Hillary already sucking up to Jeb's wall Street donors

[Santander]

This is why I wish there was an acceptable third party option, like Webb or Bloomberg. Hillary cannot last five seconds without revealing how much she loves wall street, and TRUMP is Hitler 2.0 .

Honestly, if Austin Petersen (L) wasn't atheist, I would be considering supporting him. (Johnson is an absolute nut with his 43% across the board spending cut and a bunch of other things, #NEVERJOHNSON)

Wait, what? Are you not voting for someone because of his religion?

Quit feigning shock. Plenty of people do this and it's perfectly valid.

...perfectly valid if you're a bigot

I guess almost half of the country is bigoted, then.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This is why I wish there was an acceptable third party option, like Webb or Bloomberg. Hillary cannot last five seconds without revealing how much she loves wall street, and TRUMP is Hitler 2.0 .

Honestly, if Austin Petersen (L) wasn't atheist, I would be considering supporting him. (Johnson is an absolute nut with his 43% across the board spending cut and a bunch of other things, #NEVERJOHNSON)

Wait, what? Are you not voting for someone because of his religion?

Quit feigning shock. Plenty of people do this and it's perfectly valid.

...perfectly valid if you're a bigot

Oh, honestly. I know this is hard to understand on a site that is 70% atheist, agnostic, and "Christian but I don't honestly care that much" sort of people, but I honestly cannot support someone who so fundamentally disagrees with the religious values I have.

I'm happy to make concessions with this, for instance I will probably vote for Clinton who is a methodist even though my beliefs probably come closest to presbyterianism. I would vote for a Catholic president. I could be persuaded to vote for a Jewish president - at least some of the values and commandments that come with following god can still be there. But an atheist/agnostic (or muslim, buddhist, hindu) is so against what I believe in - taking away even the most basic principles and values of following and believing in god, that I hold dear and that this nation was founded upon, that I do not believe I could commit such an action "in faith" and would therefore be sinning as I cast my vote.

[RaphaelDLG]

I don't think it's bad necessarily to vote for a president that shares your values and ideas for what the world should look like.  That's like, the whole reason to vote for one.  However you have to not be an idiot about that process.  For instance, though I'm an atheist, cornel West is a Christian who perfectly reflects my values and views for the world while Sam Harris is an atheist but an asshole who clearly does not.

Idk if id casually/immediately call someone a bigot for preferring their religion in the wh but I might call you a dumb asshole depending on your thought process.

You vote for the pres not to sit there and be moral examplar but to advance a vision of the world.  If you are so close minded that only someone who has the exact same Creed as you is acceptable regardless of the fact that they perfectly share your ethics/vision then maybe you are a bigot

[Santander]

You vote for the pres not to sit there and be moral examplar but to advance a vision of the world.  If you are so close minded that only someone who has the exact same Creed as you is acceptable regardless of the fact that they perfectly share your ethics/vision then maybe you are a bigot

FDR called the presidency "preeminently a place of moral leadership". If the President is not a moral leader for the country, who is? Nobody is saying that you should only vote for someone who is of the exact same denomination as you. Those of us who prefer to elect Protestants do so because we acknowledge the historical significance of Christianity on Western civilization and want to elect leaders who will best preserve those values and traditions. We respect all candidates' right to run for office, but simply choose not to ignore candidates' religion.

[RaphaelDLG]

You vote for the pres not to sit there and be moral examplar but to advance a vision of the world.  If you are so close minded that only someone who has the exact same Creed as you is acceptable regardless of the fact that they perfectly share your ethics/vision then maybe you are a bigot

FDR called the presidency "preeminently a place of moral leadership". If the President is not a moral leader for the country, who is? Nobody is saying that you should only vote for someone who is of the exact same denomination as you. Those of us who prefer to elect Protestants do so because we acknowledge the historical significance of Christianity on Western civilization and want to elect leaders who will best preserve those values and traditions. We respect all candidates' right to run for office, but simply choose not to ignore candidates' religion.

I don't know.... Religious and moral leaders?!?

The president is a political leader responsible for making good policy that makes the country a better place, not for being miss America or your pastor or an altar boy or something.

