US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[Moshe123]

Bernie has TONS of followers.
Consider that without the superdelegates who were in HRC's pocket from before the race, HRC wouldn't be nominated.

Just looked it up, Bernie received 12,024,768 votes during the primaries.

Hillary beat Bernie just as easily among the elected delegates.

[aygart]

When you said:

you were referring to politicians and not the general masses?

Of course! aren't those the ones who would need to stand up to her or the ones who would push her agenda?

[yuneeq]

Of course! aren't those the ones who would need to stand up to her or the ones who would push her agenda?

If Bernie supporters vote for trump or even just vote against HIRC, then no, politicians won't make an iota of a difference.

[Yehuda57]

The Ds are definitely more likely to go along with Hillary than the Rs are to go along with Trump.

A President Trump could most definitely make huge changes to foreign policy, free trade, and could potentially destroy every alliance built in the past by the US. Destroying NATO is something he is not in the least bit concerned about, something universally feared by Ds and Rs.

He already got the GOP itself to change its platform to be more Putin-friendly.
 

90% of your post is simply that you have been sold on the D/MSM narrative and are seeing confirmation bias.

So here's the thing. I don't follow mainstream media. I don't own a TV and I generally don't read/watch left leaning stuff.* I primarily read conservative opinions, and follow people I find interesting. If anything *that* is my confirmation bias.

You think he will be better than Hilary? Fine. But at least articulate HOW you can be sure. And don't tell me Trump is a fine candidate. Walker, for instance, said he could not endorse trump so long as he did not walk back his comments about the Federal judge in his case. Trump didn't. Walker endorsed. He didn't just shrug and say #NeverHilary. He endorsed Trump as a candidate. As did Rubio, Ryan and others.

(*outside of comedians who I think are funny, even if often wrong. Case in point: last night John Oliver had a segment about politicians stealing music in which he highlighted Trump's use of Queen without permission. Except the GOP licensed the song and did pay to use it. He was wrong. Queen was wrong. Segment was still funny.)

[David Smith]

Is this supposed to refute what I wrote or prove it? Who are the superdelegates? The Washington establishment. Who were they all for? Hillary. So who exactly is stopping anything she would try to do? The college student high on weed?

They're the ones who nominated Trump. Never underestimate public opinion.

[aygart]

They're the ones who nominated Trump. Never underestimate public opinion.

Bernie supporters nominated trump?

[David Smith]

Bernie supporters nominated trump?

The anti establishment people on weed.

[JTZ]

Since when does Trump have a reputation of being lazy?

I have heard a lot of things about Trump but that is not one of them.

[hachover]

A President Trump could most definitely make huge changes to foreign policy, free trade, and could potentially destroy every alliance built in the past by the US. Destroying NATO is something he is not in the least bit concerned about, something universally feared by Ds and Rs.

This point about destroying alliances and eliminating all the wonderful things we get out of NATO is just repeating scare tactics. To the average American, NATO and NAFTA both look like a fool's deals for the US. Could eliminating them and starting from scratch put the US in a worse position? Possibly yes, and a president might have access to some higher level strategic reasons that we don't all see that justify it. But just as likely not. Personally, I do believe that if we reopened NAFTA and other trade agreements we could come off better - and I would like to see Trump in charge of doing that.

I will not believe that we will automatically suffer by questioning how we interact with the rest of the globe. The rest of the world ostensibly benefits more than we do from these agreements, and would be even worse off without them than we would be.

[aygart]

I don't get what you guys are saying. Who are you discussing that will tag along and allow H or T to do as they wish or to stand up to them? The only ones that matter come Jan21 are those in congress, the courts, or the bureaucracies. Of those they are much more likely to go along with H than T on every single level of government.

[aygart]

A President Trump could most definitely make huge changes to foreign policy, free trade, and could potentially destroy every alliance built in the past by the US. Destroying NATO is something he is not in the least bit concerned about, something universally feared by Ds and Rs.

Very little of that can be done without congressional approval. The primary alliances which affect us now are those with muslim countries anyhow. Those were already destroyed by O and his secretary of state H.

So here's the thing. I don't follow mainstream media. I don't own a TV and I generally don't read/watch left leaning stuff.* I primarily read conservative opinions, and follow people I find interesting. If anything *that* is my confirmation bias.

