Are you in the 1% Brain?

but no, really ND, I dont think that Hillary or her supporters would go that route. Especially since they (we) have been preaching for days now the moral high ground of accepting an election, and accepting the electoral college. Hillary has shown in the past vs Obama in the Primaries that she doesnt like to lose, she hates losing, and thinks victory is an entitlement. That being said, even she was able to concede defeat and go on to not only support Obama, but serve as a member of his cabinet. (Whether you think she did a good job is another story). But regardless she did try to serve in an Obama administration, she wasnt a sore loser.

And I dont beleive for a second that anyone who was a member of Obama's administration was a part of it because they were ho-hum about being involved. People were excited to be a part of his cabinet, even Hillary. I think it wasnt even necessary for her to do either, which is why I question people who think she became Secy. of State merely to boost her resume, or to show party unity. I dont think she has the personality to be that shrewd, especially since her role as Secy. of State probably has harmed her presidency more than helped it.

If she had never accepted the position alongside Obama, she would probably be winning vs Trump by about 35 points in every poll. No email scandals, no wikileaks, none of that would have even happened.

I think Hillary is a 1 term President. I also think Trump would be a 1 term President. ;)

I think Trump would get impeached by the Republicans for some violation of executive powers so they could get his vice president instead.

I'm not madly in love with Hillary Clinton like you all "think" I am. I'm a democrat in my freakin blood. I believe she will probably be an embattled president, possibly more than Obama has been. but she is likely to win and virtually all signs point to that, even certain states that arent normally Blue and swinging that way like they did in 2008. All it will take for Hillary to lose however is massive voter apathy.

If you convince enough people that she will just win and they dont need to vote, she will lose badly. if you convince enough people that its rigged and their vote will be under questioning and they will be watched heavily as they vote, they may stay home out of fear. if you show up to polling places with guns and threaten black people, then yea, hillary probably wont win. (This is reality, this is what they are actually threatening).

Hillary can only lose if tons of people stay home and dont even bother voting. Is that how you would want to win an election? where millions of people just dont bother because they hate the candidates? what a sad country we live in, and truly, its because we cannot always elect a funny, charismatic man like Obama. Hillary is not really charismatic and thats why trump even has a chance in hell. Of course hes about as charismatic as a turnip turned into a fleshlight, but thats another story.

Hillary said that Bush was selected not elected in 2000 and Al Gore still announced himself as President of the United States in speeches. I mean, are you serious?

Of course Hillary and her supporters would go that route. They did in 2000 and 2004 when Kerry alleged that voter machines were 'rigged' in Ohio.

Hillary is not winning by 35 points in every poll. In fact three, released today, show her losing.
http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

@Brain: you know one of the most reported incidents of voter intimidation in 2008 was when Black Panthers showed up at a polling place to intimidate people, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A

You keep saying, "if you show up to polling places with guns and threaten black people, then yea, hillary probably wont win. " I haven't seen any documented evidence of any of this in 2008 or 2012 besides the incident I showed of Black Panthers showing up to intimidate people. They were supporting Obama, by the way.

Also the Black Panthers that threatened people, white people (as show in the video), were not prosecuted by the Obama Administration. It was one of the first controversies of his administration and set the stage for many of the racial divisions we see in America today.

ND, thats because people are sore fucking losers in politics. Trump took to twitter in 2012 calling for people to rise up and start a revolution and called the Romney election rigged. Even Romney didnt take that stance. If Hillary loses, hell, she probably would be so batshit stunned she would concede immediatley. Looking at the numbers right now, internally, she probably has advisors telling her its closer than the polls indicate. Right now shes getting a boost from the debates, but who the hell even knows what people think the moment they step into the booth on election day.

I recall feeling paralyzed in 2012 when I looked at the ballot. even being a democrat I questioned myself thinking, am I just toting my party line? do I like Obama? do I like Romney? and yea, I actually thought about it for a few minutes. I was working on a state legislature campaign at the time and doing canvassing for weeks for this lady. She won by 200 votes. And it was a really enjoyable experience. I remember sitting in a room watching the results of her election and she was losing much of the night and the room was somber, because she was a Democrat but had tons of Republican supporters who liked her ideas. And the room was so silent because they were all stunned Romney was actually getting his shit rocked.

At one point I cheered and forgot I was in a room full of Republicans, and naturally I apologized. but the point is, yea, the choice isnt ever as SIMPLE as people think it is.

in 2004 I was one of only 37 people in my entire county to vote for John kerry. 37 fucking people in a county of 10,000 people. Do you realize what it is like to be that small? to be the only guy supporting a candidate. I had people call me a baby killer, people would taunt me on campus. Trust me, ive seen how it feels to be intimidated about ones vote.

