most unreliable when it comes to actual turnout on General Election day.

No, they're not. They're just consistently populist, and that doesn't pad the politicians' pockets enough for their liking.

What I said is that they won't vote if there's no liberals on offer. Their definition of liberal is pretty clear-cut. Just look at their ballot votes. They're so consistent that they consistently win.

You obviously understand very little about the economy and modern history in-general. Clinton built up a surplus...you know what that means? NO DEFICIT. I challenge you to name ANY modern president whose administration was able to even come close to accomplishing that. Minimum wage and wages in general went up under Bill, trade increased as did GDP. Housing plans were put in place to help increase home ownership...I could go on. Read some history before making such inflammatory and dishonest statements.

No, obviously you don't. Even Clinton himself has admitted his policies played a role in the recession.

Just because he had a surplus at the time does not mean he didn't harm the economy in the long run. And let me just say, he was also president during a huge tech boom that pumped up our economy, and which had NOTHING to do with him. In reality, Clinton was just lucky enough to be president during a period of huge amounts of innovation worldwide.

Those housing plans eventually led to those people losing their houses in 2008. Not without help from Dubya, but what Clinton did with the economy and deregulation was thoughtless and short-sighted.

Your college professor would likely be proud, but please stop it with titles and classifications already. Bill was AN EFFECTIVE president, and I could give a damn about party or title...THAT is what America needs right now.

I'm an autodidact with no use for university, actually, but good to know you look down on people seeking education. Why do so many Americans take such pride in their anti-intellectualism? Anyway...

And no, he wasn't. You don't seem to understand that the affects of a presidency don't just abruptly stop when they leave office.

He was a good talker, I'll give him that much. But if 2008 and the most incarcerated population on earth is the price of that, I'll pass.

You cant be serious? You know, the German people felt the very same way in 1932 when they handed over power to a new Chancellor, effectively "cutting the throat" of the Weimar Republic. Lack of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.....especially if one is a registered voter.

You do know what pulling Godwin means, don't you? It means you automatically lose the debate by resorting to completely asinine hyperbole to try to make your point.

I hear you. I feel the same way. I certainly would never discourage you from voting however. Cruz says, "vote your conscience!" Hard to do when there's not a serious candidate left in the race I wouldn't make me feel like a terrible person if I cast a vote for them, Sad.

My conscience says America either needs to be repeatedly slapped until the beast wakes, or it's going to be one of the many sad, slow, slides into chaos that many empires before us have gone through. I don't know which is worse.
 
Last edited:

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
55,503
Reaction score
20,424
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I wasn't going to vote at all this election. Last week or so, I was just beginning to creak on it a bit, after a sufficiently large number of my American friends begged me to just vote defensively. I wasn't sold, because god do I hate her, but I was thinking about it.

Now?

No way in hell.

I am not voting for a supposed liberal who picked as veep a Wall Street shill who consistently supports deregulation of same, and has a questionable streak of war profiteering and putting up roadblocks to abortion against women.

Can't do it. She's pushing 70 and I am not taking a chance on that man being president. I'd vomit while I tried to sign the paperwork.

She has probably lost a good part of her base and just about everyone she might have been hoping to sway from the Sanders camp. She's sure as hell lost me.

She should be ashamed of herself, honestly. She's running as basically a Republican circa 1995. Safe, wishy washy, and extremely, incredibly lucrative. She seems to have chosen a veep based on nothing but what will make her the most money without causing too much controversy and endangering the flow of cash once she's in the presidency.

Well, I won't be helping her get there. I'd reckon I'm in good company.

And can I just say how ironic it is that she's spent her entire campaign implying that any woman who doesn't vote for her is a sexist, and now she's picked a running mate who has an incredibly questionable history of respecting women's healthcare? Can I just say how ****ing annoying that is?

If sincerity alone acted as a sort of beacon, she'd be able to see my raised middle finger all the way from London.

You have very poor perception of Kaine that could be rectified with a few clicks. But since you were only looking for more reasons not to vote for someone you HATE. Do us all a favor and don't vote at all.

Don't weaken or subvert the basic holding of Roe v. Wade

I strongly support the right of women to make their own health and reproductive decisions and, for that reason, will oppose efforts to weaken or subvert the basic holding of Roe v. Wade. We all share the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The right way to do this is through education and access to health care and contraception rather than criminalizing women's reproductive decisions.
Source: 2012 Senate campaign website, kaineforva.com , Oct 9, 2012
Don't deny privacy to women making health care decisions

[As governor], we worked with Democrats, Republicans and independents to get results. Over the last four years, the GOP pushed ideology and wedge issues. Last week, they passed a platform demanding privacy for Super PACs and denying privacy to women making health care decisions. Meanwhile, Democrats fought for the middle class.
Source: 2012 Democratic National Convention speech , Sep 4, 2012
Tim Kaine on Abortion
 
Top Bottom