Jasonfest saidLet us have a debate between Hillary and Bernie. I feel like Bernie engages and Hillary avoids. Many of the policies Hillary advocates are ones she was against early on. Sanders was consistent on his views of human rights and the economy of the United States.
SoCal did have a weak apology on Bernie Sanders while not addressing the gay-baiting of the party he prefers. But I do feel like he is logical and I assume he is a human, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt this time.
My first response to the Sanders comment was lukewarm because I didn't realize how convincing and well-known the evidence was of the shooter being a racist. But I'm not going to spend more time doing a recap of that.
As far as the gay baiting of the "party I prefer" - I have voted for Democrats in my state. I would support a moderate Democrat for President, especially if the alternative were a far-right religious zealot. But I don't support the policies of the progressive, or far left wing of the Democratic Party. I also don't support any so-called gay baiting on the right. Although the candidates are appealing to the base to not lose their votes on their opposition to the SCOTUS ruling, some have said to move on and deal with the decision.
Opposition to the SCOTUS ruling, however, pales in comparison to Hillary Clinton taking money from mid-east governments that persecute and execute gays, and being a dishonest person overall. In the spirit of support to gay issues, it would be nice if some on the left, especially the Sanders supporters, called out Hillary for exactly what she is.
Scratches head. Hey, numbnuts, you do realize that the most important part of a president's job--other than not dragging us into war or with fighting a just war properly--is to nominate a SCOTUS replacement for a retiring or deceased judge, right? You do realize the ruling--as are most Dem/Liberal rulings nowadays--5/4. You do realize that HRC would nominate a Ginsburg, a Souter, a Sotomayor, a Kagan, correct?
You do realize that, whatever JEB or Walker say, they'd nominate another Alito, Scalia or Thomas (Kennedy is too left for them). Which has national, state and local implications that I feel you can only begin to imagine.
Your analysis is a crock of sh*t since, in light of the fact that the next President will likely be nominating one or two replacement SCOTUS' in an ALREADY conservative court, you have FAILED to realize there's a third branch of government that the president essentially controls via nomination. The senate confirmation process prevents ultra conversatives and ultra liberals, but nobody is likely to get "Borked" anytime soon.