Support NeoGAF

[Abinash117]

What I've said is logical. I don't call the Hilary supporting liberals insane because they're not, I get why they do it. I'm just saying I think they're wrong/misguided.

How is that logical? Why would a liberal which is the opposite of a right wing guy support that guy and how would it be better for the liberal?

A right wing guy would enact policies that liberal would not support at all, very dangerous policies in mind of a liberal. Like Ted Cruz would cut everything and potentially gay people, with the expectation of the military. Why would liberals do that to themselves; I don't believe many people are masochists. That's like 'here's the worst option and the worstest option, but choose the worstest option' . I don't see the logic.

 

[Velcro Fly]

My fellow Decepticons! As your new leader, I—

...

WHO DISRUPTS MY CORONATION!!??

This was the attitude she had 8 years ago that gave us Obama instead.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm a communist and would rather Rand Paul be in office than Hilary. He is likely to be to the left of her on the drug war, NSA, and foreign policy. He's disastrous in other areas, most obviously in economics, but so is Hilary, who loves wall street just as much and would privatize as much as possible.

From a purely long term tactical standpoint it's better for liberals to have a right-wing candidate implementing right-wing ideas than a "liberal" one. This should be the lesson of Obama.

I'm hoping Sanders runs so there can be at least some kind of left opposition in the shit stain that is the democratic party.

Dude... This is exactly what happened with George Bush. Al Gore wasn't liberal enough and was coronated as the next presidential nominee, and then the American voters gave Bush eight years to fuck up and prove Republicans are incompetent, leading to the election of... Obama, who the same liberals who complain about Clinton say isn't liberal enough.

The country is not going to elect a socialist anytime soon. I would work my ass off for Sanders while fully knowing it's a losing battle - Hillary frankly is close enough to my views that I won't have any problem voting for her.

Rand Paul would be better? Jesus Christ.

This is almost as bad as the people who say a Republican should win so the the Republicans in Congress can stop holding the country hostage. Yes, let's reward the Republican Party for all the good they bring to the world.

 

[Angry Fork]

How is that logical? Why would a liberal which is the opposite of a right wing guy support that guy and how would it be better for the liberal?

A right wing guy would enact policies that liberal would not support at all, very dangerous policies in mind of a liberal. Like Ted Cruz would cut everything and potentially gay people, with the expectation of the military. Why would liberals do that to themselves; I don't believe many people are masochists. That's like 'here's the worst option and the worstest option, but choose the worstest option' . I don't see the logic.

On almost every issue, Hilary is going to do what Rand Paul would do, with the exception of ending and/or at least modifying 1. the drug war, 2. US empire abroad and relationship with Israel, 3. NSA.

On those 3 things Rand Paul has a much much better reputation/past on than Hilary (whether or not he'll flip flop is another issue, I'm talking purely on how he talks vs. how she talks about these policies). Hilary will not only keep all of that intact, but likely make it worse, with the exception of marijuana legalization which is likely too far to go back on now.

Dude... This is exactly what happened with George Bush. Al Gore wasn't liberal enough and was coronated as the next presidential nominee, and then the American voters gave Bush eight years to fuck up and prove Republicans are incompetent, leading to the election of... Obama, who the same liberals who complain about Clinton say isn't liberal enough.

The country is not going to elect a socialist anytime soon. I would work my ass off for Sanders while fully knowing it's a losing battle - Hillary frankly is close enough to my views that I won't have any problem voting for her.

Rand Paul would be better? Jesus Christ.

This is almost as bad as the people who say a Republican should win so the the Republicans in Congress can stop holding the country hostage. Yes, let's reward the Republican Party for all the good they bring to the world.

The right stays winning because they have a radical insurgency (tea party) which does not compromise and cares more about ideology than pragmatism. This is something the left desperately needs if people are serious about ending the slew of fucked up shit in this country. Electing Hilary would reinforce all of that fucked up shit and reward democrats for moving further and further right.

As for Bush, IMO that era proves my point as far as long term tactics go. Were the democrats not overwhelmingly voted in after the republicans imploded? Were the liberals not more radical against Bush? They were. If a democrat was doing the things Bush did, liberals wouldn't say shit because it's a democrat, Obama is proof of this. If a republican does it, suddenly liberals grow a backbone again.

