You didn't address my concern about the justices. You have to go back to the 1800s to find a president that didn't appoint more than one justice, unless I overlooked one...
Do I have to address it? I don't really get it.
you said it in response to this right? "This presidential election is all about suffering your party's nomination for the next 4-8 years to secure 30-50 years of 1-3 supreme court seats as well looking towards the future of the parties."
You specifically said "Regarding the Supreme Court:
it appears every president appoints from '1-3' justices.
Why is this time any different?"
Why does it have to be different for my point to be relevant? If every president appoints 1-3 justices, then this election is about that as well. If other elections are about voting for who you want / support on whatever moral / conscience you stand on, great. This one isn't. This one this time is about securing the supreme court. Even if that is the case every other time, who cares?
The whole, major, underlying point is that the presidency is about far more than the presidency. I'm not really sure why you're so caught up on semantic argumentation (cause I can't really tell what else this is).
If you don't like either candidate and don't for either one, you are only looking at the short term, 4-8 year presidential seat perspective. You're ignoring the many more years (potentially) of influence on the supreme court.
How similar congressmen voted can be terrible metric. You might as well say that we share 99% of our DNA, so we must be very similar.
Honestly, you assume so much in your posts I don't really get how it is possible to have any sort of discourse with you. Did I ever say it was the only metric? Did I ever say it was a determining metric? I literally put it in as an offhand comment in parenthesis lol...
And I'm sorry, but the DNA to congress bill analogy is some Donald Trump level analogy shit I'm going to take the fifth on that one.
A lot of bills are everyday fluff, or are voted on for completely different reasons because how many topics they actually cover. I wouldn't be surprised if you could randomly select two congressman and they would have a 50%+ similar voting record on average.
Sure but, again...I never said it was the only metric or even a determining one...And iiirc, didn't someone show they voted similarly like 94+% of the time or something? I'm not sure on this so please feel free to fact check and post (as I'm sure you will).
Not to mention, the points in which Clinton and Sanders diverge should an incredible difference in policy.
I suppose this is an okay summary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/u...vided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html
I'm sure they do! Again, the main, underlying point is that bernie supporters have more in common with hillary than trump...you're welcome to argue that if you wish.
Regarding your next reply: I wasn't even going to address that.
Thank you, oh great and glorious Buddha