Election night 2016:Ted Cruz declared the winner. What is your reaction?

[IceSpear]

You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Fine, I'll humor you. What did you say in this thread that you didn't genuinely believe?

I don't see how responding to your giant effortpost with "k" can be construed as anything other than trolling.

So the actual substance in your earlier posts was not trolling, meaning the image I posted was accurate.

No, I'm able and willing to post a serious response to your post and my position is hardly untenable.  However, there's no point in doing so unless you're actually interested in having a serious discussion without any OTT hyperbole, straw-men, or efforts to delegitimize my views by deliberately lying about what I've said (as Beet has already done).  If you're interested in having a serious discussion, that's one thing.  Otherwise though, it'd be a waste of my time.

Feel free to address whatever you think I strawmanned or lied about in your rebuttal.

[Beet]

Anyway, according to Ted Cruz, college graduates will all have "four, five, six" job offers, so I'd be waiting with baited breath for this reality to come about.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Fine, I'll humor you. What did you say in this thread that you didn't genuinely believe?

I don't see how responding to your giant effortpost with "k" can be construed as anything other than trolling.

So the actual substance in your earlier posts was not trolling, meaning the image I posted was accurate.

No, I'm able and willing to post a serious response to your post and my position is hardly untenable.  However, there's no point in doing so unless you're actually interested in having a serious discussion without any OTT hyperbole, straw-men, or efforts to delegitimize my views by deliberately lying about what I've said (as Beet has already done).  If you're interested in having a serious discussion, that's one thing.  Otherwise though, it'd be a waste of my time.

Feel free to address whatever you think I strawmanned or lied about in your rebuttal.

I'm not saying you did (although Beet certainly did though).  I'm basically saying if you want to have a serious discussion/debate about the merits of sometimes voting for a write-in as a protest vote, then I am fine with that and will have a detailed response to your post sometime tonight or tomorrow.  But I'm just making sure you're really interested before I invest to much energy into this.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Jerry and I are in the same boat:

“That man betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of the existing scientific data. It’s shocking and I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office.”

[CapoteMonster]

Jerry and I are in the same boat:

“That man betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of the existing scientific data. It’s shocking and I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office.”

We should've nominated Jerry Brown to defeat Cruz.

[IceSpear]

You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Fine, I'll humor you. What did you say in this thread that you didn't genuinely believe?

I don't see how responding to your giant effortpost with "k" can be construed as anything other than trolling.

So the actual substance in your earlier posts was not trolling, meaning the image I posted was accurate.

No, I'm able and willing to post a serious response to your post and my position is hardly untenable.  However, there's no point in doing so unless you're actually interested in having a serious discussion without any OTT hyperbole, straw-men, or efforts to delegitimize my views by deliberately lying about what I've said (as Beet has already done).  If you're interested in having a serious discussion, that's one thing.  Otherwise though, it'd be a waste of my time.

Feel free to address whatever you think I strawmanned or lied about in your rebuttal.

I'm not saying you did (although Beet certainly did though).  I'm basically saying if you want to have a serious discussion/debate about the merits of sometimes voting for a write-in as a protest vote, then I am fine with that and will have a detailed response to your post sometime tonight or tomorrow.  But I'm just making sure you're really interested before I invest to much energy into this.

Well, a lot more was discussed than protest votes, but sure, have at it.

[badgate]

Applying to job openings in Canada.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If you think the current SCOTUS is bad, just wait to see what happens if Ginsburg is replaced by a Scalia clone.

It'll probably be just as bad as it is now except for a longer period of time.  On the other hand, Ginsberg could also make it through Cruz's term.  This is a legitimate concern though and one that does give me serious pause at times.

Dubya did not wreck the Republican Party if it won a historic landslide less than 2 years after he left office. That's not cyclical, it's short attention spans and schizophrenia.

You're simply wrong about this.

There's no scenario where the Republicans win the presidency but lose the Senate, so they will control it. Most likely with an expanded majority.

There's also no realistic scenario where Ted Cruz beats Hillary Clinton or even wins the Republican nomination.

