Hillary Clinton to Launch 2016 Campaign

[Italios]

Well maybe now I can email my teachers at 10.06 at night on my private email and not get in trouble for it.

Oh, nice hair, Tilly!

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And Kashkari still didn't make enough of a threat to cause Brown to even campaign. So, you agree then...Kashkari is not a good candidate. Though it makes me wonder why you brought him up as someone who could contend for the presidency.

It's difficult to run against an incumbent, that I'll admit. Kashkari also has the disadvantage of not having sponsors as he is going against someone who already made connections. The presidential race, however, could be a different story as Obama does not have the legal authority to run for another term. Doesn't mean Neel will be a serious threat to Democrat's chances of winning 2016.

It's wrong to say "I'd like X to run"? I did not say "Neel will win", I said "I'd like X, Y, and Z" to run just like I stated why disappointment in Hillary running instead of Warren.

Also, I'd like it if you don't assume I agree/disagree with something I've yet to explicitly say. I did not say Kashkari's not a good candidate nor did I say I believed he has a shot for the presidency, hence why I said that if the ones I listed were to run, then the Democrats would need some luck. I only stated that I'd like him to run against Hillary, not that he'll be a popular candidate.

The hell are you talking about, "Sat on his ass"?

That still isn't enough to threaten the school system. He was first governor in 1974 and since then held various offices. Our education and healthcare system is laughably pathetic compared to Germany even if the UCs were to reverse their tuition hike, even if he passed a bill reducing tuition in half. What was he doing for all those years regarding education? Since the 1970's, tuition rates have been increasing and loans are becoming a serious threat to the state; what did he do?

To visualize, lets compare our state to Germany. Germany's 2013 population is 80.7 million with an economy of 3.73 trillion, California's 2.2 trillion dollar economy (2013) and a 38.4 million population (2013) is near a ratio of 2 to 1.

California's population (2013): 38.4 million
California's GSP (2013): $2.2 trillion

GSP/population = 2.2E12/38.4E6 = 57,291 $/person

Multiplied by 2
38.4*2 = 76.8 million
2.2 trillion*2 = $4.4 trillion

double GSP/double population = 4.4E12/76.8E6 = 57,291 $/person

Germany's population (2013): 80.7 million
Germany's GDP (2013): $3.73 Trillion

3.73E11/80.7E6 = 46,203 $/person.

Germany has 46,203 $/person. That is 20% less than California and 20% more taxable income California can have.

The GDP to population ratio is more favorable for California than Germany, so there should be more wealth available for social services like education. For some unknown reason, we have student loans, tuition fees, and now the UCs are increasing their tuition.

That is what I mean by "sitting on his ass". What was he doing since 1974 and why aren't we doing as good as or better than Germany? It's a country with smaller land, larger population, and smaller economy compared to California's if we use the GDP to Population ratio. What humiliation for a state to be doing worse than a country that is more limited than we are.

Germany is a NATION that is able to create its own healthcare and education systems without being concerned about federal regulation or law, or the easy relocation of resources, people, and labor from one state to another. California is a STATE within the United States, and has to deal with all of these things. It's an unrealistic and unfair comparison, and the fact that you're making it shows that you're willing to go to unrealistic lengths in order to justify your dislike of the Governor.

[Norstal]

That still isn't enough to threaten the school system. He was first governor in 1974 and since then held various offices. Our education and healthcare system is laughably pathetic compared to Germany even if the UCs were to reverse their tuition hike, even if he passed a bill reducing tuition in half. What was he doing for all those years regarding education? Since the 1970's, tuition rates have been increasing and loans are becoming a serious threat to the state; what did he do?

To visualize, lets compare our state to Germany. Germany's 2013 population is 80.7 million with an economy of 3.73 trillion, California's 2.2 trillion dollar economy (2013) and a 38.4 million population (2013) is near a ratio of 2 to 1.

California's population (2013): 38.4 million
California's GSP (2013): $2.2 trillion

GSP/population = 2.2E12/38.4E6 = 57,291 $/person

Multiplied by 2
38.4*2 = 76.8 million
2.2 trillion*2 = $4.4 trillion

double GSP/double population = 4.4E12/76.8E6 = 57,291 $/person

Germany's population (2013): 80.7 million
Germany's GDP (2013): $3.73 Trillion

3.73E11/80.7E6 = 46,203 $/person.

Germany has 46,203 $/person. That is 20% less than California and 20% more taxable income California can have.

The GDP to population ratio is more favorable for California than Germany, so there should be more wealth available for social services like education. For some unknown reason, we have student loans, tuition fees, and now the UCs are increasing their tuition.

