eh why not... bvaz can make a Republican one lol!
I am impressed with the support for Bernie so far, and is looking like he may do better then Dennis Kucinich did. He has my vote, unless somebody steals it.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/01/24-hours-bernie-sanders-raised-money-rand-paul-marco-rubio-ted-cruz.html
(http://i.imgur.com/GCOVi0J.png)
BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
There are dozens of reasons why I'd urge you to consider a vote for Sen. Sanders, but there's only one that really matters...
In the 1980s, as mayor of Burlington, he recorded a Folk album with 30+ local musicians, and he sang lead vocals Shatner'd the lyrics.
Hear two samples from the newly resurrected album here. (http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/listen-bernie-sanders-folk-musician)
Get a little bit of background on it here (Phish mention). (http://www.wptz.com/news/presidential-candidate-bernie-sanders-cd-sales/32742292)
And watch him dance to it here. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-folk-dancing-video/story?id=30700370)
If this doesn't send him directly to the oval office, then it will be a sad, sad day for America.
The University of California can make political donations? wtf?
Bernie introduced Pete Seeger when I saw him at the Champlain Valley Folk Festival with my Dad in the 90s at some point as well!
Quote from: Superfreakie on May 02, 2015, 12:57:32 AM
The University of California can make political donations? wtf?
QuoteUC CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL CANDIDATES
The University of California does not make any financial contributions to presidential campaigns or to candidates for local, state or federal office.
As a non-profit institution of public higher education, UC does not have a Political Action Committee (PAC), and as a matter of law and policy does not make financial contributions.
However, individuals who are employed by the university are permitted by law to make campaign contributions using their own personal funds. They may contribute individually to campaigns of their choosing. The university does not encourage its employees to make political
contributions and has no knowledge of individual political contributions.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC), which oversees campaign finance and reporting laws at the federal level, requires candidates for federal office to collect and report data about contributors including the name, address, employer, and contribution amount.
In reports filed by an individual campaign with the FEC, the University of California may appear in the field for employer. This is because an employee may have contributed independently, not the university itself. The FEC's website is http://www.fec.gov/.
Sometimes organizations that track campaign contributions, such as http://opensecrets.org, take the official data provided by the FEC about campaign contributions and report by demographic breakdown, such as by industry or employer. This type of data tracking and bundling can be misleading because it implies that the company or entity supports the candidate in question and provided the funds. In fact, the listing merely means that a particular group of contributors happens to work for the listed entity.
So, essentially all those numbers are misleading.
How are they misleading? They show both individuals and PACs (which, for most companies, are also contributions from employees). But anytime you see those lists they are contributions from the employees, not the actual organization. Companies are extremely loath to spend corporate dollars because it would piss of roughly half their stakeholders.
I might register as a D for the primary to vote for Bernie. You know, if it's not over by the time it gets to PA. I mean, he may be a socialist, but at least he's not a Clinton.
Undermind, you sure you don't want to just make this the 2016 Election thread? Three election threads (2 primary 1 general) is too much even for me.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 02, 2015, 08:58:50 AM
How are they misleading?
I guess I should have said misleading to me, cause I don't fully understand campaign finance.
Oh, and to superfreakie.
(http://i.imgur.com/kOFWUtU.jpg)
Hillary has some more competition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyd_eIgrnfk
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 02, 2015, 08:58:50 AM
How are they misleading? They show both individuals and PACs (which, for most companies, are also contributions from employees). But anytime you see those lists they are contributions from the employees, not the actual organization. Companies are extremely loath to spend corporate dollars because it would piss of roughly half their stakeholders.
I might register as a D for the primary to vote for Bernie. You know, if it's not over by the time it gets to PA. I mean, he may be a socialist, but at least he's not a Clinton.
Undermind, you sure you don't want to just make this the 2016 Election thread? Three election threads (2 primary 1 general) is too much even for me.
Thought about it, but I really have no interesting in reading anything about any of the Republicans. They all suck!
Quote from: mbw on May 02, 2015, 09:28:55 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 02, 2015, 08:58:50 AM
How are they misleading?
I guess I should have said misleading to me, cause I don't fully understand campaign finance.
Oh, and to superfreakie.
Haha, sorry, that was aimed at the UC disclosure, not at you. I mean, if they're gonna explicitly call out a website, they probably should note that OpenSecrets.org has this big disclaimer at the bottom of every donor listing page (emphasis in original):
QuoteThe organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Quote from: Undermind on May 02, 2015, 10:58:41 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 02, 2015, 08:58:50 AM
How are they misleading? They show both individuals and PACs (which, for most companies, are also contributions from employees). But anytime you see those lists they are contributions from the employees, not the actual organization. Companies are extremely loath to spend corporate dollars because it would piss of roughly half their stakeholders.
I might register as a D for the primary to vote for Bernie. You know, if it's not over by the time it gets to PA. I mean, he may be a socialist, but at least he's not a Clinton.
Undermind, you sure you don't want to just make this the 2016 Election thread? Three election threads (2 primary 1 general) is too much even for me.
Thought about it, but I really have no interesting in reading anything about any of the Republicans. They all suck!
Yeah, but don't you want to laugh at them? I do.
When I want a laugh, I'll go to the Eagles thread.
QuoteThe organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
How would any campaign-contributions database necessarily know where an individual works when they donate money? Surely you don't have to name your employer when giving to a candidate, do you?
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on May 02, 2015, 02:45:11 PM
QuoteThe organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
How would any campaign-contributions database necessarily know where an individual works when they donate money? Surely you don't have to name your employer when giving to a candidate, do you?
QuoteThe Federal Election Commission (FEC), which oversees campaign finance and reporting laws at the federal level, requires candidates for federal office to collect and report data about contributors including the name, address, employer, and contribution amount.
Quote from: rowjimmy on May 02, 2015, 11:25:44 AM
When I want a laugh, I'll go to the Eagles thread.
Or you could just move my posts there? :wink:
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on May 02, 2015, 02:45:11 PM
QuoteThe organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
How would any campaign-contributions database necessarily know where an individual works when they donate money? Surely you don't have to name your employer when giving to a candidate, do you?
Yes, you do (see Bernie's disclaimer here (https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=old_site)). Pretty sure it's a required field too. Now there's no verification (as far as I know) so I guess it could be gamed: maybe all those Hillary Citigroup donations were from Bernie supporters who have been playing the long game, making years of donations to Hillary and entering Citi as their employer in an attempt to make her look like she's an oligarch in bed with the very entities who have (and will again) wreaked havoc on our financial system for their inevitable 2016 matchup. Or, you know, maybe not.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 02, 2015, 03:15:55 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on May 02, 2015, 11:25:44 AM
When I want a laugh, I'll go to the Eagles thread.
Or you could just move my posts there? :wink:
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on May 02, 2015, 02:45:11 PM
QuoteThe organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
How would any campaign-contributions database necessarily know where an individual works when they donate money? Surely you don't have to name your employer when giving to a candidate, do you?
Yes, you do (see Bernie's disclaimer here (https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=old_site)). Pretty sure it's a required field too. Now there's no verification (as far as I know) so I guess it could be gamed: maybe all those Hillary Citigroup donations were from Bernie supporters who have been playing the long game, making years of donations to Hillary and entering Citi as their employer in an attempt to make her look like she's an oligarch in bed with the very entities who have (and will again) wreaked havoc on our financial system for their inevitable 2016 matchup. Or, you know, maybe not.
yes, it is required
Sounds like someone has some experience donating to a campaign. I'm guessing not many of us do...
I bought into the paranoia the DNC spread the last few campaigns.
I'm over it
Come on, you really don't want to read about this shitshow?
A black neurosurgeon (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/us/politics/ben-carson-brings-story-of-self-reliance-to-2016-race.html), a female former CEO of a (dying) tech company (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/04/politics/carly-fiorina-presidential-announcement/), and a crazy-ass preacher (http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-huckabee-2016-announcement-can-former-arkansas-governor-capitalize-2008-momentum-1905267) walk into the race for the GOP nomination...
Feel free to start your own joke thread.
Can I post jokes that pertain to the Democratic primary in here? Cause here's a good one: Bill Clinton needs to continue making up to $500k a speech while Hillary runs for president or else the Clinton's will starve.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/04/bill-clinton-defends-foundations-foreign-donations-and-paid-speeches/
Quote
Bill Clinton defends foundation's foreign donations and paid speeches
Former president Bill Clinton strongly defended foreign donations to his family's charitable foundation and said that no entity gave the foundation money to try to influence his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, while she served as secretary of state.
In an interview with NBC News that aired Monday morning, Clinton also said he would continue to deliver six-figure paid speeches during his wife's presidential campaign because, he said, "I gotta pay our bills."
Clinton said that neither his family nor the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation have done anything "knowingly inappropriate" by accepting donations from foreign governments.
"There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy," Clinton said. "That just hasn't happened."
He said Hillary Clinton has told him, "No one has ever tried to influence me by helping you."
The foundation's finances and practice of accepting donations from foreign governments in particular have drawn considerable scrutiny in recent weeks from The Washington Post and other news organizations and in a new book, "Clinton Cash." With Hillary Clinton beginning her campaign for the 2016 presidential nomination, the foundation has become fodder for attacks from her opponents, both Democratic and Republican.
Bill Clinton said he believed there has been a "very concerted effort to bring the foundation down," arguing that the Clintons are being held to a higher standard than other politicians. "The idea that there's one set of rules for us and another set for everybody else is true," he said.
The Clinton Foundation recently bowed to pressure and announced it would restrict foreign donations to only six Western nations and increase transparency by disclosing its donors four times a year instead of once annually.
Bill Clinton spoke with NBC from Kenya during his and daughter Chelsea's annual tour of Africa to visit Clinton Foundation projects that focus on such issues as climate change, public health, conservation, economic growth and empowering women and girls.
"There has never been anything like the Clinton Global Initiative, where you've raised over $100 billion worth of stuff that helped 43 million people in 180 countries," Clinton said. "I don't think there's anything sinister in trying to get wealthy people in countries that are seriously involved in development to spend their money wisely in a way that helps poor people and lifts them up."
But he left open the possibility that he would step down from the foundation if his wife is elected president.
"I might if I were asked to do something in the public interest that I had an obligation to do," Clinton told NBC. "Or I might take less of an executive role. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it."
Asked about his paid speeches, some of which come with a fee of $500,000 or higher, Clinton said, "People like to hear me speak."
Clinton said it was "laughable" for people to assume that Hillary Clinton couldn't "relate to the currents of middle class America because now we have money."
"I'm grateful for our success," he said. "But let me remind you: When we moved into the White House, we had the lowest net worth of any family since Harry Truman."
QuoteHe said Hillary Clinton has told him, "No one has ever tried to influence me by helping you."
Really??
well, she might have
said that, but...
Speaking of Bill...
(http://i.imgur.com/qKyDoCq.jpg)
Pretty good news for Bernie fans!
http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/1298312/bernie-sanders-catching-hillary-clinton-polls (http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/1298312/bernie-sanders-catching-hillary-clinton-polls)
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
I'm 96% with Bernie, apparently.
I knew I liked the guy.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/donald-trump-2016-announcement-elections/
Quote
Trump jumps in: The Donald's latest White House run is officially on
New York (CNN) - Donald Trump is finally taking the plunge.
The real estate mogul and TV reality star launched his presidential campaign Tuesday, ending more than two decades of persistent flirtation with the idea of running for the Oval Office.
"So, ladies and gentlemen, I am officially running for president of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again," Trump told the crowd, in a lengthy and meandering speech that hit on his signature issues like currency manipulation from China and job creation, as well as taking shots at the President and his 2016 competitors.
"Sadly the American dream is dead," Trump said at the end of his speech, promising to bring it back to life with his run.
Just over four years after he came closer than ever to launching a campaign before bowing out, Trump made his announcement at the lavish Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York, laying out a vision to match his incoming campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again."
The 68-story tower venue Trump used Tuesday is more than just the backdrop to Trump's presidential announcement, instead becoming a physical embodiment of what Trump is bringing to the table and the challenges he'll face as he formally entered politics.
Trump has already billed himself as the "most successful person ever to run for the presidency, by far," pointing out even that he owns a "Gucci store that's worth more than Romney."
That Gucci store won't be far as Trump makes his announcement -- it's located in the lobby of the Trump Tower.
But in his run, Trump isn't likely to try and shy away from the out-of-reach luxury and opulence that makes up his day-to-day lifestyle.
Instead, he flaunted his wealth and success in business as a centerpiece of his presidential platform in his speech. And on Tuesday he disclosed his financial assets, trumpeting a whopping $9 billion net worth. Trump's net worth was previously estimated at roughly $4 billion.
The Trump Tower certainly didn't disappoint in embodying that astronomical financial success, but the structure that was also home to the famous boardroom featured in "The Apprentice" television shows will also crystallize the challenge Trump faces as he looks to win over voters.
Many Americans now view him primarily as a reality TV star after 14 seasons of his "Apprentice" series, and his numerous flirtations with a presidential run -- first in 1987, then 1999 and again in 2004 and most recently in 2011 -- have left voters eye-rolling as he prompted yet another round of will-he or won't-he speculation.
He and his aides remain confident, though, that voters will take Trump seriously after he has now made his intentions clear and announces he's running.
"We can change that dynamic in 15 seconds by Mr. Trump sending out a press release saying he's running for president," Trump's top political adviser Corey Lewandowski said. "Mr. Trump's single biggest detriment is that people don't think he's going to run."
But over the past several months, Trump has ramped up his political activity, making key staff hires in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- including the political strategist who drove former Sen. Rick Santorum to a surprise victory in the Iowa caucus in 2012.
And even as he becomes the 12th candidate to throw his hat into a ring that will become even more crowded before the first televised debate in August, Trump could find himself grinning on Fox News along with the rest of the top 10 candidates who made the cut.
Fox is limiting participation in the first debate to the top 10 GOP contenders based on national polling, and Trump is just on the edge based on the latest polls.
He tied for 10th place with 3% in the latest CNN/ORC poll earlier this month and earned 4% in both the most recent Fox News and Washington Post/ABC News polls -- coming in 10th and tied for ninth, respectively.
That puts Trump right in line with would-be-rivals like Santorum, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former New York Gov. George Pataki -- and above hopefuls like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
In his bid, Trump will look to escape that grouping as he challenges conventional political notions of nominating a presidential candidate who's held elected office, instead calling for an end to the politics he says are heavy on talk and light on action.
Trump is no stranger to either, though.
He famously fanned the flames of the "birther" movement and today takes credit for President Barack Obama's decision to release his birth certificate -- which Trump said this year at CPAC hasn't completely quelled his concerns.
And he won't mince words when it comes to his GOP foes, either. And he may take the opportunity to draw a contrast with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who formally announced his candidacy just a day before Trump's announcement.
Trump said earlier this year in Iowa: "The last thing we need is another Bush."
Also, DNC troll so hard: the official press release
(https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/yusM1L3lOqDgtElkTBjksENlO9A=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3795740/CHoddXvWUAAY4ye.0.jpg)
Can we at least talk about serious candidates?
Next thing you'll be posting is Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz nonsense.
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 16, 2015, 01:03:46 PM
Can we at least talk about serious candidates?
Next thing you'll be posting is Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz nonsense.
I wouldn't put Rubio in the Ted Cruz jackass category. I mean, if Hillary was taking him serious enough to have her pals at the NYT put a garbage hit piece about him on the front page, you probably shouldn't dismiss him either. Now, I agree with you that he's a dickbag who pretends he likes Wu-Tang cuz that's what the kidz like, but he's certainly in the top tier of establishment candidates (read: asshats).
BTW, Daily Show is gonna smoke tonight.
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 16, 2015, 12:11:47 PM
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
I'm 96% with Bernie, apparently.
I knew I liked the guy.
Wow, just got 98% for Bernie. I guess that settles that.
Quote from: pcr3 on June 16, 2015, 03:57:32 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 16, 2015, 12:11:47 PM
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
I'm 96% with Bernie, apparently.
I knew I liked the guy.
Wow, just got 98% for Bernie. I guess that settles that.
93% here. I'm pretty sure that's the most I've ever agreed with a major party candidate.
Quote from: pcr3 on June 16, 2015, 03:57:32 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 16, 2015, 12:11:47 PM
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
I'm 96% with Bernie, apparently.
I knew I liked the guy.
Wow, just got 98% for Bernie. I guess that settles that.
98% here too.
Quote from: ytowndan on June 16, 2015, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: pcr3 on June 16, 2015, 03:57:32 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 16, 2015, 12:11:47 PM
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
I'm 96% with Bernie, apparently.
I knew I liked the guy.
Wow, just got 98% for Bernie. I guess that settles that.
93% here. I'm pretty sure that's the most I've ever agreed with a major party candidate.
This.
89%. Actually kind of shocked.
Marco Rubio isn't qualified to be a household joke.
Jon Stewart has gotta be wishing he waited another year to leave, this election is getting more loltastic by the day.
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 16, 2015, 10:02:46 PM
Marco Rubio isn't qualified to be a household joke.
LOL from someone who thinks Sanders is qualified to be President.
what a joke. go out in the real world with some of these comments instead of a message board that doesn't even discuss music anymore.
don't worry abput a response,. you won't bait me into getting in an all day discussion. reading political viewpoints on here is humorous. "HOPE"
Quote from: DoW on June 17, 2015, 06:23:39 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 16, 2015, 10:02:46 PM
Marco Rubio isn't qualified to be a household joke.
LOL from someone who thinks Sanders is qualified to be President.
what a joke. go out in the real world with some of these comments instead of a message board that doesn't even discuss music anymore.
don't worry abput a response,. you won't bait me into getting in an all day discussion. reading political viewpoints on here is humorous. "HOPE"
I have missed watching you get bent out of shape when I don't take your politics seriously enough.
But don't go putting words into my mouth.
I like Sanders and agree with many of his positions but I never said he was qualified to be president.
You want serious discussion of republicans, try a republican thread and enjoy the echo.
Because I know you like to dismiss articles that people post:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/224835-potential-gop-presidential-candidates-lack-name
Quote
A majority of the public have never heard of Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker or Dr. Ben Carson, all of whom are believed to be weighing runs for the GOP nomination. And Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) aren’t far behind, with 40 percent of the public saying they don’t know who Cruz is, and 39 saying the same about Rubio.
Quote from: mistercharlie on June 16, 2015, 08:46:13 PM
Quote from: pcr3 on June 16, 2015, 03:57:32 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 16, 2015, 12:11:47 PM
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
I'm 96% with Bernie, apparently.
I knew I liked the guy.
Wow, just got 98% for Bernie. I guess that settles that.
98% here too.
98% here as well...
I swear I'll never understand the "not qualified" comment. More often than not it just means "I don't agree with them, but more importantly, I don't like them."
And for the record, a Rubio administration would be nearly indistinguishable from Hillary in almost every way.
Quote from: DoW on June 17, 2015, 06:23:39 AM
...a message board that doesn't even discuss music anymore.
I mentioned Wu-Tang; does that count?
When I say he's not qualified to be a household joke, that means nobody knows who he is.
Because nobody knows who he is.
Also, Rubio's positions are quite different from Hillary's but it's immaterial because he has only slightly better chance of winning than I do.
I'm not sure if this is quite subtle enough.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHtGDIyWgAAJ3K9.jpg)
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 17, 2015, 09:25:57 AM
I'm not sure if this is quite subtle enough.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHtGDIyWgAAJ3K9.jpg)
lol
He's also on the hot seat for using Neil Young's "Rockin' In The Free World" without express permission. (Neil is a Bernie fan.)
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 17, 2015, 08:42:23 AM
I swear I'll never understand the "not qualified" comment.
Thank you. Especially when it comes to Bernie. He was mayor of Burlington for 8 years, a Rep for 16 years, and has been a Senator for 8 years. Sounds pretty qualified to me.
Quote from: mbw on June 17, 2015, 10:48:32 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 17, 2015, 08:42:23 AM
I swear I'll never understand the "not qualified" comment.
Thank you. Especially when it comes to Bernie. He was mayor of Burlington for 8 years, a Rep for 16 years, and has been a Senator for 8 years. Sounds pretty qualified to me.
Yeah, but Rubio listens to Wiz Khalifa, so...
Just got home from seeing Bernie Sanders speak to a packed house at Cumberland County Civic Center (called something else now) in Portland, ME tonight. I am feeling very energized about politics for the first time in a long time and am planning on volunteering, which no candidate has ever made me feel like doing before. ...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJRJrz9WUAARW8m.jpg)
Damnit, now I'll have to start clicking on all those ridiculous Trump stories
http://fusion.net/story/162656/we-made-a-chrome-extension-to-add-real-ridiculous-donald-trump-quotes-to-every-mention-of-his-name/
Extension here (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-trumpweb/fjkehfaokpmcbigmbgdhmjblecgfkedg)
Quote
We made a Chrome extension to add real, ridiculous Donald Trump quotes to every mention of his name
As you may have heard, "Why doesn't he show his birth certificate" "The American dream is dead" Donald "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created" Trump is running for president.
Since "Why doesn't he show his birth certificate" "The American dream is dead" Donald "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created" Trump's reality TV bona fides have carried him near the top of some early Republican polls, we'll probably be reading about him for at least a few more months. Which is annoying, given his penchant for saying pompous, ignorant, racist, and sexist things in a never-ending quest for attention.
Luckily, there's a way to make reading about "Why doesn't he show his birth certificate" "The American dream is dead" Donald "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created" Trump much, much better. We wrote a custom extension for Google Chrome that adds a ridiculous "Why doesn't he show his birth certificate" "The American dream is dead" Donald "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created" Trump quote to every online mention of his name.