I often feel ostracized being a Republican on a campus/classroom full of liberals so I understand your perspective in that regard.

beleive it or not, I am a bit of a troll about politics, because I think republican policies are just outdated, and they dont work for just about 67% of the country. that being said, I dont mock people in my day to day life. I have worked for numerous political campaigns. I helped get Brad Ashford elected in Nebraska, doing canvassing, calling registered voters, and he won. And hes projected to retain his seat in congress, and win again because he's a good candidate, and he isnt just a mindless tax and spend democrat. Shit the dude before him, Lee Terry sponsored one bill in 16 years, and he voted against his own fucking bill.

its not fun to call registered republicans on the phone and be called evil, and told that I should get the hell out of my country. Ive had people slam doors in my face, and of course act like I was spawn of satan. its not easy being Liberal in the midwest, we are discriminated against. I cant tell you how many people who have told me that I should get out of this country because Im a socialist.

I do admire your work with campaigns. I respect that and I believe that more people should get involved in local/state/national campaigns. That is the American political process. I have taught it, but beyond that haven't lived it. So kudos.

Still, don't you think that Republicans in the Northeast or West Coast get called evil when they call registered democrats or go canvasing? I am pretty sure that hyper partisanship cuts both ways.

It can. sure. Ive seen the nasty side of liberals too.

There was an interesting study conducted years ago about how people of different political persuasions handle relationships.

Said that Conservative couples claimed a higher satisfaction with their sex lives than their Democrat counterparts.

However, when asked who was happier in their marriages, Democrats claimed much higher levels of satisfaction with marriage in general.

could have something to do with the sacrament of matrimony, not sure if infidelity is more widespread, or divorce really cares about political persuasions. I laugh at the idea that Donald is this reformed evangelical, the guys been married 3 times. Thats absurd. Hillary has never filed for divorce, nor cheated. could be merely politically adventageous, or perhaps there is something more to it related to their roots in Arkansas.

Same with Obama, he's certainly happy, and very much in love with his wife. And I'm not saying thats exclusively a Democrat behavior. Obviously Bill cheated, and many other famous democrats were known for their misconduct, JFK, John Edwards (the worst). Anthony Wiener

Donald is not a reformed evangelical. That's for sure. Lol.

I dont really believe his religious bullshit anyway. He realized based on one instance hes pro life? Lol

Thats my beef with religious voters. All you have to do is court their vote and talk about repealing roe v wade once every 6 months and they gush over you.

Surprisingly, I kind of agree with you. I am not very religious. I see myself as part of the other wing of the Republican Party.

-Economic growth/business minded
-tax cuts
-Strong military/American influence
-border security
-Constitutional values (2nd Amendment in particular)

I am an Ecology, Infrastructure, and Education Democrat. Still waiting on my dream candidate but Obama was pretty cool. Also Anti-Guns, Anti-War.

My candidate doesnt exist by the way. Because as Homer Simpson once famously said: "You cant win friends with salad"

ND by the way, the Black Panthers, edgy british filmmakers, are no more representative of the Democrats than the KKK and Koch brothers are to GOP.

um, you know that the KKK was the militant arm of the Democratic Party...... right?

Wait? If you are anti-war why are you voting for the pro-war candidate?

There hasn't been an an anti-war candidate since Carter, and Carter sucked at being anti-war.

There has not been a US President that could resist the urge to deploy ground troops into a combat Zone since what... Taft?

I would argue that Kennedy was somewhat anti-war as well but there was no place for that while he was in office.

Maybe every president has been anxious for war (although I agree that Kennedy was one of the better ones, refusing to sign off on Operation Northwood), I'd still prefer a president who wasn't pro war with Russia at the very least.
It seems like presidents up to Reagan were actively trying to ease tensions with Russia. Apparently Bush Sr. and everyone after were terrible in dealing with Russia.
(At least according to many sources. It's hard to get the big picture on stuff like this when there is so much propaganda from both sides painting themselves as the good guys)

A couple of the more noteworthy ones are Jack F. Matlock Jr., ambassador to the U.S.S.R. from 1987 to 1991
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-is-the-bully-the-united-states-has-treated-russia-like-a-loser-since-the-cold-war/2014/03/14/b0868882-aa06-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html?utm_term=.9b482e7b1119"

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/03/13/us-foreign-policy-gurus-say-souring-relations-with-russia-was-washington-fault.html

Maybe a bit more of a fringe one, but still interesting:
Former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.
http://usawatchdog.com/we-are-headed-for-war-paul-craig-roberts/