That is what I mean by "sitting on his ass". What was he doing since 1974 and why aren't we doing as good as or better than Germany? It's a country with smaller land, larger population, and smaller economy compared to California's if we use the GDP to Population ratio. What humiliation for a state to be doing worse than a country that is more limited than we are.

Was there any state in the U.S that outperformed Germany during that time?

If you can't find any, then you're being silly.

[Crimiea]

It's difficult to run against an incumbent, that I'll admit. Kashkari also has the disadvantage of not having sponsors as he is going against someone who already made connections. The presidential race, however, could be a different story as Obama does not have the legal authority to run for another term. Doesn't mean Neel will be a serious threat to Democrat's chances of winning 2016.

It's wrong to say "I'd like X to run"? I did not say "Neel will win", I said "I'd like X, Y, and Z" to run just like I stated why disappointment in Hillary running instead of Warren.

Also, I'd like it if you don't assume I agree/disagree with something I've yet to explicitly say. I did not say Kashkari's not a good candidate nor did I say I believed he has a shot for the presidency, hence why I said that if the ones I listed were to run, then the Democrats would need some luck. I only stated that I'd like him to run against Hillary, not that he'll be a popular candidate.



That still isn't enough to threaten the school system. He was first governor in 1974 and since then held various offices. Our education and healthcare system is laughably pathetic compared to Germany even if the UCs were to reverse their tuition hike, even if he passed a bill reducing tuition in half. What was he doing for all those years regarding education? Since the 1970's, tuition rates have been increasing and loans are becoming a serious threat to the state; what did he do?

To visualize, lets compare our state to Germany. Germany's 2013 population is 80.7 million with an economy of 3.73 trillion, California's 2.2 trillion dollar economy (2013) and a 38.4 million population (2013) is near a ratio of 2 to 1.

California's population (2013): 38.4 million
California's GSP (2013): $2.2 trillion

GSP/population = 2.2E12/38.4E6 = 57,291 $/person

Multiplied by 2
38.4*2 = 76.8 million
2.2 trillion*2 = $4.4 trillion

double GSP/double population = 4.4E12/76.8E6 = 57,291 $/person

Germany's population (2013): 80.7 million
Germany's GDP (2013): $3.73 Trillion

3.73E11/80.7E6 = 46,203 $/person.

Germany has 46,203 $/person. That is 20% less than California and 20% more taxable income California can have.

The GDP to population ratio is more favorable for California than Germany, so there should be more wealth available for social services like education. For some unknown reason, we have student loans, tuition fees, and now the UCs are increasing their tuition.

That is what I mean by "sitting on his ass". What was he doing since 1974 and why aren't we doing as good as or better than Germany? It's a country with smaller land, larger population, and smaller economy compared to California's if we use the GDP to Population ratio. What humiliation for a state to be doing worse than a country that is more limited than we are.

Germany is a NATION that is able to create its own healthcare and education systems without being concerned about federal regulation or law, or the easy relocation of resources, people, and labor from one state to another. California is a STATE within the United States, and has to deal with all of these things. It's an unrealistic and unfair comparison, and the fact that you're making it shows that you're willing to go to unrealistic lengths in order to justify your dislike of the Governor.

Germany is a nation that has restrictions and regulations placed upon it by the United Nations to where it relies on soft power to maintain its status as a global player in the world. Like the United States, Germany is a federalist Republic where each states has its own semi-autonomy the way California can make its own laws, regulate businesses more or less than other states, having a larger pool of resources, and an economy that is 20% wealthier than Germany. Also the fact Germany built itself in decades while California has decades to follow suit even during Ronald Reagan's presidency where he is obsessed with smaller government. California has that opportunity to follow Germany's 1980's model leading to its current state but somehow we didn't despite Reagan's anti-federal government policies.

It is not unrealistic given that we have a larger landmass with a larger pool of resources, yet our GDP to Population ratio favors us. If we account the federal taxes sent to the government, which is $293 billion out of the 350 billion dollar advantage we have over Germany's economy, we'll still have 57 billion dollars left as a state in a country that spends more on giving away loans than actual financial aid (it's not 'aid' if it's going to kill your hopes of success because you're born in the wrong socio-economic class).

There's 2.4 million students in the California Community College system, 238,700 students in the UC system, and 446,530 students in the CSU system. That's a total of 3,085,230 students in California.

57 billion/3085230 = $18475/student
That is just the leftover money after sending $293 billion to the federal government that can be used to pay most or all of the student's tuition fees, or significantly pay off the student loans that's been growing.

If California is a state that is unable to follow Germany's model of providing healthcare and education because it's a state within a nation, then San Francisco is a city within a state within a country that can't provide a superior form of health care to its residents prior to the ACA. To the best of my knowledge there is no federal law stating that states can not provide healthcare and education to its citizens.