Hilary is going to be right wing, people are foolish if you think otherwise. So it's either Hilary with 70% right wing/30% centrist, or Rand Paul who's also mostly right wing but a few areas that are decidedly leftist. When the libertarian crew fucks up the economy even more, there will be an angry and organized left (like during end of Bush years), to elect democrats again. I don't like the democratic party but if they're the only force on a national level then it must be brought back to an economically populist, left-wing stance. Electing Hilary will not do this at all, it's rewarding the worst elements of the party.

All that being said, Paul is the only right winger I'd be in favor of over Hilary, because of his few leftist positions. Any other republican would undoubtedly be worse. The worst possible outcome would be Hilary vs. Bush. Like I said before, I hope Sanders runs but I have no doubt liberals will shit on him for very sad misguided reasons.

 

[Abinash117]

On almost every issue, Hilary is going to do what Rand Paul would do, with the exception of ending and/or at least modifying 1. the drug war, 2. US empire abroad and relationship with Israel, 3. NSA.

On those 3 things Rand Paul has a much much better reputation/past on than Hilary (whether or not he'll flip flop is another issue, I'm talking purely on how he talks vs. how she talks about these policies). Hilary will not only keep all of that intact, but likely make it worse, with the exception of marijuana legalization which is likely too far to go back on now.



The right stays winning because they have a radical insurgency (tea party) which does not compromise and cares more about ideology than pragmatism. This is something the left desperately needs if people are serious about ending the slew of fucked up shit in this country. Electing Hilary would reinforce all of that fucked up shit and reward democrats for moving further and further right.

As for Bush, IMO that era proves my point as far as long term tactics go. Were the democrats not overwhelmingly voted in after the republicans imploded? Were the liberals not more radical against Bush? They were. If a democrat was doing the things Bush did, liberals wouldn't say shit because it's a democrat, Obama is proof of this. If a republican does it, suddenly liberals grow a backbone again.

Hilary is going to be right wing, people are foolish if you think otherwise. So it's either Hilary with 70% right wing/30% centrist, or Rand Paul who's also mostly right wing but a few areas that are decidedly leftist. When the libertarian crew fucks up the economy even more, there will be an angry and organized left (like during end of Bush years), to elect democrats again. I don't like the democratic party but if they're the only force on a national level then it must be brought back to an economically populist, left-wing stance. Electing Hilary will not do this at all, it's rewarding the worst elements of the party.

All that being said, Paul is the only right winger I'd be in favor of over Hilary, because of his few leftist positions. Any other republican would undoubtedly be worse. The worst possible outcome would be Hilary vs. Bush. Like I said before, I hope Sanders runs but I have no doubt liberals will shit on him for very sad misguided reasons.

Your not talking 'right wing' you are talking about Rand Paul.

So basically we should elect a guy that you think will fuck up the nation to all hell and in biblical proportions, to prove to people that we should never vote for a Republican because you think Hillary is the same as Rand Paul, a known flip flopper, that we don't really even know that he even agrees with his own bullshit and we should all vote for him to prove that point? That point which also states that Hillary will get more right wing if she wins.

Okay so what happens after Rand fucks up the nation? People will become socialist? What makes you think some else won't just take Hillary place?

 

[Mario]

On almost every issue, Hilary is going to do what Rand Paul would do, with the exception of ending and/or at least modifying 1. the drug war, 2. US empire abroad and relationship with Israel, 3. NSA.

On those 3 things Rand Paul has a much much better reputation/past on than Hilary (whether or not he'll flip flop is another issue, I'm talking purely on how he talks vs. how she talks about these policies).

Given the massive discrepancy between "how he talks" and how he actually votes, that might be an issue in you assessment.

 

[Angry Fork]

Your not talking 'right wing' you are talking about Rand Paul.

So basically we should elect a guy that you think will fuck up the nation to all hell and in biblical proportions, to prove to people that we should never vote for a Republican because you think Hillary is the same as Rand Paul, a known flip flopper, that we don't really even know that he even agrees with his own bullshit and we should all vote for him to prove that point? That point which also states that Hillary will get more right wing if she wins.

