Would a Hillary presidency be tolerable?

[mrp]

I am socially liberal.

There is no way I would ever put a check mark next to Clinton's name unless I were voting to put her in prison. I would rather see Trump in office than Clinton. (Hell, I'd rather see Trump in office than most of the republicans who ran, and I'm old enough to remember when Ventura was Governor, so I know what I'm asking for.

A president has a certain amount of political capital to burn, favors to collect on, promises to keep, etc. I think Sanders would be unlikely to burn his capital on gun control - he has other priorities. I think Clinton has a hard on for guns, and would be far worse than Sanders regarding the 2nd.

(And I'll be a single-issue voter as soon as there's a single issue candidate, i.e., one who promises to cast every single vote based solely on how a bill would affect the single issue he or she ran on.)

[Nougat]

no.

[LePetomane]

I am socially liberal.

And a fiscal conservative. Right?

[MJY65]

(And I'll be a single-issue voter as soon as there's a single issue candidate, i.e., one who promises to cast every single vote based solely on how a bill would affect the single issue he or she ran on.)

There may have been a time in the past when it actually made sense to evaluate a candidate's position on a variety of issues and base your vote on the one that most closely matches your own beliefs. I think those days are gone. In reality, Congress is controlled by a small handful of people at the top. You are basically casting a vote indirectly for the Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader who will set the agenda in each chamber and tell their members how they will vote on major issues.

It really doesn't matter if a particular Democrat says he is for the Second Amendment. When you vote for him/her, you are casting a vote to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker again or Chuck Schumer Majority Leader.

[LePetomane]

It really doesn't matter if a particular Democrat says he is for the Second Amendment. When you vote for him/her, you are casting a vote to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker again or Chuck Schumer Majority Leader.

The best thing I have read on this thread.

The basic premise of the left is that liberals are liberals first. Be they gun control advocates, race pimps, feminists, etc., they all accept and support each others agenda. Because they control the media much of what mainstream society knows about conservatism is what they learned from the left. When confronted on their beliefs they go into the apology mode and retreat. They are single issue voters. All roads lead to Rome with the left. Not so with conservatives. Paul Ryan could care less about 2nd amendment issues. Lindsay Graham could care less about a trans gender in a public bathroom taking a leak next to your 10 year old daughter but he wants to bomb anyone who looks at him with suspicion.

I often hear the phrase, "I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative." To me that means that you don't know what you believe in as those two are not compatible.

[crbutler]

Over the years, I have figured out that what socially liberal really means is "libertarian". Fine if that is what you are.

Unfortunately, libertarian rights are not very compatible with the social welfare state, if you are concerned about paying for things.

Once upon a time, both sides were somewhat honorable people. Now we have a group of ideologues on both sides who embrace "the ends justify the means" and we have Hillary as probably one of the best examples of that mindset. She will make Obama look like a piker.

[george]

And remember that one way Bill attacked was to not renew over half of the FFLs during his run. I knew a few of them. I can't believe Hillary wouldn't take that to another level.

[Ghost]

Over the years, I have figured out that what socially liberal really means is "libertarian". Fine if that is what you are.

Unfortunately, libertarian rights are not very compatible with the social welfare state, if you are concerned about paying for things.

I've been of the opinion a libertarian is someone who doesn't care what another does as long as it doesn't affect them. By affect them I mean don't make the libertarian pay for others mistakes. Somebody who understands personal responsibility and expects others to take care of themselves.

[Rip Van Winkle]

When a politician of either party identifies themselves to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, it means when the pressure is applied, they will be a reliable liberal vote.

[LePetomane]

When a politician of either party identifies themselves to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, it means when the pressure is applied, they will be a reliable liberal vote.

I call them "Liberaltarians" because they don't know what they believe in but they do tend to lean left. Politics is a strange business. It tends to attract the dishonest charlatan slicksters among us and gives them power. I've met a few that seemed okay but for the most part, when you shake their hand you had better count your fingers.

[MJY65]

Politics is a strange business. It tends to attract the dishonest charlatan slicksters among us and gives them power. I've met a few that seemed okay but for the most part, when you shake their hand you had better count your fingers.

Many of these politicians at the national level started their climb up the ladder when they ran for student council in junior high. Every step along the way from which schools they attended, the clubs they joined and the parties they went to was calculated. They sold a little bit of their soul each time to get to the next level.

[crbutler]

Over the years, I have figured out that what socially liberal really means is "libertarian". Fine if that is what you are.

Unfortunately, libertarian rights are not very compatible with the social welfare state, if you are concerned about paying for things.

I've been of the opinion a libertarian is someone who doesn't care what another does as long as it doesn't affect them. By affect them I mean don't make the libertarian pay for others mistakes. Somebody who understands personal responsibility and expects others to take care of themselves.

Maybe, but every libertarian I have met wants the restrictive laws removed and tends to disappear when they are pointed to that in order for their restriction to be removed, you have to provide personal responsibility first.

Quite honestly, I don't think that absolute libertarianism will work in a society like ours. We are unwilling to make chattel of people who make bad choices and cannot pay the bill for their bad choice. As long as someone can substantially damage someone else and not pay the full bill (an eye for an eye) there has to be some restriction on the bad behaviors before the event.

That is not to say that some moderation of regulation is not needed. Maybe the libertarians I know are not a good example of them, but they fall into two groups, those that believe no infringement at all is allowed, and those that want the right to get high whenever they feel like it...and not be held accountable for the side effects (like getting fired). Most of the latter are on some form of welfare or social security disability.

[atomic41]

(already mentioned but needs repeating!)

The most important factor to consider here is that the next president will nominate potentially three supreme court justices. You need to vote for the republican candidate based on this alone. If not, kiss your guns goodbye. Look at what's happening in CT right now with the lawsuit against Bushmaster and Remington going through. They will use the courts to strip your civil rights...who needs congress?

Do not throw your vote away.

[LePetomane]

Quite honestly, I don't think that absolute libertarianism will work in a society like ours. We are unwilling to make chattel of people who make bad choices and cannot pay the bill for their bad choice. As long as someone can substantially damage someone else and not pay the full bill (an eye for an eye) there has to be some restriction on the bad behaviors before the event.

Liberals not only refuse to hold people responsible for their actions but in addition to this it is important to make them perceive themselves as victims. Perceived victims come in many forms. Race sexual preference, gender, religion (as long as it is Islam), etc. Then when they identify their political opponents as sexist racist bigoted homophobic islamophobes they have their allegiance and votes. Conservatives have let their political opponents define them this way and instead of countering it they go into full apology mode.

The Republican Party of Minnesota is a prime example. The DFL'ers led by Humphrey, Mondale, Wellstone, Dayton and a whole host of characters have been able to continue to push through radical agendas in Minnesota without any opposition from the RFL'ers. They do it by painting RFL'ers as discriminatory and that settles the issue. I know a lot of Minnesotans with conservative political beliefs but will never vote R because of that.

If this forum is a representative sample of this state then 70 percent here will vote for Hillary Rotten Clinton. Stop trying to deny it. You know who you are and you are not fooling me.

[Machine]

I hope Sanders wins the nomination. Its a long shot, but not impossible. While he is not pro-gun, he is not anti-gun either. And gun control is by no means his top priority. I think he realizes that crime and gun violence is a product of poverty and oppression, and that is what he is fighting to end. He is by far the best candidate I have ever known in my lifetime, but the DNC is set on having Hillary ascend to her thrown (so-to-say).