So your confirmation bias is from #neverTrump guys like Bill Kristol? Then you are dealing with triple confirmation bias. His head turns off as soon as you mention Trump and he just starts foaming at the mouth saying stupidity. I still can't figure out what the issue is with the judge story. The judge probably is biased.

[ExGingi]

This point about destroying alliances and eliminating all the wonderful things we get out of NATO is just repeating scare tactics. To the average American, NATO and NAFTA both look like a fool's deals for the US. Could eliminating them and starting from scratch put the US in a worse position? Possibly yes, and a president might have access to some higher level strategic reasons that we don't all see that justify it. But just as likely not. Personally, I do believe that if we reopened NAFTA and other trade agreements we could come off better - and I would like to see Trump in charge of doing that.

I will not believe that we will automatically suffer by questioning how we interact with the rest of the globe. The rest of the world ostensibly benefits more than we do from these agreements, and would be even worse off without them than we would be.

+1

January 21st 2017 is way different than the time leading up to the November elections.

Trump KNOWS that he cannot do even a tenth of what he is saying. It's a strategy to get the populist vote, and he's clearly after the Sanders vote, with Wasserman-Schultz coming to his aid.

As for renegotiating treaties, just look at what the big honchos at the EU said after the Brexit vote. They realized that if they continue along their path, the EU will break up very fast, and admitted that they are willing to change course and allow EU member nations more flexibility in various issues. If Trump manages to scare the rest of the world into renegotiating deals, rather than just abolishing them (which he is unlikely to do).

I've said it during the primary season, the D's has a Bolshevik running against a Communist. The latest debacle with DWS and the wikileaks dump just exposes to those were were naive enough not to realize it up until now, that the D party is a Bolshevik party, whereby the goal justifies all means. There is NOTHING democratic about the DEMOCRAT party. If enough Americans realize this, I think the D's don't stand a chance. I believe that when faced with the facts, Americans still want to keep the American democracy and freedom.

[Moshe123]

Donald Trump calls Hillary Clinton "Hillary Rotten Clinton" on CNN.

Now trending on Twitter.

[Yehuda57]

This point about destroying alliances and eliminating all the wonderful things we get out of NATO is just repeating scare tactics.

Wait, even if every elected official disagrees with him - even his supporters, like Mitch McConnel who called his NATO comments "a rookie mistake" (Never mind the "rookie" is running for most powerful person in the world) - it is just scare tactics?

To the average American, NATO and NAFTA both look like a fool's deals for the US. Could eliminating them and starting from scratch put the US in a worse position? Possibly yes, and a president might have access to some higher level strategic reasons that we don't all see that justify it.

Disregarding NATO is an idea he floated without being privy to that presidential knowledge.

Personally, I do believe that if we reopened NAFTA and other trade agreements we could come off better - and I would like to see Trump in charge of doing that.

And personally I believe there is no evidence that Trump would be able to negotiate a good deal.

I will not believe that we will automatically suffer by questioning how we interact with the rest of the globe. The rest of the world ostensibly benefits more than we do from these agreements, and would be even worse off without them than we would be.

Source?

I have no issue with questioning them and renegotiating deals. I believe Trump has done and said nothing to inspire the confidence that he is the guy for the job. Quite the contrary

[ExGingi]

And personally I believe there is no evidence that Trump would be able to negotiate a good deal.

Why? Has he done bad in bankruptcy court renegotiating deals?

[aygart]

And personally I believe there is no evidence that Trump would be able to negotiate a good deal.

That is fair as a personal belief, but is there evidence that Hillary would be able to?

[Yehuda57]

That is fair as a personal belief, but is there evidence that Hillary would be able to?

"Personal belief" was borrowing OP's phrasing.

I wouldn't trust HRC to renegotiate reward charts with my toddler.

[aygart]

"Personal belief" was borrowing OP's phrasing.

I wouldn't trust HRC to renegotiate reward charts with my toddler.

How about to negotiate with Iran or any other international negotiation? It is a question of better or worse not good or bad.

[skyguy918]

Why? Has he done bad in bankruptcy court renegotiating deals?

Um... are you touting his bankruptcy record as a positive?

[yoohoo]

If Bernie would get up and fight Hillary after all this scandals, they would give him the nomination...