  Being a good person might be correlated with or helpful for being a good president, but it's not the Paramount concern.

[RaphaelDLG]

I should add that you mention FDR who was very subpar morally compared to people like Jimmy Carter but was unquestionably a kickarse president

[Santander]

You vote for the pres not to sit there and be moral examplar but to advance a vision of the world.  If you are so close minded that only someone who has the exact same Creed as you is acceptable regardless of the fact that they perfectly share your ethics/vision then maybe you are a bigot

FDR called the presidency "preeminently a place of moral leadership". If the President is not a moral leader for the country, who is? Nobody is saying that you should only vote for someone who is of the exact same denomination as you. Those of us who prefer to elect Protestants do so because we acknowledge the historical significance of Christianity on Western civilization and want to elect leaders who will best preserve those values and traditions. We respect all candidates' right to run for office, but simply choose not to ignore candidates' religion.

I don't know.... Religious and moral leaders?!?

The president is a political leader responsible for making good policy that makes the country a better place, not for being miss America or your pastor or an altar boy or something.

  Being a good person might be correlated with or helpful for being a good president, but it's not the Paramount concern.

Literacy is generally considered a paramount concern when debating something in writing.

[RaphaelDLG]

You vote for the pres not to sit there and be moral examplar but to advance a vision of the world.  If you are so close minded that only someone who has the exact same Creed as you is acceptable regardless of the fact that they perfectly share your ethics/vision then maybe you are a bigot

FDR called the presidency "preeminently a place of moral leadership". If the President is not a moral leader for the country, who is? Nobody is saying that you should only vote for someone who is of the exact same denomination as you. Those of us who prefer to elect Protestants do so because we acknowledge the historical significance of Christianity on Western civilization and want to elect leaders who will best preserve those values and traditions. We respect all candidates' right to run for office, but simply choose not to ignore candidates' religion.

I don't know.... Religious and moral leaders?!?

The president is a political leader responsible for making good policy that makes the country a better place, not for being miss America or your pastor or an altar boy or something.

  Being a good person might be correlated with or helpful for being a good president, but it's not the Paramount concern.

Literacy is generally considered a paramount concern when debating something in writing.

Insert whatever the opposite of " touche " is here (the old "u mad brah" meme)?

[henster]

Obama raised well over a billion dollars without a dime from the likes of these people, why is this even necessary? Is her campaign really doing that poorly with small donors that needs to go after Republican donors to fill that gap?

[Virginiá]

I don't think Lief's obvious troll comment is remotely fair BC the way that Bernie Sanders appeals to Ind and Rep VOTERS not donors is BC of his populist views which match the sense of anger Indies and reps feel about what went down in 08.

Well I think his comment is valid in terms of reaching out to voters and not donors. In respect to donors, of course Bernie is not comparable.

However, people on the left are practically taking offense to the idea that Hillary is reaching out to Republican voters turned off by Trump. Not only is this hypocritical coming from Bernie supporters (and others), but stupid to boot. So many people act like the candidate they choose in the primaries should only cater to their views and essentially ignore the other half of the country. This is wrong on so many levels. They are running to be the president of all Americans and not just a minority of their party. If Clinton feels she can bring in many new moderate Republicans by appealing to them via policy they may like, then so be it - as long as it doesn't go in direct contradiction to core Democratic principles (imo). These ideological pure or flat out dumb voters who think reaching out to disaffected Republicans is heresy should be flat out ignored if they can't be reasoned with. They are the kind of people who end up driving a party out of favor if they gain too much power/influence (see: tea party)

Finally, it is very important to remember that, at least in terms of working class whites, bringing more of them back into the Democratic fold is very important if we want to create a stable Democratic majority. We need their support for downballot races.

Obama raised well over a billion dollars without a dime from the likes of these people, why is this even necessary? Is her campaign really doing that poorly with small donors that needs to go after Republican donors to fill that gap?

Her campaign isn't in trouble. She is simply trying to take advantage of every resource that is possibly available to her. If she thinks she can win bigger by courting these donors for more money so as to run better ground operations/ad campaigns, then that means downballot candidates will likely also have more success. The larger of a win Hillary gets, the more straight ticket voting will boost Democratic Congressional prospects.

