All Things POLITICS 3.0

[Greenie]

So really, we're not equally screwed either way

Depends on your feelings.
I think we are.

I don't doubt that you feel that way, but you also stated that you think Hillary will nominate conservative Justices, which is a virtual impossibility.

So I'm not sure what your feelings are based on in reference to what Wingo brought up.

In my opinion nothing is impossible with Hillary. She will do what she wants when in office.

[GONYK]

Depends on your feelings.
I think we are.

I don't doubt that you feel that way, but you also stated that you think Hillary will nominate conservative Justices, which is a virtual impossibility.

So I'm not sure what your feelings are based on in reference to what Wingo brought up.

In my opinion nothing is impossible with Hillary. She will do what she wants when in office.

Your view on Hillary is conflicting though. You think Hillary will say and do anything to get in power, but then you think she will do things that will actively impede her from staying in power.

Nominating conservative judges will wipe out the support of her entire base in one fell swoop. It would guarantee she's a one term President. There is literally no reason for her to even consider doing that.

So is she this cold, calculating, power hungry President who will do anything to get votes, or is she a self-destructive sell-out who will do something that blatantly goes against her interests and only helps her fiercest opponents for no apparent reason?

[Greenie]

I don't doubt that you feel that way, but you also stated that you think Hillary will nominate conservative Justices, which is a virtual impossibility.

So I'm not sure what your feelings are based on in reference to what Wingo brought up.

In my opinion nothing is impossible with Hillary. She will do what she wants when in office.

Your view on Hillary is conflicting though. You think Hillary will say and do anything to get in power, but then you think she will do things that will actively impede her from staying in power.

Nominating conservative judges will wipe out the support of her entire base in one fell swoop. It would guarantee she's a one term President. There is literally no reason for her to even consider doing that.

So is she this cold, calculating, power hungry President who will do anything to get votes, or is she a self-destructive sell-out who will do something that blatantly goes against her interests and only helps her fiercest opponents for no apparent reason?

Hillary will nominate a consecutive judge and then apologize for it. That's he track record. Do something messed up and then say sorry. She will do whatever she wants and then clean it up when need be. She can nominate whoever she wants I don't care. I don't like extreme lefts or rights as judges anyway. That will never be a selling point for me.

I care more about social policy here and not fighting wars overseas.

[GONYK]

In my opinion nothing is impossible with Hillary. She will do what she wants when in office.

Your view on Hillary is conflicting though. You think Hillary will say and do anything to get in power, but then you think she will do things that will actively impede her from staying in power.

Nominating conservative judges will wipe out the support of her entire base in one fell swoop. It would guarantee she's a one term President. There is literally no reason for her to even consider doing that.

So is she this cold, calculating, power hungry President who will do anything to get votes, or is she a self-destructive sell-out who will do something that blatantly goes against her interests and only helps her fiercest opponents for no apparent reason?

Hillary will nominate a consecutive judge and then apologize for it. That's he track record. Do something messed up and then say sorry. She will do whatever she wants and then clean it up when need be. She can nominate whoever she wants I don't care. I don't like extreme lefts or rights as judges anyway. That will never be a selling point for me.

I care more about social policy here and not fighting wars overseas.

There is no reason for Hillary to nominate a conservative SC judge. It goes against her agenda as a President in a very fundamental way. It would be the single most illogical thing for her to do. There is no reason for her to even consider it.

If you care about social policy, then SC judges and district judges should be a major concern. They are the most effective social legislators now that Congress is so gridlocked.

[HarthorneWingo]

I don't doubt that you feel that way, but you also stated that you think Hillary will nominate conservative Justices, which is a virtual impossibility.

So I'm not sure what your feelings are based on in reference to what Wingo brought up.

In my opinion nothing is impossible with Hillary. She will do what she wants when in office.

Your view on Hillary is conflicting though. You think Hillary will say and do anything to get in power, but then you think she will do things that will actively impede her from staying in power.

Nominating conservative judges will wipe out the support of her entire base in one fell swoop. It would guarantee she's a one term President. There is literally no reason for her to even consider doing that.

So is she this cold, calculating, power hungry President who will do anything to get votes, or is she a self-destructive sell-out who will do something that blatantly goes against her interests and only helps her fiercest opponents for no apparent reason?