As for the filibuster, be realistic. Do you really think McConnell won't abolish it the second the GOP holds the trifecta? Even if he doesn't right away, he will the minute Dems start using it often against President Cruz's priorities. And once that happens, there's literally nothing to stop the Tea Party wishlist from being rammed through, and that includes the repeal of any piece of legislation passed through 2009 that is even slightly beneficial.

Actually, I am pretty confident McConnell won't scrap the filibuster.  That's really not something that worries me at all, tbh.

Here's just a small sampling of what you'll be getting: nationwide right to work, national crackdowns on contraceptives and reproductive rights, repeal of Obamacare, gutting the social safety net and cutting spending and investments, draconian education cuts, privatization of Medicare and Social Security, gutting the EPA, and plenty more where that came from.

Repealing Obamacare isn't gonna happen, to many folks in states like Kentucky would lose their healthcare and blame the Republicans (they know this which is why they've stopped campaigning on repealing it with the same vigor that they used to).  Medicare and social security are not going to be privatized (Cruz may try, but it'll backfire spectacularly like it did when Bush tried to privatize social security with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress).  The crackdown on contraceptives is never actually going to happen for the same reason a Republican SCOTUS will never overturn Roe vs. Wade: it'd be a political disaster for them in places like Jefferson County, CO and suburban Franklin County.

That said, I've got to admit that you raised a really good point that i hadn't thought of regarding the EPA.  This is something I will have to think more carefully about since I could easily see measures gutting (though not outright abolishing) the EPA getting through Congress if the Republicans win in 2016 (and with the support of more than a few Democrats).  Additionally, I do have to admit that as I think about it, there are some other issues where Hillary losing would be a serious long-term problem that you didn't mention: it could mean a major reversal of the progress on net neutrality, it'd mean the continued defunding of agencies like the FDA and the continued defanging of the SEC, as well as there being no chance of immigration reform for at least more four years (and that means more needless suffering for a lot of people whose only crime is to want a better life for their children).  If Clinton had either a solid lead in the polls or in Ohio then I'd vote write-in with no reservations.  Honestly, I'd have to think long and hard about whether I can justify voting write-in if it was close (especially if the Republican was someone like Walker who could definitely win the general election if nominated).  If I really thought my vote could make the difference in a close election, I'd probably vote Hillary, but I honestly can't say for sure yet whether I'd do that or cast a write-in.  However, a write-in would not in any way be a vote for a Republican.

I suspect Cruz wouldn't actually be able to get massive education cuts passed, but I would be worried about Republicans working with pro-Rhee Democrats to redistribute even more funding to failing charter schools and continuing the awful trend towards forcing teachers to turn their classes into de facto standardized test prep.  While it wouldn't necessarily be enough by itself, if Hillary came out forcefully against the disastrous trends that began with No Child Left Behind and laid out a specific plan for dramatically increasing charter school accountability (and reducing government funding for charter schools), I'd definitely be impressed and might reconsider my decision about casting a write-in vote.

Is that what you want in an attempt to register a petty grudge against a single politician?

This goes to what I said before about write-ins being different from voting Republican.  It's actually pretty insulting of you to suggest that I'd want things like social security privatization and the repeal of Obamacare.  Btw, I've noticed Hillary supporters often have this annoying tendency to assume that if a Democrat doesn't like Hillary, it must be because of some petty personal vendetta against her.  My issues with Hillary are that I think genuinely think she would be a disastrous President, I consider her a dangerous demagogue on foreign policy who seems to have learned nothing from Iraq, she (like Bill) is very much in the pocket of Wall Street, she practically oozes entitlement and contempt for the electoral process (as if she's above asking people for their vote or something), she was using race-baiting during the 2008 primaries (that's a pretty hard thing to overlook), and she seems like a pretty awful person from what I've seen and read.  I don't hate her, but I do think she'd make a terrible President for a wide variety of reasons.

"If Democrats want my vote, they should nominate someone worth voting for". Hmm, interesting logic. Well, as I'm sure you know by now, the vast majority of Democrats find Hillary worth voting for and will be doing so. By nominating Bernie Sanders or whoever, the Democrats would be losing far more votes than whatever few they gain by the left wing Hillary haters. And I have to say regarding that: how would you have reacted if Hillary supporters decided en masse to write her in, vote third party, or stay home rather than vote for Obama in 2008? Something tells me you would've been calling them sore losers who would've been responsible for President McCain and (god forbid) Vice President Palin. Well guess what? The same thing applies to you, buddy.