Okay so what happens after Rand fucks up the nation? People will become socialist? What makes you think some else won't just take Hillary place?

The nation is already fucked and Hilary will make it as worse as Paul would. The only difference is the people's, and dem party, reaction to that.

The democratic party will never be liberal if a democrat is the one being terrible. They will defend it like they've defended Obama's right wing policies. The only way liberals grow a backbone is when they're out of power. Forcing them to do liberal things once they're in power is another issue.

 

[br0ken_shad0w]

The real key with the next presidency is new Supreme Court judges. And I'll take the one less likely to appoint the next Scalia or Thomas. Maybe now we won't fuck around with 5-4 on really important issues.

 

[DataStream]

The next presidency is about getting an SC that will pull back protections for corporations and protect civil/women's rights.

Personally, I want to see Gore run again. He had a bad strategy the first time around (still won lol) and was obviously not ready or comfortable. He is a very different person now and likely has no interest, but is the only person I can see pushing forward meaningful environmental and electoral funding reforms. If Hdawg is really going to run towards Obama's legacy, then I support her as a candidate. I can see her pushing for adding in a public option and actually getting it done, but I worry about her history of hawkishness.

 

[oti]

Oh god another US election already?
I'm not ready for the Republicans. Their stupidity is really something.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Bill Clinton is still technically referred to as Mr. President. Were his wife to win, it would make for an awkward interview.

"Madame President. Mr President."

 

[DeaviL]

Hope people don't go with the "she's already won" too much.
Might make some people think they don't need to go and vote because, Certain victory.

Republicans will flock to the voting booths regardless.

 

[ICKE]

The nation is already fucked and Hilary will make it as worse as Paul would. The only difference is the people's, and dem party, reaction to that.

The democratic party will never be liberal if a democrat is the one being terrible. They will defend it like they've defended Obama's right wing policies. The only way liberals grow a backbone is when they're out of power. Forcing them to do liberal things once they're in power is another issue.

We all know that Hillary has some antiquated views and would do nothing to change the status quo as far as the judicial system is considered. Voting for Clinton is the safe option if you enjoy a normal middle-class life. As a grandmother she will have to double-down on foreign policy so that she doesn't come across as weak. There will be more dead civilians in distant third world countries but that does not really worry the electorate - on the contrary.

Voting for radical ideas and a completely new direction would cause uncertainty in the markets and destabilize the political landscape. The reality is that the senate would never go along with Rand Paul. Representatives receive funding from various interest groups and the private prison system is a profitable business. However, the removal of ACA and various other public programs could be a reality.

The real key with the next presidency is new Supreme Court judges. And I'll take the one less likely to appoint the next Scalia or Thomas. Maybe now we won't fuck around with 5-4 on really important issues.

Only a tiny minority in the country care about such specifics. Generally speaking people are not politically active and only tune in after the debates begin, most voters probably couldn't even tell you what the SCOTUS is. Clinton leads now, because she has name recognition and people remember the good old 90's. But things can change quickly and I wonder how the optics will play out. She will be 68 years old and has to face someone much younger and probably more energetic than her.

 

[Konka]

The nation is already fucked and Hilary will make it as worse as Paul would. The only difference is the people's, and dem party, reaction to that.

The democratic party will never be liberal if a democrat is the one being terrible. They will defend it like they've defended Obama's right wing policies. The only way liberals grow a backbone is when they're out of power. Forcing them to do liberal things once they're in power is another issue.

Yes, a Republican in the white house in control of both houses of congress with several likely supreme court nominations will lead to a more liberal America. You have some lovely idealist dream about how politics is supposed to work. More often than not the pragmatic way is the only way, despite what your ideals are.

 

[Matt_]

Should be a clinton/obama ticket with Michelle as VP

 

[Guileless]

On almost every issue, Hilary is going to do what Rand Paul would do, with the exception of ending and/or at least modifying 1. the drug war, 2. US empire abroad and relationship with Israel, 3. NSA.

I agree. Plus, if Sen. Paul were elected, Congress, the markets, and the Fed would each be able to resist the implementation of any of his more 'unconventional' economic policies. If the first two years of all-Republican government led to overreaching, a Democratic wave election in '18 would almost certainly happen based on recent history. If you believe Snowden is right about everything, you would have to at least consider it.

