2016 Democratic Nomination

[Saruhan]

I could get behind Biden. Hillary wasn't the best as Secretary of State, plus she's pro-death penalty. Warren is a Zionist, Sanders is anti-Free trade, and I don't know anything about Cuomo.

[Othelos]

No.

Reasoning?

They have better positions on some issues. They're more socially libertarian than Republicans.

[Burleson]

Reasoning?

They have better positions on some issues. They're more socially libertarian than Republicans.

The socially libertarian thing isn't a good selling point for a right winger like me.

[Burleson]

I could get behind Biden. Hillary wasn't the best as Secretary of State, plus she's pro-death penalty. Warren is a Zionist, Sanders is anti-Free trade, and I don't know anything about Cuomo.

Speaking as a victim of his governorship (AKA, resident of New York) Cuomo is a jackass, and that's the nicest name I can call him without being a liar. He's responsible for New York dropping to the least economic free in the country, he pretty much destroyed the job market, and he took a big steaming shit on the Second Amendment with the "Safe" Act.

[Othelos]

They have better positions on some issues. They're more socially libertarian than Republicans.

The socially libertarian thing isn't a good selling point for a right winger like me.

Why not? Freedom is a good thing.

[Othelos]

I could get behind Biden. Hillary wasn't the best as Secretary of State, plus she's pro-death penalty. Warren is a Zionist, Sanders is anti-Free trade, and I don't know anything about Cuomo.

Speaking as a victim of his governorship (AKA, resident of New York) Cuomo is a jackass, and that's the nicest name I can call him without being a liar. He's responsible for New York dropping to the least economic free in the country, he pretty much destroyed the job market, and he took a big steaming shit on the Second Amendment with the "Safe" Act.

Yeah, NY's economy isn't so hot. Gonna agree with you there.

[Burleson]

The socially libertarian thing isn't a good selling point for a right winger like me.

Why not? Freedom is a good thing.

I prefer economic freedom to freedom to commit abominations towards God

[Othelos]

Why not? Freedom is a good thing.

I prefer economic freedom to freedom to commit abominations towards God

Our government is secular.

[The Scientific States]

I could get behind Biden. Hillary wasn't the best as Secretary of State, plus she's pro-death penalty. Warren is a Zionist, Sanders is anti-Free trade, and I don't know anything about Cuomo.

Cuomo isn't that great. He proposed slashing funding for runaway youth by 70%, and wants to overturn a ban on hydraulic fracking.

[Maineiacs]

Why not? Freedom is a good thing.

I prefer economic freedom to freedom to commit abominations towards God

So, a Corporatist Theocracy. Got it.


No thanks.

[Burleson]

I could get behind Biden. Hillary wasn't the best as Secretary of State, plus she's pro-death penalty. Warren is a Zionist, Sanders is anti-Free trade, and I don't know anything about Cuomo.

Cuomo isn't that great. He proposed slashing funding for runaway youth by 70%, and wants to overturn a ban on hydraulic fracking.

Finally, something about him that I like.

[The Scientific States]

Cuomo isn't that great. He proposed slashing funding for runaway youth by 70%, and wants to overturn a ban on hydraulic fracking.

Finally, something about him that I like.

Ah, so you don't care about the severe environmental consequences associated with hydraulic fracking?

[Burleson]

Finally, something about him that I like.

Ah, so you don't care about the severe environmental consequences associated with hydraulic fracking?

Either the Department of Energy or some other government agency (I forgot which one) found that fracking doesn't cause any environmental consequences. Fracking will create jobs and bring America closer to energy independence. But that's a topic for another thread.

[The Scientific States]

Ah, so you don't care about the severe environmental consequences associated with hydraulic fracking?

Either the Department of Energy or some other government agency (I forgot which one) found that fracking doesn't cause any environmental consequences. Fracking will create jobs and bring America closer to energy independence. But that's a topic for another thread.

I don't believe that's true. The EPA, the government agency that oversees the environment, says that you're wrong.
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

[The Union of the West]

I don't really agree with any of these candidates, specifically their economic and fiscal stances.

[54e]

I'm surprised there's no 'other please specify' option. Only situation I would vote Democrat would be if Brian Schweitzer got the nomination.

[Captain Apollo]

I don't really agree with any of these candidates, specifically their economic and fiscal stances.

Who else, then?

[The Union of the West]

I don't really agree with any of these candidates, specifically their economic and fiscal stances.

Who else, then?

From the Democratic Party? No one that I can think of, really. Are there any economic right-leaning Democrats?

[Geilinor]

Who else, then?

From the Democratic Party? No one that I can think of, really. Are there any economic right-leaning Democrats?

There's got to be some, but not any I can recall.

[Chernoslavia]

i don't know what we're going to do if Hillary decides not to run.

I hope she decides not to.

[Ashmoria]

i don't know what we're going to do if Hillary decides not to run.

I hope she decides not to.

if shes not going to she needs to tell everyone NOW.

since she knows that and hasn't said she isn't running, she's running and hasn't said so because it starts the clock on her campaign and people would be utterly sick of her by the time the iowa caucuses happen.

[Chernoslavia]

I hope she decides not to.

if shes not going to she needs to tell everyone NOW.

since she knows that and hasn't said she isn't running, she's running and hasn't said so because it starts the clock on her campaign and people would be utterly sick of her by the time the iowa caucuses happen.

Eitherway, something tells me people just don't want her nominated.....or just not enough want her.

[Ashmoria]

if shes not going to she needs to tell everyone NOW.

since she knows that and hasn't said she isn't running, she's running and hasn't said so because it starts the clock on her campaign and people would be utterly sick of her by the time the iowa caucuses happen.

Eitherway, something tells me people just don't want her nominated.....or just not enough want her.

welp back in 08 she had (before Obama) lots of support, unfortunately it wasn't strong enough to keep everyone in her camp when a more dynamic candidate came along. (she would have won the general election though). as far as *I* was concerned at that time I wasn't interested in nominating a candidate whose biggest qualification was being first lady. and also one who was guaranteed to be the most divisive candidate and president possible--I was so naïve back then.

today her support is much deeper and she has far more "gravitas" no matter how much the conservatives have knocked her record as SOS. and the republicans have gone so far to the right that its not even right any more. it solidifies the party behind her as it has become horrifying to think of losing the whitehouse to the republicans.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Cory Booker would be the least insane candidate. Pro-peace, anti-Drug War and a fiscal moderate.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I could get behind Biden. Hillary wasn't the best as Secretary of State, plus she's pro-death penalty. Warren is a Zionist, Sanders is anti-Free trade, and I don't know anything about Cuomo.

Cuomo isn't that great. He proposed slashing funding for runaway youth by 70%, and wants to overturn a ban on hydraulic fracking.

And not to mention he's enormously corrupt.