My problems with her are (1) more war with heavy support for Israel (she and Netanyahu are tight); (2) sell out Main Street in favor of Wall Street; (3) sell us out on TPP and Keystone pipeline. And she's generally untrustworthy. But she'll be good on social issues for women and on immigration.

[GONYK]

In my opinion nothing is impossible with Hillary. She will do what she wants when in office.

Your view on Hillary is conflicting though. You think Hillary will say and do anything to get in power, but then you think she will do things that will actively impede her from staying in power.

Nominating conservative judges will wipe out the support of her entire base in one fell swoop. It would guarantee she's a one term President. There is literally no reason for her to even consider doing that.

So is she this cold, calculating, power hungry President who will do anything to get votes, or is she a self-destructive sell-out who will do something that blatantly goes against her interests and only helps her fiercest opponents for no apparent reason?

My problems with her are (1) more war with heavy support for Israel (she and Netanyahu are tight); (2) sell out Main Street in favor of Wall Street; (3) sell us out on TPP and Keystone pipeline. And she's generally untrustworthy. But she'll be good on social issues for women and on immigration.

#2 is my biggest issue with her by far.

I agree with what she'll be good with too. I think she would be a very effective President, because she's a deal maker. I just don't trust her to strike the deals I'd like to see.

I don't doubt her competency in terms of ability to do the job though. I just don't trust her newfound progressivism.

[HarthorneWingo]

Your view on Hillary is conflicting though. You think Hillary will say and do anything to get in power, but then you think she will do things that will actively impede her from staying in power.

Nominating conservative judges will wipe out the support of her entire base in one fell swoop. It would guarantee she's a one term President. There is literally no reason for her to even consider doing that.

So is she this cold, calculating, power hungry President who will do anything to get votes, or is she a self-destructive sell-out who will do something that blatantly goes against her interests and only helps her fiercest opponents for no apparent reason?

My problems with her are (1) more war with heavy support for Israel (she and Netanyahu are tight); (2) sell out Main Street in favor of Wall Street; (3) sell us out on TPP and Keystone pipeline. And she's generally untrustworthy. But she'll be good on social issues for women and on immigration.

#2 is my biggest issue with her by far.

I agree with what she'll be good with too. I think she would be a very effective President, because she's a deal maker. I just don't trust her to strike the deals I'd like to see.

I don't doubt her competency in terms of ability to do the job though. I just don't trust her newfound progressivism.

That's probably why she still hasn't released those Wall Street transcripts. She's lucky she has Trump on the other side who won't even release his taxes.

[DaKnicksAreBack]

I don't doubt that you feel that way, but you also stated that you think Hillary will nominate conservative Justices, which is a virtual impossibility.

So I'm not sure what your feelings are based on in reference to what Wingo brought up.

In my opinion nothing is impossible with Hillary. She will do what she wants when in office.

Your view on Hillary is conflicting though. You think Hillary will say and do anything to get in power, but then you think she will do things that will actively impede her from staying in power.

Nominating conservative judges will wipe out the support of her entire base in one fell swoop. It would guarantee she's a one term President. There is literally no reason for her to even consider doing that.

So is she this cold, calculating, power hungry President who will do anything to get votes, or is she a self-destructive sell-out who will do something that blatantly goes against her interests and only helps her fiercest opponents for no apparent reason?

Theres no doubt hillary clinton will nominate progressive judges to the SC. She said as much publically, which is outrageous considering ideology shouldnt be a factor in picking a judge at all. The fact that she said publically that it would be a priority exemplifies how partisan politics has become.

[HarthorneWingo]

In my opinion nothing is impossible with Hillary. She will do what she wants when in office.

Your view on Hillary is conflicting though. You think Hillary will say and do anything to get in power, but then you think she will do things that will actively impede her from staying in power.

Nominating conservative judges will wipe out the support of her entire base in one fell swoop. It would guarantee she's a one term President. There is literally no reason for her to even consider doing that.

So is she this cold, calculating, power hungry President who will do anything to get votes, or is she a self-destructive sell-out who will do something that blatantly goes against her interests and only helps her fiercest opponents for no apparent reason?