To be extra-clear: these are all real quotes that "Why doesn't he show his birth certificate" "The American dream is dead" Donald "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created" Trump actually said, such as:
"Laziness is a trait in blacks."
"We need global warming."
"Somebody's doing the raping"
You can install the extension at the Chrome Web store by clicking here. (Or just download the crx file if you'd prefer to install the extension manually.)
As soon as the extension is installed in your Google Chrome browser, go ahead and click refresh to see it in action. As you'll see in the examples below, the extension turns reading about "Why doesn't he show his birth certificate" "The American dream is dead" Donald "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created" Trump from a chore into a delight. (And when you feel like turning it off, you can disable it in the Chrome extensions window.)
(http://i0.wp.com/fusiondotnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/screenshot-2015-07-07-22-56-07.png?w=740&quality=80&strip=all)
(http://i2.wp.com/fusiondotnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/screenshot-2015-07-07-22-42-40.png?w=740&quality=80&strip=all)
http://www.ibtimes.com/voters-new-hampshire-iowa-have-negative-opinion-every-2016-candidate-except-one-2024842
QuoteVoters In New Hampshire And Iowa Have A Negative Opinion Of Every 2016 Candidate Except One
Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire don't much like their options in the primary-election races for U.S. president in 2016. That doesn't bode well for the crowded field of candidates who have been attempting to woo voters in the country's two earliest voting states for months now. Among 17 declared Republican and five declared Democratic candidates for president, the only one with an overall positive favorability rating is U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, Ind.-Vt.
NBC News/Marist Poll results in Iowa and New Hampshire released Sunday and seen by International Business Times show all the other candidates from Jim Webb and Ted Cruz to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton -- especially Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton -- with overall negative favorability ratings. That means there are more voters with negative opinions than there are voters with positive opinions about every candidate, except Sanders.
Here are the favorable/unfavorable scores of half a dozen presidential candidates among all registered voters in Iowa:
• Bernie Sanders +3 (30 percent/27 percent)
• Marco Rubio -1 (31 percent/32 percent)
• Scott Walker -1 (30 percent/31 percent)
• Jeb Bush -12 (34 percent/46 percent)
• Hillary Clinton -19 (37/56 percent)
• Donald Trump -28 (32 percent/60 percent)
Notably, the NBC News/Marist Poll points out that Clinton's favorable/unfavorable score in Iowa among all registered voters mirrors the numbers found by a recent Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll conducted there.
Here are the favorable/unfavorable scores of half a dozen presidential candidates among all registered voters in New Hampshire:
• Sanders +12 (41 percent/29 percent)
• Bush -5 (40 percent/45 percent)
• Walker -6 (28 percent/34 percent)
• Rubio -6 (28 percent/34 percent)
• Clinton -20 (37 percent/57 percent)
• Trump -40 (27 percent/67 percent)
The news gets a bit better for Clinton and Sanders when it comes to Democratic voters exclusively. Among them, Clinton's favorable/unfavorable rating is +54 (74 percent/20 percent) in Iowa and +48 (71 percent/23 percent) in New Hampshire. Sanders' comparable rating is +39 (54 percent/15 percent) in the Hawkeye State and +51 (65 percent/14 percent) in the Granite State.
Despite leading their respective parties in the polls, Clinton and Trump also attracted the highest unfavorability ratings by far in the two states. Even among Republican voters, Trump, the real-estate mogul and reality-television personality, has a favorable/unfavorable rating in New Hampshire of -14 (39 percent/53 percent) and a rating in Iowa of +1 (45 percent/44 percent).
With varying margins of error, the polls were conducted July 14-21, meaning voters were asked their opinion before and after Trump's controversial comments about U.S. Sen. John McCain's war record July 18. Those remarks did not affect Trump in Iowa (he was at 16 percent before the comments and 18 percent after), but they did hurt him in New Hampshire (26 percent before, 14 percent after).
bernieeee!!! my man
Vox sits down with Bernie for a long conversation. I haven't read thru the whole interview, but figured there'd be some interest here. With videos if you're more into that auditory thing.
I've said it before, but I have a lot of tremendous amount of respect for Bernie. The man is not afraid to say what he believes and fights tirelessly for it. He is a career politician who does not act like one and I applaud him for that. If my choice is between him and Hillary, it is a no brainer for me. But, man, you see some of those economic ideas on paper and it's some scary shit.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation
FINALLY a candidate I can get behind
http://www.mediaite.com/online/deez-nuts-files-for-presidential-run-pretty-much-sums-up-2016/
Quote
Deez Nuts Files for Presidential Run; Pretty Much Sums Up 2016
As this next election season kicks into full gear and becomes a tidal wave of slimy politics, moronic commentary, and gaffe-centric news cycles, we're all likely to think: What does any of this matter? We're all going to die one day, so screw it, why waste time caring so deeply about something so futile?
One anonymous American seems to have recognized the farcical nature of partisan politics. But instead of whining about it in a blog post, he filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for president in 2016. Under the name "Deez Nuts."
It's not that difficult to file an FEC Form 2 to declare your candidacy, so on Sunday, Mr. Nuts submitted the proper paperwork and became an official candidate for office, running as an Independent. The campaign is registered to an address in rural Wallington, Iowa.
Here's hoping for a Deez Nuts-Sweet Meteor of Death 2016 ticket.
See the form below:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/272842600/Deez-Nuts-for-President-2016 (https://www.scribd.com/doc/272842600/Deez-Nuts-for-President-2016)
Deez Nuts is a strong candidate, but I'm kinda liking Limberbutt McCubbins. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/08/421140664/for-limberbutt-mccubbins-the-time-is-meow-to-run-for-president
#TheTimeIsMeow
So here is my worry on Bernie. He really appeals to the young liberals. These are ones that typically rally, get involved, and then don't show up on election day.
I was able to meet Bernie a few times when he was my representative and yes I voted for him. I had a prof that worked for him in college so he came and met with us.
I can say, this is the real Bernie. There isn't public Bernie and private Bernie. He is a genuinely nice person and deeply believes in what he is saying which is very refreshing. I don't think he can win, but he really does bring a missing element to this, honesty.
Quote from: Guyute on July 31, 2015, 11:21:38 PM
So here is my worry on Bernie. He really appeals to the young liberals. These are ones that typically rally, get involved, and then don't show up on election day.
I was able to meet Bernie a few times when he was my representative and yes I voted for him. I had a prof that worked for him in college so he came and met with us.
I can say, this is the real Bernie. There isn't public Bernie and private Bernie. He is a genuinely nice person and deeply believes in what he is saying which is very refreshing. I don't think he can win, but he really does bring a missing element to this, honesty.
I generally agree but, in this specific case, I think it's more than just young liberals. It's the left in general that's really Bernie's base. Young and old, they're thrilled and ready to step up. And they'll actually show up to vote for someone who truly shares their views, not to mention someone as sincere as Sanders. So, I don't think he'll have any problems mobilizing his base on election day(s). It's the Clinton Democrats who have a hard time getting the base to show up for them. Particularly the younger liberals (as you mentioned).
Having said that, he does have one very major problem: The crowds he draws at his rallies (as massive as they are) are about as ethnically diverse as a Tea Party town hall. He's going to have to start working on a way to really reach out to the Latino and African-American communities. He's been talking about economic populism for decades -- and you can tell. But you can also tell how awkward he feels when talking about issues like the Black Lives Matter movement. He's said numerous times in the past that social and racial issues divide working people. And he's not wrong. But he's never had to campaign outside of super-white Vermont, nor has he ever had to work inside of a Democratic primary. That's my biggest worry.
Quote from: Guyute on July 31, 2015, 11:21:38 PM
So here is my worry on Bernie. He really appeals to the young liberals. These are ones that typically rally, get involved, and then don't show up on election day.
I was able to meet Bernie a few times when he was my representative and yes I voted for him. I had a prof that worked for him in college so he came and met with us.
I can say, this is the real Bernie. There isn't public Bernie and private Bernie. He is a genuinely nice person and deeply believes in what he is saying which is very refreshing. I don't think he can win, but he really does bring a missing element to this, honesty.
I'm flattered that you consider me young. :wtu:
Quote from: ytowndan on August 01, 2015, 02:17:14 AM
I generally agree but, in this specific case, I think it's more than just young liberals. It's the left in general that's really Bernie's base. Young and old, they're thrilled and ready to step up. And they'll actually show up to vote for someone who truly shares their views, not to mention someone as sincere as Sanders. So, I don't think he'll have any problems mobilizing his base on election day(s). It's the Clinton Democrats who have a hard time getting the base to show up for them. Particularly the younger liberals (as you mentioned).
Having said that, he does have one very major problem: The crowds he draws at his rallies (as massive as they are) are about as ethnically diverse as a Tea Party town hall. He's going to have to start working on a way to really reach out to the Latino and African-American communities. He's been talking about economic populism for decades -- and you can tell. But you can also tell how awkward he feels when talking about issues like the Black Lives Matter movement. He's said numerous times in the past that social and racial issues divide working people. And he's not wrong. But he's never had to campaign outside of super-white Vermont, nor has he ever had to work inside of a Democratic primary. That's my biggest worry.
Well if by some miracle Bernie makes it to the general, he can always deploy Bill. 8-)
Been too excited by the boys to mention this (can't tell you how much of a relief that is). Tomorrow's lineup was announced. Looking forward to the clown show.
Donald Trump
Jeb Bush
Scott Walker
Mike Huckabee
Ben Carson
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Rand Paul
Chris Christie
John Kasich
Kids table
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum
Bobby Jindal
Carly Fiorina
Lindsey Graham
George Pataki
Jim Gilmore
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/fox-debate-cleveland-announcement/
ugh I dont think I could even put myself through watching that.
Also, I know this won't come as a surprise to most of you fine folks, but Hillary = Jeb.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/04/hillary-clinton-s-mega-donors-are-also-funding-jeb-bush.html
Quote
Hillary Clinton's Mega-Donors Are Also Funding Jeb Bush
Racetrack owners, bankers, and chicken kings: Meet the ultra-rich bankrolling the Bush and Clinton dynasties. A special report by Vocativ and The Daily Beast.
For some wealthy donors, it doesn't matter who takes the White House in 2016—as long as the president's name is Clinton or Bush.
More than 60 ultra-rich Americans have contributed to both Jeb Bush's and Hillary Clinton's federal campaigns, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by Vocativ and The Daily Beast. Seventeen of those contributors have gone one step further and opened their wallets to fund both Bush's and Clinton's 2016 ambitions.
After all, why support just Hillary Clinton or just Jeb Bush when you can hedge your bets and donate to both? This seems to be the thinking of a group of powerful men and women—racetrack owners, bankers, media barons, chicken magnates, hedge funders (and their spouses). Some of them have net worths that can eclipse the GDPs of small countries.
...
(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/08/04/hillary-clinton-s-mega-donors-are-also-funding-jeb-bush/jcr:content/body/inlineimage_3.img.800.jpg/47957880.cached.jpg)
I wonder if Hillary is pissed at Brett Tipaul or Leon Wagner.
No special favors / pardons for them
Apparently Carly Fiorina crushed the JV debate.
Time for the shitshow Main Event.
Some godawful casual banter between the moderators a min ago. If this debate is as exciting as that, I'm not gonna be able to take it.
OH SHIT. I CANT BELIEVE THEY OPENED WITH "DONALD TRUMP, ARE YOU IN FACT AN ASSHOLE."
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 06, 2015, 09:02:44 PM
Apparently Carly Fiorina crushed the JV debate.
Time for the shitshow Main Event.
Some godawful casual banter between the moderators a min ago. If this debate is as exciting as that, I'm not gonna be able to take it.
Rubio's ears are fucking huge
OH SNAP
What happened I blacked out.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 06, 2015, 11:10:42 PM
What happened I blacked out.
From what I gathered, they don't like Obamacare. At least I think thats what they were getting at?
Quote from: mbw on August 07, 2015, 12:09:06 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 06, 2015, 11:10:42 PM
What happened I blacked out.
From what I gathered, they don't like Obamacare. At least I think thats what they were getting at?
Obama-care? Never heard of it.
Also, immigrants.
But God tho.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 07, 2015, 12:25:03 AM
Quote from: mbw on August 07, 2015, 12:09:06 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 06, 2015, 11:10:42 PM
What happened I blacked out.
From what I gathered, they don't like Obamacare. At least I think thats what they were getting at?
Obama-care? Never heard of it.
Also, immigrants.
But God tho.
Obamacare = Replace it! (with ...
something)
Immigration = Build a wall!
God = He wants this for us!
Taxes = They're the worst!
ISIS = Hide your kids! Hide your wife!
The Military = It's weak tea!
Rosie O'Donnell = Disgusting animal!
That was about it.
Rosie O'Donnell is running for president?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CL0SZOTWcAAkQ3J.jpg)
Threesome action
Looks like our long national nightmare may soon come to an end.
Quote
@Mediaite (https://twitter.com/mediaite/status/629830777354756096): Trump on Megyn Kelly: 'Blood Coming Out of Her Eyes, Blood Coming Out of Her... Wherever' http://t.co/n3DZzEmSnu VIDEO http://t.co/
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 07, 2015, 10:27:37 PM
Looks like our long national nightmare may soon come to an end.
Quote
@Mediaite (https://twitter.com/mediaite/status/629830777354756096): Trump on Megyn Kelly: 'Blood Coming Out of Her Eyes, Blood Coming Out of Her... Wherever' http://t.co/n3DZzEmSnu VIDEO http://t.co/
I dont get it. Are you saying that Trump making a rediculous, sexist statement is going to bury him?
Quote from: mbw on August 10, 2015, 05:10:53 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 07, 2015, 10:27:37 PM
Looks like our long national nightmare may soon come to an end.
Quote
@Mediaite (https://twitter.com/mediaite/status/629830777354756096): Trump on Megyn Kelly: 'Blood Coming Out of Her Eyes, Blood Coming Out of Her... Wherever' http://t.co/n3DZzEmSnu VIDEO http://t.co/
I dont get it. Are you saying that Trump making a rediculous, sexist statement is going to bury him?
Yes. I think when someone makes a "she's on the rag" joke - especially when that joke is used to explain why the big mean reporter lady was so mean to him - that person is not going to be president. It doesn't mean he's (necessarily) going to go away anytime soon. But I think it's pretty clear he's not going to be taken "seriously" anymore. And you can see it already: all the tough guy GOP candidates were out talking about what a disgrace he is yesterday and today whereas before they were too afraid to mention him.
A lot of people today pointing to this poll (http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/) showing Trump's support has surged post-debate (even including period-gate). But it's an online poll which is ripe for manipulation and notoriously suspect in terms of predictability. Dude will very soon be the laughing stock he so rightly deserves to be.
Meanwhile, Martin O'Malley (who?) is not happy about the debate schedule the DNC announced last week.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/martin-omalley-erupts-on-debate-schedule-what-the-hell-kind
Quote
Martin O'Malley Erupts On Debate Schedule: "What The Hell Kind Of Democratic Party Is This?"
"We shouldn't be a party that's afraid to talk about America's role in the world and the lessons we've learned from these last very hard 14 to 15 years of conflict."
Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley criticized his party's debate schedule on Monday, calling the format of six debates a "sad state of affairs."
"I think that having more debates would certainly have all of the candidates take positions on issues,"O'Malley said in an interview with Boston Herald Radio. O'Malley is positioning himself as a progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton, but is currently polling below 2% nationally.
"I've been very clear where I stand on Wall Street reform," he added. "I've been clear about my plan to make sure that a debt-free college degree is something that's within the means of every family in the United States, and I've been very clear about wanting to move, and putting out a plan to move our country to a 100 percent clean electric grid by 2050."
Last Thursday, the Democratic National Committee announced the party will hold six primary debates. O'Malley slammed what he said was the DNC trying to stifle debate.
"And as the Democratic Party, I think it's a sad state of affairs when the DNC — it tries to insert itself to cut off a Democratic debate," he said. "We should not be a party that's afraid to talk about the ideas that will get wages going up again instead of down. We shouldn't be a party that's afraid to talk about America's role in the world and the lessons we've learned from these last very hard 14 to 15 years of conflict."
"We have better solutions for the future than the other party has and I think we're making a huge mistake," he continued. "If we cut off debate, if we tell the people of New Hampshire that we've become such an impoverished party that we can only afford one debate before the New Hampshire primary, what the hell kind of Democratic Party is this?
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, another underdog for the Democratic presidential nomination, also criticized the debate schedule in an interview Sunday.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 10, 2015, 05:45:10 PM
Quote from: mbw on August 10, 2015, 05:10:53 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 07, 2015, 10:27:37 PM
Looks like our long national nightmare may soon come to an end.
Quote
@Mediaite (https://twitter.com/mediaite/status/629830777354756096): Trump on Megyn Kelly: 'Blood Coming Out of Her Eyes, Blood Coming Out of Her... Wherever' http://t.co/n3DZzEmSnu VIDEO http://t.co/
I dont get it. Are you saying that Trump making a rediculous, sexist statement is going to bury him?
Yes. I think when someone makes a "she's on the rag" joke - especially when that joke is used to explain why the big mean reporter lady was so mean to him - that person is not going to be president. It doesn't mean he's (necessarily) going to go away anytime soon. But I think it's pretty clear he's not going to be taken "seriously" anymore. And you can see it already: all the tough guy GOP candidates were out talking about what a disgrace he is yesterday and today whereas before they were too afraid to mention him.
A lot of people today pointing to this poll (http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/) showing Trump's support has surged post-debate (even including period-gate). But it's an online poll which is ripe for manipulation and notoriously suspect in terms of predictability. Dude will very soon be the laughing stock he so rightly deserves to be.
meh. all is he needs to do is tone down the misogyny and amp back up the racism and he'll be fine. oh wait i forgot, the hatred of obama has nothing to do with republicans being racist. actually, he doesn't even need to tone down the misogyny, his 'only rosie o'donnell' comment referring to women as pigs and dogs got big applause and laughter. these fucking assholes love it. i mean c'mon, somebody is doing the raping!
Quote from: mbw on August 10, 2015, 08:15:30 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 10, 2015, 05:45:10 PM
Quote from: mbw on August 10, 2015, 05:10:53 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 07, 2015, 10:27:37 PM
Looks like our long national nightmare may soon come to an end.
Quote
@Mediaite (https://twitter.com/mediaite/status/629830777354756096): Trump on Megyn Kelly: 'Blood Coming Out of Her Eyes, Blood Coming Out of Her... Wherever' http://t.co/n3DZzEmSnu VIDEO http://t.co/
I dont get it. Are you saying that Trump making a rediculous, sexist statement is going to bury him?
Yes. I think when someone makes a "she's on the rag" joke - especially when that joke is used to explain why the big mean reporter lady was so mean to him - that person is not going to be president. It doesn't mean he's (necessarily) going to go away anytime soon. But I think it's pretty clear he's not going to be taken "seriously" anymore. And you can see it already: all the tough guy GOP candidates were out talking about what a disgrace he is yesterday and today whereas before they were too afraid to mention him.
A lot of people today pointing to this poll (http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/) showing Trump's support has surged post-debate (even including period-gate). But it's an online poll which is ripe for manipulation and notoriously suspect in terms of predictability. Dude will very soon be the laughing stock he so rightly deserves to be.
meh. all is he needs to do is tone down the misogyny and amp back up the racism and he'll be fine. oh wait i forgot, the hatred of obama has nothing to do with republicans being racist. actually, he doesn't even need to tone down the misogyny, his 'only rosie o'donnell' comment referring to women as pigs and dogs got big applause and laughter. these fucking assholes love it. i mean c'mon, somebody is doing the raping!
How many non-white candidates are the Ds running?
C'mon, that Rosie O'Donnell line was funny.
God damn it I hate it when you troll me into defending these dickheads.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 10, 2015, 08:35:04 PM
Quote from: mbw on August 10, 2015, 08:15:30 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 10, 2015, 05:45:10 PM
Quote from: mbw on August 10, 2015, 05:10:53 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 07, 2015, 10:27:37 PM
Looks like our long national nightmare may soon come to an end.
Quote
@Mediaite (https://twitter.com/mediaite/status/629830777354756096): Trump on Megyn Kelly: 'Blood Coming Out of Her Eyes, Blood Coming Out of Her... Wherever' http://t.co/n3DZzEmSnu VIDEO http://t.co/
I dont get it. Are you saying that Trump making a rediculous, sexist statement is going to bury him?
Yes. I think when someone makes a "she's on the rag" joke - especially when that joke is used to explain why the big mean reporter lady was so mean to him - that person is not going to be president. It doesn't mean he's (necessarily) going to go away anytime soon. But I think it's pretty clear he's not going to be taken "seriously" anymore. And you can see it already: all the tough guy GOP candidates were out talking about what a disgrace he is yesterday and today whereas before they were too afraid to mention him.
A lot of people today pointing to this poll (http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/) showing Trump's support has surged post-debate (even including period-gate). But it's an online poll which is ripe for manipulation and notoriously suspect in terms of predictability. Dude will very soon be the laughing stock he so rightly deserves to be.
meh. all is he needs to do is tone down the misogyny and amp back up the racism and he'll be fine. oh wait i forgot, the hatred of obama has nothing to do with republicans being racist. actually, he doesn't even need to tone down the misogyny, his 'only rosie o'donnell' comment referring to women as pigs and dogs got big applause and laughter. these fucking assholes love it. i mean c'mon, somebody is doing the raping!