[RaphaelDLG]

I don't think Lief's obvious troll comment is remotely fair BC the way that Bernie Sanders appeals to Ind and Rep VOTERS not donors is BC of his populist views which match the sense of anger Indies and reps feel about what went down in 08.

Well I think his comment is valid in terms of reaching out to voters and not donors. In respect to donors, of course Bernie is not comparable.

However, people on the left are practically taking offense to the idea that Hillary is reaching out to Republican voters turned off by Trump. Not only is this hypocritical coming from Bernie supporters (and others), but stupid to boot. So many people act like the candidate they choose in the primaries should only cater to their views and essentially ignore the other half of the country. This is wrong on so many levels. They are running to be the president of all Americans and not just a minority of their party. If Clinton feels she can bring in many new moderate Republicans by appealing to them via policy they may like, then so be it - as long as it doesn't go in direct contradiction to core Democratic principles (imo). These ideological pure or flat out dumb voters who think reaching out to disaffected Republicans is heresy should be flat out ignored if they can't be reasoned with. They are the kind of people who end up driving a party out of favor if they gain too much power/influence (see: tea party)

Finally, it is very important to remember that, at least in terms of working class whites, bringing more of them back into the Democratic fold is very important if we want to create a stable Democratic majority. We need their support for downballot races.

I'm a million billion percent on board for bringing working class whites back to the table and compromising to bring them back to the fold.  This story has nothing to do with that kind of reaching out.  How you reach out to them is by allowing some diversity on social issues within the party, eg Hillary moderating her position on guns or abortion or something.  I would be okay with that.

I am opposed to compromising with the 1% because they already thru lobbying have an insanely outsized influence on policy.  They don't need to be brought to the table or reached out to at all.

 It's possible we have different ideas about what is/is not a core Democratic principle and are talking past each other.  I would like to see a return to the class based party of the 40s-60s rather than the identity based party of the 80s-00s, though I am progressive on racial and social issues and not moronically far left on economic ones

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Obama raised well over a billion dollars without a dime from the likes of these people, why is this even necessary? Is her campaign really doing that poorly with small donors that needs to go after Republican donors to fill that gap?

Didn't Obama raise more money from Wall Street than any other candidate? I didn't think he raised all that money without any money from Wall Street or special interests

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

This is why I wish there was an acceptable third party option, like Webb or Bloomberg. Hillary cannot last five seconds without revealing how much she loves wall street, and TRUMP is Hitler 2.0 .

Honestly, if Austin Petersen (L) wasn't atheist, I would be considering supporting him. (Johnson is an absolute nut with his 43% across the board spending cut and a bunch of other things, #NEVERJOHNSON)

Wait, what? Are you not voting for someone because of his religion?

Quit feigning shock. Plenty of people do this and it's perfectly valid.

...perfectly valid if you're a bigot

I guess almost half of the country is bigoted, then.

…yes?

[IceSpear]

Obama raised well over a billion dollars without a dime from the likes of these people, why is this even necessary? Is her campaign really doing that poorly with small donors that needs to go after Republican donors to fill that gap?

Didn't Obama raise more money from Wall Street than any other candidate? I didn't think he raised all that money without any money from Wall Street or special interests

It's okay to raise tons of money from Wall Street if you're a cool black guy and a media darling. It's not okay if you're a sketchy bitch.

[skoods]

Obama raised well over a billion dollars without a dime from the likes of these people, why is this even necessary? Is her campaign really doing that poorly with small donors that needs to go after Republican donors to fill that gap?

Um...what? Obama raised more money from Wall Street than any candidate in the history of the republic.

[Gass3268]

This is why I wish there was an acceptable third party option, like Webb or Bloomberg. Hillary cannot last five seconds without revealing how much she loves wall street, and TRUMP is Hitler 2.0 .

Honestly, if Austin Petersen (L) wasn't atheist, I would be considering supporting him. (Johnson is an absolute nut with his 43% across the board spending cut and a bunch of other things, #NEVERJOHNSON)

Bloomberg = wall street