Theres no doubt hillary clinton will nominate progressive judges to the SC. She said as much publically, which is outrageous considering ideology shouldnt be a factor in picking a judge at all. The fact that she said publically that it would be a priority exemplifies how partisan politics have become.

Republican candidates say all the time that they would nominate "conservative" judges.

[CJackson]

Your view on Hillary is conflicting though. You think Hillary will say and do anything to get in power, but then you think she will do things that will actively impede her from staying in power.

Nominating conservative judges will wipe out the support of her entire base in one fell swoop. It would guarantee she's a one term President. There is literally no reason for her to even consider doing that.

So is she this cold, calculating, power hungry President who will do anything to get votes, or is she a self-destructive sell-out who will do something that blatantly goes against her interests and only helps her fiercest opponents for no apparent reason?

My problems with her are (1) more war with heavy support for Israel (she and Netanyahu are tight); (2) sell out Main Street in favor of Wall Street; (3) sell us out on TPP and Keystone pipeline. And she's generally untrustworthy. But she'll be good on social issues for women and on immigration.

#2 is my biggest issue with her by far.

I agree with what she'll be good with too. I think she would be a very effective President, because she's a deal maker. I just don't trust her to strike the deals I'd like to see.

I don't doubt her competency in terms of ability to do the job though. I just don't trust her newfound progressivism.

It's sad to see Bernie fumbling the ball right out of the gate.

I was counting on him providing social pressure during Clinton's first term to keep the administration tacking to the progressive winds. I'm hoping somebody with some legit political experience shows the leadership and organization skills in the next two years to put a face on a coherent progressive slate that can campaign effectively for the presidency next time. That will keep the pressure on the throat of the democrats to pay more than lip service to progressive issues.

[CJackson]

Your view on Hillary is conflicting though. You think Hillary will say and do anything to get in power, but then you think she will do things that will actively impede her from staying in power.

Nominating conservative judges will wipe out the support of her entire base in one fell swoop. It would guarantee she's a one term President. There is literally no reason for her to even consider doing that.

So is she this cold, calculating, power hungry President who will do anything to get votes, or is she a self-destructive sell-out who will do something that blatantly goes against her interests and only helps her fiercest opponents for no apparent reason?

Theres no doubt hillary clinton will nominate progressive judges to the SC. She said as much publically, which is outrageous considering ideology shouldnt be a factor in picking a judge at all. The fact that she said publically that it would be a priority exemplifies how partisan politics have become.

Republican candidates say all the time that they would nominate "conservative" judges.

Outrageous. LOL

[Oscirus]

Yea one of the things that the conservatives tried to use against Trump was that he might appoint his progressive sister to the supreme court. Judges always get nominated by party lines which is why its so stupid that the repubs don't put Garland in.

I can't trust Hillary because there's way too much money behind her candidacy and way too much money behind her foundation. There is no way in hell that anybody can tell me that she doesn't owe a ton of favors that would get cashed in as soon as she got in office.

[HarthorneWingo]

My problems with her are (1) more war with heavy support for Israel (she and Netanyahu are tight); (2) sell out Main Street in favor of Wall Street; (3) sell us out on TPP and Keystone pipeline. And she's generally untrustworthy. But she'll be good on social issues for women and on immigration.

#2 is my biggest issue with her by far.

I agree with what she'll be good with too. I think she would be a very effective President, because she's a deal maker. I just don't trust her to strike the deals I'd like to see.

I don't doubt her competency in terms of ability to do the job though. I just don't trust her newfound progressivism.

It's sad to see Bernie fumbling the ball right out of the gate.

I was counting on him providing social pressure during Clinton's first term to keep the administration tacking to the progressive winds. I'm hoping somebody with some legit political experience shows the leadership and organization skills in the next two years to put a face on a coherent progressive slate that can campaign effectively for the presidency next time. That will keep the pressure on the throat of the democrats to pay more than lip service to progressive issues.

Elizabeth Warren? Though so many millennials have soured on the democratic party and understandably so. They all pissed at her too ... and all the other establishment "progressives" that endorsed Hillary in the primary.

[HarthorneWingo]

Yea one of the things that the conservatives tried to use against Trump was that he might appoint his progressive sister to the supreme court. Judges always get nominated by party lines which is why its so stupid that the repubs don't put Garland in.