First, I have never said Bernie Sanders should be the Democratic nominee.  I might cast a protest vote for him in the primaries if he ran (maybe), but he isn't even my third choice.  Additionally, we both know there won't be some mass write-in thing by Democrats who don't like Hillary.  My vote isn't gonna decide the Presidential election.

I have no idea why you think Obamacare is here to stay. Perhaps Obama's ability to veto over the past few years has lulled you into a false sense of security? Well, if this scenario actually came to pass, that fantasy would be destroyed. Abruptly. If someone thinks that millions of people should lose their health insurance because they have a personal vendetta against a particular politician, I fear for their sanity.

I think I already addressed these points earlier.

As for 2018, take a look at the map for a second. Even in a massive Democratic wave, it would be essentially impossible for Democrats to gain more than 2 seats in the Senate, which almost certainly would not be enough. So if Republicans win the presidency in 2016, the Senate is gone until at least 2021. The House could flip, but the odds would still be against the Dems due to the ridiculous gerrymandering fortress that the Republicans have built up.

2018 is a long time and a lot can change.  For example, in 2004 I remember how Republicans were crowing about how they had a permanent majority and the media was yapping about how the Democrats were going to spend the next twenty years in the political wilderness.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So the strategery here is apparently to shove the Tea Party wishlist down the country's throat, repeal any progress, surrender the SCOTUS for a generation and the Senate for 4 years, all for...an outside shot at taking the House in 2018? Oh, and we get to keep the anti christ Hillary Clinton from being president! Sounds like a great deal to me. Well, it's true as you said, Cruz can't be the anti christ, considering Hillary already fills that role in the eyes of so many of you, and last time I checked there can only be one.

This whole paragraph is a massive straw-man (and a rather insulting one at that).

And just as I said to jfern, if you genuinely believe that the Democratic Party will "learn a lesson", you're sadly mistaken. Most people don't think of Hillary as a far right wing neoliberal warmonger (obviously, otherwise she wouldn't be the strongest nonincumbent frontrunner in history), they see her as moderately liberal. If Hillary loses, the conventional wisdom will be that the party went too far left.

Since I am not jfern, I can only speak for myself.  However, the idea that Hillary would lose because she's too liberal is ridiculous.  People may not think of her as a far-right neo-con warmongerer (or whatever strawman you're going with today), but they also don't think of her as a radical, pacifist, left-wing socialist.  If she loses people will blame some combination of Obama, the media's obsession with psychobabble about the Clintons' marriage, her own unlikeability, sexism, lack of enthusiasm from the Democratic base, stuff the Republican nominee did well, 2008-style infighting within her campaign, and currently unforeseeable events that occur during the course of the campaign.

In which case, you can enjoy nominee Cuomo or nominee Warner in 2020. The one silver lining will presumably be that they both have penises. Oh, then they can lose to Cruz again to send another message! Wow, this plan is truly foolproof.

The idea that Cuomo or Warner would ever stand a chance in hell of being the Democratic nominee at this point is absurd.  You've also got some more condescending straw-man action going on here.  By the  way, I just noticed that you tried to delegitimize both my views and my general credibility as a poster by accusing me of being a sexist (or at the very least, strongly implying that I am one).  I actually missed that the first time, sh!t like that is simply unacceptable, period.  You sure you don't want to also accuse be of being a self-hating Jew or a racist while you're at it?

And just as an aside at the end of this effortpost, I find it very ironic that many of the same Atlasians who are oh so concerned about electability in places such as the Florida or Ohio Senate race (states which are barely to the right of the country overall) would willingly throw away a nationwide election because "muh hillary not left wing enough." Seems like a rather large double standard to me.

As I've said elsewhere Hillary isn't the most liberal candidate who can win (at least, imo) so no, that really isn't a double-standard at all.