By going 'unrealistic lengths', do you mean doing multiplication and division to compare both governments and question what was our Governor doing since 1974 despite the numbers favoring California?

On a side note, your statement regarding me going unrealistic lengths to justify my dislike of Jerry Brown is an ad hominem and neither answers the question as to why California's more backward than Germany and what was he doing all those years. Yes, I dislike Jerry Brown. I gave up on him after seeing nothing of value being done, felt he was tarnishing Pat Brown's legacy, and would want to see another pro-LGBT candidate who speaks so highly of education given a try like Neel Kashkari.

That still isn't enough to threaten the school system. He was first governor in 1974 and since then held various offices. Our education and healthcare system is laughably pathetic compared to Germany even if the UCs were to reverse their tuition hike, even if he passed a bill reducing tuition in half. What was he doing for all those years regarding education? Since the 1970's, tuition rates have been increasing and loans are becoming a serious threat to the state; what did he do?

To visualize, lets compare our state to Germany. Germany's 2013 population is 80.7 million with an economy of 3.73 trillion, California's 2.2 trillion dollar economy (2013) and a 38.4 million population (2013) is near a ratio of 2 to 1.

California's population (2013): 38.4 million
California's GSP (2013): $2.2 trillion

GSP/population = 2.2E12/38.4E6 = 57,291 $/person

Multiplied by 2
38.4*2 = 76.8 million
2.2 trillion*2 = $4.4 trillion

double GSP/double population = 4.4E12/76.8E6 = 57,291 $/person

Germany's population (2013): 80.7 million
Germany's GDP (2013): $3.73 Trillion

3.73E11/80.7E6 = 46,203 $/person.

Germany has 46,203 $/person. That is 20% less than California and 20% more taxable income California can have.

The GDP to population ratio is more favorable for California than Germany, so there should be more wealth available for social services like education. For some unknown reason, we have student loans, tuition fees, and now the UCs are increasing their tuition.

That is what I mean by "sitting on his ass". What was he doing since 1974 and why aren't we doing as good as or better than Germany? It's a country with smaller land, larger population, and smaller economy compared to California's if we use the GDP to Population ratio. What humiliation for a state to be doing worse than a country that is more limited than we are.

Was there any state in the U.S that outperformed Germany during that time?

If you can't find any, then you're being silly.

Only California has the capability to outperform Germany, we're simply doing worse than them despite numbers favoring California. I'm asking why.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Germany is a NATION that is able to create its own healthcare and education systems without being concerned about federal regulation or law, or the easy relocation of resources, people, and labor from one state to another. California is a STATE within the United States, and has to deal with all of these things. It's an unrealistic and unfair comparison, and the fact that you're making it shows that you're willing to go to unrealistic lengths in order to justify your dislike of the Governor.

Germany is a nation that has restrictions and regulations placed upon it by the United Nations to where it relies on soft power to maintain its status as a global player in the world. Like the United States, Germany is a federalist Republic where each states has its own semi-autonomy the way California can make its own laws, regulate businesses more or less than other states, having a larger pool of resources, and an economy that is 20% wealthier than Germany. Also the fact Germany built itself in decades while California has decades to follow suit even during Ronald Reagan's presidency where he is obsessed with smaller government. California has that opportunity to follow Germany's 1980's model leading to its current state but somehow we didn't despite Reagan's anti-federal government policies.

It is not unrealistic given that we have a larger landmass with a larger pool of resources, yet our GDP to Population ratio favors us. If we account the federal taxes sent to the government, which is $293 billion out of the 350 billion dollar advantage we have over Germany's economy, we'll still have 57 billion dollars left as a state in a country that spends more on giving away loans than actual financial aid (it's not 'aid' if it's going to kill your hopes of success because you're born in the wrong socio-economic class).

There's 2.4 million students in the California Community College system, 238,700 students in the UC system, and 446,530 students in the CSU system. That's a total of 3,085,230 students in California.

57 billion/3085230 = $18475/student
That is just the leftover money after sending $293 billion to the federal government that can be used to pay most or all of the student's tuition fees, or significantly pay off the student loans that's been growing.

If California is a state that is unable to follow Germany's model of providing healthcare and education because it's a state within a nation, then San Francisco is a city within a state within a country that can't provide a superior form of health care to its residents prior to the ACA. To the best of my knowledge there is no federal law stating that states can not provide healthcare and education to its citizens.

By going 'unrealistic lengths', do you mean doing multiplication and division to compare both governments and question what was our Governor doing since 1974 despite the numbers favoring California?

On a side note, your statement regarding me going unrealistic lengths to justify my dislike of Jerry Brown is an ad hominem and neither answers the question as to why California's more backward than Germany and what was he doing all those years. Yes, I dislike Jerry Brown. I gave up on him after seeing nothing of value being done, felt he was tarnishing Pat Brown's legacy, and would want to see another pro-LGBT candidate who speaks so highly of education given a try like Neel Kashkari.

