Originally Posted by Jerseygirl (Post 12024661)

Really? :rolleyes:

I'm not a Trump supporter but I try to trash Clinton when I feel she deserves it...which is most of the time. Although I do admit to saying the occasional nice thing about her. :D

Originally Posted by dc koop (Post 12024682)

What about Trump? I don't recall you having much to say about his many shortcomings ::confused:

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 12024677)

Why should they when Clinton is now courting neocons and begging for support from Kissinger?

The "yeah, but Trump" argument is, and always will be bullshit.

Originally Posted by dc koop (Post 12024690)

Well there's the choice we have. No one else is going to suddenly appear. Any talk of Gary Johnson was just talk and he wouldn't have stood a chance against Hillary as Trump's GOP replacement.

Trump is an unbalanced unpredictable individual who doesn't have a clue how the US Constitution works and thinks he's either the Caped Crusader or would run America like one of his business enterprises.

Take your pick.

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12024650)

I am unsure how my post could in any manner imaginable saying the Democrats being a war party, nor supporting "trickle down" economics. You indicated my assertions were false, yet in requesting you to identify how most or even one was false no response.

My experience is exactly that- having been involved with international business directly including specifically structuring operations which included criteria of which location was more beneficial. I listed my experience and academic qualifications specifically to your comments saying my comments came from blogs. Your MBA may be more up to date, but what was the major ? Did you specifically do any case studies on (a) subsidies for large corporations for marketing, advertising and export efforts (which I think is outrageous) (b) comparing the regulatory burden between countries (c) comparing effective tax rates between countries , and within different industries ? (d) have you any practical experience operating internationally on which to base an opinion.

Partisan comments that ignore logic from both the left and right do encourage dialogue and learning. I really am amazed how my comments could be related to those who claim democrats are the war party- my own opinion is the Washington establishment of both parties have mishandled the foreign policy the last 20 to 25 years in terms of the results we are seeing.

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 12024677)

Why should they when Clinton is now courting neocons and begging for support from Kissinger?

The "yeah, but Trump" argument is, and always will be bullshit.

Originally Posted by anotherlimey (Post 12024712)

You can't say the tax rate is the highest but not acknowledge all the deductions. The effective tax rate is what counts.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 12024722)

The reality is that the US was (inadvertently) engineered to support a two-party system, which makes presidential elections an either-or decision.

If you vote for a third party, then you are selecting a spoiler who will do more to help the major candidate who you favor the least. For those who reside in swing states, voting for the spoiler is self-defeating.

It's odd for those who rightly mock supply-side economics to embrace supply-side politics. If you want the Democrats to support a more leftist candidate, then it will first be necessary to create conditions in which that leftist candidate could win the general election.

This is not a Field of Dreams election process. If a candidate who is too far left for the American electorate is nominated, then the voters will either not show up or else vote for the other guy.

And in this particular instance, one would have to be barking mad to see Trump and Clinton as equivalents. They aren't even close to being the same, and I shouldn't have to point out which one of the two is more acceptable.

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 12024698)

The fact is Trump makes it effectively a Hobson's choice, and still not a good one at that. But that shouldn't give Clinton carte blanche to move to the right without being criticised for it.

If those on the left don't feel that Clinton is offering them a candidate to vote for, then that is on Clinton and not the voters.

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 12024746)

This does kind of miss the point of what I'm trying to say. During the primary Sanders pushed Clinton to the left, and after up until the convention the negotiations were to make the platform and Clinton adopt progressive positions to win over Sanders' supporters.

Now if after the convention Clinton takes the left for granted and tries to woo disaffected Republican by moving to the right. If that's Clinton's strategy, then fair enough, but don't be surprised if she loses the progressives.

Originally Posted by dc koop (Post 12024756)

The thing is if you dislike Hillary but loathe Trump then vote for Hillary. A no vote for either only qualifies you as being even more deserving of the government you end up with

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 12024751)

Do you specific examples where you feel that Clinton has moved to the right since the conventions?

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 12024767)

Not yet, which is why I said if. But, if as reported Clinton is trying to woo Kissinger and other neocons, does that mean that a) she is willing to be more hawkish to get that support, or b) she is already hawkish enough for them to support her?