[King]

Positions have nothing to do with it. Ted Cruz is a highly skilled politician. Hillary Clinton is a highly skilled politician.

Martin O'Malley and Elizabeth Warren are not.

You don't want to get caught bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Positions have nothing to do with it. Ted Cruz is a highly skilled politician. Hillary Clinton is a highly skilled politician.

Martin O'Malley and Elizabeth Warren are not.

You don't want to get caught bringing a knife to a gun fight.

FTR, I wasn't referring to O'Malley (Mayor Carcetti is even worse than Hillary) or Warren (although she'd probably beat Cruz) when I said the most liberal candidate who can win.  Additionally, Cruz is not a highly skilled politician relative to others at that level by any means. 

[King]

Who is this secret liberal candidate stronger than Hillary you are referring to then? I'm curious.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Who is this secret liberal candidate stronger than Hillary you are referring to then? I'm curious.

I mean they won't run because the Democratic establishment has been backing Hillary to a degree that is normally reserved for incumbent Presidents for like the past two years, but Sherrod Brown, Brian Schweitzer, and John Hickenlooper all come to mind.

And if we're talking about a hypothetical universe where the Republican nominee is someone as weak as Cruz (who couldn't beat a moldy ham sandwich in general election for President) then even someone like Warren would be perfectly electable (although since Cruz won't be the Republican nominee, she should stay in the Senate).

OTOH, if you're asking whether Hillary is stronger than the likes of Biden, O'Malley, Webb, or Sanders (Biden being the only one who'd even qualify as a serious candidate) then the answer is obviously yes.  I believe I even said in another thread that I'd definitely prefer Hillary to Webb, but if not then I'm saying it now

[King]

Schweitzer and Hickenlooper are more liberal than Hillary? No way. Sherrod Brown electable as President? He sounds like he has a bottle brush caught in his throat. No way.

Cruz is not weak. He'd win all three debates against every name listed except Hillary and Biden. He is a soothsayer. Beware the soothsayer.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Schweitzer and Hickenlooper are more liberal than Hillary? No way. Sherrod Brown electable as President? He sounds like he has a bottle brush caught in his throat. No way.

Cruz is not weak. He'd win all three debates against every name listed except Hillary and Biden. He is a soothsayer. Beware the soothsayer.

Sherrod Brown is far more electable than Hillary, but ultimately there is no way to prove or disprove this since he isn't running.  So we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.  Regarding Cruz, I'm really not sure why you think he's so strong, but we'll see soon enough who is right regarding him.  Schweitzer is certainly to Hillary's left on most economic issues and foreign policy.  Hickenlooper is too, a great example being his willingness to actually...you know...try to do something rather than just talk about gun control.  I admit the case with him is somewhat weaker than with Schweitzer and Brown, but I still maintain he's both electable and more liberal than Hillary.

[Lincoln Republican]

HA HA!

TOLD YA!

[King]

There is not a single issue Hickenlooper and Schweitzer are to the left of Hillary Clinton on. Not one. Both are moderates with heavy ties to business, mainly oil and alcohol lobbies. If either one of them were married to Bill Clinton you'd utterly loathe them.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

There is not a single issue Hickenlooper and Schweitzer are to the left of Hillary Clinton on. Not one. Both are moderates with heavy ties to business, mainly oil and alcohol lobbies. If either one of them were married to Bill Clinton you'd utterly loathe them.

Okay, I'll bite.  Please provide links/citations for your claims regarding their alleged ties to the oil industry and moderate views on most issues.  Also lol at the idea that Hillary being married to Bill Clinton has anything to do with my views about her.

[King]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Brian_Schweitzer.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Hickenlooper.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Granted, Hillary's more detailed and extensive since she has been in the public eye for 25 years, but there's no liberal position Schweitzer or Hickenlooper hold that Hillary does not also have on record and plenty more on guns, coal, fracking, gay marriage, contraception, that they are to the right of her.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Brian_Schweitzer.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Hickenlooper.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Granted, Hillary's more detailed and extensive since she has been in the public eye for 25 years, but there's no liberal position Schweitzer or Hickenlooper hold that Hillary does not also have on record and plenty more on guns, coal, fracking, gay marriage, contraception, that they are to the right of her.