Was there any state in the U.S that outperformed Germany during that time?

If you can't find any, then you're being silly.

Only California has the capability to outperform Germany, we're simply doing worse than them despite numbers favoring California. I'm asking why.

Everything that you have just stated is irrelevant, since again, you are comparing apples and oranges.

California can't provide superior healthcare? Well, no. Why? Because such a thing would require a tax hike, and we haven't been able to push through a tax hike without a 2/3 majority since Proposition 13 passed. It's only this year that the Democrats had a supermajority, and they've been too busy trying to pull us out of the ditch that Schwarzenegger and his cronies led us into to create some sort of state-sponsored healthcare expansion. Does Germany have similar obstacles to face when raising revenue? No? Did Brown campaign for or against Proposition 13 when he was Governor the first time? Against?

Then what are you blaming him for, exactly?

EDIT: And again, you are comparing California, which is a state within a larger union, with Germany, which is a union of states. If you can find a German state that compares to California, you MIGHT be able to make a slightly fairer comparison.

Still, it's hardly fair to compare what Brown has had to deal with as a result of the excesses of the anti-tax crowd with what an established Social Democracy managed to create and maintain with plenty of U.S. aid starting several decades ago.

[Atlanticatia]

Prop 13 is one of the stupidest things ever passed in California. Is there any chance of repeal?

That is why financial referendums are a terrible idea.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Prop 13 is one of the stupidest things ever passed in California. Is there any chance of repeal?

That is why financial referendums are a terrible idea.

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. I'm as much to blame as anyone, but we've gone off-topic. It's an interesting topic, though (Brown, Prop 13, California as a whole), and I'd certainly participate if anyone wanted to make a thread on it.

[Crimiea]

Germany is a nation that has restrictions and regulations placed upon it by the United Nations to where it relies on soft power to maintain its status as a global player in the world. Like the United States, Germany is a federalist Republic where each states has its own semi-autonomy the way California can make its own laws, regulate businesses more or less than other states, having a larger pool of resources, and an economy that is 20% wealthier than Germany. Also the fact Germany built itself in decades while California has decades to follow suit even during Ronald Reagan's presidency where he is obsessed with smaller government. California has that opportunity to follow Germany's 1980's model leading to its current state but somehow we didn't despite Reagan's anti-federal government policies.

It is not unrealistic given that we have a larger landmass with a larger pool of resources, yet our GDP to Population ratio favors us. If we account the federal taxes sent to the government, which is $293 billion out of the 350 billion dollar advantage we have over Germany's economy, we'll still have 57 billion dollars left as a state in a country that spends more on giving away loans than actual financial aid (it's not 'aid' if it's going to kill your hopes of success because you're born in the wrong socio-economic class).

There's 2.4 million students in the California Community College system, 238,700 students in the UC system, and 446,530 students in the CSU system. That's a total of 3,085,230 students in California.

57 billion/3085230 = $18475/student
That is just the leftover money after sending $293 billion to the federal government that can be used to pay most or all of the student's tuition fees, or significantly pay off the student loans that's been growing.

If California is a state that is unable to follow Germany's model of providing healthcare and education because it's a state within a nation, then San Francisco is a city within a state within a country that can't provide a superior form of health care to its residents prior to the ACA. To the best of my knowledge there is no federal law stating that states can not provide healthcare and education to its citizens.

By going 'unrealistic lengths', do you mean doing multiplication and division to compare both governments and question what was our Governor doing since 1974 despite the numbers favoring California?

On a side note, your statement regarding me going unrealistic lengths to justify my dislike of Jerry Brown is an ad hominem and neither answers the question as to why California's more backward than Germany and what was he doing all those years. Yes, I dislike Jerry Brown. I gave up on him after seeing nothing of value being done, felt he was tarnishing Pat Brown's legacy, and would want to see another pro-LGBT candidate who speaks so highly of education given a try like Neel Kashkari.


Only California has the capability to outperform Germany, we're simply doing worse than them despite numbers favoring California. I'm asking why.

1.Everything that you have just stated is irrelevant, since again, you are comparing apples and oranges.

California can't provide superior healthcare? Well, no. Why? Because such a thing would require a tax hike, and we haven't been able to push through a tax hike without a 2/3 majority since Proposition 13 passed. It's only this year that the Democrats had a supermajority, and they've been too busy trying to pull us out of the ditch that Schwarzenegger and his cronies led us into to create some sort of state-sponsored healthcare expansion. Does Germany have similar obstacles to face when raising revenue? No? Did Brown campaign for or against Proposition 13 when he was Governor the first time? Against?