 

[davepoobond]

Should be a clinton/obama ticket with Michelle as VP

Pretty sure she hates politics, she's getting the eff out and never coming back

 

[Khalifa Jayy]

Bush. Clinton. Bush. Obama. Clinton.

Democracy!

/s

 

[maquiladora]

Dr. Rand Paul ‏@RandPaul 20 minutes ago

http://LibertyNotHillary.com

lol

 

[gutter_trash]

Rand Paul already started using "we got to take our country back" phrase too soon

what next? Small Town Values?

 

[HylianTom]

Rand Paul already started using "we got to take our country back" phrase too soon

what next? Small Town Values?

I'm looking forward to "real America" vs "fake America." That's always worth a chuckle.

 

[Jonm1010]

The nation is already fucked and Hilary will make it as worse as Paul would. The only difference is the people's, and dem party, reaction to that.

The democratic party will never be liberal if a democrat is the one being terrible. They will defend it like they've defended Obama's right wing policies. The only way liberals grow a backbone is when they're out of power. Forcing them to do liberal things once they're in power is another issue.

You must have a very narrow number of issues you care about where paul and Clinton will carry the same views. The Supreme Court, healthcare, social safety net issues, the enviorenment and social rights issues must not factor in to your calculus.

As to the notion that a conservative government will make people realize they are more liberal, well, if Obama is right wing for you then what is your evidence this is true? It didn't happen after Reagan, it didn't happen after Bush. So why would it all of the sudden happen after a Paul election? The American people have not shown a willingness to go from one extrem to another. If paul drags the country very far right, like Reagan did. The likely outcome is that the next democrat will have moved to the right to attract the new center.

The more realistic scenario for a long-term liberal reign is to get a democratic moderate like Hillary in the White House and then follow her up with a Elizabeth Warren type. Where the new center makes a run for someone like Warren more feasible.

 

[120v]

paul aligned himself with pretty much every mainstream GOP position once he went to the senate. electing him probably wouldn't be much different than electing Bush, Walker, ect in a general sense

he's hardly a "liberal alternative" to hillary

 

[Jonm1010]

paul aligned himself with pretty much every mainstream GOP position once he went to the senate. electing him probably wouldn't be much different than electing Bush, Walker, ect in a general sense

he's hardly a "liberal alternative" to hillary

Of course.

Paul and republican congress would get the same bills passed that a bush and walker presidency would. Because the outsider views paul holds aren't going to be swallowed up by the tea party and institution republicans so where they will find common ground are on the issues they agree on, which are the same places bush and walker would find agreement. Nothing will change with the NSA and racial issues. The common ground will be taxes, dismantling social safety nets, military spending, eradicating the ACA, Supreme court nominees, privatizing institutions etc. at best paul might take a more isolationist foreign policy approach but that might not necessarily be a good thing.

This Paul is a better alternative talking point is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Rubenov]

Bush. Clinton. Bush. Obama. Clinton.

Democracy!

/s

Dat "O" Combo Breaker.

 

[Guileless]

Of course.

Paul and republican congress would get the same bills passed that a bush and walker presidency would.

Even if that were true, so much of the power the presidency wields now is via executive action and the ever-expanding authority over diplomacy with no congressional involvement. Sen. Paul has articulated fundamental disagreement with some of the core tenets of the national security state that Hillary Clinton has not and will not. If that is the most important issue to a voter, then he or she should consider voting for him over Hillary Clinton.

 

[Extra Sauce]

Please tell me Obama used air quotes when he said "excellent".

 

[Duane Cunningham]

LOOOOOOOOOOL

An alligator with a bomb, a postal Ronald McDonald and a saxophone?

AWESOME!

Lol @ saxophone. HAHAHA, oh damn that got me good

Hey to be clear, y'all realize that the saxaphone isn't just like some random element... he famously played it during in 1992 during the campaign on The Arsenio Hall show.

It was pretty bad ass to see a presidential candidate busting that out while stodgy old George HW Bush was his opponent.

And don't forget it wound up being part of the Animaniacs intro:

...man the 90's were nuts.

 

[bengraven]

She'll be an...

"excellent"

President.