Fair enough, although Hickenlooper is to Hillary's left on some issues like crime and gun control while Schweitzer is on foreign policy.  As you say, there is far more detail in the link about Hillary's stated views.  That said, it is pretty clear that Hillary isn't significantly to the right or left of Hickenlooper overall and is far to the left of Schweitzer (although I dispute that Hillary is nearly as "liberal" as that site suggests).  However, I still maintain that Sherrod Brown is both significantly more liberal and far more electable than Hillary Clinton.  Furthermore, I still have the same issues with Hillary that I mentioned in my response to IceSpear's post, only some of which are ideological.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Reaction from ISIS:

Oh Crap

Reaction from JCL:

Tea Party in the hizzau

[Flake]

Reaction from ISIS:

Oh Crap

Reaction from JCL:

Tea Party in the hizzau

wat

[IceSpear]

I'm going to address your reply without quoting, simply because it's too huge otherwise.

- The current SCOTUS can most certainly get worse. Yes, they've made some pretty awful decisions like the VRA and Citizens United, but they've also given us some pretty big victories on Obamacare and gay marriage. Both of those go up in smoke if Ginsberg is replaced by a Scalia clone.

- I don't think Cruz can beat Hillary either (barring some economic collapse or enormous scandal), but we're speaking hypothetically here obviously.

- What makes you think McConnell won't scrap the filibuster? In 2005-2006, the GOP was constantly threatening to invoke the "nuclear option." And they've only moved even further to the right in the past decade.

- I think you're being way too optimistic here. People used to say there's no way in hell that multiple Midwest Republican governors would pass right to work laws in union heavy states like Michigan because of the potential labor backlash. Well, they did it. And they were rewarded for it. And Obamacare is far less popular than unions. In this dystopian scenario, Obamacare is gone. I'd put money on it. It could even be overturned by the newly right wing SCOTUS. You're correct that there's even more executive power the Republican president could exercise than what I mentioned, and they wouldn't even need Congress.

- Fair enough on the reasons you dislike Hillary, but you're being extremely hyperbolic about how "right wing" she is. She had a fairly liberal voting record in the Senate, has been a consistent booster of women's rights, tried to get healthcare reform passed in the 90s...

- Yes, a lot can change. Perhaps if Cruz is disastrous enough Dems could retake the House. But the Senate is just impossible if you look at the map. What states are Dems going to win? Mississippi? Utah? Wyoming? Texas? Even in 2008 we got blown out of the water in these ruby red states.

- If you're not one of the "Dems should throw the presidential election in 2016 if Hillary is the nominee!" people, then fair enough, my bad. But there has certainly been people here who said that very thing, and your initial post sounded very similar to that.

- People thinking Hillary is a far right neocon warmonger is not a strawman. You browse this forum, so you should know that. Obviously very few people in the real world think that, but that was exactly my point. All of those things you listed might also contribute to it, but the "Democratic Party has gone too far to the left" narrative is going to get a lot of press too, and most people here aren't going to like that very much.

- I wasn't implying you were a sexist, but many people hold Hillary to a different standard than they hold male Democrats. That's a fact.

- You support Strickland, no? He's objectively to the right of Hillary. Same for Patrick Murphy in Florida. Both states are about a tick to the right of the nation as a whole. So I don't see how they're good fits for those states but Hillary is too right wing for a nationwide race.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm going to address your reply without quoting, simply because it's too huge otherwise.

- The current SCOTUS can most certainly get worse. Yes, they've made some pretty awful decisions like the VRA and Citizens United, but they've also given us some pretty big victories on Obamacare and gay marriage. Both of those go up in smoke if Ginsberg is replaced by a Scalia clone.

I'm pretty confident you're wrong on both counts and in any event, there's no guarantee that a Scalia clone would get confirmed.

- I don't think Cruz can beat Hillary either (barring some economic collapse or enormous scandal), but we're speaking hypothetically here obviously.

- What makes you think McConnell won't scrap the filibuster? In 2005-2006, the GOP was constantly threatening to invoke the "nuclear option." And they've only moved even further to the right in the past decade.