2.Then what are you blaming him for, exactly?

EDIT: 3.And again, you are comparing California, which is a state within a larger union, with Germany, which is a union of states. If you can find a German state that compares to California, you MIGHT be able to make a slightly fairer comparison.

Still, it's hardly fair to compare what Brown has had to deal with as a result of the excesses of the anti-tax crowd with what an established Social Democracy managed to create and maintain with plenty of U.S. aid starting several decades ago.

1. Remember what I said last post about ad hominems?

2. Having 40 years to do something but didn't.

3. Again, I stated, Germany as a unified country has less resources, more population, and a smaller economy by 20% than the individual state of California. It is unfair to compare one German state to one US state if one US state can trump the entire German nation. Statically, it is more fair to compare one entity with another entity within the same ratio, like Germany's 2 to 1 ratio to the State of California. Using one German state to compare to California will also prove my point given that Baden-Wurttemberg, North Rhine-Westphalia, and Bavaria combined still offers universal healthcare, tuition free higher education, and a social safety net in a federal state that has a proportional voting system. Their combined population is 41 million, their combined GDP is $2 trillion. If those three states were to merge into one state, it can be compared to Germany and still reveals California's potential superiority to Germany.

If you can find a German state that compares to California, you MIGHT be able to make a slightly fairer comparison.

Since North Rhine-Westphalia is the largest economy and population in Germany, like California is to the US, lets compare numbers:
NR-Westphalia's population (2013): 17,571,856
NR-Westphalia's GSP (2013): $796.53 billion

GSP/Population = 796.53 billion/17,571,856 = $45,329/person

California's population (2013): 38.4 million
California's GSP (2013): $2.2 trillion

GSP/population = 2.2E12/38.4E6 = $57,291/person

That's a close ratio of 2 to 1 compared to NR-Westphalia and California. So lets multiply NR-Westphalia by 2:
NR-Westphalia's population*2 = 35,143,712
NR-Westphalia's GSP*2 = $1.59306 trillion

GSP/Population = 1.59306 trillion/35,143,712 = $45,329/person

NR-Westphalia's economy to population ratio is 21% less than California's.

Prop 13 is one of the stupidest things ever passed in California. Is there any chance of repeal?

That is why financial referendums are a terrible idea.

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. I'm as much to blame as anyone, but we've gone off-topic. It's an interesting topic, though (Brown, Prop 13, California as a whole), and I'd certainly participate if anyone wanted to make a thread on it.

I agree, we're off topic. If you'd like to continue, feel free to TG me or start a different thread.

[Lalaki]

Hillary is bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers. (1) She is against GMO labelling, (2) against universal healthcare, (3) she was against gay marriage, (4) for the Iraq War, etc. We need Bernie Sanders! If Hillary is elected, this country will be ruined!

1) GMO labeling is not a particularly serious issue for the 2016 presidential election. Aside from that, there is no conclusive evidence to support that GMO's would be harmful. In fact, they have the potential to help us out in food production (as many farmers will attest to). Not convinced? If you want labels, fight at the state levels.

2) Against universal health care? Explain to me what Hillary Clinton was doing in the early 1990's with regards to health care. She was fighting to pass a plan that would have insured all Americans. That effort was struck down by heavy-handed conservative lobbying efforts. Now we have the Affordable Care Act (which Sanders voted for) that places us as close to universal care as we can get in our current political climate. A Republican president would repeal it. A Democratic president would keep and expand it. If you vote Green or another third party, it makes it more likely that the GOP nominee will win. And we will go back on all of the progress we have made in the past few years. Be pragmatic.

3) As was the vast majority of Americans up until recently. Is this majority controlled by special interests? Or have they had a genuine change in heart? I would argue the latter. With most GOP contenders lining up against LGBT marriage, Hillary Clinton would be the best choice.

4) Yes, but she later criticized Bush for his handling of the war. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (a vehement opponent of the war in Congress) has openly stated that her support should not undermine a potential candidacy. Besides, she would maintain our current diplomacy on Iran and Cuba. A Republican president most likely would not. On balance, she would be less of a hawk on foreign policy.

[Cannot think of a name]

And Kashkari still didn't make enough of a threat to cause Brown to even campaign. So, you agree then...Kashkari is not a good candidate. Though it makes me wonder why you brought him up as someone who could contend for the presidency.

It's difficult to run against an incumbent, that I'll admit. Kashkari also has the disadvantage of not having sponsors as he is going against someone who already made connections. The presidential race, however, could be a different story as Obama does not have the legal authority to run for another term.

No, he'll just be running against the first lady of a popular two term president, former senator and Secretary of State and he'll be the guy who lost a governor's race to a sleep walking Jerry Brown. Totally different, you're right.

