And Republicans would say the opposite. This is why we never get anywhere.
If you can't recognize faults in both _you_ are the problem. Nothing in politics--especially subjective issues like this--are black and white.
The Democrats have, for the most part, at least rallied behind their candidate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhe286ky-9A
EDIT: I say ex loosely.. I voted mostly dem. down the line, but wrote in Bernie Sanders, I'm not fond of Jill Stein something about her doesn't seem right. But I couldn't in good conscience do a protest vote for Trump, and I can never support Clinton, the most corrupt politician of the past 40 years.
There is no perfect candidate other than perhaps yourself. When it comes to third party, you can safely consider your vote a vote for the party values themselves, rather than the candidate in particular. A vote for Jill Stein is really a vote for the major political parties to work on more green legislation.
I actually led the charge on my site PivotAmerica.com to encourage people to go green/vote for Jill, but I don't really think it's possible to break up the two party monopolies anytime soon, and her opinions on vaccines, and nuclear energy are disconcerting.
A nuclear power plant is NOT the same thing as a weapon of mass destruction. And you can't just print money like she wants to do for the education plan - Bernie's plan of raising taxes on speculation makes way more sense. But I did throw my vote to down-candidate dems. But Hillary ran the shadiest campaign I've ever seen, and is one of the most corrupt people in the world. I'd say she's worst than Bush / Cheney imho, or at least not far removed in policy. (THey both supported the Iraq war after all).
>First: I am going to institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government after they leave government service.
>Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.
>Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.
>Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
>Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.
>There is another major announcement I am going to make today as part of our pledge to drain the swamp in Washington. If I am elected President, I will push for a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.
>Decades of failure in Washington, and decades of special interest dealing, must come to an end. We have to break the cycle of corruption, and we have to give new voices a chance to go into government service. The time for Congressional term limits has arrived.
If you wanted to actually do something about corruption in Washington instead of just talking about it, you should have voted Trump.
I personally do not believe that he would enact a single one of those campaign pledges.
Those two things don't seem to go together well to me.
I don't know why people keep acting like it is - Trump isn't going to ride into Washington on a white horse and pass a Constitutional amendment or fund a massive immigrant detainment and deportation program or convince Mexico to pay for a wall through sheer willpower.
At best, he'll try, and either have to compromise significantly to get anything passed at all, or else fail entirely.
Meanwhile the Dems double-down on the status quo year after year.
How many times were Reagan and Nixon going to run before they got the nod? McCain? Romney? W's singular skill was being the son of a former President.
Yeah, Hillary is running for Obama's third term. But otherwise Dems don't double down year after year. That'd be the Republicans. Trump's bull in a china shop approach doesn't change this.
Yes. And I consider them both neocons as was the George W. administration. That's what I'm referring to as the status quo.
As a lifelong democrat I'm very excited to see what happens to the GOP in the next few years. I don't expect the DNC to change in a significant way.
There's a definite divide between the moderate GOP and the new, hard right GOP that far surpasses the small, somewhat positive divide when the tea party movement came to be ca 2009.
In fact, he was just officially endorsed by the KKK's official newspaper... his whopping 2nd newspaper endorsement!
His campaign immediately distanced themselves.
Perhaps parties shouldn't have such tight control over things; I certainly would have strongly preferred Sanders as the Democratic nominee. Still, it's a party. Technically it is up to the party to decide who they nominate. That they use primaries to make this decision is certainly nice and democratic of them, but it's not a legal requirement, and it wasn't always like that.
The thing that's really broken is the entire political system that only offers these two parties as realistic options. But the Republican party has also become really dysfunctional over the past decade or so, where representatives and senators basically refuse to do their job and work to undermine the country by their political gamesmanship.