Don't follow her enough to fully know her positions, but pretty sure I've heard a few I didn't agree with. Would still favor her over Trump for sure (but then, I'd favor a random 12 year old over him). I'd have considered Gary Johnson if I didn't think he was bat**** crazy (but I also vehemently disagreed with him on (I think?) abortion).

The truth is (and what most here don't seem to understand) is that it's possible to care about more than one thing at a time. It's possible to be for the 2A (a conservative position) and still be pro choice. I think for myself and many times I'm wrong and have to re-evaluate my position. But I'd rather be an independent and wrong sometimes than to be a sheep and blindly follow one party or the other across the board.

That's not her talking record it's her voting record. Also regarding the big banks she has introduced bills for a 21st century glass-steagall act more than once.

Okay, so I stand corrected. But I was right that she originally was going to vote to confirm him. I'm all about being forgiving and allowing one to change their mind. But Ben Carson? This is a neurosurgeon who doesn't believe in evolution with ZERO experience in the department he's heading. Why do you think she ever thought he would be fine?

Like I said. I believe she's progressive. But the only TRUE progressive candidate was Sanders and I believe she was for HRC all along. If I'm wrong. I'm wrong, but that was my take. If you can convince me she would have preferred a Sanders presidency over HRC, I'll change my mind about her very quickly.

Is this thread about Donald Trump really now about the faults of his polar opposite

Also in regards to Warren's criticism of Democrats her interview about Hillary and the bankruptcy bill was absolutely the best, most credible, and relevant critique of Hillary in the primary race. ( UPS excluding some foreign policy stuff.)

No, it's about her imagined faults.

Totally agree with your last sentence. I also agree that "Socialism" is a scary word to conservatives. But Sanders definitely appealed to the emotion of voters and think he had a much better chance of beating Trump than HRC ever did. I honestly can't decide if I'm a socialist or not. I just want a FAIR system. If that's socialism, so be it. But Democrats are not for a fair system. They are corrupt just in far subtler ways than the GOP is.

"Subtler" eh. Really should just read 'less corrupt'.

You give this same spiel in about 1/2 of your posts here. You're perpetually trying to save face.

Based on the topic it appears that Trump didn't do anything uniquely stupid yet.

He did. And he would have. Played much better with Midwestern working class whites, viewed as more honest and trustworthy, hasn't flip-flopped on his positions over the years, would've drawn out more young people. He wins Michigan no sweat, probably Wisconsin, and then all he needs is to improve on her performance by winning 1 of the 3 of FL/PA/NC.

There's no state he'd have lost that she won.

Before I clicked this or read your comments, I was of the mind that Kamala should be the 2020 D pick. She has no identifiable negative. There's no way this strong, intelligent, experienced, liberal woman of color loses to Donald Trump, when it took TWENTY-FIVE years of character assassination of Hillary Clinton for Trump to win by 78K votes across three states.

It is a deadly cult, as is Christianity.

But not on election day, I would guess.

Not only is this not true about Warren, what?

Like man, I'm all ****ing on board with leftist purity tests. Full communism baby, let's run it.

But Lestat, you're an #AllLivesMatter guy who thinks Democrats support the social safety net to keep people poor, you think non-racist people getting called racist for non-racistly opposing Muslim immigration caused them to vote for Trump as a glorious revenge against PC, and let's not even get into the trans people in bathrooms ****.


The MOMENT you hear any of Sanders rhetoric on race or poverty, you're jumping off that bandwagon in a ****ing instant. The only thing you like about Sanders is you vaguely associate him with anti-establishment rhetoric, when we leave the abstract and get to the specifics it's going to get ugly.

This is weird kind of semantics game. Wait times for care is a form of rationing, but as you note it's done reasonably effectively. "Rationing", meaning treating very sick people first, isn't a reason to criticize a health care system. Canada's health care system is fine. The problem with Canada's health care system is the outlandishly high expectations that Canadians have of their health care system. People want to believe that we have universal, immediate, high quality health care for everybody so they're naturally disappointed with any alleged "failing" of the system. Like, parking prices at Toronto hospitals has been a massive scandal. HOW CAN YOU CHARGE $40 DOLLARS FOR PARKING HEALTH CARE IS SUPPOSED TO BE FREE!?!?!?

Don't Lol @ you and anyone else who tries to put Christianity in the same category as Islam. I know you guys are especially salty at Christians right now but try not to let your saltiness cloud your judgement.

Fine is a relative term in this environment. Sometimes you accept the horror you know to avoid the unknown horror that may have been his substitute.

If your argument was that she was being reasonable, I would agree but also point out that maybe isn't a bad thing.

True. Islam is more believable. Unless you mean something else when you say "category", like how nice it feels or whatever.

Lunatic christians killed half a million Iraqis, while fanatic muslims killed 3,000 on 9/11. Pretty clear that the brown people are in the wrong here.

/sarcasm

Degree, not kind.

Quit talking smack about my sweet sexy Jesus.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-ideology.html

This is a insightful look at how Trump's gibberish(to us) played so well outside the bubble politics junkies

Trump is a machine learning algorithm. He says stuff and gauges he reaction. Positive reaction gets repeated, negative reaction gets dropped. That's all he knows.