That depends on many, many variables that will play out over the next four years.

Not necessarily, those are just assumptions of yours. Very possible shed run in 2020.

All that matters is what she wants. If she thinks shed make a better president in 2020 she should definitely run. She is by far the most popular democrat in the party.

The cities are blue but the rest of the state is solid red.

Or for President in 2020, I think she’d do a lot of good there.

Zero chance Warren goes to work for Clinton. Almost no upside for her other than setting her up for a run in two terms which would not benefit her that much. Better to stay a senator and run in four years.

Lol yeah I guess I’m pro innocents dying, nice phrasing.

I can only speak to my beliefs and opinions but I think there was less ambiguity about the Kosovo and Afghani situations. In Kosovo people were definitely getting ethnically cleansed, and Afghanistan was directly involved in 9/11. Iraq was dubious from the get go, a massive disaster and it seems were willing to…

You say you came here to get away from assholes like me, yet you’re the one who replied to my comment.

So...don’t reply to me?

Finally, something we can agree on! Marijuana could heal the party.

Are you comparing Kosovo to Iraq? There is a time for military action and I think Kosovo was more than justified giving the ethnic cleansing going on. Afghanistan’s govt was directly involved in 9/11, our military action there was completely justified.

What’s interesting is that this is a mirror to my opinion of Clinton supporters. I feel like they refuse to acknowledge any of their candidates flaws or just gloss over them. It’s interesting that we both have this same opinion of each other.

Yes, absolutely are you kidding me? He votes no and then you’re attacking him for being a contrarian when it’s meaningless. Given our Congress’ fondness for omnibus bills, the whole bill must be weight for its merit not just the sum of its parts. I don’t agree with the system but it’s better to have voted for aid for…

I don’t care how many people agree with my opinion. I’m not starting a movement here but stating a belief. You are free to think that those guys are great.

You’re an exhausting moron, I’ll give you that. It’s clear that you can’t grasp simple concepts so I’ll leave you to the comfort of your echo chamber.

If you’re going to sling shit, ATLEAST be precise. Sanders voted NO more times than he voted yes and the times he voted yes were because the bills were stuffed with things like aid for hurricane Katrina, but I guess you don’t give a fuck about that you disingenuous jabroni.

Just because you have no point doesn’t mean you have to resort to personal attacks. Suffice it to say, I am older than you. A purity test is a candidate not matching all of your ideals exactly, a deal breaker is a candidate supporting something you are dead set against. Are there any other terms you’d like me to…

There are no purity tests, only deal breakers, Plato. For me, voting to invade Iraq, or being against marriage equality are deal breakers, to you, having voted against the Brady bill is a deal breaker. Who are you to tell me that my deal breaker is less important than mine? Just because no one passes the “purity” test…

I think there’s a world of difference between voting on financial instruments than whether or not to go to war. Yes, the CFMA was a factor of many in our most recent economic collapse, but was it the only factor? The question of whether or not to invade can be made on much simpler analysis: Can we win? what will it…