I can't trust Hillary because there's way too much money behind her candidacy and way too much money behind her foundation. There is no way in hell that anybody can tell me that she doesn't owe a ton of favors that would get cashed in as soon as she got in office.

Oh, I think she'll pay off those "favors," just not with federal judicial nominations. She's going to ensure that a woman's right to choose will be etched in stone for decades to come. That means nominating socially liberal judges for the most part. And I think she'll do that.

[Jeffrey]

I truly hope Clinton pulls back on Garland and nominate a liberal judge. I want to see if Republicans will actually have the balls to hold off on any nominations for a whole Presidential term.

My best bet is... Republicans think Trump is a lost cause and Clinton will win the White House and just quickly nominate Garland into the Supreme court. They are just holding out as long as possible to see if Trump can gain any steam.

[CJackson]

#2 is my biggest issue with her by far.

I agree with what she'll be good with too. I think she would be a very effective President, because she's a deal maker. I just don't trust her to strike the deals I'd like to see.

I don't doubt her competency in terms of ability to do the job though. I just don't trust her newfound progressivism.

It's sad to see Bernie fumbling the ball right out of the gate.

I was counting on him providing social pressure during Clinton's first term to keep the administration tacking to the progressive winds. I'm hoping somebody with some legit political experience shows the leadership and organization skills in the next two years to put a face on a coherent progressive slate that can campaign effectively for the presidency next time. That will keep the pressure on the throat of the democrats to pay more than lip service to progressive issues.

Elizabeth Warren? Though so many millennials have soured on the democratic party and understandably so. They all pissed at her too ... and all the other establishment "progressives" that endorsed Hillary in the primary.

I can't mince words, but fuq all those babies whining about Bernie backing Clinton. They'll get over it. When they wake up and realize they dodged a bullet and could have been living inside the movie Idiocracy then those who really do want change will get behind somebody sooner this time. Since these waves of activist sentiment go in cycles, there has to be a groundswell for a fresh party with somebody, it could be Warren, sure (but unlikely), taking the reins and saying alright giddy yap let's organize this puppy we've got time to do this right now.

Otherwise, if people wait two years they'll discover moods change and then wham! the whole shebang revs up again and people hem and haw about getting into the race as if a lone individual is the answer. That's the thing. Bernie was not THE answer. He was a stimulant, but there is no real movement that will form around him. He was basically symptomatic of a populist need in the zeitgeist on the prog side and Trump captured the pop impulse on the trog side.

So waiting for somebody, another Sanders, to latch on to is not the answer. And since Warren is basically a career party member it probably won't be her. But she has the piss and vinegar to lead the charge and to chop the balls off of the Trumps of the world and most of the other weasels who ran in the primaries like Cruz. So I like her temperament. She's a warrior and that is what is needed. Better that it is a woman. It scares the crap out of male politicians to stare down someone like Warren during a debate.

[Oscirus]

Yea one of the things that the conservatives tried to use against Trump was that he might appoint his progressive sister to the supreme court. Judges always get nominated by party lines which is why its so stupid that the repubs don't put Garland in.

I can't trust Hillary because there's way too much money behind her candidacy and way too much money behind her foundation. There is no way in hell that anybody can tell me that she doesn't owe a ton of favors that would get cashed in as soon as she got in office.

Oh, I think she'll pay off those "favors," just not with federal judicial nominations. She's going to ensure that a woman's right to choose will be enticed in stone for decades to come. That means nominating socially liberal judges for the most part. And I think she'll do that.

Judges, I'm not worried about. I assume she'll go more liberal then Obama with her picks. Though I can see a favor judge or two getting slipped through on the local level.

Repubs are going to mess around and get a half woman supreme court if they aren't careful. Watching all those old conservatives get a heart attack over that would be entertaining

[HarthorneWingo]

It's sad to see Bernie fumbling the ball right out of the gate.

I was counting on him providing social pressure during Clinton's first term to keep the administration tacking to the progressive winds. I'm hoping somebody with some legit political experience shows the leadership and organization skills in the next two years to put a face on a coherent progressive slate that can campaign effectively for the presidency next time. That will keep the pressure on the throat of the democrats to pay more than lip service to progressive issues.

