Reddy

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 06:57 PM) Her track record suggest a person who CANNOT be trusted. I think that's pretty obvious. Only justification to vote for her IMO is if you think she's the best of this horrible lot of candidates. Her views can change, sure. But she changes policy and yes, lies, with the best of the politicians. She's very lucky IMO she's skating on this email thing. It's kind of like North Carolina and the basketball scandal. Everybody knows they are guilty, but we also know they aren't going to be punished. Just the way it is. She was cleared by the state dept months ago. Nothing will ever come of the emails. It's a media thing just like Benghazi was. It's a non-issue. More than that, you're allowed to change policy over 25 years in the public eye. (I know arguing with you probably isn't a worthwhile endeavor on my part though )

We... we might be kind of good!

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 04:10 PM) Here's my problem with Clinton, lots of people used to be against gay marriage, and I'm glad that she is one of the people that now publically supports it. But what I don't like about her is that she will come out and state that she was always for it, when there is video evidence of her stating otherwise. I'm not bashing anyone who has changed their minds, but rather how they respond to people saying they changed their mind. She just goes straight to a bold faced lie, when a respectable answer would've been "times have changed, and so have my opinions. I've grown and matured and so have some of my ideologies, one of those being my support for gay marriage." If she gives an answer like that it humanizes her, because we've all had moments like that where we've decided that something we used to believe just doesn't mesh with your current moral stances. She decided that her best course of action was lying when there was a very good opportunity to give a reasonable and relatable answer, and that's why I don't trust her. (and this isn't the only time she's done this) You're right about that - but is it possible that she has privately always supported it, but it wasn't the popular position of the day? I don't know, and you don't know. But the reality is that I simply think she will be the best President - by far - of any of these current options when it comes to handling EVERY aspect of the job, and being prepared on day one.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 04:02 PM) And coincidentally not believing it fits your confirmation bias. That - by definition - is not true.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:59 PM) On the scale that the Clintons and Trump have done it? No. I don't buy it for a second. Every single change has been in line, and timed with, majority opinion holding for their party. That is a gigantic red flag. Only to you (and anyone else who agrees with this position), because it fits your confirmation bias.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:57 PM) Wouldn't you rather vote for the candidate who doesn't have the long history of making the mistakes, (some of them important ones that were repeated)? Honestly? No. Because that candidate doesn't exist. And Bernie is the candidate who can't get anything done NOW - and to me, that's more important.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:55 PM) I think there is a clear line here. You can hold convictions, but be willing to compromise. I do not see Clinton as being in this camp. I don't see any of what I have seen the Clintons do over the past few decades as compromising. It is their positions that have changed, not their ability to compromise. The world is SO different now than it was decades ago! You REALLY want them to stick to all their views they held in 1992? Have YOU stuck to every single opinion you held when you were thirty years younger than you are now? come on dude you're really grasping here...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:53 PM) This is just a single example, but I want to point out Hunstman as an example (ran for GOP a couple cycles ago). He flipped his views on gay marriage, from anti to pro. Said it was because of his friendship with someone who was gay. May not be believable, except here's the thing - he actually changed to a view that was very much against his own party. In fact he probably knew it would play poorly, especially in a state like Utah, or running for President from the GOP. But he did it anyway. So that's an example of a change where I can look and say, OK, this wasn't a purely political move to get votes. Agreed completely. Always liked Huntsman. But then the argument is, just because it's a change that's in line with where the party's platform is moving, doesn't INHERENTLY mean it's an in-genuine thing...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:51 PM) The ramifications of policy positions don't matter nearly as much when a candidate won't follow through on policy positions if popular opinion changes. I mean seriously. Do you want the candidate who was for civil rights all along, or do you want the candidate who was evetually for civil rights, after previously working against them? Do you want the candidate who was always against war, or the candidate who voted for it, changed her mind, but then supported getting into another war in Libya? If you are going to vote for someone because they hold your convictions, I would damned well want to know that those convictions are actually valuable to them. In no way, shape, or form, can you say that about Hillary Clinton. You also can't say that about Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump, just so you don't try to falsely equate that to sexism again. I want the candidate who can vote with conviction, and if it turns out to be a mistake, can own up to it and say she made a mistake. I'm looking for a candidate who can reevaluate positions when presented with new information. I like people who change. I like people who grow. You don't?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:50 PM) It's a thin line, but there is a key difference between a candidate who has strong convictions but has shown they can make things work with others, versus someone with strong convictions but doesn't play well with others. That's political leadership in a nutshell, really. Clinton can compromise I have no doubt, but she's slushy on her own stances going in which won't serve her well. Sanders has very strong convictions, and goes in with a positive attitude, but I am not convinced he can compromise. Cruz is outright adamant in his views, and I have zero faith he can work with anyone else. Kasich I think may be the closest to being able to balance these things, which gives him some appeal. Trump is the worst case. There is no core there, AND he plays horribly with others. agreed with this (with a miiiinor disagreement re: Kasich but whatevs )

