Hope you're right, but it hasn't worked out that way in the present system. When the "affordable care act" went into effect , my premium went up and my coverage went down. And I am nowhere near upper income. Hope Bernie has a better plan.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who would you support to be President of the United States: Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton?
- Thread starter Political Commentator
- Start date
Hope you're right, but it hasn't worked out that way in the present system. When the "affordable care act" went into effect , my premium went up and my coverage went down. And I am nowhere near upper income. Hope Bernie has a better plan.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Bernie's plan is to do what Canada does. Remove your healthcare cost altogether. But probably a slight tax increase. The ACA was a bumbling fricking failure on every account in terms of reducing the overall cost of healthcare. That is because corporations wrote it.
If healthcare cost went away altogether with only a slight tax increase I could go along with that. But do you think he could get it done with all the infighting in our government?
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Yes under the condition that we get a wave of people electing independents and progressive democrats in congress.
My dream is that Cruz and Clinton get their respective party's nomination and then Trump and Bernie decide to both stay in as independents. Four way race! and a surprising variety of political views represented.
The only problem is that if no one wins a majority, then the House picks the winner. And I'm not sure I'd like it to go to the House...
We share in the same dream.
VioletVortex
Well-Known Member
Oh, there is no question about it. I would definitely support Hillary out of those two. In all, I support the libertarian candidate John McAfee, but the American political system is screwed up beyond belief, so the only three candidates who have any reasonable chance of winning are Trump, Clinton, and Sanders. Out of those three, I definitely side with Sanders for his more liberal politics. Clinton has nothing that would make her appeal to liberals other than her social justice actions. I believe the emphasis should be more on freedom.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And you seriously think Trump is a conservative?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
On Fareed Zakaria's program this last Sunday, he interviewed the current prime minister of Italy, and here's a very brief synopsis of what the p.m. said:
Europeans consider Obama to be "a great president".
Europeans consider Trump to be so reckless, arrogant, and insulting whereas he cannot and should not be trusted.
Europeans consider Hillary to probably be an excellent choice because she's a good listener who doesn't try and dominate.
G.H.W. Bush was a good president but G.W.Bush was a terrible one.
Europeans consider Obama to be "a great president".
Europeans consider Trump to be so reckless, arrogant, and insulting whereas he cannot and should not be trusted.
Europeans consider Hillary to probably be an excellent choice because she's a good listener who doesn't try and dominate.
G.H.W. Bush was a good president but G.W.Bush was a terrible one.
LimeDragon99
Member
Donald Trump, Totally! First of all ANY of them are better then her, anyone who was under FBI investigation, killed four US soldiers, lied about stuff in Libya, and a list of other things SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED!!! Also I hate Bernie Sanders is because I could never vote for a Communist scumbag like him. I support Donald because he is the only Candidate who will keep illegals and Syrian refugees((Which most are not even Syrian btw)) out, he's a business man and not paid political trash, doesn't give a **** about political correctness, and make America Not the world's personal *****.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Thank you so much for showing us why we should be voting for Hillary.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Other than being a former first lady, perhaps one of the worst Secretaries of State in history, what exactly has Hillary accomplished again - besides alienating 1/2 of the Democratic Party and being a darling of Wall Street billionaires? Do tell.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Are you sure of this? She has been raking in the cash from wall street from what I've heard.
I don't see her as pro-business.
She's pro-donors-on-Wall-St, which is crony capitalism, ie, a kind of corruption.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Exactly.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
I see.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Where did you get about her being "one of the worst Secretaries of State" from? Do you remember that even the Pubs had praised her for doing a good job-- until they figured out she's a serious contender for the office of President?
So, since you obviously feel she was "one of the worst", could you be more specific as to exactly what she was "worst" at while doing her job as SoS?
BTW, did you watch Fareed Zakaria's program last Sunday whereas the prime minister of Italy praised her role as SoS while at the same time saying how the European leaders cannot even stand the thought of a Trump presidency?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Wait, what? People actually care what the current Italian Prime Minister thinks?
I take it that you cannot actually point to any of her amazing accomplishments.... Let's make it easy... Name some amazing accomplishments she had while being a Senator for New York.
... certainly cause for concern.
... I'm am absolutely sure that you know how simplistic that is.
The Haaretz March 09 opinion piece by Alexander Griffing titled On Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton Is the Only Republican Left Standing, Griffing writes:
Hillary Clinton is by far the best known commodity on either side of the U.S. presidential primaries, and that’s both her greatest asset and her biggest liability. She’s also a liberal interventionist of the old school — the only candidate in the field to have advanced the decapitation of a dictator — and that foreign policy philosophy means she stands alone in the field of candidates for the U.S. presidency, even though Republican presidents are its better-known latter-day flag-wavers.
