Phx-Suns.Net

It may be time for a woman

what does that even mean?

ShelC wrote:For the record, my last post was sarcasm.

I don't want this to devolve into a thread war but I was mildly insulted of being accused of sexism. That does seem to be a common theme among Hillary supporters tho.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the other politicians were up to dirty tricks means we can't or shouldn't hold our next President - Black, White, Male, Female, whatever - up to a higher standard? Just keep on with the status quo? You have to admit there's a conflict of interest when someone running for President is giving speeches to and working with the 1%, living like the 1% and taking money from the 1% and then walking out to the public and talking about the best interests of "everyday people".

I get there are two sides to politicians. But she's corrupt. She's a greedy liar who, ironically, IS held to a different standard when it comes to the law and federal investigations because of her position within the government.

I can't argue with any of that. My only problem is that I think she is most likely of the 4 candidates to improve the state of the middle class, which is the first step towards beginning to heal the great divide in this country.

Nodack wrote:She is a politician. We don't know what's true or the public position. In Lincoln they were trying to get a certain thing accomplished and had to greese wheels by promising things to people apposed to ending slavery to get their vote. Those are the things that go on in Washington every day for hundreds of years. She knows how to work the system to get the results she wants. If I thought the reslults she wanted was not in our best interests I wouldn't vote for her. I believe she has decent intentions and knows how to work with people to get things done. We may not like everything that goes on behind closed doors but, it is Washington.

Trump has burned most of the bridges in Washington already from both sides and has no intentions on working with anybody or compromising on anything IMO. How is he going t get anything done when nobody likes him?

The bold part is where we disagree.

Superbone wrote:Yeah, how can one hold Clinton to different standards than everybody before her? Because she's a woman?

Nope. You are talking about 2 different standards. The standard you have held in the past and the standard ShelC holds now. People are always entitled to change the standards they hold people to, and nobody is obligated to settle for someone else's standards.

Nodack wrote:I think Trump and Bernie did shake things up a bit and serve Washington notice that people aren't happy with the staus quo. Congress approval ratings were in the single digits as well. Some want Washington shut down and some just want it to function but, all want change.

I wish I could believe it would do some good. But I remember Ross Perot costing the republicans the whitehouse. Republican voters cared so much about fiscal responsibility and taking care of the future of the country that they handed the election to the Dems by voting Perot. That issue has never even been a talking point in any election since. The very next republican President was the highest debt president in history.

The parties don't care at all what the people want beyond making sure they say enough of what we want to hear.

I'm not well versed in the politics behind the talking heads because I truly feel that is all they are. A puppet to be paraded by their party and the subsequent lobbyists. The rich get richer (and I'm not talking the wealthy. I'm talking the 1%) while we wave our fists at each other about which candidate will best represent us and our interests. Those are the least of the worries behind those that run things and their interests will always trump our rights until our significance becomes nothing.

We're being distracted all the time while being phased out as individuals.

AmareIsGod wrote: We're being... phased out as individuals.

Speak for yourself.

Lol.

It will only take one substantial wiki leak for her to lose. The fact that we are this close to having an open fascist becoming president is scary.

I don't think the Wikileaks are stopping her at this point. She's way ahead, up close to +10 points in some polls. It would take a real bombshell, and even then I think she would have a good chance.

I've become 100% convinced that Hillary is going to win, given the last disastrous few weeks for Trump. The real question to me is whether the Democrats will regain the House and/or Senate. That will be really interesting to watch. Trump may mess things up down the ballot for other Republicans. It could do decades of damage to the party.

I do like checks and balances, but the Republicans in Congress have been such obstructionists about everything that I kind of want to see them lose some of that power that has been abused.

That happened after Bush. Democrats took control of everything. That's why Obamacare passed.

Wikileaks hasn't impressed me with any bog bombshells about Clinton.

If I thought the results she wanted was not in our best interests I wouldn't vote for her. I believe she has decent intentions.

You don't believe her intentions are good? What bad intentions do you believe she is planning?

I think Trump has good intentions. I just think he doesn't know what he is doing or talking about and is a twitter insult away from launching nukes at the first country that pisses him off. I don't think he can work with anybody who on anything. It's his way of the highway and that's not how Washington works. I still think he has good intentions for the most part even if they don't jive with my moral compass.

O_Gardino wrote:

Nodack wrote:I think Trump and Bernie did shake things up a bit and serve Washington notice that people aren't happy with the staus quo. Congress approval ratings were in the single digits as well. Some want Washington shut down and some just want it to function but, all want change.

I wish I could believe it would do some good. But I remember Ross Perot costing the republicans the whitehouse. Republican voters cared so much about fiscal responsibility and taking care of the future of the country that they handed the election to the Dems by voting Perot. That issue has never even been a talking point in any election since. The very next republican President was the highest debt president in history.

The parties don't care at all what the people want beyond making sure they say enough of what we want to hear.

I voted for Perot. I think you are right. They just say what they think we want to hear for the most part. I try to be a good judge of charactor. I believed Perot had a plan to change things for the better, believed he believed what he was saying and I beleived in his caractor. Trump and Clinton both say what they think we want hear IMO to be elected.

I think Clinton will be par for the course meaning she won't move mountains and change much but, I beleive she has the temperment to not start a war the first time some leader insults her. I think she has good intentions. I don't think she hates America and is going to take all guns away or turn us into communist country. She has been in office a long time and has seen everything and even Secretary of Defense Gates has good things to say about her in his book along with other not as good things but, he trusted her decisions but, thought she was a little partisan. He thought they all were partisan. They are politicians. They almost can't help it.