Doesn't mean Neel will be a serious threat to Democrat's chances of winning 2016.

Then why on earth did you say you 'wish the Democrat's luck' if he runs? They didn't even need to run themselves last time. It makes no sense.

It's wrong to say "I'd like X to run"? I did not say "Neel will win", I said "I'd like X, Y, and Z" to run just like I stated why disappointment in Hillary running instead of Warren.

You said "I wish them luck." Maybe you don't know how that colloquialism is generally used. You see, it's an indicator of underdog status to the person you are wishing luck in these contexts. "You're going to fight that bear with a Twizzler? I wish you luck..." If that's not what you intended you should have chosen another cliche...then we'd be having another mind boggling conversation about why you would want to see a bunch of ineffectual candidates that don't stand a prayer running because you're disappointed in the choice of Hillary Clinton.

Also, I'd like it if you don't assume I agree/disagree with something I've yet to explicitly say.

You're like a world cup soccer player of debating, grabbing your shin and wincing because someone moved a leg within five feet of you. Alright, let's see what horrible crime I've committed here...

I did not say Kashkari's not a good candidate nor did I say I believed he has a shot for the presidency,

No, you said if they ran you 'wish the Democrats luck,' which, as we've covered, means you think they'd be good candidates. Otherwise that post is even more nonsensical.

hence why I said that if the ones I listed were to run, then the Democrats would need some luck.

So...let me get this straight. You don't think he'd be a good candidate so that's why you said the Democrats would need luck? Why would they need luck if he's not a good candidate? They didn't even need to learn his name last time.

I only stated that I'd like him to run against Hillary, not that he'll be a popular candidate.

He'd be an unpopular candidate that the Democrats need luck to beat?


Do you read your posts before hitting submit? Is this a prank?

[Atlanticatia]

Hillary is bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers. (1) She is against GMO labelling, (2) against universal healthcare, (3) she was against gay marriage, (4) for the Iraq War, etc. We need Bernie Sanders! If Hillary is elected, this country will be ruined!

1) GMO labeling is not a particularly serious issue for the 2016 presidential election. Aside from that, there is no conclusive evidence to support that GMO's would be harmful. In fact, they have the potential to help us out in food production (as many farmers will attest to). Not convinced? If you want labels, fight at the state levels.

2) Against universal health care? Explain to me what Hillary Clinton was doing in the early 1990's with regards to health care. She was fighting to pass a plan that would have insured all Americans. That effort was struck down by heavy-handed conservative lobbying efforts. Now we have the Affordable Care Act (which Sanders voted for) that places us as close to universal care as we can get in our current political climate. A Republican president would repeal it. A Democratic president would keep and expand it. If you vote Green or another third party, it makes it more likely that the GOP nominee will win. And we will go back on all of the progress we have made in the past few years. Be pragmatic.

3) As was the vast majority of Americans up until recently. Is this majority controlled by special interests? Or have they had a genuine change in heart? I would argue the latter. With most GOP contenders lining up against LGBT marriage, Hillary Clinton would be the best choice.

4) Yes, but she later criticized Bush for his handling of the war. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (a vehement opponent of the war in Congress) has openly stated that her support should not undermine a potential candidacy. Besides, she would maintain our current diplomacy on Iran and Cuba. A Republican president most likely would not. On balance, she would be less of a hawk on foreign policy.

The point is that, from what we know right now, Hillary is probably a lesser-of-two evils candidate, compared to someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders who I'd be excited to vote for. Of course, I'll happily vote for Hillary and I like her well enough to do that, but I'm not going to be particularly excited or think my vote will lead to progressive social and economic change - it'll be 100x more progressive than whatever the GOP serves up, but not as preferable as a true Progressive.

[Crimiea]

It's difficult to run against an incumbent, that I'll admit. Kashkari also has the disadvantage of not having sponsors as he is going against someone who already made connections. The presidential race, however, could be a different story as Obama does not have the legal authority to run for another term.

No, he'll just be running against the first lady of a popular two term president, former senator and Secretary of State and he'll be the guy who lost a governor's race to a sleep walking Jerry Brown. Totally different, you're right.

Doesn't mean Neel will be a serious threat to Democrat's chances of winning 2016.

Then why on earth did you say you 'wish the Democrat's luck' if he runs? They didn't even need to run themselves last time. It makes no sense.

It's wrong to say "I'd like X to run"? I did not say "Neel will win", I said "I'd like X, Y, and Z" to run just like I stated why disappointment in Hillary running instead of Warren.

You said "I wish them luck." Maybe you don't know how that colloquialism is generally used. You see, it's an indicator of underdog status to the person you are wishing luck in these contexts. "You're going to fight that bear with a Twizzler? I wish you luck..." If that's not what you intended you should have chosen another cliche...then we'd be having another mind boggling conversation about why you would want to see a bunch of ineffectual candidates that don't stand a prayer running because you're disappointed in the choice of Hillary Clinton.