How many non-white candidates are the Ds running?
none yet, but that's not the point. neither the Bernie or the soon to not be front-runner have gotten there by making blatantly racist remarks, as has trump.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 10, 2015, 08:35:04 PM
C'mon, that Rosie O'Donnell line was funny.
well yeah, but as you stated, not for a presidential candidate. but it doesn't matter with this party. that's how bad it's gotten with them.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 10, 2015, 08:35:04 PM
God damn it I hate it when you troll me into defending these dickheads.
its so easy tho.
Quote from: mbw on August 10, 2015, 09:02:51 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 10, 2015, 08:35:04 PM
How many non-white candidates are the Ds running?
none yet, but that's not the point. neither the Bernie or the soon to not be front-runner have gotten there by making blatantly racist remarks, as has trump.
Sure it is: when you accuse an entire political party and roughly half the country of being overt racists (for 8 years), I think it's instructive to hold your own team to the same standards. Now, I agree, the composition of the field (not to mention the powers we are willing to grant the executive) was never my litmus test. But I seem to remember a whole lot of "GOP is party of old white men" faux outrage last time around.
Quote from: mbw on August 10, 2015, 09:02:51 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 10, 2015, 08:35:04 PM
God damn it I hate it when you troll me into defending these dickheads.
its so easy tho.
Pretty much
But that's not why I came here: check out all the sick burnage in this Twitter exchange between the two supposed front runners to become the most powerful person in the world. Keep up the good work, America.
Quote@HillaryClinton (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/630809548459220992)
Cost won't be a barrier to an education. Debt won't hold you back. Read Hillary's plan: http://hrc.io/college
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMEU-byWUAEzUIM.png)
Quote
@JebBush (https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/630847558047375360)
@HillaryClinton
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CME4cEzW8AQLEpg.png)
Quote
@HillaryClinton (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/630889514618195968)
.@JebBush Fixed it for you.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMFeeM5WEAAfwsm.png)
Quote
@JebBush
.@HillaryClinton fixed your logo for you
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMF7gzCWcAAEXZq.jpg)
(https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/630924074605223937)
I don't follow any of them on twitter, but it is much more entertaining than trading barbs via soundbite.
one thing hasn't changed - the GOPs stock answer (when they don't have an answer) remains tax and spend.
of course, the Dems is war on XX (woman, seniors, take your pick), then the GOP will say war on yy (God, America)
they might as well just say something dignified, like "your mama", or "I know you are but what am I"
Quote from: slslbs on August 11, 2015, 01:32:45 PM
I don't follow any of them on twitter, but it is much more entertaining than trading barbs via soundbite.
one thing hasn't changed - the GOPs stock answer (when they don't have an answer) remains tax and spend.
of course, the Dems is war on XX (woman, seniors, take your pick), then the GOP will say war on yy (God, America)
they might as well just say something dignified, like "your mama", or "I know you are but what am I"
https://youtu.be/1A3WEMPZJD8
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/11/1410823/-Bernie-Sanders-in-LA-Over-27-000-in-attendance-This-thing-is-real-The-media-needs-to-get-serious
His crowds are really getting huge YUGE!
Also, this.
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11870710_986847648040784_5036082477733101979_n.jpg?oh=aa88a7d1feefd5a7e30cd49425e61f54&oe=567C7209)
Poll: Bernie Sanders surges ahead of Hillary Clinton in N.H., 44-37 (http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/08/poll_bernie_sanders_surges_ahead_of_hillary_clinton_in_nh_44_37)
Quote"Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has rocketed past longtime front-runner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, a stunning turn in a race once considered a lock for the former secretary of state, a new Franklin Pierce University/Boston Herald poll shows.
Sanders leads Clinton 44-37 percent among likely Democratic primary voters, the first time the heavily favored Clinton has trailed in the 2016 primary campaign, according to the poll of 442 Granite-Staters.
Sanders rise has been meteoric. The socialist senator trailed Clinton by a 44-8 margin in a Franklin Pierce/Herald poll in March."
I went to see Bernie Friday night, at a nondescript convention/events venue on the outskirts of Columbia. The main room held about 2,000 plus however many overflowing outside. It was hot as shit in there, and one person even fainted and had to be carried out in the middle of the speech.
I do like that Bernie doesn't seem to give a shit about being a polished politician. He kind of comes off as a reluctant, even cranky, candidate, doing what he's doing out of a sense of obligation that seems pretty genuine. That said, he does have a stockpile of favorite applause lines, which he leaned on fairly heavily and deployed much more often than actual policy proposals. But maybe that's primary season for you.
His stump speech is heavy on economic populism and anti-one-percentisms. Surely a lot of his views in this area would shock and appall a great many to his political right. His self-applied label "democratic socialist" is accurately chosen.
I was most encouraged when he addressed criminal justice and police militarization/brutality. You know not a single Republican contestant (to borrow Trump's term) would even bother to acknowledge those as issues, with the possible exception of Rand Paul, unless he thought his crowd wouldn't abide such talk.
Still, I was disappointed that Bernie didn't go farther in addressing the drug war and drug policy. In fact, in talking about how important it is for police to have the trust and support of the community, the examples he chose were that we want people to be able to count on cops to go after "crack houses" and "drug dealers." Really, Bern? Couldn't you have picked, like, purse snatchers and domestic abusers instead? At one point someone shouted something about ending cannabis prohibition, and Bernie ignored the remark. Later, he said that it's crazy that a person can have a criminal record for marijuana but no one has a criminal record for Wall Street's misdeeds. Note he did not say that no one should have criminal record for marijuana.
All in all, it was a good time with a good crowd, and an excited one. I'm glad Bernie is in this race if only to put certain things on the table that artificial establishment types like Hillary would never touch otherwise. I'm also glad right now to be living in an early primary state, so we'll be getting lots of visits from lots of people coming up. Personally, I cannot wait for my first Trump rally.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNiiFTQUYAAH-3v.jpg)
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/29/bernie-sanders-explodes-iowa-closes-7-hillary-clinton-poll.html
You guys gonna be ok when crazy Uncle Joe gets in and steals all Bernie's thunder?
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 29, 2015, 06:31:24 PM
You guys gonna be ok when crazy Uncle Joe gets in and steals all Bernie's thunder?
It won't make much of a difference. The media goes out of its way to ignore Sanders as it is, having Biden in the race won't change that at all. He also isn't going to be "stealing" much of Sanders' vote either, considering he's even more conservative than Hillary.
Quote from: ytowndan on August 29, 2015, 06:40:23 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 29, 2015, 06:31:24 PM
You guys gonna be ok when crazy Uncle Joe gets in and steals all Bernie's thunder?
It won't make much of a difference. The media goes out of its way to ignore Sanders as it is, having Biden in the race won't change that at all. He also isn't going to be "stealing" much of Sanders' vote either, considering he's even more conservative than Hillary.
clearly he is taking votes away from clinton. go joe.
Yeah, hard to see many of the people who are excited for Bernie suddenly jump ship for Joe.
Although someone last night was discussing a plan (I have no idea whose speculation this is as I haven't researched it) wherein Biden would tap Elizabeth Warren for VP and run promising only to serve one term. Kinda to mitigate the age thing and position it as "Let's give Liz some experience cuz you know you all would rather her in four years anyway." I guess?
One term promise up front would be a bad idea. Just sayin.
I agree, Biden's support would most certainly come from Clinton, but there are surely enough voters - especially minority voters - that may be too disaffected with Hillary that would get behind Joe. Plus, given the WH's not so subtle hints of their intentions were Joe to get in (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/2016-election-barack-obama-endorsement-121670), he would be looking at a pretty broad coalition, assuming he could overcome the Clinton machine (still no small feat). Although it would be interesting to see how the Black Lives Matter movement reacts to Biden given the way they have disrupted Bernie: if anyone is more responsible than the Clintons for our woeful current mass incarceration state it's Joe Biden (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/joe-biden-crime-bill-mass-incarceration).
But in the end, it just seems to me the establishment is still too much to overcome in a national election (sadly). The organizational muscle required is too high a bar for the more extreme ends of either side of the spectrum to overcome, whether it's progressives on the left or Tea Party/whacko birds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/03/08/mccain-calls-paul-cruz-amash-wacko-birds/) or whoever the right leaning anti-establisment voice du jour is.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 30, 2015, 01:09:03 PM
Although someone last night was discussing a plan (I have no idea whose speculation this is as I haven't researched it) wherein Biden would tap Elizabeth Warren for VP and run promising only to serve one term. Kinda to mitigate the age thing and position it as "Let's give Liz some experience cuz you know you all would rather her in four years anyway." I guess?
Seems to be rampant speculation (at this point) coming out of their meeting last week (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/22/politics/joe-biden-washington-meetings/). However, most of the people in the know that I follow were talking about it like it was a given.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/06/438113499/harvard-law-professor-crowdfunds-1-million-launches-presidential-bid
This guy has zero chance of getting the nomination but, given how this seems to be the Year of the Non-Politician, he might actually poll high enough to get into the debate.
His proposal of ending gerrymandering with multi-member congressional districts is a great idea that no one is talking about. It would be a plus if he could get the Democrats to take sides on that issue. However, with exception to that proposal, everything else in his (very small) platform (https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/) is basically what Bernie is already campaigning on.
Good read... imo anyway!
http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/09/kareem-abdul-jabbar-writes-powerful-message-against-trump-and-for-bernie-read-how-trump-responded/
every time I think that Trump is the biggest dick in the world, some other, even bigger dick comes along.
turns out that the bigger dick is... Trump
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/battleground-tracker-sanders-surges-in-ia-nh-clinton-up-in-sc/
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 10, 2015, 05:45:10 PM
Quote from: mbw on August 10, 2015, 05:10:53 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 07, 2015, 10:27:37 PM
Looks like our long national nightmare may soon come to an end.
Quote
@Mediaite (https://twitter.com/mediaite/status/629830777354756096): Trump on Megyn Kelly: 'Blood Coming Out of Her Eyes, Blood Coming Out of Her... Wherever' http://t.co/n3DZzEmSnu VIDEO http://t.co/
I dont get it. Are you saying that Trump making a rediculous, sexist statement is going to bury him?
Yes. I think when someone makes a "she's on the rag" joke - especially when that joke is used to explain why the big mean reporter lady was so mean to him - that person is not going to be president. It doesn't mean he's (necessarily) going to go away anytime soon. But I think it's pretty clear he's not going to be taken "seriously" anymore. And you can see it already: all the tough guy GOP candidates were out talking about what a disgrace he is yesterday and today whereas before they were too afraid to mention him.
A lot of people today pointing to this poll (http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/) showing Trump's support has surged post-debate (even including period-gate). But it's an online poll which is ripe for manipulation and notoriously suspect in terms of predictability. Dude will very soon be the laughing stock he so rightly deserves to be.
phew. gotta hand it to you, you were right on the money. i take back all the things i said about the majority of republicans being xenophobic, racist and misogynist. i am happy that this remark followed by even more outrageous remarks finally made the republican base say enough is enough and the donald is all but a memory now. now they can focus on real candidates like another bush or maybe ted cruz.
Quote from: mbw on September 13, 2015, 07:05:02 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 10, 2015, 05:45:10 PM
Quote from: mbw on August 10, 2015, 05:10:53 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 07, 2015, 10:27:37 PM
Looks like our long national nightmare may soon come to an end.
Quote
@Mediaite (https://twitter.com/mediaite/status/629830777354756096): Trump on Megyn Kelly: 'Blood Coming Out of Her Eyes, Blood Coming Out of Her... Wherever' http://t.co/n3DZzEmSnu VIDEO http://t.co/
I dont get it. Are you saying that Trump making a rediculous, sexist statement is going to bury him?
Yes. I think when someone makes a "she's on the rag" joke - especially when that joke is used to explain why the big mean reporter lady was so mean to him - that person is not going to be president. It doesn't mean he's (necessarily) going to go away anytime soon. But I think it's pretty clear he's not going to be taken "seriously" anymore. And you can see it already: all the tough guy GOP candidates were out talking about what a disgrace he is yesterday and today whereas before they were too afraid to mention him.
A lot of people today pointing to this poll (http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/) showing Trump's support has surged post-debate (even including period-gate). But it's an online poll which is ripe for manipulation and notoriously suspect in terms of predictability. Dude will very soon be the laughing stock he so rightly deserves to be.
phew. gotta hand it to you, you were right on the money. i take back all the things i said about the majority of republicans being xenophobic, racist and misogynist. i am happy that this remark followed by even more outrageous remarks finally made the republican base say enough is enough and the donald is all but a memory now. now they can focus on real candidates like another bush or maybe ted cruz.
LOL
Good to know that when I said "not any time soon" you interpreted that as "1 month or GTFO." Although I'm sure Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum all wish the political calendar progressed on your expedited schedule.
Donald Trump will not be the GOP nominee. He represents frustration with politics as usual; he's basically a Bizzaro version of your boy Bern. So while it's easy for people to tell a pollster over the phone 5 months before the first primaries that yes, they do in fact support Trump, when it comes down to, you know, actually voting, issues end up mattering to people. And while the GOP base may in fact be as virulently anti-immigrant as Trump (again, much like a certain Independent Senator running for the Democratic nomination), I am quite confident that the Republican voters for which you hold so much disdain will not make Trump their nominee because he has no issue that he cares about other than himself.
If I were you, I would be way more concerned about Ben Carson. He also can tap into the anti-establishment fervor and he is basing his tax plan on the Bible. He is pretty much running for president because he is convinced Jesus told him to. That kind of zealotry scares the shit out of me. And, unlike the Donald, he may actually have the political acumen to put together some wins. But of course, you will write him off because you are certain the GOP would never, EVER, vote for the black man. (I agree with you that he has a tough road but IMO it is because of the inevitability of the establishment not the color of his skin).
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 13, 2015, 09:15:08 PM
Quote from: mbw on September 13, 2015, 07:05:02 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 10, 2015, 05:45:10 PM
Quote from: mbw on August 10, 2015, 05:10:53 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 07, 2015, 10:27:37 PM
Looks like our long national nightmare may soon come to an end.
Quote
@Mediaite (https://twitter.com/mediaite/status/629830777354756096): Trump on Megyn Kelly: 'Blood Coming Out of Her Eyes, Blood Coming Out of Her... Wherever' http://t.co/n3DZzEmSnu VIDEO http://t.co/
I dont get it. Are you saying that Trump making a rediculous, sexist statement is going to bury him?
Yes. I think when someone makes a "she's on the rag" joke - especially when that joke is used to explain why the big mean reporter lady was so mean to him - that person is not going to be president. It doesn't mean he's (necessarily) going to go away anytime soon. But I think it's pretty clear he's not going to be taken "seriously" anymore. And you can see it already: all the tough guy GOP candidates were out talking about what a disgrace he is yesterday and today whereas before they were too afraid to mention him.
A lot of people today pointing to this poll (http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/) showing Trump's support has surged post-debate (even including period-gate). But it's an online poll which is ripe for manipulation and notoriously suspect in terms of predictability. Dude will very soon be the laughing stock he so rightly deserves to be.
phew. gotta hand it to you, you were right on the money. i take back all the things i said about the majority of republicans being xenophobic, racist and misogynist. i am happy that this remark followed by even more outrageous remarks finally made the republican base say enough is enough and the donald is all but a memory now. now they can focus on real candidates like another bush or maybe ted cruz.
LOL
Good to know that when I said "not any time soon" you interpreted that as "1 month or GTFO." Although I'm sure Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum all wish the political calendar progressed on your expedited schedule.
Donald Trump will not be the GOP nominee. He represents frustration with politics as usual; he's basically a Bizzaro version of your boy Bern. So while it's easy for people to tell a pollster over the phone 5 months before the first primaries that yes, they do in fact support Trump, when it comes down to, you know, actually voting, issues end up mattering to people. And while the GOP base may in fact be as virulently anti-immigrant as Trump (again, much like a certain Independent Senator running for the Democratic nomination), I am quite confident that the Republican voters for which you hold so much disdain will not make Trump their nominee because he has no issue that he cares about other than himself.
If I were you, I would be way more concerned about Ben Carson. He also can tap into the anti-establishment fervor and he is basing his tax plan on the Bible. He is pretty much running for president because he is convinced Jesus told him to. That kind of zealotry scares the shit out of me. And, unlike the Donald, he may actually have the political acumen to put together some wins. But of course, you will write him off because you are certain the GOP would never, EVER, vote for the black man. (I agree with you that he has a tough road but IMO it is because of the inevitability of the establishment not the color of his skin).
thanks for more quote canon fodder. i will check back in in a month. :-D
Carly Fiorina is doing what none of the "big boys" could: beating the everloving shit out of Trump.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 16, 2015, 09:13:05 PM
Carly Fiorina is doing what none of the "big boys" could: beating the everloving shit out of Trump.
they really tee'd that one up for her about trump calling her ugly and then horribly spinning it, after he accused bush of 'not meaning what he said.'
it almost seemed scripted, but i'm glad she kicked him in the nuts.
Trump makes every emoji face ever in 6 secs
https://vine.co/v/eU59mHr0b5P
Dear God,
I know I don't believe in you, but please, PLEASE, let this be over.
Your pal,
jimbo
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 16, 2015, 10:26:15 PM
Dear God,
I know I don't believe in you, but please, PLEASE, let this be over.
Your pal,
jimbo
You sat through the whole thing?
Quote from: mbw on September 17, 2015, 09:47:12 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 16, 2015, 10:26:15 PM
Dear God,
I know I don't believe in you, but please, PLEASE, let this be over.
Your pal,
jimbo
You sat through the whole thing?
Yup. I was still a little sore from punching myself in the nuts repeatedly on Tuesday night so I needed to find another way to torture myself. This was way worse.
"Leave science to the scientists"
attributed to Rick Santorium when asked about Pope Francis' encyclical on the environment and global warming.
OK Rick, that's a great idea.
Anyone else watching?
It's the moment we've all been waiting for: Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb go head-to-head! :samurai:
only in between innings
:tte:
Quote from: ytowndan on October 13, 2015, 08:45:11 PM
Anyone else watching?
It's the moment we've all been waiting for: Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb go head-to-head! :samurai:
Hillary kicking your boy's teeth in right now.
I tried. This is awful.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 13, 2015, 09:15:34 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on October 13, 2015, 08:45:11 PM
Anyone else watching?
It's the moment we've all been waiting for: Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb go head-to-head! :samurai:
Hillary kicking your boy's teeth in right now.
really?
Quote from: mbw on October 13, 2015, 09:49:27 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 13, 2015, 09:15:34 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on October 13, 2015, 08:45:11 PM
Anyone else watching?
It's the moment we've all been waiting for: Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb go head-to-head! :samurai:
Hillary kicking your boy's teeth in right now.
really?
That was on guns and yes, she won that exchange handily. Been a lot of circling the wagons since then.
I was convinced Biden was getting in. After watching this, I think he passes based on her inevitability.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 13, 2015, 10:06:35 PM
Quote from: mbw on October 13, 2015, 09:49:27 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 13, 2015, 09:15:34 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on October 13, 2015, 08:45:11 PM
Anyone else watching?
It's the moment we've all been waiting for: Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb go head-to-head! :samurai:
Hillary kicking your boy's teeth in right now.
really?
That was on guns and yes, she won that exchange handily. Been a lot of circling the wagons since then.
I was convinced Biden was getting in. After watching this, I think he passes based on her inevitability.
Well, Bernie just smashed her face into a jelly (as long as we're going with hyperbole here) when he was all "Congress regulates Wall St, Wall St does not regulate Congress. You don't go to them and say 'Please stop doing this'" :hereitisyousentimentalbastard :samurai:
Quote from: mbw on October 13, 2015, 10:11:59 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 13, 2015, 10:06:35 PM
Quote from: mbw on October 13, 2015, 09:49:27 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 13, 2015, 09:15:34 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on October 13, 2015, 08:45:11 PM
Anyone else watching?
It's the moment we've all been waiting for: Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb go head-to-head! :samurai:
Hillary kicking your boy's teeth in right now.
really?
That was on guns and yes, she won that exchange handily. Been a lot of circling the wagons since then.
I was convinced Biden was getting in. After watching this, I think he passes based on her inevitability.
Well, Bernie just smashed her face into a jelly (as long as we're going with hyperbole here) when he was all "Congress regulates Wall St, Wall St does not regulate Congress. You don't go to them and say 'Please stop doing this'" :hereitisyousentimentalbastard :samurai:
Yeah, he certainly has the edge on that issue. I'm surprised he hasn't gone back to that more often.
Ooh, Hillary pulls the "I'm a woman, duh" card in response to the "how would you be different than Pres Obama" question. How witty, Madame Secretary.
But Lincoln Chafee has been by far my favorite. He defended voting to repeal Glass-Stegall and voting for the Patriot Act as "well, everyone was doing it." Jim "I don't get enough time" Webb has been pretty lulzy too.
Yeah, Hillary definitely beat up Bernie on guns -- which was expected. But, he's been owing the stage on economics.
^^
agreed
O'Malley is also doing well, too
This debate may be boring Trump, but at least they're talking about issues.
I'd like to hear if any of them have a method to deal with the the hard line right
ETA
thank you
GAME 5!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/MrxCDkv.jpg)
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Hillary was very smooth and polished. But I am not voting for a geenie lamp personally. I think Bernie did great and was actually surprised with how much I like O'Malley. Mainstream media has obviously picked their winner. Just hope Bernie's grassroots movement can overcome all that BS.
http://mediaequalizer.com/brian-maloney/2015/10/fuming-bernie-supporters-why-is-cnn-deleting-our-comments
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12088400_890990527617528_2441079181059448956_n.jpg?oh=7121dbfb109c0aedb2d8554998a0858d&oe=56D0BC0B)
Quote from: mbw on September 13, 2015, 09:49:14 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 13, 2015, 09:15:08 PM
Quote from: mbw on September 13, 2015, 07:05:02 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 10, 2015, 05:45:10 PM
Quote from: mbw on August 10, 2015, 05:10:53 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 07, 2015, 10:27:37 PM
Looks like our long national nightmare may soon come to an end.