The fact that the Republicans won't be in the majority forever and McConnell is smart enough to know this.  It is the same reason Harry Reid killed the efforts to eliminate the filibuster when the Democrats had a majority.

- I think you're being way too optimistic here. People used to say there's no way in hell that multiple Midwest Republican governors would pass right to work laws in union heavy states like Michigan because of the potential labor backlash. Well, they did it. And they were rewarded for it. And Obamacare is far less popular than unions. In this dystopian scenario, Obamacare is gone. I'd put money on it. It could even be overturned by the newly right wing SCOTUS. You're correct that there's even more executive power the Republican president could exercise than what I mentioned, and they wouldn't even need Congress.

I'd put money on you being wrong about Obamacare being gone.  Also, Synder, Walker, etc weren't re-re-elected because of their anti-union policies, they were re-elected despite them.  SB 5 actually blew up pretty spectacularly in Kasich's face.

- Fair enough on the reasons you dislike Hillary, but you're being extremely hyperbolic about how "right wing" she is. She had a fairly liberal voting record in the Senate, has been a consistent booster of women's rights, tried to get healthcare reform passed in the 90s...

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

- Yes, a lot can change. Perhaps if Cruz is disastrous enough Dems could retake the House. But the Senate is just impossible if you look at the map. What states are Dems going to win? Mississippi? Utah? Wyoming? Texas? Even in 2008 we got blown out of the water in these ruby red states.

My point is a Ted Cruz Presidency is about as likely as the Democrats retaking the Senate in the same year Cruz is elected President

- If you're not one of the "Dems should throw the presidential election in 2016 if Hillary is the nominee!" people, then fair enough, my bad. But there has certainly been people here who said that very thing, and your initial post sounded very similar to that.

- People thinking Hillary is a far right neocon warmonger is not a strawman. You browse this forum, so you should know that. Obviously very few people in the real world think that, but that was exactly my point. All of those things you listed might also contribute to it, but the "Democratic Party has gone too far to the left" narrative is going to get a lot of press too, and most people here aren't going to like that very much.

I don't think very many people are going to say Hillary lost because she was too liberal, that's never been a narrative with her.  Yes, she does occasionally get called a war-mongerer here, but I've honestly seen you post that far more than anyone else on the forum.

- I wasn't implying you were a sexist, but many people hold Hillary to a different standard than they hold male Democrats. That's a fact.

Well, you literally said "In which case, you can enjoy nominee Cuomo or nominee Warner in 2020. The one silver lining will presumably be that they both have penises."  I really don't see how that could be construed as anything other than an accusation of sexism.  As to your assertion Hillary gets held to a double standard by many people, I agree.  But no more so than any other female politician is held to a different standard.  I also think you exaggerate the extent to which this is the case.  The best example of sexism against Hillary is probably when the media implied she might not be able to handle being a Grandmother and serving as President (they'd never say that about a male politician).

- You support Strickland, no? He's objectively to the right of Hillary. Same for Patrick Murphy in Florida. Both states are about a tick to the right of the nation as a whole. So I don't see how they're good fits for those states but Hillary is too right wing for a nationwide race.

Strickland and Murphy are the most liberal candidates who can win in their respective races.  If you wanted an example of me not hewing to a "most liberal candidate who can win" standard a better example would be my support for Chris Van Hollen over Donna Edwards.  While "the most liberal candidate who can win" is a really important part of the decision making process for me, I'll admit that I'm willing to cut a candidate who I really like a bit of slack on this front, if they're still pretty liberal and electable in their own right.  As I told King though, Hillary isn't the most liberal candidate who can win and my vote isn't going to decide a Hillary vs. Cruz election (we both know this, and again, if it was somehow going to make the difference, I'd obviously hold my nose and vote for Clinton).

[King]

- Fair enough on the reasons you dislike Hillary, but you're being extremely hyperbolic about how "right wing" she is. She had a fairly liberal voting record in the Senate, has been a consistent booster of women's rights, tried to get healthcare reform passed in the 90s...

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

There's a very big burden of proof on you calling Hillary right wing that can't be brushed off by agreeing to disagree.