Also, I'd like it if you don't assume I agree/disagree with something I've yet to explicitly say.

You're like a world cup soccer player of debating, grabbing your shin and wincing because someone moved a leg within five feet of you. Alright, let's see what horrible crime I've committed here...

I did not say Kashkari's not a good candidate nor did I say I believed he has a shot for the presidency,

No, you said if they ran you 'wish the Democrats luck,' which, as we've covered, means you think they'd be good candidates. Otherwise that post is even more nonsensical.

hence why I said that if the ones I listed were to run, then the Democrats would need some luck.

So...let me get this straight. You don't think he'd be a good candidate so that's why you said the Democrats would need luck? Why would they need luck if he's not a good candidate? They didn't even need to learn his name last time.

I only stated that I'd like him to run against Hillary, not that he'll be a popular candidate.

He'd be an unpopular candidate that the Democrats need luck to beat?


Do you read your posts before hitting submit? Is this a prank?

1. "if he runs".

You're like a world cup soccer player of debating, grabbing your shin and wincing because someone moved a leg within five feet of you.

As if attacking the other party is going to help you.

No, you said if they ran you 'wish the Democrats luck,' which, as we've covered, means you think they'd be good candidates.

"if he runs". Yes, I think Kashkari would make a good candidate if he runs. I did not say he will win and when I say "I wish X luck if Y runs", I did not say "Y is going to run, therefore, X would struggle".

So...let me get this straight. You don't think he'd be a good candidate so that's why you said the Democrats would need luck? Why would they need luck if he's not a good candidate? They didn't even need to learn his name last time.

I did not say he won't be a good candidate. If said if he runs, then I would wish the Democrats luck, not that he is going to run.

[Cannot think of a name]

No, he'll just be running against the first lady of a popular two term president, former senator and Secretary of State and he'll be the guy who lost a governor's race to a sleep walking Jerry Brown. Totally different, you're right.

Then why on earth did you say you 'wish the Democrat's luck' if he runs? They didn't even need to run themselves last time. It makes no sense.

You said "I wish them luck." Maybe you don't know how that colloquialism is generally used. You see, it's an indicator of underdog status to the person you are wishing luck in these contexts. "You're going to fight that bear with a Twizzler? I wish you luck..." If that's not what you intended you should have chosen another cliche...then we'd be having another mind boggling conversation about why you would want to see a bunch of ineffectual candidates that don't stand a prayer running because you're disappointed in the choice of Hillary Clinton.

You're like a world cup soccer player of debating, grabbing your shin and wincing because someone moved a leg within five feet of you. Alright, let's see what horrible crime I've committed here...

No, you said if they ran you 'wish the Democrats luck,' which, as we've covered, means you think they'd be good candidates. Otherwise that post is even more nonsensical.

So...let me get this straight. You don't think he'd be a good candidate so that's why you said the Democrats would need luck? Why would they need luck if he's not a good candidate? They didn't even need to learn his name last time.

He'd be an unpopular candidate that the Democrats need luck to beat?


Do you read your posts before hitting submit? Is this a prank?

1. "if he runs".

You're like a world cup soccer player of debating, grabbing your shin and wincing because someone moved a leg within five feet of you.

As if attacking the other party is going to help you.

No, you said if they ran you 'wish the Democrats luck,' which, as we've covered, means you think they'd be good candidates.

"if he runs". Yes, I think Kashkari would make a good candidate if he runs. I did not say he will win and when I say "I wish X luck if Y runs", I did not say "Y is going to run, therefore, X would struggle".

So...let me get this straight. You don't think he'd be a good candidate so that's why you said the Democrats would need luck? Why would they need luck if he's not a good candidate? They didn't even need to learn his name last time.

I did not say he won't be a good candidate. If said if he runs, then I would wish the Democrats luck, not that he is going to run.

I'm stumped. Honestly, I'm completely fucking stumped. How on Earth are you reading all of this and getting that the bone of contention is 'if'? I understand that you are proposing a hypothetical...I cannot for the life of me understand why you think I don't get that. I am questioning the logic of your hypothetical, which as I have stated, makes no damn sense.

None of this makes sense. I have to ask again, is this a prank?

[Crimiea]

1. "if he runs".


As if attacking the other party is going to help you.


"if he runs". Yes, I think Kashkari would make a good candidate if he runs. I did not say he will win and when I say "I wish X luck if Y runs", I did not say "Y is going to run, therefore, X would struggle".


I did not say he won't be a good candidate. If said if he runs, then I would wish the Democrats luck, not that he is going to run.