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) I understand how the world works. I also understand when a politician will quite literally say anything to get elected. I don't respected candidates who don't have deep convictions on major issues, especially on a repeated basis. When is it ok for a politician to change their position on an issue, in your mind?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) Again with the putting words in my mouth. It's not just "personality" (which I did not say). It's leadership skills, the ability to drive change, the priorities, the track record, the ability to work with people on a professional level, the ability to represent the country as a face to the world, etc. Lots of factors that aren't policy points, and they sure as heck aren't just "personality". But you go on ahead trying to pigeon-hole everyone. Y'all are feeling all sorts of defensive these days. In any case, I'd argue you might want to read up on both their records in regard to their abilities to work with people - neither are stellar at it record-wise. But hey, in the end you do you. This really wasn't meant to be a big thing - just odd that you lumped those two together. No biggie.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:45 PM) A grasp of his policies, lol. That is pretty ironic coming from someone who is voting for a person that doesn't hold convictions towards basically any policies. Johnson is very much a protest vote in an election that is very wing oriented. Glad you can answer the question.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:40 PM) You can feel free to keep making excuses for the Clintons. If it were my two cents, I would be voting for the candidate who has exhibited the right tendancies all along, and not waiting to see if this candidate would still be holding the right convictions if polling numbers changed again. To me that goes to the central issue of trust in a candidate. Lol you call them excuses, I call it pragmatic understanding of how the world actually works, but potato potahto

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:37 PM) Since when did I become the spokesperson for the Libertarians? This is like asking who is going to work if a Democrat is elected because the natural progression of progressiveism is communism. You said you'd vote for Gary Johnson, so you must have a grasp of his policies and the ramifications of said policies, yes?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:35 PM) I don't buy that it is noble, not for a second. The policy changes have been cold and calculated based on majority polling. Guys like Bernie Sanders has always been "progressive". He didn't need time to figure it out. Does that mean in 20 years the Clintons will be where Sanders is today, since he is the most progressive of all? If that is the end game, why not just vote for Sanders now, and not wait for the years needed to evolve? Bernie Sanders is a white man from the most LIBERAL state in the f***ing union. Congrats on being progressive your whole career. Meanwhile Clinton was in AR and NY, both diverse in very different ways. Good lord. Context matters man.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:00 PM) http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-25/4...eral-income-tax Still no public services answer in Libertarianism?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:30 PM) Oh bulls***. Bill Clinton falls into the same category and he is not a female. This entire post is an attempt to excuse a pathological lack of convictions on TeamClinton. Nope. But that's the reaction I was expecting. How does Bill fall into the same category? Are they not allowed to become more progressive over time, ya know, the way Obama has? And ALL democrats have? Come on.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:25 PM) Hillary has quite literally changed her mind on some of her most important votes and policy positions over the years to follow the majority polling. She has no positions or intercompass of her own. Hillary would ever be honest enough to tell us that she is lying to us. This is the part where I talk about systemic misogyny and not being allowed to have non-mainstream positions for fear of not being taken seriously back in the 90s and first half of the 2000s, but I assume that'll fall on deaf ears. She was called "too liberal" in the 90s, and now she's "a republican", even though her stances on policy have become more progressive. Nothing about the public's perception, and her actual record, jive in the least.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:19 PM) In terms of trust in what they say? I think Trump and Hillary are the clear bottom, and the rest of the field is a long way better. It isn't even particularly close either. In my eyes, I might even rate Hillary the worst. Can you back that up, even a tiny bit? Trump has literally SAID that he doesn't mean what he's saying. lol

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:56 PM) Sanders is by no measure a moderate, for one thing. Kasich, as I said, is RELATIVELY moderate for what the GOP has been rolling out the past few cycles. But I don't "despise" either one - I don't consider that to be about policy points, at least not purely. Obviously Sanders isn't a moderate, which is why I was assuming you thought Kasich was, since that would put him closer to Bernie ideologically. But since you said it's about personality over policy, then it's a moot point. They're both pretty douchey, so I guess that's a fair comparison.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:58 PM) Yeah, on the Democratic side, I'm far closer politically to Hillary than Bernie, but with Hillary's past I don't trust her and could never vote for her. Also, I recognize that Bernie's farthest left ideas will never get by Congress so that makes me more willing to consider him. My thing is... whom do you trust MORE than her out of our current crop of candidates? They're all pretty f***ing awful in that department

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 01:33 PM) I agree in terms of the general and historic trendlines, he's pretty far right. Just not as far-right as Cruz (no candidate in decades has been), and really, who even knows with Trump. Not sure why you replied to me on that though? I never said anything about moderate. Saying that you liked Sanders and Kasich led me to believe you viewed him as moderate since that makes little sense in any other context...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 01:35 PM) Considering about 45% of people paid no federal income taxes? I'd say the other half of the country. That doesn't actually answer the question of how public services would be maintained under libertarian policies...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 12:49 PM) I actually don't despise Sanders, or Kasich. But Sanders' policies are just untenable and I think he's going to have a very, very hard time working with Congress (not that anyone is going to do very well with them anyway). Kasich has some appeal, but I have had a rising fear about his abilities around foreign policy. Trump, and to lesser but still large extents Cruz and Clinton, I certainly despise. Can't we dispell this myth of Kasich being a moderate please?