Elizabeth Warren? Though so many millennials have soured on the democratic party and understandably so. They all pissed at her too ... and all the other establishment "progressives" that endorsed Hillary in the primary.

I can't mince words, but fuq all those babies whining about Bernie backing Clinton. They'll get over it. When they wake up and realize they dodged a bullet and could have been living inside the movie Idiocracy then those who really do want change will get behind somebody sooner this time. Since these waves of activist sentiment go in cycles, there has to be a groundswell for a fresh party with somebody, it could be Warren, sure (but unlikely), taking the reins and saying alright giddy yap let's organize this puppy we've got time to do this right now.

Otherwise, if people wait two years they'll discover moods change and then wham! the whole shebang revs up again and people hem and haw about getting into the race as if a lone individual is the answer. That's the thing. Bernie was not THE answer. He was a stimulant, but there is no real movement that will form around him. He was basically symptomatic of a populist need in the zeitgeist on the prog side and Trump captured the pop impulse on the trog side.

So waiting for somebody, another Sanders, to latch on to is not the answer. And since Warren is basically a career party member it probably won't be her. But she has the piss and vinegar to lead the charge and to chop the balls off of the Trumps of the world and most of the other weasels who ran in the primaries like Cruz. So I like her temperament. She's a warrior and that is what is needed. Better that it is a woman. It scares the crap out of male politicians to stare down someone like Warren during a debate.

It'll be that democrat who steps up and challenges Hillary if she strays off from the platform which Bernie negotiated with her team. I'm sure Bernie will lead the charge, but it'll be interesting to see who else steps up.

[CJackson]

Yea one of the things that the conservatives tried to use against Trump was that he might appoint his progressive sister to the supreme court. Judges always get nominated by party lines which is why its so stupid that the repubs don't put Garland in.

I can't trust Hillary because there's way too much money behind her candidacy and way too much money behind her foundation. There is no way in hell that anybody can tell me that she doesn't owe a ton of favors that would get cashed in as soon as she got in office.

Oh, I think she'll pay off those "favors," just not with federal judicial nominations. She's going to ensure that a woman's right to choose will be enticed in stone for decades to come. That means nominating socially liberal judges for the most part. And I think she'll do that.

Judges, I'm not worried about. I assume she'll go more liberal then Obama with her picks. Though I can see a favor judge or two getting slipped through on the local level.

Repubs are going to mess around and get a half woman supreme court if they aren't careful. Watching all those old conservatives get a heart attack over that would be entertaining

They can take turns leaving their pubes on Clarence Thomas' coke can

[CJackson]

Elizabeth Warren? Though so many millennials have soured on the democratic party and understandably so. They all pissed at her too ... and all the other establishment "progressives" that endorsed Hillary in the primary.

I can't mince words, but fuq all those babies whining about Bernie backing Clinton. They'll get over it. When they wake up and realize they dodged a bullet and could have been living inside the movie Idiocracy then those who really do want change will get behind somebody sooner this time. Since these waves of activist sentiment go in cycles, there has to be a groundswell for a fresh party with somebody, it could be Warren, sure (but unlikely), taking the reins and saying alright giddy yap let's organize this puppy we've got time to do this right now.

Otherwise, if people wait two years they'll discover moods change and then wham! the whole shebang revs up again and people hem and haw about getting into the race as if a lone individual is the answer. That's the thing. Bernie was not THE answer. He was a stimulant, but there is no real movement that will form around him. He was basically symptomatic of a populist need in the zeitgeist on the prog side and Trump captured the pop impulse on the trog side.

So waiting for somebody, another Sanders, to latch on to is not the answer. And since Warren is basically a career party member it probably won't be her. But she has the piss and vinegar to lead the charge and to chop the balls off of the Trumps of the world and most of the other weasels who ran in the primaries like Cruz. So I like her temperament. She's a warrior and that is what is needed. Better that it is a woman. It scares the crap out of male politicians to stare down someone like Warren during a debate.

It'll be that democrat who steps up and challenges Hillary if she strays off from the platform which Bernie negotiated with her team. I'm sure Bernie will lead the charge, but it'll be interesting to see who else steps up.

Bernie will likely be in the mix, but I suspect he will not be a major figure in the future. I think his supporters will migrate to a more dynamic, flexible thinker if they emerge.