I don't beleive anything Trump says. I don't think he's religious and is just pretending to be. I don't beleive he's really a Republican. I think he thinks he will snap his fingers and make America great. He thinks he knows more about everything than anybody on the planet. He doesn't listen to anybody and insults everybody. I don't trust his temperment at all. His universe revolves around making himself look good at all times. If he does something inexcusable he never takes the blame and blames somebody else.


I am not the only one that sees thru Trump. I have never heard of so many Republicans being against the Republican nominee in my lifetime. I have never seen so many conservative papers come out against the Republican nominee in my lifetime.

O_Gardino wrote:

Nodack wrote:I think Trump and Bernie did shake things up a bit and serve Washington notice that people aren't happy with the staus quo. Congress approval ratings were in the single digits as well. Some want Washington shut down and some just want it to function but, all want change.

I wish I could believe it would do some good. But I remember Ross Perot costing the republicans the whitehouse. Republican voters cared so much about fiscal responsibility and taking care of the future of the country that they handed the election to the Dems by voting Perot. That issue has never even been a talking point in any election since. The very next republican President was the highest debt president in history.

The parties don't care at all what the people want beyond making sure they say enough of what we want to hear.

I think next month there will be a documentary released from ESPN and fivethirtyeight that explains this isn't true. Perot didn't pull away more votes from the GOP than from the Dems.

O_Gardino wrote:

Nodack wrote:She is a politician. We don't know what's true or the public position. In Lincoln they were trying to get a certain thing accomplished and had to greese wheels by promising things to people apposed to ending slavery to get their vote. Those are the things that go on in Washington every day for hundreds of years. She knows how to work the system to get the results she wants. If I thought the reslults she wanted was not in our best interests I wouldn't vote for her. I believe she has decent intentions and knows how to work with people to get things done. We may not like everything that goes on behind closed doors but, it is Washington.

Trump has burned most of the bridges in Washington already from both sides and has no intentions on working with anybody or compromising on anything IMO. How is he going t get anything done when nobody likes him?

The bold part is where we disagree.

I completely understand what you are saying. And I agree. Although I would argue that of the 4 people running, the Venn diagram of her self-interest and closing the enormous divide between the bottom 20-25% and the top is more overlapping than the others.

Indy wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Nodack wrote:I think Trump and Bernie did shake things up a bit and serve Washington notice that people aren't happy with the staus quo. Congress approval ratings were in the single digits as well. Some want Washington shut down and some just want it to function but, all want change.

I wish I could believe it would do some good. But I remember Ross Perot costing the republicans the whitehouse. Republican voters cared so much about fiscal responsibility and taking care of the future of the country that they handed the election to the Dems by voting Perot. That issue has never even been a talking point in any election since. The very next republican President was the highest debt president in history.

The parties don't care at all what the people want beyond making sure they say enough of what we want to hear.

I think next month there will be a documentary released from ESPN and fivethirtyeight that explains this isn't true. Perot didn't pull away more votes from the GOP than from the Dems.

My mistake. It is just a short 10 minute film on their site.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... erot-myth/

Indy wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Nodack wrote:I think Trump and Bernie did shake things up a bit and serve Washington notice that people aren't happy with the staus quo. Congress approval ratings were in the single digits as well. Some want Washington shut down and some just want it to function but, all want change.

I wish I could believe it would do some good. But I remember Ross Perot costing the republicans the whitehouse. Republican voters cared so much about fiscal responsibility and taking care of the future of the country that they handed the election to the Dems by voting Perot. That issue has never even been a talking point in any election since. The very next republican President was the highest debt president in history.

The parties don't care at all what the people want beyond making sure they say enough of what we want to hear.

I think next month there will be a documentary released from ESPN and fivethirtyeight that explains this isn't true. Perot didn't pull away more votes from the GOP than from the Dems.

I'll be interested to watch that.

Regardless of where the votes came from, neither party has been willing to talk about balancing the budget.

O_Gardino wrote:

Indy wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Nodack wrote:I think Trump and Bernie did shake things up a bit and serve Washington notice that people aren't happy with the staus quo. Congress approval ratings were in the single digits as well. Some want Washington shut down and some just want it to function but, all want change.

I wish I could believe it would do some good. But I remember Ross Perot costing the republicans the whitehouse. Republican voters cared so much about fiscal responsibility and taking care of the future of the country that they handed the election to the Dems by voting Perot. That issue has never even been a talking point in any election since. The very next republican President was the highest debt president in history.

The parties don't care at all what the people want beyond making sure they say enough of what we want to hear.

I think next month there will be a documentary released from ESPN and fivethirtyeight that explains this isn't true. Perot didn't pull away more votes from the GOP than from the Dems.

I'll be interested to watch that.

Regardless of where the votes came from, neither party has been willing to talk about balancing the budget.

http://www.phx-suns.net/viewtopic.php?p=68960#p68936

O_Gardino wrote: Regardless of where the votes came from, neither party has been willing to talk about balancing the budget.

They talk about balancing the budget, they just don't do it. Just as well, because under current economic conditions it's actually good policy to run a deficit.

At this point I don't think we are ever going to pay back the national debt. Some of it is owed to rich Americans, and some is owed to other nations like China. I think we'll eventually go into some kind of war with China and declare that we aren't going to pay them back. And we'll tell the rich Americans that they just aren't going to get their money. I know that all sounds ludicrous, but so does the thought of them actually paying back $22 trillion or whatever it is up to.

We've been here before.

What have we been doing for the last decade that compares with the WWII economic effort?

Spending more money while cutting taxes on the rich.