[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread

[The Nuclear Fist]

supports enhanced interrogation techniques

Why would anyone support something that no one has been able to show actually works, other than purely sadistic bloodlust? That would be like being a supporter of drinking alchemical mercury 'life elixirs' in this modern era.

[Cannabis Islands]

I support for Bernie Sanders because I'm a Socialist. I believe in provide health care for all, inexpensive post secondary education, childcare, living wage and many other things that socialism stands for. And yes, I support pay for all this by soaking the rich.

[Zakuvia]

Sanders. As left as he leans, I still feel he's a reasonable person who'd be willing to negotiate meaningfully with the GOP.

[Borgovia]

Hilary Clinton is the most likely to do that. However, given the opinions of voters, she might not go for it.

Most likely? Sure. But so far she has openly recanted her vote for Iraq (and one of Obama's key advisors during the withdrawal), has supported diplomacy with Iran/Cuba, etc.

Which is because of the overall opinion of potential voters that may vote or Hilary being for diplomacy over military.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Hilary Clinton is the most likely to do that. However, given the opinions of voters, she might not go for it.

Most likely? Sure. But so far she has openly recanted her vote for Iraq (and one of Obama's key advisors during the withdrawal), has supported diplomacy with Iran/Cuba, etc.

I'd like it if their was somebody with a Democrats foreign policy, a Libertarian's social policy and a Republican's economic policy. Why doesn't he or she exist?

[Neutraligon]

Whelp the Supreme Court decided that states could have independent boards to decide district lines.

[Farnhamia]

Whelp the Supreme Court decided that states could have independent boards to decide district lines.

But they are not required to do so. Why deny your party all the fun of gerrymandering the living daylights out of the other guys when you win control of the state house?

[Roosevelt and Truman]

Most likely? Sure. But so far she has openly recanted her vote for Iraq (and one of Obama's key advisors during the withdrawal), has supported diplomacy with Iran/Cuba, etc.

Which is because of the overall opinion of potential voters that may vote or Hilary being for diplomacy over military.

The thing is, Hillary Clinton has a proven record of building diplomacy at the State Department. Disregarding incidents such as our overthrow of Gaddafi, we have seen better negotiation staring under Clinton and continuing under Kerry.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

Sanders. As left as he leans, I still feel he's a reasonable person who'd be willing to negotiate meaningfully with the GOP.

Single-payer, 15 an hour, and other positions that Sanders supports are non-starters for the Republicans. If you want pragmatism, we need Clinton.

[The Alexanderians]

Sanders. As left as he leans, I still feel he's a reasonable person who'd be willing to negotiate meaningfully with the GOP.

Single-payer, 15 an hour, and other positions that Sanders supports are non-starters for the Republicans. If you want pragmatism, we need Clinton.

Clinton? Pragmatic isn't the word I'd use "Pandering to the base" maybe. She's in bed with Monsanto and let's not forget her infamous "Women are the real victims of war" line. If she's elected I'll wait patiently for the scandal when she sleeps with a pool boy. Like the guy before you said: Sanders he seems more willing to work with people to actually get something done.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sanders. As left as he leans, I still feel he's a reasonable person who'd be willing to negotiate meaningfully with the GOP.

Single-payer, 15 an hour, and other positions that Sanders supports are non-starters for the Republicans. If you want pragmatism, we need Clinton.

"We have to elect the right wing, or the right wing will win!"

[Roosevelt and Truman]

Single-payer, 15 an hour, and other positions that Sanders supports are non-starters for the Republicans. If you want pragmatism, we need Clinton.

"We have to elect the right wing, or the right wing will win!"

Clinton is a solid centrist, whereas Sanders is center-left. But in the American political context, Sanders is far-left with Clinton being center-left. The latter is more able to work with both parties, the Cruz/Warren factions be darned.

[Genivaria]

Sanders. As left as he leans, I still feel he's a reasonable person who'd be willing to negotiate meaningfully with the GOP.

Single-payer, 15 an hour, and other positions that Sanders supports are non-starters for the Republicans. If you want pragmatism, we need Clinton.

Meaningful negotiations with the GOP are impossible, why stoop to appeasement with the party that is willing to tank our economy to get what they want?

[Fremont Forest]

Sanders. As left as he leans, I still feel he's a reasonable person who'd be willing to negotiate meaningfully with the GOP.

After the last six years I really wonder why people think this is possible, let alone desirable.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

Bernie Sanders seems like the most trustworthy candidate, in my opinion. If he doesn't get the nomination and Hillary gets it instead, I probably won't vote at all.

For pete's sake, people still need to vote in congressional/state elections even if they disagree with the presidential choices.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Bernie Sanders seems like the most trustworthy candidate, in my opinion. If he doesn't get the nomination and Hillary gets it instead, I probably won't vote at all.