Clinton on the Democrat's ‘far right’
Indeed, liberal interventionism isn’t so popular on the left. When Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran and rising star in the party, recently resigned her leadership role in the Democrat National Committee (whose leadership must stay neutral in the primary) to endorse Bernie Sanders, that endorsement focused solely on foreign policy — rejecting Clinton’s platform. The only mention of the Middle East in the debate between Sanders and Clinton before Sanders’ surprise upset in the Michigan primary this week was Sanders slamming spending on the Iraq war, trillions he deemed could have gone to rebuilding infrastructure in places like Flint and to education in ‘collapsing’ public school systems like in Detroit.
Gabbard’s endorsement and resignation is the manifestation of a much-discussed dynamic in this election so far — that Hillary Clinton is far to the right of her party, especially the base, on foreign policy. Gabbard said that, “As a veteran of two Middle East deployments, I know firsthand the cost of war...We need a commander in chief who will not waste precious lives and money on interventionist wars of regime change.” She didn’t mention Clinton by name but alluded to her voting in favor of Bush’s invasion of Iraq and her interventionist leanings in Libya and Syria.
Of the five major candidates left in the race, only Clinton clings to the decades-old foreign policy dynamic that has pervaded Washington since WWII — classic liberal interventionism. Clinton’s worldview, bolstered by hundreds of foreign policy advisors, asserts that the United States must “lead” the world to maintain liberal values internationally.
Clinton’s globocop approach is more easily associated today with Republicans, since George H.W. Bush co-opted it from the Democrats in his "New World Order" speech before the first Iraq war. On September 11, 1991, speaking before the U.S. Congress, Bush said, “The cost of closing our eyes to aggression is beyond mankind's power to imagine. This we do know: Our cause is just; our cause is moral; our cause is right.” Speaking at the end of last year before the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton declared “that America must lead a worldwide fight” to defeat ISIS and “radical jihadism,” which “will require a sustained commitment in every pillar of American power.” Indeed, her language familiarly echoes that employed by Bush Jr. in his speech to Congress after 9/11 when he promised to “direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war — to the destruction and to the defeat of the [Al-Qaida] global terror network.”
Clinton on the Democrat's ‘far right’
Indeed, liberal interventionism isn’t so popular on the left. When Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran and rising star in the party, recently resigned her leadership role in the Democrat National Committee (whose leadership must stay neutral in the primary) to endorse Bernie Sanders, that endorsement focused solely on foreign policy — rejecting Clinton’s platform. The only mention of the Middle East in the debate between Sanders and Clinton before Sanders’ surprise upset in the Michigan primary this week was Sanders slamming spending on the Iraq war, trillions he deemed could have gone to rebuilding infrastructure in places like Flint and to education in ‘collapsing’ public school systems like in Detroit.
Gabbard’s endorsement and resignation is the manifestation of a much-discussed dynamic in this election so far — that Hillary Clinton is far to the right of her party, especially the base, on foreign policy. Gabbard said that, “As a veteran of two Middle East deployments, I know firsthand the cost of war...We need a commander in chief who will not waste precious lives and money on interventionist wars of regime change.” She didn’t mention Clinton by name but alluded to her voting in favor of Bush’s invasion of Iraq and her interventionist leanings in Libya and Syria.
Of the five major candidates left in the race, only Clinton clings to the decades-old foreign policy dynamic that has pervaded Washington since WWII — classic liberal interventionism. Clinton’s worldview, bolstered by hundreds of foreign policy advisors, asserts that the United States must “lead” the world to maintain liberal values internationally.
Clinton’s globocop approach is more easily associated today with Republicans, since George H.W. Bush co-opted it from the Democrats in his "New World Order" speech before the first Iraq war. On September 11, 1991, speaking before the U.S. Congress, Bush said, “The cost of closing our eyes to aggression is beyond mankind's power to imagine. This we do know: Our cause is just; our cause is moral; our cause is right.” Speaking at the end of last year before the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton declared “that America must lead a worldwide fight” to defeat ISIS and “radical jihadism,” which “will require a sustained commitment in every pillar of American power.” Indeed, her language familiarly echoes that employed by Bush Jr. in his speech to Congress after 9/11 when he promised to “direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war — to the destruction and to the defeat of the [Al-Qaida] global terror network.”
The ongoing 'collateral damage' wrought by this "globocop" approach is truly heartbreaking.