 

[Loki]

If Hillary becomes president, it will mean that either a Clinton or Bush will have been president for 24 of the last 32 years (28 of the preceding 38 if she gets a second term). Yeah...there's nothing wrong with American politics at all.

 

[davepoobond]

If Hillary becomes president, it will mean that either a Clinton or Bush will have been president for 24 of the last 32 years (28 of the preceding 38 if she gets a second term). Yeah...there's nothing wrong with American politics at all.

I'd hate to see your reaction to the senate/house. There's nothing inherently bad about families going into politics.


There's only so many members of these families anyway, and its not like Hilary is a blood relative at least.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

I got a question. Is it allowed for Obama to be Vice President? lol

 

[Pastry]

Clinton/Castro

Gimme my Hispanic VP

 

[Toxi]

From a purely long term tactical standpoint it's better for liberals to have a right-wing candidate implementing right-wing ideas than a "liberal" one. This should be the lesson of Obama.

Are you high by any chance?

Like, I can't imagine anyone sober actually suggesting this.

 

[Culex]

Hillary is the best option for democrats...they don't want some crazy republican to undo 8 years of success.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I got a question. Is it allowed for Obama to be Vice President? lol

Unsure, but given the other aspects of the 22nd Amendment if he was nominated he'd probably need to resign two years later (if he was allowed to serve at all)

e: I'm a dimwit, that two-year limitation would only apply if he ascends back to the presidency somehow. The issue's whether he'd constitutionally be able to serve at all, per the very next response to this post

 

[davepoobond]

I got a question. Is it allowed for Obama to be Vice President? lol

Some people seem to argue yes, I would say no, but the Supreme Court would basically have to weigh in if it was a serious proposition that ended up coming to pass

 

[studyguy]

How is anyone taking Cruz seriously?

That dude is literally the last rung on the republican ladder mopping up all the nutjob conservatives so that when he folds and recommends whoever the real candidate is, that batshit insane demographic will actually bother voting.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

#ObamaForSupremeCourt instead.

lol imagine the salt

 

[Loki]

I'd hate to see your reaction to the senate/house. There's nothing inherently bad about families going into politics.


There's only so many members of these families anyway, and its not like Hilary is a blood relative at least.

Yes, there is certainly something inherently bad about two families controlling the most powerful nation in the world for the better part of 30+ years. I can't believe I even need to explain why this is bad.

A nation of 300+ million people, and somehow - SOMEHOW - the most qualified presidential candidates come from two families? Okay...

Might as well have a monarchy at this point, really. It's beyond transparent. Chelsea is already being groomed, too. No doubt she'll start her formal political career very soon.

 

[DrForester]

#ObamaForSupremeCourt instead.

lol imagine the salt

Nah.

#BillForSupremeCourt

 

[davepoobond]

Yes, there is certainly something inherently bad about two families controlling the most powerful nation in the world for the better part of 30+ years. I can't believe I even need to explain why this is bad.

A nation of 300+ million people, and somehow - SOMEHOW - the most qualified presidential candidates come from two families? Okay...

Might as well have a monarchy at this point, really. It's beyond transparent. Chelsea is already being groomed, too. No doubt she'll start her formal political career very soon.

your concerns are that we may as well be a monarchy, yet the people having a choice to vote to begin with makes that not true at all on its face. 99% of the positions in government are typically run by people who come from a family of politicians. It was an inevitability that this structure would make its way to the president, and since there are term limits, its not really something to be worried that much about as far as the president goes.

actual, vote-able, presidential candidates are few and far between in the modern political climate, and the president is hardly the most important cog of our whole political system -- it is certainly an important position but the impact it makes on everyday lives can be very minimal in contrast to other functions of government. Congress is full of "familial" politicians whose whole families do nothing but public service and politics. Not everyone is cut out for politics and everyone is their own person at the end of the day.

Chelsea already being "Groomed" -- why is it inherently bad that people take up professions the same as their family? You have families full of police officers, plumbers, electricians, etc etc. Politics isn't much different, and the name recognition is a big reason why they are successful.


What do you think is actually going to happen? Why does it matter if people are familial or not? Do you think they have some sort of family agenda that is separate and apart from the party line? The 2-Party system is the main limiter of diversity in politics.