CBS Republican Debate

[piezoe]

Says the man whose party's candidates consist of a communist relic from the 1950's and a congenital liar.

You have me confused with someone else. I am an admirer of Mr. Sanders however. I have great respect for him. He is more or less the ideal candidate for any anti-establishment folks. Even if I was one of the many anarcho-capitalists here on ET, and calling themselves "Libertarians," and ridiculously so at that, I'd consider voting for Bernie. As it is, I won't be voting in the national election, but were I, and if by some miracle Sanders should get the nomination and oppose Trump, I'd most certainly be voting for Sanders. Yes, I would eagerly vote for Sanders over that vacuum cleaner salesman.
___________
With apology to the hard working vacuum cleaner salesmen out there who would not want to be associated with Mr. Trump either.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Pie, you amaze me. You're clearly an educated, accomplished individual and you are not a slave to left wing dogma. How could you possibly entertain the idea of voting for Sanders, a man with zero accomplishments in his life except for getting elected in a wacky state? His proposals are ludicrous, and he uncritically supports a socialist agenda that has proven itself to be disastrous wherever tried to the very people he purports to want to help.

Even discussing him is a waste of time, because the Clinton machine and the democrat party corporatist corruption machine are never going to let him get close to the nomination. Clinton already has enough superdelegates to lock up the nomination, providing she can avoid one of the multiple potential indictments hanging over her head.

 

[ETcallhome]

You have me confused with someone else. I am an admirer of Mr. Sanders however. I have great respect for him. He is more or less the ideal candidate for any anti-establishment folks. Even if I was one of the many anarcho-capitalists here on ET, and calling themselves "Libertarians," and ridiculously so at that, I'd consider voting for Bernie. As it is, I won't be voting in the national election, but were I, and if by some miracle Sanders should get the nomination and oppose Trump, I'd most certainly be voting for Sanders.

you would just consider? If by some miracle the democrats nominate Bernie I would get off my butt and vote a straight democrat ticket. And that's what you need to get my vote. it it's Trump vs Hillary I will not vote unless it's close, and then I get out and vote Trump and any libertarian who is running.

 

[piezoe]

Pie, you amaze me. You're clearly an educated, accomplished individual and you are not a slave to left wing dogma. How could you possibly entertain the idea of voting for Sanders, a man with zero accomplishments in his life except for getting elected in a wacky state? His proposals are ludicrous, and he uncritically supports a socialist agenda that has proven itself to be disastrous wherever tried to the very people he purports to want to help.

Even discussing him is a waste of time, because the Clinton machine and the democrat party corporatist corruption machine are never going to let him get close to the nomination. Clinton already has enough superdelegates to lock up the nomination, providing she can avoid one of the multiple potential indictments hanging over her head.

I disagree with your first paragraph which relies on opinion. Your second paragraph, which relies more on fact, I can not disagree with. Our assessment of the probability that Clinton will be indicted, might differ. I believe her chances of being indicted are even less than Sanders' chance of being nominated.

I noted yesterday that Clinton and Sanders are only two or three delegates apart in the total number won in caucuses and primaries so far. Effectively the score is an overall tie at 1,1, and 1. If by some miracle Clinton does not have enough delegates to win on the first ballot, then it is possible Sander's could gain the nomination, all depending on how he does in the remainder of the primaries and the national polls by the time of the convention. It may be premature to write him off as having no chance.

Above all else, politicians want to keep their jobs. The superdelegates' commitment is tentative. When they get to the convention, after the first ballot, the superdelegates will be voting according to which candidate the polls show is most likely to win in November and their own assessment of how the election outcome affects their job prospects. If the candidates are close in number of delegates, but the polls are heavily skewed toward one candidate or the other, the candidate polling most strongly in the States essential to an Electoral College win has a decided advantage in gaining the nomination.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I disagree with your first paragraph which relies on opinion. Your second paragraph, which relies more on fact, I can not disagree with. Our assessment of the probability that Clinton will be indicted, might differ. I believe her chances of being indicted are even less than Sander's chance of being nominated.

I am on record that Obama will not indict her. When has his Justice Department ever followed the law or been bound by a sense of ethics? Their consistent policy has been orchestrating coverups and cooperating with obstruction of investigations into administration wrongdoing. Why would anyone expect a sudden change now?

They have the security of knowing the media have their back. If a republican administration did this, there would be daily headlines in the NYT and WashPo decrying the criminality, etc, just like they did with Nixon. No way that ever happens with Obama or any other democrat.

A candidate with backbone, like Trump, can point out how they went after David Petraus and other people for rather minor security slipups but circled the wagons for Hillary. That's probably the best we can hope for.

 

[Hoofhearted]

The Republican establishment and their candidates, with the possible exception of Kasich, who is ignored by the others, are strange extremists. They all espouse policies that will aid the top 1%, harm the bottom 90%, plunge us deeper into war, and wreck the economy -- military, flat tax, etc. -- one even said wages were too high! As there are not enough wealthy to vote them into office, they have cobbled together a constituency of oddball evangelists, anarchists, conspiracy theorists, gold-bug doomsayers, wall-builders, and those too afraid to go out of their houses without a loaded gun. What is bizarre is that none of these constituent groups are compatible with any of the others! This isn't politics, it's theater.

I'd be interested to hear a few details or facts, when you say "harm the bottom 90%", but from the party description you gave- these faces, among others, all immediately came to mind...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Harry "S" Truman

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Lyndon Baines Johnson

Jimmy James Earl Carter

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Barrack Hussein Obama

 

[Hoofhearted]

This response of yours is too deeply coded for me to decipher.

No need to break out the decoding software, Pie...I was just saying that when it comes to dems and repubs, either way, it seems the pot likes to call the kettle black. Often now, just as in the past, the two parties are so closely aligned, but neither outright admit it, or attempt to talk about it.

Maybe Sanders will be just the change we need Afterall, what harm can a sweet little old jewish man do to our nation, and economy?

 

[Ricter]

When has his Justice Department ever followed the law or been bound by a sense of ethics?

It's a different department, but Obama did (finally) arrest Cliven Bundy.

 

[Hoofhearted]

one even said wages were too high! As there are not enough wealthy to vote them into office, they have cobbled together a constituency of oddball evangelists, anarchists, conspiracy theorists, gold-bug doomsayers, wall-builders, and those too afraid to go out of their houses without a loaded gun. What is bizarre is that none of these constituent groups are compatible with any of the others! This isn't politics, it's theater.

At the risk of sounding the least bit republican, I would actually agree with the view that certain wages, for specific positions, are too high- even at the the lowest minimum amount. I think having lower levels may actually be good for everyone.

Damn, I hope that didn't sound republican. And I do agree with you that republicans seem to be leading the pack once again in spreading sour grapes. Between Trump and Cruz - it really just goes to show how many rednecks are out there who are tired of the migrants, and the homosexuals, and the dark skinned folk who think this country belongs to them now. And I hope they can maintain their sense of composure when they feel like the 'taters are getting snatched from their mouths once again. This is going to be a troubling year for many. Let's pray for them, Pie. It's good chat again old friend

 

[Hoofhearted]

Pie, you amaze me.... How could you possibly entertain the idea of voting for Sanders... he uncritically supports a socialist agenda that has proven itself to be disastrous wherever tried to the very people he purports to want to help.

when you refer to the socialist agenda that Sanders has supported, would you by chance be alluding to the civil rights movement, in which he supported? Or perhaps his support of women's right to choose whether or not to bear child? Those didn't seem to turn out too disastrous, or did they?