For pete's sake, people still need to vote in congressional/state elections even if they disagree with the presidential choices.

They even need to vote in the presidential elections if they disagree with the presidential choices. Surely their's a minor party you could give a protest vote to?

What would be funny is if Sanders decides to run as an independent after losing the Democratic nomination, splitting the Clinton vote.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

Single-payer, 15 an hour, and other positions that Sanders supports are non-starters for the Republicans. If you want pragmatism, we need Clinton.

Meaningful negotiations with the GOP are impossible, why stoop to appeasement with the party that is willing to tank our economy to get what they want?

Because nothing will get done otherwise. The GOP has half of America behind its back, and won't stand at all for Bernie's agenda.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

For pete's sake, people still need to vote in congressional/state elections even if they disagree with the presidential choices.

They even need to vote in the presidential elections if they disagree with the presidential choices. Surely their's a minor party you could give a protest vote to?

What would be funny is if Sanders decides to run as an independent after losing the Democratic nomination, splitting the Clinton vote.

Indeed. Not enough Dems turnout (or split the vote), the Republicans win the White House, and everything we have gotten done since 2009 is unraveled before our eyes. That's what progressives unwilling to vote for Hillary are setting us up for.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Meaningful negotiations with the GOP are impossible, why stoop to appeasement with the party that is willing to tank our economy to get what they want?

Because nothing will get done otherwise. The GOP has half of America behind its back, and won't stand at all for Bernie's agenda.

Not to mention Congress and, if Kenneddy gets his medicine, the court.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

They even need to vote in the presidential elections if they disagree with the presidential choices. Surely their's a minor party you could give a protest vote to?

What would be funny is if Sanders decides to run as an independent after losing the Democratic nomination, splitting the Clinton vote.

Indeed. Not enough Dems turnout (or split the vote), the Republicans win the White House, and everything we have gotten done since 2009 is unraveled before our eyes. That's what progressives unwilling to vote for Hillary are setting us up for.

Actually:

Anyone who supports Sanders! Don't vote! Even if you support Hillary and Hillary wins, don't vote! Please!

Their are some things that need to be undone.

[Idzequitch]

Sanders. As left as he leans, I still feel he's a reasonable person who'd be willing to negotiate meaningfully with the GOP.

After the last six years I really wonder why people think this is possible, let alone desirable.

What's funny is when members of one side accuse members of the other side of being unwilling to negotiate. Both Republicans and Democrats have utterly failed in that regard. Both continue to simply push their own agenda through by brute force, and telling the other side to suck it up.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

Indeed. Not enough Dems turnout (or split the vote), the Republicans win the White House, and everything we have gotten done since 2009 is unraveled before our eyes. That's what progressives unwilling to vote for Hillary are setting us up for.

Actually:

Anyone who supports Sanders! Don't vote! Even if you support Hillary and Hillary wins, don't vote! Please!

Their are some things that need to be undone.

Repealing health reform, Dodd-Frank, peaceful diplomacy with Iran/Cuba, and so on?

[Marylandonia]

Actually:

Anyone who supports Sanders! Don't vote! Even if you support Hillary and Hillary wins, don't vote! Please!

Their are some things that need to be undone.

Repealing health reform, Dodd-Frank, peaceful diplomacy with Iran/Cuba, and so on?

They'd repeal SS and medicare if they thought they had the slightest chance to get it done. Then the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Probably minimum wage, 40 hour work week, 8 hour day and child labor laws too. And next of course, the IRS would go and the Federal Reserve Bank as well. Now we are back to the 19th century, snake oil any one?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Actually:

Anyone who supports Sanders! Don't vote! Even if you support Hillary and Hillary wins, don't vote! Please!

Their are some things that need to be undone.

Repealing health reform, Dodd-Frank, peaceful diplomacy with Iran/Cuba, and so on?

Obamacare and the civil rights act. We need a less burocratic system than Obamacare, and civil rights legislation that doesn't dictate to business owners who they must serve.

[Grave_n_idle]

Repealing health reform, Dodd-Frank, peaceful diplomacy with Iran/Cuba, and so on?

Obamacare and the civil rights act. We need a less burocratic system than Obamacare, and civil rights legislation that doesn't dictate to business owners who they must serve.

Why? If people won't act like citizens of their own accord, why shouldn't law dictate?

We don't have laws that suggest not murdering people.

But you're right about bureaucracy - the problem is that Obamacare didn't replace insurance, it just offered choice. And that means we're stuck with the insurance model. Seriously, see if you can audit the medical billing class at your nearest medical school - you'll see why American healthcare is the special kind of bureaucratic nightmare it is.