Quote
@Mediaite (https://twitter.com/mediaite/status/629830777354756096): Trump on Megyn Kelly: 'Blood Coming Out of Her Eyes, Blood Coming Out of Her... Wherever' http://t.co/n3DZzEmSnu VIDEO http://t.co/
I dont get it. Are you saying that Trump making a ridiculous, sexist statement is going to bury him?
Yes. I think when someone makes a "she's on the rag" joke - especially when that joke is used to explain why the big mean reporter lady was so mean to him - that person is not going to be president. It doesn't mean he's (necessarily) going to go away anytime soon. But I think it's pretty clear he's not going to be taken "seriously" anymore. And you can see it already: all the tough guy GOP candidates were out talking about what a disgrace he is yesterday and today whereas before they were too afraid to mention him.
A lot of people today pointing to this poll (http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/) showing Trump's support has surged post-debate (even including period-gate). But it's an online poll which is ripe for manipulation and notoriously suspect in terms of predictability. Dude will very soon be the laughing stock he so rightly deserves to be.
phew. gotta hand it to you, you were right on the money. i take back all the things i said about the majority of republicans being xenophobic, racist and misogynist. i am happy that this remark followed by even more outrageous remarks finally made the republican base say enough is enough and the donald is all but a memory now. now they can focus on real candidates like another bush or maybe ted cruz.
LOL
Good to know that when I said "not any time soon" you interpreted that as "1 month or GTFO." Although I'm sure Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum all wish the political calendar progressed on your expedited schedule.
Donald Trump will not be the GOP nominee. He represents frustration with politics as usual; he's basically a Bizzaro version of your boy Bern. So while it's easy for people to tell a pollster over the phone 5 months before the first primaries that yes, they do in fact support Trump, when it comes down to, you know, actually voting, issues end up mattering to people. And while the GOP base may in fact be as virulently anti-immigrant as Trump (again, much like a certain Independent Senator running for the Democratic nomination), I am quite confident that the Republican voters for which you hold so much disdain will not make Trump their nominee because he has no issue that he cares about other than himself.
If I were you, I would be way more concerned about Ben Carson. He also can tap into the anti-establishment fervor and he is basing his tax plan on the Bible. He is pretty much running for president because he is convinced Jesus told him to. That kind of zealotry scares the shit out of me. And, unlike the Donald, he may actually have the political acumen to put together some wins. But of course, you will write him off because you are certain the GOP would never, EVER, vote for the black man. (I agree with you that he has a tough road but IMO it is because of the inevitability of the establishment not the color of his skin).
thanks for more quote canon fodder. i will check back in in a month. :-D
ok, ok, you were right. I can't believe there was actually a time Trump was the front runner, until he said something sexist and the Republican voters finally dismissed him. I mean, the blatant racism was one thing, but an on the rag joke?! I'm glad you were right.
QuoteAnd while the GOP base may in fact be as virulently anti-immigrant as Trump (again, much like a certain Independent Senator running for the Democratic nomination)
wait, did I miss you stating that Sanders is virulently anti-Immigrant?
https://youtu.be/CpVe_p_B1Fc
That is absolutely incredible. +K
Quote from: mbw on October 15, 2015, 12:48:06 PM
ok, ok, you were right. I can't believe there was actually a time Trump was the front runner, until he said something sexist and the Republican voters finally dismissed him. I mean, the blatant racism was one thing, but an on the rag joke?! I'm glad you were right.
Like I said, talk to me when he starts winning primaries.
Quote from: mbw on October 15, 2015, 12:48:06 PM
wait, did I miss you stating that Sanders is virulently anti-Immigrant?
Yup
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/9048401/bernie-sanders-open-borders
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2015, 12:35:37 PM
Quote from: mbw on October 15, 2015, 12:48:06 PM
wait, did I miss you stating that Sanders is virulently anti-Immigrant?
Yup
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/9048401/bernie-sanders-open-borders
lulz. yeah, thats the same. c'mon, you're better than that.
i had one fucking wish; I sent emails, tweeted, yelled out my window, said prayers.... Don't fucking dance on Ellen, Bernie!
dammit.
Woah, Bernie AND Lawrence Lessig on Maher tonight? That debate should be more interesting than the other night.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2015, 09:42:12 PM
Woah, Bernie AND Lawrence Lessig on Maher tonight? That debate should be more interesting than the other night.
I can't wait to hear Bernie spout off on some anti-immigrant shit like, "we should have a reasonable policy."
Can't believe he said that shit!
Quote from: mbw on October 16, 2015, 10:27:19 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2015, 09:42:12 PM
Woah, Bernie AND Lawrence Lessig on Maher tonight? That debate should be more interesting than the other night.
I can't wait to hear Bernie spout off on some anti-immigrant shit like, "we should have a reasonable policy."
Can't believe he said that shit!
Definitely a monster.
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 16, 2015, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: mbw on October 16, 2015, 10:27:19 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2015, 09:42:12 PM
Woah, Bernie AND Lawrence Lessig on Maher tonight? That debate should be more interesting than the other night.
I can't wait to hear Bernie spout off on some anti-immigrant shit like, "we should have a reasonable policy."
Can't believe he said that shit!
Definitely a monster.
I mean clearly, the only two options are either a 2000 mile wall to keep out the rapists, or a complete fucking free-for-all.
http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/larry-david-fulfills-destiny-plays-bernie-sanders-in-s-1737161243
would be interesting to see Obama have to deal with this if it gets the needed amount of signatures....
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/investigate-time-warners-network-cnn-purposeful-public-deception-regarding-bernie-sanders-campaign
Signed.
That's a real petition?
LOL
You can petition absolutely anything at whitehouse.gov.
Quote from: mbw on October 16, 2015, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 16, 2015, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: mbw on October 16, 2015, 10:27:19 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2015, 09:42:12 PM
Woah, Bernie AND Lawrence Lessig on Maher tonight? That debate should be more interesting than the other night.
I can't wait to hear Bernie spout off on some anti-immigrant shit like, "we should have a reasonable policy."
Can't believe he said that shit!
Definitely a monster.
I mean clearly, the only two options are either a 2000 mile wall to keep out the rapists, or a complete fucking free-for-all.
And what is that "reasonable policy?" I've never really heard him address his plan so I peeped his website on the issue (https://berniesanders.com/issues/fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/). I guess it boils down to amnesty, stopping deportations, and forcing employers to pay immigrants more. Which sounds kinda like open borders (except for that last bit about forcing employers to pay more) since it would sure as hell entice a lot more people to come here by any means necessary. No mention of the messy stuff like eligibility for benefits or how to address the 4.5 million people who are already standing in line waiting. In other words, while it may be humane, it's not really very reasonable. At all.
When you publicly state that you would prioritize Murican workers over foreign labor (as he did in that Vox interview), you are revealing your true intentions rather than just a bunch of really nice sounding stuff to post to your website. If Bernie wants to make the moral judgment that Murican workers are more worthy of the gov'ts benevolence, good for him (of course, that's not what he's doing; he's saying he supports all workers, but some more than others if you know what he means). But IMO, that is every bit as ridiculous sounding as Trump's biggest, classiest wall paid for by Mexico.
Do I think the average Trump supporter is more racist than the average Bernie supporter? Yes, I think that is most certainly true. But the policies that they are actually advocating (in addition to having zero chances of survival from a political standpoint) are equally as jingoistic, protectionist, and morally and economically ignorant in my mind.
Quote from: Undermind on October 18, 2015, 09:10:55 AM
would be interesting to see Obama have to deal with this if it gets the needed amount of signatures....
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/investigate-time-warners-network-cnn-purposeful-public-deception-regarding-bernie-sanders-campaign
Snopes says no. See poll here (//http://://www.facebook.com/cnn/app_1667241686824039)
http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-cnn-poll/
Quote
Poll the Bern
CNN did not delete a poll that showed Bernie Sanders as the overwhelming winner of the first Democratic presidential debate.
FACT CHECK: Did CNN delete a poll that showed Bernie Sanders won the first Democratic presidential debate of 2016?
CLAIM: CNN deleted a poll that showed Bernie Sanders won the first Democratic presidential debate of 2016.
FALSE
Various sources are reporting that CNN deleted an online poll that shows Bernie Sanders as the winner of the first debate. Is this true?
ORIGINS: In conjunction with the first debate held between contenders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, held on 13 October 2015, CNN hosted a live poll on their Facebook page inviting followers to indicate who they thought had "won" the debate:
Shortly after the debate ended, reports began to circulated online claiming that CNN had deleted the poll, which greatly favored Bernie Sanders, in order to release an article proclaiming Hillary Clinton as the debate's winner:
QuoteHillary Clinton proved without a doubt Tuesday night why she is the Democratic Party's presidential front-runner.
Clinton remained unflappable throughout the debate, showcasing her political experience and her command of the issues — all the while deftly handling criticism of her flip-flops and displaying a humor that put a more human face to her oft-criticized candidacy.
David Axelrod, CNN senior political commentator and the chief strategist for the Obama campaign that trounced Clinton in 2008, said she did "very well" and that her campaign was likely "thrilled with the performance."
"She was poised she was passionate and she was in command," Axelrod said. "If I were her campaign I would be thrilled with what she did tonight."
While it's true that CNN reported Hillary Clinton won the debate in their editorial content, CNN did not actually delete the results of the public poll that conflicted with their assessment. In fact, as of this writing the poll is still available for viewing on CNN's Facebook page. (One of the reasons people may have thought that the poll was deleted may have been that it was featured on CNN's Facebook page and not CNN's web site.)
Nonetheless, many readers were still left wondering how CNN could name Hillary Clinton as the victor of a debate that 81% of the viewing public felt Vermont senator Bernie Sanders had won. The answer is that real-time audience participation isn't a particularly rigorous scientific polling method; CNN instead based their reporting on the opinions of a panel of political experts, such as the above-quoted David Axelrod, who analyzed the candidates' performances during the debate.
Online petitions, lol
Axelrod and the other experts were impressed that Hillary is a "progressive that can get things done." Just like in 2007, when she was Senator, and went down to Wall St and said "hey, cut that out".
In the grand scheme of things, Hilary seems like she would actually be able to come to middle ground with both sides of the house/senate.
Bernie would be a more modern day Jimmy Carter I feel like...he would propose a lot of "change" but not much would get through the rest of the loopholes to actually benefit anything. It would be a lot of back and forth and not much would get agreed upon or done.
If there were truly an obtainable middle ground, I would agree. The powers that be, mainly on the far right, make the middle unobtainable.
Quote from: slslbs on October 19, 2015, 03:35:08 PM
If there were truly an obtainable middle ground, I would agree. The powers that be, mainly on the far right, make the middle unobtainable.
Good point, I think if Bernie became pres he would def ruffle some feathers that need to be ruffled.
I do not have high hopes that Hillary would be effective in office.
Take the vitriol that has been aimed at Obama since day one and multiply it by 100.
That's the level of obstruction she will have to deal with.
Quote from: slslbs on October 19, 2015, 03:35:08 PM
If there were truly an obtainable middle ground, I would agree. The powers that be, mainly on the far right, make the middle unobtainable.
I hear this a lot, but what middle ground has the left been willing to concede on? To me it's just a lot of screaming and pointing fingers with very little willingness on either side to compromise. Of course, I'm just a no man in no man's land, so what do I know.
Quote from: Hicks on October 19, 2015, 04:05:35 PM
I do not have high hopes that Hillary would be effective in office.
Take the vitriol that has been aimed at Obama since day one and multiply it by 100.
That's the level of obstruction she will have to deal with.
I don't disagree that if there is one thing that could unit the GOP clans, it's another Clinton. But do you really think it would be better with Bernie? Pretty sure Republicans would take just as much issue with his spend first, ask questions later attitude.
Of course, you can't respond to me so as not to disrupt your perfect post count.
I think there could be middle ground found in the gun control issue but its almost like the right side is going turbo right in some cases by suggesting more guns be put out there to abate a shooter if one was to come into your classroom or campus than to limit any amount of guns or magazine clips or give any sort of background check. Which then makes nothing really be resolved and just a bunch of finger pointing at NRA or at the crazies out there with guns and so on.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 19, 2015, 09:45:54 AM
Quote from: mbw on October 16, 2015, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 16, 2015, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: mbw on October 16, 2015, 10:27:19 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2015, 09:42:12 PM
Woah, Bernie AND Lawrence Lessig on Maher tonight? That debate should be more interesting than the other night.
I can't wait to hear Bernie spout off on some anti-immigrant shit like, "we should have a reasonable policy."
Can't believe he said that shit!
Definitely a monster.
I mean clearly, the only two options are either a 2000 mile wall to keep out the rapists, or a complete fucking free-for-all.
When you publicly state that you would prioritize Murican workers over foreign labor (as he did in that Vox interview), you are revealing your true intentions rather than just a bunch of really nice sounding stuff to post to your website. If Bernie wants to make the moral judgment that Murican workers are more worthy of the gov'ts benevolence, good for him (of course, that's not what he's doing; he's saying he supports all workers, but some more than others if you know what he means).
uh, he's running for president of what country? prioritizing american workers, as president of the United States, is jingoistic? racist?
i think you have blown a gasket duder, and owe Senator Sanders an apology.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 19, 2015, 09:45:54 AM
Quote from: mbw on October 16, 2015, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 16, 2015, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: mbw on October 16, 2015, 10:27:19 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2015, 09:42:12 PM
Woah, Bernie AND Lawrence Lessig on Maher tonight? That debate should be more interesting than the other night.
I can't wait to hear Bernie spout off on some anti-immigrant shit like, "we should have a reasonable policy."
Can't believe he said that shit!
Definitely a monster.
I mean clearly, the only two options are either a 2000 mile wall to keep out the rapists, or a complete fucking free-for-all.
And what is that "reasonable policy?" I've never really heard him address his plan so I peeped his website on the issue (https://berniesanders.com/issues/fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/). I guess it boils down to amnesty, stopping deportations, and forcing employers to pay immigrants more. Which sounds kinda like open borders (except for that last bit about forcing employers to pay more) since it would sure as hell entice a lot more people to come here by any means necessary. No mention of the messy stuff like eligibility for benefits or how to address the 4.5 million people who are already standing in line waiting. In other words, while it may be humane, it's not really very reasonable. At all.
When you publicly state that you would prioritize Murican workers over foreign labor (as he did in that Vox interview), you are revealing your true intentions rather than just a bunch of really nice sounding stuff to post to your website. If Bernie wants to make the moral judgment that Murican workers are more worthy of the gov'ts benevolence, good for him (of course, that's not what he's doing; he's saying he supports all workers, but some more than others if you know what he means). But IMO, that is every bit as ridiculous sounding as Trump's biggest, classiest wall paid for by Mexico.
Do I think the average Trump supporter is more racist than the average Bernie supporter? Yes, I think that is most certainly true. But the policies that they are actually advocating (in addition to having zero chances of survival from a political standpoint) are equally as jingoistic, protectionist, and morally and economically ignorant in my mind.
Quote from: Undermind on October 18, 2015, 09:10:55 AM
would be interesting to see Obama have to deal with this if it gets the needed amount of signatures....
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/investigate-time-warners-network-cnn-purposeful-public-deception-regarding-bernie-sanders-campaign
Snopes says no. See poll here (//http://://www.facebook.com/cnn/app_1667241686824039)
http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-cnn-poll/
Quote
Poll the Bern
CNN did not delete a poll that showed Bernie Sanders as the overwhelming winner of the first Democratic presidential debate.
FACT CHECK: Did CNN delete a poll that showed Bernie Sanders won the first Democratic presidential debate of 2016?
CLAIM: CNN deleted a poll that showed Bernie Sanders won the first Democratic presidential debate of 2016.
FALSE
Various sources are reporting that CNN deleted an online poll that shows Bernie Sanders as the winner of the first debate. Is this true?
ORIGINS: In conjunction with the first debate held between contenders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, held on 13 October 2015, CNN hosted a live poll on their Facebook page inviting followers to indicate who they thought had "won" the debate:
Shortly after the debate ended, reports began to circulated online claiming that CNN had deleted the poll, which greatly favored Bernie Sanders, in order to release an article proclaiming Hillary Clinton as the debate's winner:
QuoteHillary Clinton proved without a doubt Tuesday night why she is the Democratic Party's presidential front-runner.
Clinton remained unflappable throughout the debate, showcasing her political experience and her command of the issues — all the while deftly handling criticism of her flip-flops and displaying a humor that put a more human face to her oft-criticized candidacy.
David Axelrod, CNN senior political commentator and the chief strategist for the Obama campaign that trounced Clinton in 2008, said she did "very well" and that her campaign was likely "thrilled with the performance."
"She was poised she was passionate and she was in command," Axelrod said. "If I were her campaign I would be thrilled with what she did tonight."
While it's true that CNN reported Hillary Clinton won the debate in their editorial content, CNN did not actually delete the results of the public poll that conflicted with their assessment. In fact, as of this writing the poll is still available for viewing on CNN's Facebook page. (One of the reasons people may have thought that the poll was deleted may have been that it was featured on CNN's Facebook page and not CNN's web site.)
Nonetheless, many readers were still left wondering how CNN could name Hillary Clinton as the victor of a debate that 81% of the viewing public felt Vermont senator Bernie Sanders had won. The answer is that real-time audience participation isn't a particularly rigorous scientific polling method; CNN instead based their reporting on the opinions of a panel of political experts, such as the above-quoted David Axelrod, who analyzed the candidates' performances during the debate.
it's nice to know that CNN, whose parent comany is Hillary's 7th largest donar, thinks she won based on what their inside the box thinking analysts think instead of the people who are going to be voting.
Quote from: mbw on October 19, 2015, 05:42:14 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 19, 2015, 09:45:54 AM
Quote from: mbw on October 16, 2015, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 16, 2015, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: mbw on October 16, 2015, 10:27:19 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2015, 09:42:12 PM
Woah, Bernie AND Lawrence Lessig on Maher tonight? That debate should be more interesting than the other night.
I can't wait to hear Bernie spout off on some anti-immigrant shit like, "we should have a reasonable policy."
Can't believe he said that shit!
Definitely a monster.
I mean clearly, the only two options are either a 2000 mile wall to keep out the rapists, or a complete fucking free-for-all.
When you publicly state that you would prioritize Murican workers over foreign labor (as he did in that Vox interview), you are revealing your true intentions rather than just a bunch of really nice sounding stuff to post to your website. If Bernie wants to make the moral judgment that Murican workers are more worthy of the gov'ts benevolence, good for him (of course, that's not what he's doing; he's saying he supports all workers, but some more than others if you know what he means).
uh, he's running for president of what country? prioritizing american workers, as president of the United States, is jingoistic? racist?
i think you have blown a gasket duder, and owe Senator Sanders an apology.
what a jerk Bernie is!!! I mean thinking of the middle class American when creating policy?!!! I mean not many politicians think this way so it must be wrong/racist.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 19, 2015, 04:42:05 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 19, 2015, 03:35:08 PM
If there were truly an obtainable middle ground, I would agree. The powers that be, mainly on the far right, make the middle unobtainable.
I hear this a lot, but what middle ground has the left been willing to concede on? To me it's just a lot of screaming and pointing fingers with very little willingness on either side to compromise. Of course, I'm just a no man in no man's land, so what do I know.
agree to a point. Clearly, there are people in both parties who care more about party and power than they care about you and I.
But I think if you look back over the last 4 admins, the GOP seems to be clearly more obstructive.
2 govt shut downs
a record # of fillibusters.
getting rid of their own speaker because he's too moderate
hell - if Obama says that he likes an idea that a republican thought of, the GOP all of the sudden hates it
(ex Gregg bill on a deficit commission, appx 10 co-sponsors until Obama said he liked it, "death panels" were originally a GOP idea, ACA actually with GOP hatched ideas)
and then, there's this that I posted on the other thread
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/us/politics/latest-unease-on-right-ryan-is-too-far-left.html?_r=0
the bottom line is that if a GOP member of Congress ever worked with a Dem, the tea party / extreme right will vilify you and try and get you voted out.
Most of us who were, um, hopeful when Obama went into office have seen time and again the left coming toward middle ground. ACA is a perfect example of this.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 19, 2015, 04:42:05 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 19, 2015, 03:35:08 PM
If there were truly an obtainable middle ground, I would agree. The powers that be, mainly on the far right, make the middle unobtainable.
I hear this a lot, but what middle ground has the left been willing to concede on? To me it's just a lot of screaming and pointing fingers with very little willingness on either side to compromise. Of course, I'm just a no man in no man's land, so what do I know.
Quote from: Hicks on October 19, 2015, 04:05:35 PM
I do not have high hopes that Hillary would be effective in office.
Take the vitriol that has been aimed at Obama since day one and multiply it by 100.
That's the level of obstruction she will have to deal with.
I don't disagree that if there is one thing that could unit the GOP clans, it's another Clinton. But do you really think it would be better with Bernie? Pretty sure Republicans would take just as much issue with his spend first, ask questions later attitude.
Of course, you can't respond to me so as not to disrupt your perfect post count.
I would like to think that if by some miracle Bernie wins, that you would see a more energized Democrat base than what we have seen in our lifetimes. Yes the Repubs would fight us, but maybe, just maybe, we would finally be ready to fight back.