I'm stumped. Honestly, I'm completely fucking stumped. How on Earth are you reading all of this and getting that the bone of contention is 'if'? I understand that you are proposing a hypothetical...I cannot for the life of me understand why you think I don't get that. I am questioning the logic of your hypothetical, which as I have stated, makes no damn sense.

None of this makes sense. I have to ask again, is this a prank?

How on earth are you reading all I've said, attacked the poster and not the post, realize it is hypothetical, and claim a hypothetical makes no sense when, as you've said, is hypothetical?

Let me ask you this, knowing full well it's an ad hominem, can you at least reply to a poster without sounding like a child at a grocery store not getting his candy and screaming down the aisle?

[Norstal]

Only California has the capability to outperform Germany, we're simply doing worse than them despite numbers favoring California. I'm asking why.

If California is the only state capable of outperforming Germany despite not being able to do so, then why isn't he a good governor out of all the other states' governor?

[Wallenburg]

At least she isn't as insane as Cruz.

[Crimiea]

Only California has the capability to outperform Germany, we're simply doing worse than them despite numbers favoring California. I'm asking why.

If California is the only state capable of outperforming Germany despite not being able to do so, then why isn't he a good governor out of all the other states' governor?

I'm confused about the second part of your question, do you mean to ask why Jerry Brown isn't a better governor than other states' governors? If so, I'll admit he's the lesser of evils compared to other governors, but, given California's GDP/Population ratio superiority over Germany (and, in a state to state comparison, superior to North Rhine-Westphalia), our state is inefficient. There is too little fighting demanding efficiency after 40 years of Jerry's career in politics.

[Crimiea]

At least she isn't as insane as Cruz.

I highly doubt he'll have a shot anyway, and if he did, I hope the Democrats point out Republican idiocy about Obama being born in another country.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

1. Remember what I said last post about ad hominems?

"You're comparing apples and oranges" is not ad hominem. It is a common metaphor used to describe a situation in which a person is attempting to draw a comparison and/or contrast between two things that are so dissimilar in nature that any such attempt to do so would be useless. It is an attack on the argument, not the person making it, and therefore cannot be considered ad hominem. If you can point out any part of that phrase that is an attack on you personally, then point it out. Otherwise, don't use terms when you don't know the meaning of them, since it does nothing to bolster your claims, and tends to detract from any attempt to present yourself as an intelligent and informed individual.

[The Huskar Social Union]

At least she isn't as insane as Cruz.

What...

[Jamzmania]

At least she isn't as insane as Cruz.

I highly doubt he'll have a shot anyway, and if he did, I hope the Democrats point out Republican idiocy about Obama being born in another country.

If that's all they have to attack Republicans with, then they better look out.

[Crimiea]

1. Remember what I said last post about ad hominems?

"You're comparing apples and oranges" is not ad hominem. It is a common metaphor used to describe a situation in which a person is attempting to draw a comparison and/or contrast between two things that are so dissimilar in nature that any such attempt to do so would be useless. It is an attack on the argument, not the person making it, and therefore cannot be considered ad hominem. If you can point out any part of that phrase that is an attack on you personally, then point it out. Otherwise, don't use terms when you don't know the meaning of them, since it does nothing to bolster your claims, and tends to detract from any attempt to present yourself as an intelligent and informed individual.

Saying what I said is irrelevant without any backings to it doesn't help either, and, I'll give you that it was misuse. Still, I have given you all the information comparing California and Germany, including a state to state comparison, which is the big picture of my argument.

[The United Territories of Providence]

At least she isn't as insane as Cruz.

That can't be our standard. He's too crazy. But I imagine the folks on the right are complaining "Why can't he be as crazy as Palin or Bachmann?"

[The balkens]

The only people who are for GMO labeling and/or anti-GMO are people who are either uninformed or basically scientifically illiterate.

What is wrong with labeling? If there is nothing wrong with GMOs, then why not kabel them? Hillary is paid off
by Monsanto. Monsanto already killed millions of people with Agent Orange and Asbestos. GMO corn has been killing monarch butterflies! You are uninformed and brainwashed by corporate propaganda! Do you not want to know what goes in your mouth?

Oh my....are you all natural whatever by chance?

[Ashmoria]

What is wrong with labeling? If there is nothing wrong with GMOs, then why not kabel them? Hillary is paid off
by Monsanto. Monsanto already killed millions of people with Agent Orange and Asbestos. GMO corn has been killing monarch butterflies! You are uninformed and brainwashed by corporate propaganda! Do you not want to know what goes in your mouth?

Oh my....are you all natural whatever by chance?

its not so much being anti-gmo, lots of people are anti-gmo, whole countries are anti-gmo, its thinking that Monsanto paid off mrs Clinton. where did that come from?