Lol Jack. Talk about being intellectually dishonest. You are being disgustingly dishonest and a hypocrite to boot, with this portrayal of my support for Paul and Johnson. And I've explained my position to you dozens of times.
There's nothing at all dishonest about what I said, and the reason you support right-wing extremists pushing policy to redistribute wealth upward is irrelevant. It's a fact that you did and do, isn't it?
How is supporting Paul or Johnson any more anti-poor than voting for Clinton, Obama, or Clinton?
Um, what? Paul and Johnson wanted to and wants to radically redistribute wealth away from the poor and middle class and to the rich, through changes in the tax code and massive reductions in income support for the poor. Clinton and Obama are the opposite (for example, the whole reason the right hates the ACA is that it adds a tax on people making more than $250K to pay for a benefit for lower-income folks, and there's the partial repeal of Bush cuts, the stimulus, etc.--and Clinton also has several policy proposals that would benefit the poor and middle class at the expense of the rich).
America has only slipped further into oligarchy under their reigns and there is no reason to suspect they won't continue the war on the middle class.
Huh? That is simply not true. Especially in contrast with Paul and Johnson.
Why would somebody vote for Hillary when she has only proven to be dishonest, ineffective, shifty, and loathed by all but her die hard supporters?
Again, WTF are you talking about? Other than Obama, Clinton is the single most popular politician in America right now on the national level.
As stark contrast, you have admitted just today that you feel Clinton is antiestablishment. Only then do you try to defend it with caveats etc. She is the antithesis of antiestablishment.
Admitted? WTF? I made the same point I've been making every time you bring the issue up, and I've defended it (and you have dodged any response to that). Her platform and voting record are very anti-establishment.
why does Jack refer to himself in the third person?
I'm in the thread, and you're talking about me as if I'm not. It's silly, and I'm calling it out.
its interesting to me that you view Clinton and Sanders as "about the same". i've never had that impression from you, but i'm glad you posited that. i don't see them that way, though, particularly not on foreign policy.
I've said that many, many times.
if you wouldn't mind, could you tell me (briefly, just 2 or 3 bullet points) why you're not more supportive of Mrs. Clinton...and why you're not more supportive of Mr. Sanders?
I summed it up in the other thread. Clinton is smarter and has a deeper understanding of policy, while Sanders is more to my liking in ideological terms. The best way to illustrate Clinton's advantages is to compare their ideas on financial reform (Sanders doesn't really know what he's talking about there, IMO, though his heart is in the right place). The best way to illustrate her disadvantages is to look at her pledge not to raise taxes on people making less than $250K (IMO, to make the kinds of improvements we need, more revenue is needed, and that can't come all from the very top).