Also, post counting is for n00bs.
the way the Senate works now (or doesn't work) is that it takes 60, not 51 for a majority. I don't see any Prez who can do that by him - herself
(LOL at the Christie commercials where he says that he'll be able to get Congress to follow him and do the right thing)
Late night watching the Birds and no one here today so it's time to start running out the clock...
Quote from: mbw on October 19, 2015, 05:42:14 PM
uh, he's running for president of what country? prioritizing american workers, as president of the United States, is jingoistic? racist?
i think you have blown a gasket duder, and owe Senator Sanders an apology.
I didn't say racist. But if he grants amnesty, aren't all workers American?
Also, Trevor Noah reads the paug. He owes Sanders an apology for calling him "just another disingenuous politician": http://on.cc.com/1MRfa4r
Quote from: slslbs on October 19, 2015, 06:50:42 PM
agree to a point. Clearly, there are people in both parties who care more about party and power than they care about you and I.
But I think if you look back over the last 4 admins, the GOP seems to be clearly more obstructive.
2 govt shut downs
a record # of fillibusters.
getting rid of their own speaker because he's too moderate
The idea that filibuster is evidence of obstruction doesn't really hold a lot of weight for me for 2 reasons. First, a filibuster should only be considered obstruction if it successfully blocks the matter at hand. Rand Paul filibustered for 10 hours on reauthorization of the Patriot Act but in the end it passed so how could this count as obstruction? A better measure would be how often cloture votes fail. So I looked at the record from the Senate.gov (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm) page and tallied up how many times a cloture vote failed (i.e., votes on cloture minus cloture invoked). And it turns out since Obama has been president, cloture has failed 121 times vs. 135 during W, not exactly a landslide. Of course, that doesn't really tell you anything because you need to consider which party is in the minority. And when you look at it this way, Rs blocked cloture 91 times in Obama's first 6 yrs vs. Ds 57 from 2003-2006, or an avg of 15.2 R vs 14.25 D per year, again, more for Rs but not the overwhelming onslaught it is often made out to be. But of course, even THAT doesn't really tell you anything because we don't know whether these cloture motions were filed on actual important legislation or whether it was over Obama's nomination for Assistant Undersecretary to the Director of Advanced Public Bathroom Logistics. My point is that the filibuster in and of itself is by no means evidence of obstruction to me. It's far more nuanced than that. Which brings me to point #2...
If/when the GOP wins back the White House and Ds regain Senate (because it will happen at some point), will people still find the filibuster to be evidence of obstruction? Or will there suddenly be a groundswell of support to protect from the tyranny of the majority?
Quote from: slslbs on October 19, 2015, 06:50:42 PM
hell - if Obama says that he likes an idea that a republican thought of, the GOP all of the sudden hates it
(ex Gregg bill on a deficit commission, appx 10 co-sponsors until Obama said he liked it, "death panels" were originally a GOP idea, ACA actually with GOP hatched ideas)
While the Heritage Foundation originally conceived the individual mandate, the actual plan was vastly different from the ACA. The mandate was needed to prevent anti-selection problems (the very same problems the ACA is suffering from today, even with the mandate), but that's where the similarities end.
Also, should people not be allowed to change their mind on the best course action with regard to policy? As a healthcare provider, aren't the challenges of health care reform different today than they were from the predominately managed care environment of 20 years ago? Finally, while I recognize the perceived hypocrisy (although as I said, I don't even really see it as that), you're not actually telling me the Republicans had a good idea, are you? :wink:
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 19, 2015, 09:18:07 PM
Most of us who were, um, hopeful when Obama went into office have seen time and again the left coming toward middle ground. ACA is a perfect example of this.
The ACA in its final form was not much different from the plan laid out by candidate Obama in 2008. In fact, the only substantive difference is that he embraced Hillary's idea of the individual mandate. But other than that, his plan is almost identical: exchanges, employer mandates, expansions of Medicaid, no public option. I mean, I guess by "hopeful" you mean you thought he intended to tack to the left and you were just chalking his reluctance to be forthright up to not believing what a candidate says (a instinct that I would implore you to embrace universally). But it's not true that the ACA represents an enormous olive branch from Obama to appease Republicans. In fact, the only concessions he made were to appease reluctant members of his own party since Ds were calling all the shots back then.
Quote from: Hicks on October 19, 2015, 10:29:57 PM
I would like to think that if by some miracle Bernie wins, that you would see a more energized Democrat base than what we have seen in our lifetimes. Yes the Repubs would fight us, but maybe, just maybe, we would finally be ready to fight back.
If Bernie were to win, Ds would likely take the Senate back as well. But the House would still be in GOP hands so I'd expect a lot more bickering and finger pointing and polarization.
Quote from: Hicks on October 19, 2015, 10:29:57 PM
Also, post counting is for n00bs.
In that case I'll fuck up your perfect karma too.
Webb is out.
Yeah, I don't care either.
without quoting everything-
yes, I admit that Republicans have come up with good ideas. I have even voted for a few of them.
I also am against the use of filibuster in general, whether it is used by a Dem or GOP. Also, the threat of fillibuster is often just as strong as the actual fillibuster - same as veto. That said, I agreed with Rand Paul
Yes, as Hillary pointed out, people can change their minds. Many "liberals" of today were not always in favor of gay marriage.
Romney wrote an editorial in USA today espousing Romneycare, and how the principles should be used to guide the Federal plan. A few years later, he said that if Obama asked him if we should use it for the Federal plan he would have said NO WAY (emphasis was made in romney's speaking tone)
As soon as the term "death panel" was coined, all of the GOP used it, even though the ethical panels a)were not about euthanasia, they were about a consult to assist people with difficult, expensive, end of life decisions, and b) the concept was conceived by a Republican. That is more than hypocrisy, that is lying. Hypocrisy is when the GOP fled co - sponsorship of Gregg's bill.
And then there were the 2 govt shutdowns, with threats of a 3rd. Ted Cruz is proud of them.
Then there is the fact that Mitch McConnell did his best to squash the compromise of the "gang of 7", not to mention the fact that the right considers "compromise" a dirty word.
Like I said, are the Dems sometimes obstructive? yes. but the GOP has perfected it to an art form.
That, and the crazies on the right have more power than the crazies on the left.
Obama wanted a public option as part of the ACA and didn't get it.
If a public option had been included the healthcare landscape would look very different.
Quote from: slslbs on October 20, 2015, 01:38:38 PM
yes, I admit that Republicans have come up with good ideas. I have even voted for a few of them.
I also am against the use of filibuster in general, whether it is used by a Dem or GOP. Also, the threat of fillibuster is often just as strong as the actual fillibuster - same as veto. That said, I agreed with Rand Paul
Fair enough. I still would contend the original idea of compelling people by force to buy a product from a private company was and continues to be a shitty one tho.
Quote from: slslbs on October 20, 2015, 01:38:38 PM
Like I said, are the Dems sometimes obstructive? yes. but the GOP has perfected it to an art form.
That, and the crazies on the right have more power than the crazies on the left.
A socialist is in a dead heat (at least in the national polls) with one of the most formidable campaign machines and money raising organizations in the party's history. What does that say about the power structure on the left?
To the extent that the "crazies" have more power, I would say that signifies the GOP Congress is more willing to part with their leadership than the Dems are. For a country that says it is fed up with the status quo, I fail to see how this is a bad thing (of course, I view gov't inaction as a feature not a bug). If the Dems were more willing to stand up for their purported beliefs instead of taking their marching orders like good soldiers from Pelosi & Reid, maybe there would be real debate about the proper direction of this country. But as long as the parties continue to march in lockstep with their leaders, we should get used to further entrenchment and polarization.
Quote from: Hicks on October 20, 2015, 02:06:12 PM
Obama wanted a public option as part of the ACA and didn't get it.
If a public option had been included the healthcare landscape would look very different.
Huh. I had to look this one up because I didn't remember it (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/12/the-public-option-in-obamas-platform/32510/). But given his reluctance to talk about it, I would refer you to my statement about snake-oil slinging campaigners.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 20, 2015, 03:35:13 PM
A socialist is in a dead heat (at least in the national polls) with one of the most formidable campaign machines and money raising organizations in the party's history. What does that say about the power structure on the left?
Except it's not a "dead heat" in the national polls at all. Clinton is still up by a large margin of 20-30 points depending on which national poll you're looking at. And her lead gets even bigger when Biden is not included. Sanders is even down again in New Hampshire by 8 points according to the latest PPP poll. (However, that could just be an aberration, as a Boston Herald/FPU poll of NH Dems from just a day earlier had him leading Clinton by 8 points, so we'll have to see what happens.)
All this and the Clinton Machine hasn't even really had to flex its muscles yet. The real strength of the establishment will come out if/when it does become a truly competitive race. Don't get me wrong, I want Bernie to win and I believe he can, but the rosy picture of the left that you're painting is highly exaggerated.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 20, 2015, 03:35:13 PM
To the extent that the "crazies" have more power, I would say that signifies the GOP Congress is more willing to part with their leadership than the Dems are. For a country that says it is fed up with the status quo, I fail to see how this is a bad thing (of course, I view gov't inaction as a feature not a bug). If the Dems were more willing to stand up for their purported beliefs instead of taking their marching orders like good soldiers from Pelosi & Reid, maybe there would be real debate about the proper direction of this country.
I couldn't agree more, and this helps illustrate my point above. If you want to see the left wing of Congress, look no further than the several dozen members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (all are House Democrats with one exception -- Bernie Sanders). The CPC is the official left wing of the Democratic Party, and
they can't even muster a majority of members willing to back single-payer healthcare or tuition-free college. Now, I'm not trying to paint the CPC as a bunch of Wall Street Dems. They're not. But most would be considered center-left at best, and they're nowhere near as powerful as the Freedom Caucus is on the right (or whatever the Tea Party calls themselves now).
What remains of the American Left is highly disorganized and operates almost entirely outside of electoral politics, and the few who do make it into office are quickly marginalized by the Democratic Party. Bernie is an exception and he has proven himself to be a master of grassroots organizing. He attracts gigantic crowds and raises unbelievably large sums of money from small donors. His strategy could very well change things going forward. But it's way too soon to celebrate a "rebirth" of the left.
I don't know what y'all are blabbing about, but this rules:
http://youtu.be/QzmVSGFW5HY (http://youtu.be/QzmVSGFW5HY)
:clap:
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
I can't imagine anything better to watch while waiting for this left turn red signal to turn green.
Quote from: ytowndan on October 21, 2015, 02:11:46 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 20, 2015, 03:35:13 PM
A socialist is in a dead heat (at least in the national polls) with one of the most formidable campaign machines and money raising organizations in the party's history. What does that say about the power structure on the left?
Except it's not a "dead heat" in the national polls at all. Clinton is still up by a large margin of 20-30 points depending on which national poll you're looking at. And her lead gets even bigger when Biden is not included. Sanders is even down again in New Hampshire by 8 points according to the latest PPP poll. (However, that could just be an aberration, as a Boston Herald/FPU poll of NH Dems from just a day earlier had him leading Clinton by 8 points, so we'll have to see what happens.)
All this and the Clinton Machine hasn't even really had to flex its muscles yet. The real strength of the establishment will come out if/when it does become a truly competitive race. Don't get me wrong, I want Bernie to win and I believe he can, but the rosy picture of the left that you're painting is highly exaggerated.
Fair point, it's a dead heat only in NH. I don't think it's a stretch to say he's outperformed even his own expectations when he got into it, but you're right, she is in firm control. And now with Biden out and most polls showing Hillary getting the best post-debate bump (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-got-the-biggest-post-debate-polling-bounce/), the drama is fading fast.
Maybe a better measure of the radicalization of the left to which I was speaking is this YouGov poll (https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/10/17/debate-recap-most-americans-agree-bernie-about-hil/) which shows a near majority of Democrats prefer socialism over capitalism. So while the power on the left still resides in the establishment (which, as discussed, is consistent with the right), the attitudes of the Democratic voters are clearly shifting. Unfortunately (for your side), the electorate in total is still widely opposed.
(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-10-17/postdebate-2-2.png)
Quote from: PGLHAH on October 21, 2015, 07:08:05 PM
I don't know what y'all are blabbing about, but this rules:
It's the smoke billowing from the crowd ~1 min that really sets it off for me.
Socialism over capitalism...
If that's radical, then I certainly prefer to be rad.
And I've been rad for a long time, too.
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 22, 2015, 03:18:08 PM
Socialism over capitalism...
If that's radical, then I certainly prefer to be rad.
And I've been rad for a long time, too.
I kinda assumed
You were always rad, duder
Spittin hawt haikus
Dunno if any of you cats listen to Dan Carlin (I'm looking at you, Jimbo), but I thought he was pretty much spot-on in his latest Common Sense (http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/) podcast where he talked about the first Democrats debate. Carlin's certainly no lefty, but he properly (in my opinion) lauds Sanders primarily for his outsider status, his authenticity, and his relatively greater likelihood of shaking up a political and government establishment sorely in need of it. (In other words, many of the things that Sanders supporters also recognize, of course.) (By the way, I'd also agree with Carlin that the same positives can be found in Trump's candidacy, and you don't even have to ultimately wish for a President Trump to feel that way. Basically it seems we're at a point where radical change -- specifically to the way business is done in Washington, and to the players doing it -- possesses virtues unto itself, and these little incremental swings of the pendulum and tugs-of-war really aren't going to get us anything except the same old same old.)
I have a problem with that poll. First, if you read the fine print, most dems and independents would lable themselves as neither. Second, it depends on how they were asked and when they were asked (I bet if you asked someone after a Bernie ralley the numbers may be different than before they heard of Bernie.
Finally, I live in the Peoples Republic of Massachussetts, where there is no shortage of liberals and democrats. I don't remember meeting anyone espousing socialism. I don't think that this state is an experiment in socialism. Except, of course, our healthcare system, that was passed when a famous socialist named Mitt was governor
(btw, among the states that ACA has been most successful are KY and OH - hardly bastions of liberalism. You just can't call it ACA or Obamacare)
For myself, history has taught me that capitalism works in general, but lessez faire capitalism leads to disaster, and unfortunately we have been moving that way since 1980
https://youtu.be/porVAxg-hhI
My biggest issue with polls about socialism is that they're ultimately useless until we can all agree on what it means. Even people directly involved in democratic socialist movements have radically different definitions, with the only constant being democracy. Some want public ownership right away, some argue for a gradual transition from the welfare state to public ownership, and others say that a perfected welfare state can make a mixed capitalist system work. (Not to mention the Fox News definition, which basically means you're to the left of Bob Dole.)
Bernie might be able to take ownership of the definition over time. I'm glad to see he's giving a big speech on the topic, because it seems to be the first question asked in every interview.
But, until something changes, it's hard to really understand what people are agreeing/disagreeing with in these polls.
Dan, what you said there really gets to the heart of it for me. The fixation over labels is so obnoxious and maddening because it's basically how people allow themselves to not pay attention to policy specifics or see any nuance in anything. Instead you can just go "I hate liberals" and wipe your hands and be done with it.
Chafee is out.
Yeah, I don't care either.
I think you're being a little rough.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 10:58:17 AM
I think you're being a little rough.
Am I?
Chafee was a non-entity in my personal perspective of the campaign. His departure changes nothing.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 22, 2015, 08:37:27 PM
Dunno if any of you cats listen to Dan Carlin (I'm looking at you, Jimbo)...
I think I heard him on Joe Rogan's podcast a couple of times, but I've never listened to his. Sounds like a pretty sensible dude, tho.
Quote from: slslbs on October 22, 2015, 10:30:41 PM
For myself, history has taught me that capitalism works in general, but lessez faire capitalism leads to disaster, and unfortunately we have been moving that way since 1980
All due respect, doc, but that's not what we have. We have a system of insane regulatory capture where the interests of large, powerful businesses are protected by the gov't. We have a system where a select few profit from gains and where the taxpayers shoulder the burden of the losses. This is not capitalism but cronyism. It is socialism for business. Well, businesses that are big enough to matter, anyway. The small business entrepreneur need not apply.
Quote from: ytowndan on October 23, 2015, 02:34:20 AM
My biggest issue with polls about socialism is that they're ultimately useless until we can all agree on what it means. Even people directly involved in democratic socialist movements have radically different definitions, with the only constant being democracy. Some want public ownership right away, some argue for a gradual transition from the welfare state to public ownership, and others say that a perfected welfare state can make a mixed capitalist system work. (Not to mention the Fox News definition, which basically means you're to the left of Bob Dole.)
Bernie might be able to take ownership of the definition over time. I'm glad to see he's giving a big speech on the topic, because it seems to be the first question asked in every interview.
But, until something changes, it's hard to really understand what people are agreeing/disagreeing with in these polls.
Agree completely. If people understood socialism, they would be adamantly against it.
:wink:
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 23, 2015, 11:04:12 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 10:58:17 AM
I think you're being a little rough.
Am I?
Chafee was a non-entity in my personal perspective of the campaign. His departure changes nothing.
That was a Chafee line (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/561dcec2e4b028dd7ea5b5fa).
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 12:18:38 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 23, 2015, 11:04:12 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 10:58:17 AM
I think you're being a little rough.
Am I?
Chafee was a non-entity in my personal perspective of the campaign. His departure changes nothing.
That was a Chafee line (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/561dcec2e4b028dd7ea5b5fa).
Haha, I thought it was a chafing joke.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 23, 2015, 12:27:42 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 12:18:38 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 23, 2015, 11:04:12 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 10:58:17 AM
I think you're being a little rough.
Am I?
Chafee was a non-entity in my personal perspective of the campaign. His departure changes nothing.
That was a Chafee line (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/561dcec2e4b028dd7ea5b5fa).
Haha, I thought it was a chafing joke.
Metric system, lol.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 12:18:38 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 23, 2015, 11:04:12 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 10:58:17 AM
I think you're being a little rough.
Am I?
Chafee was a non-entity in my personal perspective of the campaign. His departure changes nothing.
That was a Chafee line (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/561dcec2e4b028dd7ea5b5fa).
Basically proves my point, doesn't it?
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 23, 2015, 12:27:42 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 12:18:38 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 23, 2015, 11:04:12 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 10:58:17 AM
I think you're being a little rough.
Am I?
Chafee was a non-entity in my personal perspective of the campaign. His departure changes nothing.
That was a Chafee line (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/561dcec2e4b028dd7ea5b5fa).
Haha, I thought it was a chafing joke.
No, that would be #FeelTheChafe. Which we now don't get do use anymore, the jerk.
Quote from: Hicks on October 23, 2015, 12:42:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 23, 2015, 12:27:42 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 12:18:38 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 23, 2015, 11:04:12 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 10:58:17 AM
I think you're being a little rough.
Am I?
Chafee was a non-entity in my personal perspective of the campaign. His departure changes nothing.
That was a Chafee line (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/561dcec2e4b028dd7ea5b5fa).
Haha, I thought it was a chafing joke.
Metric system, lol.
Hey, that was his one good idea!
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 23, 2015, 11:50:26 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 22, 2015, 10:30:41 PM
For myself, history has taught me that capitalism works in general, but lessez faire capitalism leads to disaster, and unfortunately we have been moving that way since 1980
All due respect, doc, but that's not what we have. We have a system of insane regulatory capture where the interests of large, powerful businesses are protected by the gov't. We have a system where a select few profit from gains and where the taxpayers shoulder the burden of the losses. This is not capitalism but cronyism. It is socialism for business. Well, businesses that are big enough to matter, anyway. The small business entrepreneur need not apply.
agree that we have crony capitalism and not laissez fair capitalsim. The business interests, and their minions, want to keep moving that way
One could argue in a true free market, then everything is for sale, including the govt. That is the situation we are in now.
The trick is, how to fix it, realizing that no fix is perfect.
to me, the simplest answer is replace some of the regs that were dismantled under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton
(never happen, I know)
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 23, 2015, 01:34:21 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 23, 2015, 12:42:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 23, 2015, 12:27:42 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 12:18:38 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 23, 2015, 11:04:12 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 23, 2015, 10:58:17 AM
I think you're being a little rough.
Am I?
Chafee was a non-entity in my personal perspective of the campaign. His departure changes nothing.
That was a Chafee line (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/561dcec2e4b028dd7ea5b5fa).
Haha, I thought it was a chafing joke.
Metric system, lol.
Hey, that was his one good idea!
Meh, fuck the metric system, and I say that as someone who has to convert mils to mm in my head while talking to customers on nearly a daily basis. The imperial measurement system is a cornerstone of our national identity. They already took not giving a shit about soccer away from us, they can pry feet, miles and pounds from my cold, dead hands.
I love how when you are in Europe with friends, or talking with friends who have just come back from Europe, someone will inevitably casually refer to distances in km, temperature in C, etc., as though merely breathing that air makes one suddenly comfortable with those units.
Get with the program USA!
Gonna spend my entire time in Ireland converting things back to real measures.
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 25, 2015, 12:16:34 PM
Gonna spend my entire time in Ireland converting things back to real measures.
As someone who travels the opposite direction, I have a particularly difficult time converting the price of gas - going from Litres to Gallons, then converting the USD to CAD on top of that makes my brain hurt.
Quote from: mattstick on October 25, 2015, 12:32:30 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 25, 2015, 12:16:34 PM
Gonna spend my entire time in Ireland converting things back to real measures.
As someone who travels the opposite direction, I have a particularly difficult time converting the price of gas - going from Litres to Gallons, then converting the USD to CAD on top of that makes my brain hurt.
Converting litres to liters is always particularly onerous.
