It is less about presidential races and more about congress. Nationally a presidential candidate can raise enough money to compete. But a progressive congressional candidate in a rural area can't raise enough to compete with superpac money.I wonder, is he admitting defeat then? I mean, certainly it's a big issue, but if money in politics is truly as big of an issue as he makes it out to be, then he has no chance at defeating Hillary and even less of a chance of defeating his GOP opponents, because they're extra money precludes any chance he his of winning, right?
And if he somehow manages to not only defeat Clinton, but also his GOP opponent... then how much of an impact does stuff like Citizens United really have? I mean, certainly it has an impact, but if he manages to win in spite of it and despite not taking SuperPAC money and nonetheless winning against people who took tons from SuperPAC, how can one simultaneously argue that it's not just an important issue, but the most important issue, when you won anyway, something that should be impossible under that logic?
It just seems there's a contradiction in there somewhere--if it's really that big of a deal, he's admitting it's impossible to win. But if he does manage to win, despite not using SuperPAC money himself, how big of a deal can it truly be if it didn't stop him from getting his message across and the people choosing him despite all that money being thrown around. It just seems odd to me.
From the standpoint of the US?
Absolutely
Still blows my mind that hillary is for the death penalty. With all the 'im so progressive' stuff I really assumed that perspective of her's 'evolved' as well. Who the fuck is in favor of the death penalty? Come on.
Still blows my mind that hillary is for the death penalty. With all the 'im so progressive' stuff I really assumed that perspective of her's 'evolved' as well. Who the fuck is in favor of the death penalty? Come on.
Still blows my mind that hillary is for the death penalty. With all the 'im so progressive' stuff I really assumed that perspective of her's 'evolved' as well. Who the fuck is in favor of the death penalty? Come on.
majority of americans
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx
The super majority.
I can't see supporting it given the justice system being such a pile of shit sometimes.
The good news is the trend is downwards.
Bernies seemingly complete uninterest in foreign policy is worrying
Most people don't really care about foreign policy. They care about health care, college tuition and money in politics. This is some of the reasons I think Bernie is the better candidate. Most people care about the issues Bernie is putting forward.
majority of americans
Ever since Dukakis got killed over it in '88, the issue has lost potency among voters on the left, and it's been reflected in our choice of nominees.majority of americans
Bernies seemingly complete uninterest on foreign policy is worrying
Still has enough good policies to get my vote, but I really wish he would start preparing for FP questions before a debate. It always seems like he's surprised by them.Bernies seemingly complete uninterest in foreign policy is worrying
Priorities dawg. Gotta take care of the home before you can look elsewhere.
That tweet from one of his staffers after someone endorsed Clinton. Ugh, he has the worst people working for him.
While I agree he's relying upon it too much its literally why we're fighting ISIS right now.The biggest problem with Bernie's foreign policy arguments is his constant reference to the Iraq war vote in '02. Yes, he made the right call and Hillary didn't. It's a valid point. But we get it already! He brings it up over and over again, in every issue related to foreign policy, that it comes off as his default response to anything. And he himself (seemingly) put a pin in it tonight when he said the most important thing what we can learn from the experience of going to war in Iraq... and yet then once again reminded everyone that Hillary voted for it.
Apparently. Not a very 'progressive' view though. I'll kill you because you killed others is a ridiculous, barbaric and hypocritical principle.
Bernies seemingly complete uninterest in foreign policy is worrying
The biggest problem with Bernie's foreign policy arguments is his constant reference to the Iraq war vote in '02. Yes, he made the right call and Hillary didn't. It's a valid point. But we get it already! He brings it up over and over again, in every issue related to foreign policy, that it comes off as his default response to anything. And he himself (seemingly) put a pin in it tonight when he said the most important thing what we can learn from the experience of going to war in Iraq... and yet then once again reminded everyone that Hillary voted for it.
Priorities dawg. Gotta take care of the home before you can look elsewhere.
US is too fucked to be worrying about anyone else but ourselves.
That's why I prefer her to Bernie. Bernie is a great idealogue, but he is just not a leader (IMO).
Luckily presidents get to surround themselves with dozens if not hundreds of experts in all sorts of fields. I like to think that his administration as a whole would help him on foreign policy issues and trade issues when necessary. Hillary is without a doubt the better foreign policy pick even if she comes with Saudi strings attached.
Right, he has good ideas, he just doesn't convey them confidently. He needs to work on that.Personally I prefer Sander's foreign policy - fair trade deals trying to eliminate slave wage at home and abroad. Paying more attention to a mad man with a Nuclear Weapon able to carry out genocide in hours. Trying to be more evenhanded in the middle east by continuing dialog with Iran.
That would be nice but the president doesn't get to choose when foreign issues come up.
Luckily presidents get to surround themselves with dozens if not hundreds of experts in all sorts of fields. I like to think that his administration as a whole would help him on foreign policy issues and trade issues when necessary. Hillary is without a doubt the better foreign policy pick even if she comes with Saudi strings attached.
It is less about presidential races and more about congress. Nationally a presidential candidate can raise enough money to compete. But a progressive congressional candidate in a rural area can't raise enough to compete with superpac money.
Priorities dawg. Gotta take care of the home before you can look elsewhere.
money in politics is the reason Flint Michigan couldn't afford detroit water for its residents anymore because governor Snyder gave tons of tax breaks to big businesses, costing the state billions of dollars
so because Gov. Snyder has to scratch the backs of the people who helped him get elected, that means he has to get that money back somewhere, and it happened to be through the wellbeing of the children in his state
It's almost as repetitive as Hillary's touted experience with FP, yet her FP is known mostly for its blunders.
But what we should have learned is that sometimes you don't always have that option. Case in point: ISIS.
Bernie just looks and sounds like an old man. Nothing about him inspires confidence or screams leadership.
But what we should have learned is that sometimes you don't always have that option. Case in point: ISIS.
And presidents always get tested, and foreign leaders will probe us.The president doesn't get to choose what issues come up, they got to deal with what happens when it happens.
Sorry to break this to you, but Republican's would be for giving rich people massive tax breaks and fucking over the infrastructure of poor brown or black people even under publicly funded elections.
So how does not talking about foreign issues of today have anything to do with hypothetical issues that will "come up"? Of course any sitting President will have daily briefs on global events/issues/calamities.
Not sure how ISIS is a good example of anything you're attempting to prove? Elaborate?
And how does focusing/not focusing on ISIS have anything to do with economic/social policy in the U.S? Besides deflecting attention of course.
Michael DukakisStill blows my mind that hillary is for the death penalty. With all the 'im so progressive' stuff I really assumed that perspective of her's 'evolved' as well. Who the fuck is in favor of the death penalty? Come on.
But invading a country sounds scarier than what's actually happening.
Russia is essentially supporting an insurgency to retain a part of Ukraine when a few years ago all of Ukraine was allied to them.
Not very expansionist.
Overreacting to such a non-event. That's the danger from the US side.
It's the Republican way, putting corporate profits over the well being of your middle and lower class citizens.money in politics is the reason Flint Michigan couldn't afford detroit water for its residents anymore because governor Snyder gave tons of tax breaks to big businesses, costing the state billions of dollars
so because Gov. Snyder has to scratch the backs of the people who helped him get elected, that means he has to get that money back somewhere, and it happened to be through the wellbeing of the children in his state
You should just cast your vote for Rubio right now, then.