Jeb Bush: "Im not sure if we should spend 500M on women's health issues"

[Warholian 6,880]

You say that no matter what a Republican won't get elected, so why not try and get the best Democrat we can? I honestly fail to see your logic. Also, people need to understand the the U.S. is partially socialist. It isn't totally capitalist. 

Bernie Sanders is not a normal candidate. He's a socialist. If he's running there will be a massive amount of centre left voters that will instantly turn Republican. I'm talking about normal candidates that abide to their entire party's voters. Statistically, Republicans need a miracle to get the White House in 2016, and Bernie Sanders would be that miracle. 

[Brad 2,499]

"The old straight dude" would have to pay for it in taxes, why can't he have a voice?

All I'm saying is it's always old straight men that decide what issues are and aren't important, when they've never had to face the issues themselves.

They decided on gay marriage being illegal for a long time, fighting abortion, trans rights, etc.

I just don't see why we cant have reps who have faced these issues in real live before be the ones who decide on it.

[Jesse Pinkman 4,660]

 

 

I gave Hilary a chance and then I researched her. Ignoring her bad qualities because she has a vagina is s-xist. It's extremely s-xist. I am a huge feminist and I wanted Hilary to be great, but she isn't. This isn't a pageant or some fun TV show. This is the future of the country, handed over to someone for four years, and they need to be capable. Hilary is not.

Read the article and I'm taking everything withba grain of salt. Everything about politics is shady, no politician has a 100% clean record and if they do, they probably won't make it that far.

And mess at that article bringing up Grand Theft Auto and things she's done back in the 70s.  

[Warholian 6,880]

I disagree. I will vote for whoever I agree with idgaf if this person only gets 0.000001% of the votes. I will not be responsible for the mess the winning candidate will make. 

Would you rather vote for an unknown and have a candidate you hate win, or would you rather vote for a candidate you agree with partially and have them win?

[Prometheus 1,494]

Bernie Sanders is not a normal candidate. He's a socialist. If he's running there will be a massive amount of centre left voters that will instantly turn Republican. I'm talking about normal candidates that abide to their entire party's voters. Statistically, Republicans need a miracle to get the White House in 2016, and Bernie Sanders would be that miracle. 

But again, this election could have the largest youth turn out in history, and with sites like Tumblr and Twitter spreading Bernie Sanders's message and appealing to the potentially biggest voting demographic, why lose faith? 

[Prometheus 1,494]

Read the article and I'm taking everything withba grain of salt. Everything about politics is shady, no politician has a 100% clean record and if they do, they probably won't make it that far.

And mess at that article bringing up Grand Theft Auto and things she's done back in the 70s.  

You should do a background check of everyone running, anyone you're interested in. Their past tells their present, and most importantly their future. Sanders has stood by his creed for decades, while Hilary is all wishy-washy. 

Would you rather vote for an unknown and have a candidate you hate win, or would you rather vote for a candidate you agree with partially and have them win?

Or vote for a candidate in an independent party (such as the Libertarians) and gain enough votes for them to be recognized, thus breaking the two party system? 

[MJHolland 12,725]

Hilary Clinton is the most qualified presidential candidate in American history. Literally. Even if you somehow don't think she's qualified with her past of being Secretary of State, 8 years of the senate, incredibly successful election campaigns for senate election, first lady of the United States, first lady of Arkansas, and lawyer, she's still the only plausible candidate to win the presidency. Bernie Sanders may appeal to young voters or the internet crowd but the country would not vote in a socialist in decades. You need to choose the candidate that's most likely to win the office, not the one that you agree with most. Republicans getting the White House in 2016 is statistically near impossible, and with Trump running for a third party, it's literally impossible. Clinton's the democratic candidate no matter what happens. 

 

Choosing a candidate isn't about choosing the right person for the job, it's about choosing the candidate that can take the White House and lead their party to power. That's Clinton, whether you believe in her politics or not. Thing is, would you rather have Scott Walker who denies science and education, or Jeb Bush in the White House? 

This might be the most mind numbing thing I have personally ever read on this site. I pray that you live in a country that is not the United States.

Not only is it bad enough that you would endorse Hilary, a woman who's incompetence as secretary of state let to the death of multiple Americans and our ambassador AND allowed our embassy to be overrated by a rag tag team of rebels AND committed criminal acts of secrecy because she can't apparently handle emailing from two Blackberrys (THE WOMAN YOU SAY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT), you are dangerously misguided in how we should choose our leaders. 

I think what I bolded in your comment in absolutely the most egregious and upsetting things I've read on the Internet in a long, long time. Jesus Christ your post makes me terrified for this country. God help us all.

[Morphine Prince 109,654]

Would you rather vote for an unknown and have a candidate you hate win, or would you rather vote for a candidate you agree with partially and have them win?

I see what you're saying. Honestly, if it's Hilary vs. Trump/Bush/ etc. I'd dislike them both. I consider myself an Independent so I have mixed opinions on different issues. If the candidate I'm voting for is an unknown then I don't see how me voting for them is hurtful. Plus, most people in this country vote for the two popular ones anyway. Not a lot of people decide to vote for the unknowns. 