Quote from: mattstick on October 25, 2015, 12:32:30 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 25, 2015, 12:16:34 PM
Gonna spend my entire time in Ireland converting things back to real measures.
As someone who travels the opposite direction, I have a particularly difficult time converting the price of gas - going from Litres to Gallons, then converting the USD to CAD on top of that makes my brain hurt.
My cheat sheet:
Under $3/gallon = good
Over $3/gallon = bad
Always bugs me in the US when gas is priced with both a decimal and a fraction.
$2.96 3/10
It should just say $2.963
Quote from: mattstick on October 25, 2015, 03:05:18 PM
Always bugs me in the US when gas is priced with both a decimal and a fraction.
$2.96 3/10
It should just say $2.963
Yeah between that and the liters/litres dispute, we're all pretty well fucked up.
Quote from: mattstick on October 25, 2015, 03:05:18 PM
Always bugs me in the US when gas is priced with both a decimal and a fraction.
$2.96 3/10
It should just say $2.963
Have never understood that.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 24, 2015, 05:47:00 PM
I love how when you are in Europe with friends, or talking with friends who have just come back from Europe, someone will inevitably casually refer to distances in km, temperature in C, etc., as though merely breathing that air makes one suddenly comfortable with those units.
I don't mind weight or distance, but Celsius can eat a dick.
Quote from: Hicks on October 23, 2015, 07:33:39 PM
Meh, fuck the metric system, and I say that as someone who has to convert mils to mm in my head while talking to customers on nearly a daily basis. The imperial measurement system is a cornerstone of our national identity. They already took not giving a shit about soccer away from us, they can pry feet, miles and pounds from my cold, dead hands.
::slow clap::
You know what, you sold me on it.
Hicks 2016: Because fuck the metric system
But really I came to put this here for MBW. Now, I stand by my position that Trump cannot win, but this article (and the poll results therein) pretty much channels you re: GOP base.
https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/27/new-poll-finds-that-gop-voters-are-out-o
Quote
New Poll Finds That GOP Voters are Out of Their Minds
Is Donald Trump electable? A sizable majority of Republicans seem to think the answer is yes.
A new poll suggests that more Republican-leaning voters believe he is capable of winning a general election next year than any other candidate. About 70 percent of Republicans say he's a potential victor in November 2016, more than any other GOP candidate. Trailing Trump are neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Florida governor Jeb Bush, both of whom are ranked as plausible winners next year by about 60 percent of GOP voters.
The idea that Trump and Carson are good bets in a general election is, as the Associated Press notes, not exactly conventional wisdom amongst the party's professional class. In fact, the opposite is true. Trump and Carson are considered the least electable candidates in the GOP field.
It's yet another sign that GOP voters are warming to trump. As recently as June, just 20 percent of Republican voters viewed Trump favorably, a figure that more recently has grown past 50 percent.
As is increasingly the case with news related to Trump, this reveals at least as much about the state of the Republican party as it does about Trump himself.
The most obvious takeaway here is that there is a massive split between people who describe themselves as GOP voters and the Republican professional class.
On the one hand, the party's voting base seems to increasingly think that Trump, who is basically running for president on a combination of sneering nativism and a Twitter-based Triumph the Insult Comic Dog impression, is the sort of candidate who could rally a majority of the country behind him in a general election campaign.
On the other hand are people who are paid to find ways to put Republican politicians into office, who analyze polls, craft messaging, raise and run campaigns for a living. These people, who are, to be sure, sometimes wrong but generally make it their business to be experts on national politics, think there's no possible way that someone as polarizing, as inexperienced, and widely disliked outside of Republican circles could actually win a general election.
Which is another way of saying that they believe that the Republican base has gone totally and utterly bonkers, although they rarely say so in such terms. The gap between party elites and its base, and the various frictions it causes, is one of the most defining features of the Republican party today.
Which brings me to my second point: The Republican base has gone totally and utterly bonkers.
It is extremely difficult to imagine Donald Trump winning a presidential election against a Democratic candidate of any competence. And while Hillary Clinton, who is virtually certain to be the Democratic nominee, has many flaws, a lack of basic political competence and capabilities is not one of them. Indeed, Clinton is almost perfectly positioned to exploit Trump's large and obvious weaknesses in a general election, with women, with Hispanics, with the portion of the electorate that has not gone all in for Trump-mania, and is not willing to put up with it in any form. The 70 percent of Republicans who say that Trump could win the presidency next year seem to have mistaken their own preferences for the preferences of the public at large. The two are not the same.
And that brings me to my final point, which is that Trump's success reveals not only the gaps between the GOP base and the party elite, but between the GOP base and the rest of the country. For his fans in the GOP base, Trump an outsider-savior who might be able to cut through the awfulness of national politics and make drastic changes. For others, he comes across as an inexperienced reality show buffoon. Yes, a party's base often views its candidates differently than the nation at large, but the disagreement over Trump seems pointedly different to me: It is not the same as the disagreements over candidates like Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or John Kerry, or Al Gore, or Bob Dole. While many people were deeply hostile to all of those candidates, most people recognized that each had a degree of legitimate political experience and were, in a broad sense, essentially qualified to be president. The same cannot be said with Donald Trump
Trump still may not win the GOP nomination, but his sustained success this election (and, to a lesser extent, the related success his Trump's current Iowa nemesis, neurosurgeon Ben Carson) reflects all too clearly on the state of the contemporary GOP. It is not very concerned with conservatism or with policy at all, save for vague anti-immigration fantasies; it is attracted to bullying, often intentionally offensive rhetoric and politicians who promise what is obviously impossible; and it is not only frustrated with the political process but almost entirely detached from it, to the point where the party base is alienated even from its own professional class. At this point, Trump is best viewed as a sort of human encapsulation of the Republican party's problems, an encapsulation of its ailments and neuroses—the avatar of its increasingly dominant id.
Call it: Rubio v Hillary
Quote from: Hicks on October 28, 2015, 10:17:21 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 28, 2015, 09:36:40 PM
Call it: Rubio v Hillary
Seems likely.
Ugh. Hillary would take that one fairly easily, I'd think.
Also, re: Trump's electability and the crazies who believe in it. I dunno. I think you could rationalize your way to a reality in which Trump could get elected. And you don't have to be a Trump supporter to do so. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's not necessarily impossible. Maybe some of those polled are operating on that basis; I mean, can you blame them for not finding anyone else in the field any more electable?
spring or summer 92 Ross Perot was leading the field as and indie, then people became more familiar with him.
the people in this country are becoming scarier all the time
The fact that people voted for W is the only reason I'd give the Rubio theory any credence. That guy is terrible in all of the ways.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 28, 2015, 11:17:56 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 28, 2015, 10:17:21 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 28, 2015, 09:36:40 PM
Call it: Rubio v Hillary
Seems likely.
Ugh. Hillary would take that one fairly easily, I'd think.
Depends. Rubio could make a somewhat compelling electoral case if he can take FL and PA (Hillary has never been popular in Philly suburbs which are required if you are gonna get swept in the rest of the state). No guarantee he could win those two and that wouldn't even be enough to win, but it would make a pretty big dent in Obama's 2008 & 2012 maps.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 28, 2015, 11:17:56 PM
Also, re: Trump's electability and the crazies who believe in it. I dunno. I think you could rationalize your way to a reality in which Trump could get elected. And you don't have to be a Trump supporter to do so. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's not necessarily impossible. Maybe some of those polled are operating on that basis; I mean, can you blame them for not finding anyone else in the field any more electable?
Do you mean elected president or just winning the nomination? If it's the latter, I don't totally disagree one could convince themselves there might be a path for him (I don't see it, but I suppose someone could come up with a way it happens). If you mean the former, I would say that person doesn't fully grasp how the process works if they think Trump could possibly be elected president. Which, BTW, is why it seems like a stupid question to me. "Do you, average person who hasn't really been following the race and is unfamiliar with a campaign's on-the-ground operations, believe so-and-so could credibly win the nomination? The general?" That question tells me more about the ignorance of the electorate than a candidates chances (and in the GOP, that's probably fairly sizable).
Quote from: slslbs on October 28, 2015, 11:20:27 PM
spring or summer 92 Ross Perot was leading the field as and indie, then people became more familiar with him.
Perot's decline was more due to his own insanity and paranoia getting the best of him. Bush planted spies in my campaign, Republicans tried to disrupt my daughter's wedding. It's true, all the unfounded allegations helped people realize "maybe this crazy dude doesn't have the temperament to be president," but I think those were more self-inflicted wounds rather than the electorate in general falling out of love with him.
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 29, 2015, 08:04:19 AM
The fact that people voted for W is the only reason I'd give the Rubio theory any credence. That guy is terrible in all of the ways.
I agree he is a neocon to the nth degree. But is he really any worse than Cruz? I mean, Cruz comes with all the warmongering tendencies with a lot more social issue baggage.
http://www.isidewith.com/map/kc-y/2016-presidential-election-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders#z4
this isidewith.com map/poll shows bernie winning in every state (awaits runawayjimbo debunk comments about poll and site)
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 29, 2015, 01:15:13 PM
http://www.isidewith.com/map/kc-y/2016-presidential-election-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders#z4
this isidewith.com map/poll shows bernie winning in every state (awaits runawayjimbo debunk comments about poll and site)
I mean, anytime you see somebody winning with 100% of the vote, that should be an automatic red flag, no?
Not sure how it's generated, but I would speculate that it is similar to that CNN online poll showing 81% of people thought Bernie won the first debate: Bernie's supporters are generally younger (thus more technologically savvy) and politically active (more likely to seek out things like isidewith.com). However, when you look at RCP aggregates, there's a pretty clear bump for Hillary both nationally (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html) and in state races (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html) (even closing the gap in NH (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html)) post-debate.
http://time.com/4097792/obama-republican-debate-cnbc/
Quote"It turns out they can't handle a bunch of CNBC moderators"
President Barack Obama has expressed his amusement over the GOP presidential candidates' discontent with last week's CNBC debate.
"They say, 'When I talk to Putin, he's going to straighten out,'" Obama said while speaking at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in New York City on Monday. "And then it turns out they can't handle a bunch of CNBC moderators." His remarks were reported by the Hollywood Reporter.
"I mean, let me tell ya ... if you can't handle those guys, you know then I don't think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you."
Since last week's debate in Boulder, Colo., the GOP has criticized CNBC for what candidates and party operatives saw as aggressive and politically biased questioning. The party has since suspended its debate partnership with the network's owner, NBC.
[THR]
^^^Put me in mind of this graphic I saw yesterday...
Joe Rogan funny
https://instagram.com/p/95P2ZTpyKz/
Quote
This is an actual real painting on the wall of Presidential Candidate Ben Carson's home. It's supposed to be him and Jesus, but it looks more like what would happen if @chrisdelia fucked Prince.
I'm willing to tolerate some wacky shit from people that are campaigning to become the commander in chief of the greatest army the world has ever known, but this is where I draw the line.
You can believe the pyramids were built by the biblical Joseph to store pancake batter, or that Adam and Eve rode a dinosaur through the Garden of Eden, or whatever crazy shit he made up about getting a scholarship to West Point - but any man that could look at this; arguably the shittiest painting of Jesus in the history of shitty Jesus paintings, and say, "Oh, fuck yeah, I'm gonna hang this right above the couch" is off the list of guys I trust with nuclear weapons.
(http://verysmartbrothas.com/images/2015/11/carson-and-jesus.jpg)
please tell me this is a joke
Are we sure that isn't supposed to be Barry Gibb?
Also, is he wearing a hotel bathrobe?
As if that is real, no way in hell.
I said the exact same thing. Survey says...
REAL
http://www.snopes.com/ben-carson-jesus-painting/
http://nypost.com/2015/11/08/ben-carson-features-portrait-of-him-and-jesus-in-home/
http://www.baltimoremagazine.net/2009/2/1/dr.-ben-carson-tells-his-life-story
Killer Mike feelin' the Bern
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUhup7uW4AMZGlm.jpg)
Yep.
Bern the jewels
thought this was pretty interesting in regard to the recent GOP debate
see the linked article for an interesting graph
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html?_r=0
QuoteAll Politicians Lie. Some Lie More Than Others.
By ANGIE DROBNIC HOLANDEC. 11, 2015
Washington — I'm a political fact-checker, which is usually an automatic conversation starter at parties. These days, I get two questions repeatedly: "Is it worse than it's ever been?" and "What's up with Donald Trump?"
I've been fact-checking since 2007, when The Tampa Bay Times founded PolitiFact as a new way to cover elections. We don't check absolutely everything a candidate says, but focus on what catches our eye as significant, newsworthy or potentially influential. Our ratings are also not intended to be statistically representative but to show trends over time.
Donald J. Trump's record on truth and accuracy is astonishingly poor. So far, we've fact-checked more than 70 Trump statements and rated fully three-quarters of them as Mostly False, False or "Pants on Fire" (we reserve this last designation for a claim that is not only inaccurate but also ridiculous). We haven't checked the former neurosurgeon Ben Carson as often as Mr. Trump, but by the percentages Mr. Carson actually fares worse.
Carly Fiorina, another candidate in the Republican race who's never held elective office, does slightly better on the Truth-O-Meter (which I sometimes feel the need to remind people is not an actual scientific instrument): Half of the statements we've checked have proved Mostly False or worse.
Most of the professional politicians we fact-check don't reach these depths of inaccuracy. They tend to choose their words more carefully.
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, for example, has ratings of Mostly False, False and Pants on Fire at the 40 percent mark (out of a sizable 117 statements checked). The former Florida governor Jeb Bush's negative ratings are at 32 percent out of 71 statements checked, a percentage matched by two other Republican contenders, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Senator Rand Paul.
In the Democratic race, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are evenly matched at 28 percent (based on 43 checks of Mr. Sanders and 140 checks of Mrs. Clinton). Outside of the primary campaign, we've continued checking the public statements of Bill Clinton since 2007; he comes out slightly ahead of President Obama in his truth-telling track record.
Falsehood Face-Off
Statements since 2007 by presidential candidates (and some current and former officeholders) ranked from most dishonest over all to least dishonest, as fact-checked by PolitiFact. "Pants on Fire" refers to the most egregious falsehoods.
The president has the distinction of being the most fact-checked person by PolitiFact — by a wide margin, with a whopping 569 statements checked. We've rated nine of those Pants on Fire.
Even though we're in the midst of a presidential campaign full of falsehoods and misstatements, I see cause for optimism. Some politicians have responded to fact-checking journalism by vetting their prepared comments more carefully and giving their campaign ads extra scrutiny.
More important, I see accurate information becoming more available and easier for voters to find. By that measure, things are pretty good.
Mr. Trump's inaccurate statements, for example, have garnered masses of coverage. His claim that he saw "thousands of people" in New Jersey cheering the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, grabbed headlines but the stories were about the rebuttals.
When Ms. Fiorina mischaracterized a video about Planned Parenthood during an early debate, it was a significant part of the post-debate coverage, while Mrs. Clinton's sometimes misleading statements about her email accounts have been generating close, in-depth scrutiny for most of 2015.
Today's TV journalists — anchors like Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper and George Stephanopoulos — have picked up the torch of fact-checking and now grill candidates on issues of accuracy during live interviews. Most voters don't think it's biased to question people about whether their seemingly fact-based statements are accurate. Research published earlier this year by the American Press Institute showed that more than eight in 10 Americans have a positive view of political fact-checking.
In fact, journalists regularly tell me their media organizations have started highlighting fact-checking in their reporting because so many people click on fact-checking stories after a debate or high-profile news event. Many readers now want fact-checking as part of traditional news stories as well; they will vocally complain to ombudsmen and readers' representatives when they see news stories repeating discredited factual claims.
That's not to say that fact-checking is a cure-all. Partisan audiences will savage fact-checks that contradict their views, and that's true of both the right and the left. But "truthiness" can't survive indefinitely in a fact-free vacuum.
If Mr. Trump and his fans saw video of thousands of people cheering in New Jersey, why has no one brought it forward yet? Because it doesn't exist.
Fact-checking's methodology emphasizes the issue at hand and facts on the ground. Politicians can either make their case or they can't. Candidates' fans may complain about press bias, but my impression is that less partisan voters pay a lot of attention to these media moments, especially when elections are close and decided by a few percentage points. Trust and integrity are still crucial assets for a politician.
Contrary to the prophecies that truth in politics is doomed, I'm encouraged by the effect that fact-checking is having. When friends conclude despondently that the truth doesn't matter, I remind them that people haven't started voting yet. I don't take current polls too seriously because data suggests that most people don't settle on a candidate until much closer to casting their vote.
In the end, it's the voters who will punish or reward candidates for what they've said on the campaign trail. I'm confident that Americans have the information they need to help them choose wisely.
Interesting. I would have liked a little more insight into how they pick which statements to fact-check. Absent that info, they are prone to accusations of bias.
I suspect it's most likely the catchy, sound bite type statements that people are meant to remember, quote, and tell their friends.
not scientific, potentially unfair
that said, when I have looked at their reviews for a debate that I "favor" one side over the other, it seems like they pick on both candidates equally.
Saw this on another site
Rand Paul's Festivus tweet
Quote
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article5129497 5.html
https://twitter.com/randpaul
"I've got a lot of problems with you people and now you're gonna hear about them!"
"Where to start but @realDonaldTrump," Paul began. "If u bring the Yiddish, know what it means. Guess that's more of a kvetch than a grievance."
After the debates, @realDonaldTrump always trying to give us parting gifts of his made in China ties. Weird
I have no grievances against my fellow doc @RealBenCarson because I have not heard a word he has said in any debate.
to my comrade @SenSanders: Unless you're Santa Claus, Socialism runs out of other people's money.
My friend @tedcruz has still not pledged to issue exec order declaring Canadian "bacon" is not real bacon. Makes me suspicious. #Festivus
to my absentee friend @marcorubio, I didn't put your $170k+ salary in my waste report today. But I could have #Festivus
GQMagazine today names @HillaryClinton the 5th worst person in the world. She should try harder next year. Aim for the top!
Apparently when I fought to stop the NSA spying on every American, I accidentally banned Elf on the Shelf. Sorry about that kids.
My other favorite agency, the Federal Reserve: Stop trying to hide. Your audit is coming
Speaking of which, the first ever vote on my #AuditTheFed Bill is January 12th! We need everyone's help to pass this!
Can't forget @barackobama today. He gets 2 play WAY more golf than me & he doesn't have 2 go through TSA lines
Dr. Rand Paul ?@RandPaul · 1h1 hour ago
& to my friends at the TSA http://youtu.be/PdpAop7gp0w #TouchingSqueezingAmerica (that should be Keep Your Hands to Yourself song)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRPqQMMOHI4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdpAop7gp0w
In the spirit of the season, Paul also released his Waste Report's Airing Of Grievances: Festivus 2015, a report from the Senate homeland security and governance subcommittee on federal spending, which Paul chairs.
"Happy Festivus!" the report begins. "Once again, the federal government found new and inventive ways to waste the tax dollars of hard-working Americans this year."
The report, which claims to have identified $1,026,957,650 in wasteful spending, took the government to task for more than 30 programs it considered frivolous, including paying for "a community college to develop a curriculum of winemaking studies" (an $853,000 grant to Washington community colleges, according to the report) and federal agencies spending money on yoga instructors for employees.
Seriously, #MerryChristmas & #HappyHolidays. My family & I will be celebrating Christmas and we hope you & your family enjoy the season
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/new-hampshire-cnn-wmur-poll-democrats/
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2015, 12:35:37 PM
Quote from: mbw on October 15, 2015, 12:48:06 PM
ok, ok, you were right. I can't believe there was actually a time Trump was the front runner, until he said something sexist and the Republican voters finally dismissed him. I mean, the blatant racism was one thing, but an on the rag joke?! I'm glad you were right.
Like I said, talk to me when he starts winning primaries.
OK, now I'm starting to get a little nervous...
^^
yes but, fwiw, I'm more scared of Cruz than I am of Trump
still, treating this as a realilty show media event, and topping the polls is pretty scary
move over Kardashians, there is now someone more famous for being famous. You've been trumped.
Quote from: slslbs on February 01, 2016, 08:10:49 PM
^^
yes but, fwiw, I'm more scared of Cruz than I am of Trump
It's hard to predict who would be more of a disaster. But I tend to lean toward Cruz as well.
Oh god, the dooshiness in Cruz's upcoming victory speech is gonna be off the fucking charts.
Also, farewell, Martin O'Malley. We hardly knew ye. And what we knew, we LOL'd.
https://vine.com/v/et3tFhxYl9z
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 01, 2016, 10:37:07 PM
Oh god, the dooshiness in Cruz's upcoming victory speech is gonna be off the fucking charts.
Also, farewell, Martin O'Malley. We hardly knew ye. And what we knew, we LOL'd.
https://vine.com/v/et3tFhxYl9z
Hardly knew ye? Speak for yourself. :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Dude was not good for my home state.
New Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2321) has Sanders and Clinton in a nationwide virtual tie!
QuoteIn the Democratic race nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has 44 percent, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 42 percent, and 11 percent undecided. This compares to a 61 - 30 percent Clinton lead in a December 22 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.
Also, keeping with the trend, this is yet another poll that finds Sanders is the stronger general election candidate.
This is starting to get real.
Quote from: ytowndan on February 05, 2016, 05:31:36 PM
New Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2321) has Sanders and Clinton in a nationwide virtual tie!
QuoteIn the Democratic race nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has 44 percent, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 42 percent, and 11 percent undecided. This compares to a 61 - 30 percent Clinton lead in a December 22 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.
Also, keeping with the trend, this is yet another poll that finds Sanders is the stronger general election candidate.
This is starting to get real.
That is pretty awesome (not that my opinion matters).
It's a fucking shit show round here, Budd.
Quote from: ytowndan on February 05, 2016, 05:31:36 PM
New Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2321) has Sanders and Clinton in a nationwide virtual tie!
QuoteIn the Democratic race nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has 44 percent, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 42 percent, and 11 percent undecided. This compares to a 61 - 30 percent Clinton lead in a December 22 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.
Also, keeping with the trend, this is yet another poll that finds Sanders is the stronger general election candidate.
This is starting to get real.
Unfortunately, a general election isn't how the democratic candidate is selected
Quote from: mehead on February 07, 2016, 12:00:42 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on February 05, 2016, 05:31:36 PM
New Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2321) has Sanders and Clinton in a nationwide virtual tie!
QuoteIn the Democratic race nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has 44 percent, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 42 percent, and 11 percent undecided. This compares to a 61 - 30 percent Clinton lead in a December 22 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.
Also, keeping with the trend, this is yet another poll that finds Sanders is the stronger general election candidate.
This is starting to get real.
Unfortunately, a general election isn't how the democratic candidate is selected
Yeah, but a lot of people use the "electability argument" to justify supporting Clinton over Sanders in the primary -- even though many of them will openly admit to liking Bernie more. Multiple poll results like this can tip the scale in his favor.
Also, this was pretty funny: http://gawker.com/watch-bernie-sanders-joke-about-his-shtick-and-anti-sem-1757592781
Funniest shit I've seen in a long time: Jeb! forgot to renew his domain, so Trump bought it and redirected it to his site. The guy may be a delusional, self-absorbed maniac, but he may just be the internet's greatest troll.
www.jebbush.com
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 16, 2016, 01:46:17 PM
Funniest shit I've seen in a long time: Jeb! forgot to renew his domain, so Trump bought it and redirected it to his site. The guy may be a delusional, self-absorbed maniac, but he may just be the internet's greatest troll.
www.jebbush.com
I saw that this morning, he's pissing people off everywhere he turns.
Troll level = MASTER
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-accepts-clintons-challenge-on-wall-street-speeches/
Quote
Sanders Accepts Clinton's Challenge on Wall Street Speeches
ELKO, Nev. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign on Friday urged Hillary Clinton to keep her word and release the transcripts of speeches she gave to Wall Street firms "when everybody else does."
"Sen. Sanders accepts Clinton's challenge. He will release all of the transcripts of all of his Wall Street speeches. That's easy. The fact is, there weren't any. Bernie gave no speeches to Wall Street firms. He wasn't paid anything while Secretary Clinton made millions, including $675,000 for three paid speeches to Goldman Sachs," said Sanders' spokesman Michael Briggs.
"So now we hope Secretary Clinton keeps her word and releases the transcripts of her speeches. We hope she agrees that the American people deserve to know what she told Wall Street behind closed doors," Briggs added.
Clinton was paid $21.7 million in fees for speeches to groups including Wall Street firms, big corporations and trade associations for 92 talks she delivered from 2013 through last April in the run-up to formally launching her second presidential bid.
A question about what she said in those speeches was raised on Thursday during an MSNBC-Telemundo town hall in Las Vegas. A questioner in the audience asked her about why she won't release the transcripts. Clinton said she would hand over her speech transcripts if other public officials did the same. "I'm happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same," Clinton said. Sanders is "everybody else" in the Democratic presidential field of candidates.
During a Feb. 4 Democratic presidential debate, Clinton was asked if she would release the transcripts of all her paid speeches. "I will look into it. I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it," she said at the time.
Who tweeted it? Trump vs. Kanye (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/02/politics/trump-kanye-who-tweeted/)
I got 11/15
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 19, 2016, 03:49:59 PM
Troll level = MASTER
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-accepts-clintons-challenge-on-wall-street-speeches/
Quote
Sanders Accepts Clinton's Challenge on Wall Street Speeches
ELKO, Nev. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign on Friday urged Hillary Clinton to keep her word and release the transcripts of speeches she gave to Wall Street firms "when everybody else does."
"Sen. Sanders accepts Clinton's challenge. He will release all of the transcripts of all of his Wall Street speeches. That's easy. The fact is, there weren't any. Bernie gave no speeches to Wall Street firms. He wasn't paid anything while Secretary Clinton made millions, including $675,000 for three paid speeches to Goldman Sachs," said Sanders' spokesman Michael Briggs.
"So now we hope Secretary Clinton keeps her word and releases the transcripts of her speeches. We hope she agrees that the American people deserve to know what she told Wall Street behind closed doors," Briggs added.
Clinton was paid $21.7 million in fees for speeches to groups including Wall Street firms, big corporations and trade associations for 92 talks she delivered from 2013 through last April in the run-up to formally launching her second presidential bid.
A question about what she said in those speeches was raised on Thursday during an MSNBC-Telemundo town hall in Las Vegas. A questioner in the audience asked her about why she won't release the transcripts. Clinton said she would hand over her speech transcripts if other public officials did the same. "I'm happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same," Clinton said. Sanders is "everybody else" in the Democratic presidential field of candidates.
During a Feb. 4 Democratic presidential debate, Clinton was asked if she would release the transcripts of all her paid speeches. "I will look into it. I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it," she said at the time.
This so-called issue is beyond irrelevant. Bernie losing Nevada is the beginning of the end.
It's relevant-ish. It's certainly fair to wonder what kind of things Hillary Clinton, who claims to be tougher on Wall St. than Bernie (lol), actually says to Wall St. banks when she talks to them.
Also, her answer is lame. Either say "that's none of your business" or show some leadership by releasing your transcripts first.
Quote from: VDB on February 21, 2016, 04:30:21 PM
It's relevant-ish. It's certainly fair to wonder what kind of things Hillary Clinton, who claims to be tougher on Wall St. than Bernie (lol), actually says to Wall St. banks when she talks to them.
Also, her answer is lame. Either say "that's none of your business" or show some leadership by releasing your transcripts first.
It's irrelevant in the sense that will have zero impact on the race. Zero.
Quote from: mehead on February 21, 2016, 02:51:26 PM
Bernie losing Nevada is the beginning of the end.
what bullshit brainwashing media do you get your info from?
Quote from: mbw on February 22, 2016, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: mehead on February 21, 2016, 02:51:26 PM
Bernie losing Nevada is the beginning of the end.
what bullshit brainwashing media do you get your info from?
(http://rs34.pbsrc.com/albums/d107/sassykajun/potcallinkettleblack.gif~c200)
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 22, 2016, 04:59:44 PM
Quote from: mbw on February 22, 2016, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: mehead on February 21, 2016, 02:51:26 PM
Bernie losing Nevada is the beginning of the end.
what bullshit brainwashing media do you get your info from?
(http://rs34.pbsrc.com/albums/d107/sassykajun/potcallinkettleblack.gif~c200)
Riiight. Hillary so far has a tie, an epic loss, and a barely eeked out win. They are tied for delegates. Bernie might as well hang it up! Its all over now, baby blue!
Eta: that wasnt meant as a personal jab at mehead. Its just the same narrative i hear spewed from all the talking heads and its total crap.
He got crushed in Nevada with minorities and it's only going to get worse in the south. And Hillary is going to get the vast majority of the super delegates, which is huge. Win, tie, barely lost, whatever. Doesn't matter. It's about the delegates. Calling it like I see it.
And Hillary is actually ahead of Sanders in delegates right now 502-70.
Hillary's presumed (and sometimes demonstrated) strong lead with minorities does puzzle me. On the issues you'd think Sanders should be their guy. That's especially with respect to criminal justice reform which, let's face it, we in the U.S.A. do a pretty good job of wielding like a blunt instrument against dark-skinned people and, far as I can tell, Bernie speaks much more genuinely about than Hillary.
Quote from: mehead on February 22, 2016, 06:39:48 PM
He got crushed in Nevada with minorities and it's only going to get worse in the south. And Hillary is going to get the vast majority of the super delegates, which is huge. Win, tie, barely lost, whatever. Doesn't matter. It's about the delegates. Calling it like I see it.
And Hillary is actually ahead of Sanders in delegates right now 502-70.
time to fess up. you're chris matthews, aren't you?
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 01, 2016, 09:12:41 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2015, 12:35:37 PM
Quote from: mbw on October 15, 2015, 12:48:06 PM
ok, ok, you were right. I can't believe there was actually a time Trump was the front runner, until he said something sexist and the Republican voters finally dismissed him. I mean, the blatant racism was one thing, but an on the rag joke?! I'm glad you were right.
Like I said, talk to me when he starts winning primaries.
OK, now I'm starting to get a little nervous...
c'mon, you can say it......
"I
Was
Wrong."
try it, it doesn't hurt.
Quote from: mbw on February 22, 2016, 07:46:37 PM
Quote from: mehead on February 22, 2016, 06:39:48 PM
He got crushed in Nevada with minorities and it's only going to get worse in the south. And Hillary is going to get the vast majority of the super delegates, which is huge. Win, tie, barely lost, whatever. Doesn't matter. It's about the delegates. Calling it like I see it.
And Hillary is actually ahead of Sanders in delegates right now 502-70.
time to fess up. you're chris matthews, aren't you?
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Quote from: mehead on February 22, 2016, 06:39:48 PM
He got crushed in Nevada with minorities and it's only going to get worse in the south. And Hillary is going to get the vast majority of the super delegates, which is huge. Win, tie, barely lost, whatever. Doesn't matter. It's about the delegates. Calling it like I see it.
And Hillary is actually ahead of Sanders in delegates right now 502-70.
you'll be voting for that dirty c***!?!?
Quote from: susep on February 22, 2016, 09:05:07 PM
Quote from: mehead on February 22, 2016, 06:39:48 PM
He got crushed in Nevada with minorities and it's only going to get worse in the south. And Hillary is going to get the vast majority of the super delegates, which is huge. Win, tie, barely lost, whatever. Doesn't matter. It's about the delegates. Calling it like I see it.
And Hillary is actually ahead of Sanders in delegates right now 502-70.
you'll be voting for that dirty c***!?!?
snizz
Quote from: susep on February 22, 2016, 09:05:07 PM
Quote from: mehead on February 22, 2016, 06:39:48 PM
He got crushed in Nevada with minorities and it's only going to get worse in the south. And Hillary is going to get the vast majority of the super delegates, which is huge. Win, tie, barely lost, whatever. Doesn't matter. It's about the delegates. Calling it like I see it.
And Hillary is actually ahead of Sanders in delegates right now 502-70.
you'll be voting for that dirty c***!?!?
Hells no. Nowhere did I say who I'm voting for. But you honestly see Bernie beating her? Seriously.
He's losing the minority vote. He's losing the women vote. He is going to get crushed come Super Tuesday. I'll come back and check in on March 2nd and see where we stand.
Quote from: susep on February 22, 2016, 09:05:07 PM
Quote from: mehead on February 22, 2016, 06:39:48 PM
He got crushed in Nevada with minorities and it's only going to get worse in the south. And Hillary is going to get the vast majority of the super delegates, which is huge. Win, tie, barely lost, whatever. Doesn't matter. It's about the delegates. Calling it like I see it.
And Hillary is actually ahead of Sanders in delegates right now 502-70.
you'll be voting for that dirty c***!?!?
That's uncalled for.
Quote from: mbw on February 22, 2016, 07:49:27 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 01, 2016, 09:12:41 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2015, 12:35:37 PM
Quote from: mbw on October 15, 2015, 12:48:06 PM
ok, ok, you were right. I can't believe there was actually a time Trump was the front runner, until he said something sexist and the Republican voters finally dismissed him. I mean, the blatant racism was one thing, but an on the rag joke?! I'm glad you were right.
Like I said, talk to me when he starts winning primaries.
OK, now I'm starting to get a little nervous...
c'mon, you can say it......
"I
Was
Wrong."
try it, it doesn't hurt.
I'm not scared to say it: I was wrrr. I was wrrrrrrrrr...
I'm still holding out hope that the party comes to their senses. Not that picking Rubio or Cruz would represent a "sensible" choice, mind you. It's just that I have more faith in people than to descend into the particular type of madness that a Trump nomination would represent. It's a national embarrassment that he's come this far, regardless of whether or not he is your guy. But if he does in fact win (and yes, that is clearly the most likely scenario right now), I will take back every statement I have ever uttered in defense of GOP voters. They would truly be dumber than I could have ever imagined and would absolutely deserve the electoral pounding they would most certainly receive from Hillary (and yes, sorry, it will be Hillary).
Burners for Bernie
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/23/19343/can-you-sell-marijuana-pipes-help-fund-bernie-sanders
(http://cloudfront-3.publicintegrity.org/files/styles/5col/public/img/Sanders+pipes+on+table.jpg?itok=ylOfyAVi)
Well, it's been a good run, America
(http://www.uberclub.org/uploads/2007/06/idiocracy-defile.jpg)
What year is this again?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTwXvRt6tyM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTwXvRt6tyM)
Christie endorsing Trump. The fuck is going on here? I can't even imagine what the Drug War would look like with that fat fuck as AG in a Trump administration.
So after getting destroyed last night, Trump again hijacks the news cycle. Maybe I was wrong: he does know what he is doing.
Nah.
Well, as far as disposition goes, it would figure that a self-styled tough guy like Christie would be attracted to a self-styled tough guy like Trump.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 26, 2016, 01:08:40 PM
. Maybe I was wrong: he does know what he is doing.
Nah.
Is he losing money on this? probably not. He'll make bank whichever way it goes.
Donald trump is basically a sports mascot. He's a shitty actor wearing a giant bird head, yelling. He does his job well and gets paid regardless of which team wins.
Except, he's also insane.
Quote from: VDB on February 26, 2016, 01:41:17 PM
Well, as far as disposition goes, it would figure that a self-styled tough guy like Christie would be attracted to a self-styled tough guy like Trump.
Yeah, some asshole endorses another asshole. Not too surprised here.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 26, 2016, 01:08:40 PM
I can't even imagine what the Drug War would look like with that fat fuck as AG in a Trump administration.
It would be a frightening time. What scares me even more is the thought of him maybe gunning for a more permanent position - if you know what I mean.
Quote from: ytowndan on February 26, 2016, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 26, 2016, 01:08:40 PM
I can't even imagine what the Drug War would look like with that fat fuck as AG in a Trump administration.
It would be a frightening time. What scares me even more is the thought of him maybe gunning for a more permanent position - if you know what I mean.
VP? I don't think even Trump is dumb enough to put together a GOP ticket solely form NY/NJ (yes I can).
I think your boy Kasich has been auditioning for that for a while now.
Also, lolkeller (there should really be a shortcut for that)
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 26, 2016, 09:31:01 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on February 26, 2016, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 26, 2016, 01:08:40 PM
I can't even imagine what the Drug War would look like with that fat fuck as AG in a Trump administration.
It would be a frightening time. What scares me even more is the thought of him maybe gunning for a more permanent position - if you know what I mean.
VP? I don't think even Trump is dumb enough to put together a GOP ticket solely form NY/NJ (yes I can).
I think your boy Kasich has been auditioning for that for a while now.
Also, lolkeller (there should really be a shortcut for that)
I was referring to SCOTUS actually.
As for Kasich, he might as well ticket up with The Donald. His style is opposite of Trump's, but their policy stances are essentially the same (except for the handful of issues in which Kasich is actually worse than him). The guy takes free money for Medicaid and all of a sudden he's a so-called "moderate." But I guess in today's GOP the Tea Party Is weak sauce, they're a bunch of friggin RINOs nowadays.
Quote from: ytowndan on February 26, 2016, 10:03:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 26, 2016, 09:31:01 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on February 26, 2016, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 26, 2016, 01:08:40 PM
I can't even imagine what the Drug War would look like with that fat fuck as AG in a Trump administration.
It would be a frightening time. What scares me even more is the thought of him maybe gunning for a more permanent position - if you know what I mean.
VP? I don't think even Trump is dumb enough to put together a GOP ticket solely form NY/NJ (yes I can).
I think your boy Kasich has been auditioning for that for a while now.
Also, lolkeller (there should really be a shortcut for that)
I was referring to SCOTUS actually.
Holy shit, that never even occurred to me. That IS fucking scary.
Goddammit, Dan, I'm gonna have nightmares tonight.
Sorry, bro. The thought occurred to me and I had to share it. You know, misery loves company.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/25/im_not_a_superpredator_hillary_black_lives_matter_protestors_crash_clinton_south_carolina_fundraiser/
Her "firewall" might start to crumble after the way she handled that.
It's probably too late for SC but, if this goes viral, it might help Sanders big time (especially in the south).
I just caught about 10-15 minutes of Trump's televised rally from Hunstville, Alabama.
Wow. He's all over the place, just stream-of-conscious left and right, throwing in random applause lines when he feels like he needs to give the crowd a shot of energy from time to time. Constant belittling of his opponents (especially "Little Rubio") and the media -- this, by the way, after he lamented how "nasty" other people had been getting of late. Also, there were at least three interruptions by protestors in the short time that I watched. I can only imagine what it would look like if this guy is still campaigning until November.
https://youtu.be/DnpO_RTSNmQ
Brilliant as always
Beyond brilliant
He managed to do in one segment what the entire MSM should have been doing for months.
Quote from: ytowndan on February 29, 2016, 05:29:43 PM
He managed to do in one segment what the entire MSM should have been doing for months.
That was exactly what I was thinking.
Quote from: ytowndan on February 29, 2016, 05:29:43 PM
He managed to do in one segment what the entire MSM should have been doing for months.
It's almost like they had a vested interest in keeping the circus going. Weird.
ETA:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/les-moonves-donald-trump_us_56d52ce8e4b03260bf780275
Quote
CBS Chief Les Moonves Says Trump's 'Damn Good' For Business
"Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going."
There's a reason why Donald Trump gets more minutes during almost every debate or can seemingly call into "The Late Show" or "The View" whenever he has a racist remark and expect the media to do whatever he likes. According to the head of CBS, the foul-mouthed presidential candidate is "damn good" for the network and the "money's rolling in" thanks to his antics.
Les Moonves, executive chairman and CEO of CBS, made the comments during a speech at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media and Telecom Conference in San Francisco, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
"I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us," he said at the event. "Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going."
The outlet notes Moonves said ad sales this season have been particularly strong, partly due to an election cycle rapt with attacks and "bomb throwing" that keeps Americans interested.
"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said.
His comments reflect an ongoing media blitz that revels in lambasting the xenophobic, racist and often false comments Trump makes, but outlets still opt to put him on the air. The Huffington Post's Michael Calderone noted in September that the business mogul has long been afforded the privilege of calling in to many political programs.
Some members of the media have also been chastised for being too soft on the candidate, who's been known to throw tantrums over negative coverage and threaten to blacklist reporters.
Other Republican candidates, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), have struggled to keep up. The New York Times noted that the Florida senator has ramped up the mudslinging in an effort to scrounge some of the aggression -- and subsequent media salivation -- for himself.
It appears to be working. CNN and Fox have both broken debate ratings records this election season and Trump's polling numbers are already crushing Mitt Romney's from 2012.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ccd1o84VIAAn1qv.jpg)
I was about to say I can't believe Trump said he had a big dick live on TV, but of course I can.
This is thoroughly entertaining.
Poor John Kasich.
Quote from: VDB on March 03, 2016, 10:43:28 PM
This is thoroughly entertaining.
Poor John Kasich.
This is your bi-monthly reminder that the "only adult in the room" opposed marriage equality and same-sex adoption (http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/john-kasich), wants to put boots on the ground to "wipe out, degrade and destroy" ISIS (http://time.com/4119069/isis-john-kasich/), and would be every bit as bad as AG Fat Ass on the War on Drugs (http://rare.us/story/heres-how-much-john-kasich-hates-marijuana/).
Look, I know he seems sane compared to the rest of the clowns on that stage, but in reality his interventionism would be a neocon's wet dream.
Also, this election is the worst election ever.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CctRcvzXIAAsbqq.jpg)
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 04, 2016, 08:51:59 AM
this election is the worst election ever.
This x 1000.
8 solid months to go. :|
Quote from: JPhishman on March 04, 2016, 10:46:14 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 04, 2016, 08:51:59 AM
this election is the worst election ever.
This x 1000.
8 solid months to go. :|
It's cool, I'm sure the Trump v. Hillary general will be much more substantive.
right
I can see it now
Trump tweeting - so what was Hillary really doing when Bill was getting BJs from Monica?
Quote from: slslbs on March 04, 2016, 03:09:54 PM
right
I can see it now
Trump tweeting - so what was Hillary really doing when Bill was getting BJs from Monica?
Tweeting? I fully expect him to parade some of Bill's lady friends up on stage with him. And it's not like Hillary doesn't know how to fight dirty either. It's gonna be a shitshow.
Do you really think Trump will continue to act like this after the primary? This guy is a master at pandering, and right now he needs the mouth breathers. I bet he settles way down after the convention when he realizes he is at the point where he needs more than angry white dudes.
But who knows. Feel free to call me out in August when he punches an elderly Hispanic woman.
(http://i.imgur.com/Pky5Wjb.jpg)
Quote from: mbw on March 09, 2016, 04:37:29 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Pky5Wjb.jpg)
About that...
Quote@williamjordann (https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/707612116790943744)
Per exits polls, roughly 92,000 Democrats voted in the Republican primary (7%). Bernie won by by about 18,500 votes.
That shit gets no play in Chicago, Donald.
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 16, 2015, 10:02:46 PM
Marco Rubio isn't qualified to be a household joke.
Now he might be qualified for that much.
Ugh, it would be nice if people voted in favor of their own best interests for a change.