[Jesse Pinkman 4,660]

You should do a background check of everyone running, anyone you're interested in. Their past tells their present, and most importantly their future. Sanders has stood by his creed for decades, while Hilary is all wishy-washy. 

Or vote for a candidate in an independent party (such as the Libertarians) and gain enough votes for them to be recognized, thus breaking the two party system? 

Youre absolutely right, but that sarticle was digging for gold. I'll do more research but nothing I've read so far made me think she's the she-devil everyone is making her out to be. Except for maybe the Iran and Patriot Act things..

[MJHolland 12,725]

Yet ~$600 billion+ is spent on military. I'm sure $500 million for the health care of the women of this country won't destroy the economy. 

Of course it wouldn't topple our economy. But (more than) 2 out of every 3 dollars spent by the federal government in this country goes to entitlement. That includes Medicaid and healthcare spending under the ACA.

So yes, when the government is giving close to a trillion dollars worth of handout every single year to non taxpayers or people who pay relatively little taxes, Jeb Bush DOES get a say in where his money goes.

[Warholian 6,880]

But again, this election could have the largest youth turn out in history, and with sites like Tumblr and Twitter spreading Bernie Sanders's message and appealing to the potentially biggest voting demographic, why lose faith? 

Why have faith in the unlikely when you can have assurance in the certainty? It's statistically impossible for Sanders to win an election. Running as a third party candidate, sure, he could get maybe a good 10%, but that would again take away far left votes for the democratic party, allowing for Republicans to get in, just as if Trump runs as a third party candidate (which he will) far right votes will be taken away from Republicans and Clinton will win the presidency. And far left youth are not the biggest voting demographic in the United States. Parties must choose candidates that can win elections, not ones that are perfect to the largest minority of the party. That's how you get Sarah Palin or Donald Trump. Maybe the majority of the Republican Party wants Trump as their candidate but it is 100% impossible for him to win the presidency. A trump presidential candidacy is the death of the republican party's run for the White House. It's the same with Bernie Sanders. Don't get me wrong, I prefer Bernie against Clinton, but Bernie is a free and fast ticket to a Republican win that would otherwise be unlikely. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

Youre absolutely right, but that sarticle was digging for gold. I'll do more research but nothing I've read so far made me think she's the she-devil everyone is making her out to be. 

How about her sheer incompetence? Criminal secrecy? Lack of concrete policy?

[MJHolland 12,725]

Why have faith in the unlikely when you can have assurance in the certainty? It's statistically impossible for Sanders to win an election. Running as a third party candidate, sure, he could get maybe a good 10%, but that would again take away far left votes for the democratic party, allowing for Republicans to get in, just as if Trump runs as a third party candidate (which he will) far right votes will be taken away from Republicans and Clinton will win the presidency. And far left youth are not the biggest voting demographic in the United States. Parties must choose candidates that can win elections, not ones that are perfect to the largest minority of the party. That's how you get Sarah Palin or Donald Trump. Maybe the majority of the Republican Party wants Trump as their candidate but it is 100% impossible for him to win the presidency. A trump presidential candidacy is the death of the republican party's run for the White House. It's the same with Bernie Sanders. Don't get me wrong, I prefer Bernie against Clinton, but Bernie is a free and fast ticket to a Republican win that would otherwise be unlikely. 

What a dangerous ideology. 

Elect wishy-washy candidates with large appeal but will lead this country into the ground just like our current president?

Sounds pretty fool proof to me! 

(Seriously though, this is why I sometimes think we should let everybody vote. God damn...)

[Warholian 6,880]

This might be the most mind numbing thing I have personally ever read on this site. I pray that you live in a country that is not the United States.

Not only is it bad enough that you would endorse Hilary, a woman who's incompetence as secretary of state let to the death of multiple Americans and our ambassador AND allowed our embassy to be overrated by a rag tag team of rebels AND committed criminal acts of secrecy because she can't apparently handle emailing from two Blackberrys (THE WOMAN YOU SAY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT), you are dangerously misguided in how we should choose our leaders. 

I think what I bolded in your comment in absolutely the most egregious and upsetting things I've read on the Internet in a long, long time. Jesus Christ your post makes me terrified for this country. God help us all.

That's called politics, and it's not fair, just, good, or a cakewalk. Clinton, no matter what you or Fox News likes to say, is incredibly accomplished and has a massive understanding of Foreign Policy as well as the handling of the presidency. I don't agree with everything she says, far from it, but she is the best possible candidate for the presidency that can win the election, that's undeniable. Her policies would be revolutionary for the United States as well. Voting rights to all American citizens at 18? That's unheard of. As well as continuation of Barack Obama's work, allowing it to flourish into applications for the American people unlike Republican candidates that would fight for it to be repealed. Hilary Clinton may be full of problems, but she's the best out of a pile of horribleness. 

If you think choosing the president is as simple as "oh, he's the most forward thinking and progressive. Let's prop him up for our party and have him run against whatever the Republicans throw at us" then you're the one that has a serious misunderstanding and limited view of the American political process. 

[Jesse Pinkman 4,660]

How about her sheer incompetence? Criminal secrecy? Lack of concrete policy?

Ill do more research for sure, but for now I still think she deserves a chance.