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 09:24:50 PM
Ugh, it would be nice if people voted in favor of their own best interests for a change.
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 09:24:50 PM
Ugh, it would be nice if people voted in favor of their own best interests for a change.
Yes. But why change now?
I'd be curious to see turnout numbers for FL.
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 09:24:50 PM
Ugh, it would be nice if people voted in favor of their own best interests for a change.
And you know what that is better than they do?
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 15, 2016, 09:49:55 PM
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 09:24:50 PM
Ugh, it would be nice if people voted in favor of their own best interests for a change.
And you know what that is better than they do?
You know I smoked cigarettes for 15 years or so. Those were not votes in my best interest and yet I continued to vote that way for a long time
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 15, 2016, 09:49:55 PM
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 09:24:50 PM
Ugh, it would be nice if people voted in favor of their own best interests for a change.
And you know what that is better than they do?
Minorities voting for Drumpf and Clinton are absolutely fucking themselves, no two ways about it.
Bernie represents the interests of all working class Americans, he's dedicated his entire life to it.
Quote from: kellerb on March 15, 2016, 10:19:13 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 15, 2016, 09:49:55 PM
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 09:24:50 PM
Ugh, it would be nice if people voted in favor of their own best interests for a change.
And you know what that is better than they do?
You know I smoked cigarettes for 15 years or so. Those were not votes in my best interest and yet I continued to vote that way for a long time
That analogy is weaker than your legs when Mike starts dropping DwD bombs. :-P
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 10:23:19 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 15, 2016, 09:49:55 PM
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 09:24:50 PM
Ugh, it would be nice if people voted in favor of their own best interests for a change.
And you know what that is better than they do?
Minorities voting for Drumpf and Clinton are absolutely fucking themselves, no two ways about it.
Bernie represents the interests of all working class Americans, he's dedicated his entire life to it.
I don't doubt that Hillary would be worse than Bernie re Drug War, which is the single biggest issue that could help reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system. But on other domestic policies - which are largely outside the control of the executive - they're pretty much a push. At least in their campaign promises which we all agree are worth jack shit. Plus, while Bill was called "the first black president," Bernie has had a obviously difficult time connecting with African Americans. But that doesn't mean they are voting against their interests or are too stupid to know the difference (as your original statement implied).
As for the "all working class Americans," well, you know that can't possibly be true, right? Maybe some of them aren't as cool with having their taxes raised as you are?
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 15, 2016, 10:49:03 PM
Quote from: kellerb on March 15, 2016, 10:19:13 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 15, 2016, 09:49:55 PM
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 09:24:50 PM
Ugh, it would be nice if people voted in favor of their own best interests for a change.
And you know what that is better than they do?
You know I smoked cigarettes for 15 years or so. Those were not votes in my best interest and yet I continued to vote that way for a long time
That analogy is weaker than your legs when Mike starts dropping DwD bombs. :-P
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 10:23:19 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 15, 2016, 09:49:55 PM
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 09:24:50 PM
Ugh, it would be nice if people voted in favor of their own best interests for a change.
And you know what that is better than they do?
Minorities voting for Drumpf and Clinton are absolutely fucking themselves, no two ways about it.
Bernie represents the interests of all working class Americans, he's dedicated his entire life to it.
I don't doubt that Hillary would be worse than Bernie re Drug War, which is the single biggest issue that could help reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system. But on other domestic policies - which are largely outside the control of the executive - they're pretty much a push. At least in their campaign promises which we all agree are worth jack shit. Plus, while Bill was called "the first black president," Bernie has had a obviously difficult time connecting with African Americans. But that doesn't mean they are voting against their interests or are too stupid to know the difference (as your original statement implied).
As for the "all working class Americans," well, you know that can't possibly be true, right? Maybe some of them aren't as cool with having their taxes raised as you are?
A 2% tax increase in exchange for free healthcare and college is no push, it would be a huge victory for all Americans.
I think black voters just aren't familiar with Bernie and his policies, that doesn't mean they are stupid, just that they aren't making the most informed decision. Sadly Hillary can coast to a victory on the basis of brand loyalty, even though I don't think her politics are necessarily the same as Bill's. It's s bit of a bait and switch, Democrats think they'll get the Clintons of the 90s when unfortunately that ship has sailed and been replaced by a far more corporate friendly version of governance.
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 11:32:54 PM
A 2% tax increase in exchange for free healthcare and college is no push, it would be a huge victory for all Americans.
2% is the increase in income tax. That's on top of a 6.2% payroll tax (paid by employer but that would ultimately be passed on to workers through either lower wages or fewer jobs). But most health care economists - including a Dem and a left leaning think tank - say the math is just not there (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/bernie-sanders-health_us_56b25e8fe4b04f9b57d83008). And that's just on the direct costs alone, not to mention the externalities imposed by such a system. And that's only for health care. "Free" college would be financed by the Wall St transaction tax, which would only raise about a third of the revenue needed to fully fund the program (http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/news/economy/sanders-taxes-spending/). It also doesn't have enough incentive for states to get on board and would likely be met with fierce resistance given the massive disruption it would cause (http://www.vox.com/2016/3/14/11222482/bernie-sanders-free-college).
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 11:32:54 PM
I think black voters just aren't familiar with Bernie and his policies, that doesn't mean they are stupid, just that they aren't making the most informed decision.
Seems like a pretty broad generalization to me. With all due respect, it's almost Drumpfesque. Sometimes people do what their pastor or rabbi tells them. Sometimes they listen to their friends. And sometimes they get caught up in the moment of a charismatic figure. Don't get me wrong, I agree with your premise that voters are (or at least can be) irrational, but I don't think it (necessarily) holds that they are voting against their interests. Their interests are just more complicated than we give them credit for.
Quote from: Hicks on March 15, 2016, 11:32:54 PM
Sadly Hillary can coast to a victory on the basis of brand loyalty, even though I don't think her politics are necessarily the same as Bill's. It's s bit of a bait and switch, Democrats think they'll get the Clintons of the 90s when unfortunately that ship has sailed and been replaced by a far more corporate friendly version of governance.
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
If you are suggesting black voters are getting swept up by Hillary's charisma, well, lol.
Of course I'm making a broad generalization, I'm putting forward a hypothesis to explain why Bernie is getting virtually no votes from a demographic that would by and large benefit from his policies. Especially in contrast to the corporate owned status quo that Hillary represents.
If it's not PC to acknowledge that black voters, in general, tend to vote as a block in national elections, then I guess we can no longer discuss political reality?
Quote from: Hicks on March 16, 2016, 12:54:21 PM
If you are suggesting black voters are getting swept up by Hillary's charisma, well, lol.
No, of course not. Hillary has the energy of a second set Joy. I was referring to Trump. Or perhaps a certain other charismatic, transformational president...
Quote from: Hicks on March 16, 2016, 12:54:21 PM
Of course I'm making a broad generalization, I'm putting forward a hypothesis to explain why Bernie is getting virtually no votes from a demographic that would by and large benefit from his policies. Especially in contrast to the corporate owned status quo that Hillary represents.
If it's not PC to acknowledge that black voters, in general, tend to vote as a block in national elections, then I guess we can no longer discuss political reality?
I don't mind the political reality. I just found the original point that a vote for Hillary is a vote against one's best interests as fairly dismissive of the unique considerations of black voters. For whatever reason, Bernie hasn't been able to connect with that demographic (much like Rubio was unable to connect his message with a critical bloc of his electorate). You seemed to be phrasing it as their problem, not his. That's all I'm taking issue with.
Eh, I don't think middle class black voters interests are all that different from mine, with the huge exception of law enforcement issues/tactics, but that's an issue that for the most part needs to be tackled at a local level. And as you've already pointed out, Bernie will be more proactive in ending the war on drugs, which is the federal piece of the puzzle.
And yeah, it is our problem when we keep getting fooled into voting for candidates that represent the interests of big business and the ultra-wealthy first and foremost.
Well, it appears we should all stock up on popcorn now because the Hillary vs Trump debates are going to be theatrical!
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
(http://catchquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/102-Animal-House-quotes.gif)
Why Black Voters Don't Feel the Bern (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/why-black-voters-dont-feel-the-bern-213707)
Quote from: VDB on March 16, 2016, 08:11:02 PM
Why Black Voters Don't Feel the Bern (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/why-black-voters-dont-feel-the-bern-213707)
By: The Whitest Guy on Earth
Fyp.
Quote from: mbw on March 16, 2016, 09:45:07 PM
Quote from: VDB on March 16, 2016, 08:11:02 PM
Why Black Voters Don't Feel the Bern (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/why-black-voters-dont-feel-the-bern-213707)
By: The Whitest Guy on Earth
Fyp.
I just Googled him.
That is one white-looking dude.
Also, he apparently teaches in Canada.
An important and oft-overlooked point: maybe black voters aren't as receptive to the message that everything is fucked up and in need of a disruptive movement because they remain so fiercely loyal to Obama who keeps telling us Everything Is Awesome!!
Quote
Beyond these historic patterns, African-Americans today are fiercely loyal to Barack Obama and, as a result, tend to be more positive than whites about how well America is doing under Obama. Just as both Clintons discovered that black support for Obama in 2008 trumped the long friendship between most blacks and the Clintons, Sanders has seen that his criticism of President Obama as having "let progressives down" trumps his having been arrested at a Sixties civil rights protest.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/rand-paul-back-trump-nominee-221463
So pathetic to see prominent politicians (or anyone else) reluctantly say they'd support Trump, whom they hate, because they hate Clinton more. Or vice versa. If ever there was a time when it would seem sensible to stand up and embrace the idea of a third-party/independent candidate, wouldn't it be now?
eta:
And why wouldn't Rand Paul, the libertarian-ish Republican, not feel emboldened enough to throw his support to former Republican and current Libertarian Gary Johnson? Does Paul really think the party would punish him for not supporting a nominee that the party itself doesn't even want? Does Paul really think Trump would be a better choice than Johnson?
Struggling to care about what Rand Paul thinks...
Nope.
Can't do it.
Quote from: VDB on April 03, 2016, 09:17:08 PM
So pathetic to see prominent politicians (or anyone else) reluctantly say they'd support Trump, whom they hate, because they hate Clinton more. Or vice versa. If ever there was a time when it would seem sensible to stand up and embrace the idea of a third-party/independent candidate, wouldn't it be now?
eta:
And why wouldn't Rand Paul, the libertarian-ish Republican, not feel emboldened enough to throw his support to former Republican and current Libertarian Gary Johnson? Does Paul really think the party would punish him for not supporting a nominee that the party itself doesn't even want? Does Paul really think Trump would be a better choice than Johnson?
Possibly the most spineless "endorsement" I've ever seen.
I'll endorse Trump, I guess, if. . . IF he wins the nomination.
Quote from: Hicks on April 04, 2016, 09:39:56 AM
Quote from: VDB on April 03, 2016, 09:17:08 PM
So pathetic to see prominent politicians (or anyone else) reluctantly say they'd support Trump, whom they hate, because they hate Clinton more. Or vice versa. If ever there was a time when it would seem sensible to stand up and embrace the idea of a third-party/independent candidate, wouldn't it be now?
eta:
And why wouldn't Rand Paul, the libertarian-ish Republican, not feel emboldened enough to throw his support to former Republican and current Libertarian Gary Johnson? Does Paul really think the party would punish him for not supporting a nominee that the party itself doesn't even want? Does Paul really think Trump would be a better choice than Johnson?
Possibly the most spineless "endorsement" I've ever seen.
I'll endorse Trump, I guess, if. . . IF he wins the nomination.
I also love the Republicans who, when asked if they'd support Trump, merely say "I will support the nominee." "Even if that nominee is Donald Trump?" "I will support the nominee." "So you'd support Trump?" "I will support the nominee."
So either they are certain Trump will not become the nominee no matter what, or they think it doesn't really count as supporting Trump himself if you refuse to say his name.
Quote from: VDB on April 04, 2016, 11:25:32 AM
Quote from: Hicks on April 04, 2016, 09:39:56 AM
Quote from: VDB on April 03, 2016, 09:17:08 PM
So pathetic to see prominent politicians (or anyone else) reluctantly say they'd support Trump, whom they hate, because they hate Clinton more. Or vice versa. If ever there was a time when it would seem sensible to stand up and embrace the idea of a third-party/independent candidate, wouldn't it be now?
eta:
And why wouldn't Rand Paul, the libertarian-ish Republican, not feel emboldened enough to throw his support to former Republican and current Libertarian Gary Johnson? Does Paul really think the party would punish him for not supporting a nominee that the party itself doesn't even want? Does Paul really think Trump would be a better choice than Johnson?
Possibly the most spineless "endorsement" I've ever seen.
I'll endorse Trump, I guess, if. . . IF he wins the nomination.
I also love the Republicans who, when asked if they'd support Trump, merely say "I will support the nominee." "Even if that nominee is Donald Trump?" "I will support the nominee." "So you'd support Trump?" "I will support the nominee."
So either they are certain Trump will not become the nominee no matter what, or they think it doesn't really count as supporting Trump himself if you refuse to say his name.
Obviously I'm no fan of Trump, but it's been pretty awesome to watch him throw the Republican party into complete disarray.
It's going to be tough for them to recover from this debacle.
Quote from: Hicks on April 04, 2016, 12:35:05 PM
Quote from: VDB on April 04, 2016, 11:25:32 AM
Quote from: Hicks on April 04, 2016, 09:39:56 AM
Quote from: VDB on April 03, 2016, 09:17:08 PM
So pathetic to see prominent politicians (or anyone else) reluctantly say they'd support Trump, whom they hate, because they hate Clinton more. Or vice versa. If ever there was a time when it would seem sensible to stand up and embrace the idea of a third-party/independent candidate, wouldn't it be now?
eta:
And why wouldn't Rand Paul, the libertarian-ish Republican, not feel emboldened enough to throw his support to former Republican and current Libertarian Gary Johnson? Does Paul really think the party would punish him for not supporting a nominee that the party itself doesn't even want? Does Paul really think Trump would be a better choice than Johnson?
Possibly the most spineless "endorsement" I've ever seen.
I'll endorse Trump, I guess, if. . . IF he wins the nomination.
I also love the Republicans who, when asked if they'd support Trump, merely say "I will support the nominee." "Even if that nominee is Donald Trump?" "I will support the nominee." "So you'd support Trump?" "I will support the nominee."
So either they are certain Trump will not become the nominee no matter what, or they think it doesn't really count as supporting Trump himself if you refuse to say his name.
Obviously I'm no fan of Trump, but it's been pretty awesome to watch him throw the Republican party into complete disarray.
It's going to be tough for them to recover from this debacle.
that's what everyone said after Obama won and the Dems took the House and Senate. The GOP took back control of Congress in no time.
Quote from: slslbs on April 04, 2016, 02:08:35 PM
Quote from: Hicks on April 04, 2016, 12:35:05 PM
Quote from: VDB on April 04, 2016, 11:25:32 AM
Quote from: Hicks on April 04, 2016, 09:39:56 AM
Quote from: VDB on April 03, 2016, 09:17:08 PM
So pathetic to see prominent politicians (or anyone else) reluctantly say they'd support Trump, whom they hate, because they hate Clinton more. Or vice versa. If ever there was a time when it would seem sensible to stand up and embrace the idea of a third-party/independent candidate, wouldn't it be now?
eta:
And why wouldn't Rand Paul, the libertarian-ish Republican, not feel emboldened enough to throw his support to former Republican and current Libertarian Gary Johnson? Does Paul really think the party would punish him for not supporting a nominee that the party itself doesn't even want? Does Paul really think Trump would be a better choice than Johnson?
Possibly the most spineless "endorsement" I've ever seen.
I'll endorse Trump, I guess, if. . . IF he wins the nomination.
I also love the Republicans who, when asked if they'd support Trump, merely say "I will support the nominee." "Even if that nominee is Donald Trump?" "I will support the nominee." "So you'd support Trump?" "I will support the nominee."
So either they are certain Trump will not become the nominee no matter what, or they think it doesn't really count as supporting Trump himself if you refuse to say his name.
Obviously I'm no fan of Trump, but it's been pretty awesome to watch him throw the Republican party into complete disarray.
It's going to be tough for them to recover from this debacle.
that's what everyone said after Obama won and the Dems took the House and Senate. The GOP took back control of Congress in no time.
Eh, I didn't.
The chaos of this election is unprecedented IMO.
Yeah, Palin was a joke but at least voters could blame that on just one old guy. Trump as the nominee would be a little different.
https://twitter.com/PoliticoKevin/status/727656924670533636 (https://twitter.com/PoliticoKevin/status/727656924670533636)
AP calls it for Hillary.
http://nyti.ms/1WCxOSW
Quote
Hillary Clinton Has Clinched Democratic Nomination, Survey Reports
Hillary Clinton became the first woman to capture the presidential nomination of one of the country's major political parties on Monday night, according to an Associated Press survey of Democratic superdelegates, securing enough of them to overcome a bruising challenge from Senator Bernie Sanders and turn to a brutal five-month campaign against Donald J. Trump.
Almost eight years after she ended her campaign against Barack Obama before a crowd of teary women and girls, Mrs. Clinton signaled the news to a jubilant crowd at a campaign stop in Long Beach, Calif.
"I got to tell you, according to the news, we are on the brink of a historic, historic, unprecedented moment, but we still have work to do, don't we?" she said. "We have six elections tomorrow, and we're going to fight hard for every single vote, especially right here in California."
Like Mr. Obama eight years ago, Mrs. Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination with the support of hundreds of superdelegates — the party insiders, Democratic officials, members of Congress, major donors, and others who help select the nominee. Under Democratic rules, these superdelegates – approximately 720 in all – are allowed to back any candidate they wish and can change their allegiance any time before the convention.
Mrs. Clinton has had relationships with many of the superdelegates for years, and her campaign began seeking their support as soon as she entered the race last spring. Mr. Sanders, by contrast, has struggled to win their backing.
Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders competed most aggressively for so-called pledged delegates – the roughly 4,000 delegates that are won through state primaries and caucuses.
The Associated Press declared Mrs. Clinton the presumptive nominee by reaching out to superdelegates who had not announced which candidate they were supporting, and confirming that enough were backing Mrs. Clinton to get her to the magic number of 2,383 delegates.
The timing of the AP alert that Mrs. Clinton had reached the threshold was unusual, coming on the eve of six primaries, including the big states of New Jersey and California Tuesday.
Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton's campaign manager, called the AP's call, "an important milestone" but indicated Mrs. Clinton did not intend to declare victory until Tuesday night when she "will clinch not only a win in the popular vote, but also the majority of pledged delegates."
Advisers to Senator Bernie Sanders took a dim view of the math. Mr. Sanders has previously said he would lobby Clinton superdelegates to shift their support to him by arguing that he is the party's best chances to defeat Mr. Trump, and he particularly plans to target those superdelegates who represent states where Mr. Sanders won primaries and caucuses. The advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Mr. Sanders was aiming to win the California primary on Tuesday to bolster his argument to superdelegates that he is the stronger and more popular candidate than Mrs. Clinton.
"It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgment, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee's clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer," said Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, in a statement.
"Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination," the statement continued. "She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then."
Asked on a visit to a community center in Compton, Calif. on Monday morning about being on the cusp of making history, Mrs. Clinton said, "I'm not letting myself focus on it yet," but, she said, "It's been an incredibly journey."
Indeed, becoming her party's presumptive nominee is the latest chapter in a remarkable career that has taken Mrs. Clinton from the first lady to being one election away from the from returning to the White House as president.
Mrs. Clinton planned a victory rally in Brooklyn on Tuesday, but by the time the AP called the contest, she seemed to already be in a celebratory mood, ending a campaign slog that had been expected to come to a close after the early contests but dragged on to just before the final votes were tallied, at a "She's With Us" concert at the Greek Theater in Los Angeles with John Legend, Christina Aguilera and Stevie Wonder.
Mrs. Clinton had for weeks hardly hid her eagerness to put the slog of a primary against Mr. Sanders behind her and to turn her full focus to the presumptive Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.
Talking to voters at the Hawkins House of Burgers in the Watts section of Los Angeles, she promised to take on Mr. Trump "all the time" and she urged Mr. Sanders's supporters to consider the consequences if the real estate developer were to capture the White House. "Anyone who's supported me and anyone who's supported Senator Sanders, has a lot at stake in this election in preventing Donald Trump from being president, which I can barely say," she told reporters on Monday.
Clinton must also work in the coming weeks to improve her own standing with voters, both with Mr. Sanders's hoards of young supporters and with a majority of registered voters who say they do not like or trust the former secretary of state.
Still, many Democratic allies of Mrs. Clinton did not want to wait until Tuesday's primaries to celebrate, writing Twitter posts and issuing statements hailing her as the nominee and trying to shift the Democratic Party's focus and the national political conversation to take aim on Mr. Trump.
"What a historic night. By nominating Secretary Clinton, we're showing that we are the party of common sense because we are the party of progress," said Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut, an aggressive backer of Mrs. Clinton who landed some of the toughest punches against Senator Sanders.
Jennifer Granholm, the former governor of Michigan who now advises a pro-Clinton "super PAC," said in an email: "It's beyond words; incredibly moving for me personally — but premature. We don't want to crush democracy. Still six states tomorrow whose votes must be counted. It's crucial to encourage people to vote."
QuotePRESS RELEASE
Sanders Campaign Statement
JUNE 6, 2016
SAN FRANCISCO – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' spokesman, Michael Briggs, on Monday issued the following statement:
"It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgment, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee's clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer.
"Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before any other candidate was in the race.
"Our job from now until the convention is to convince those superdelegates that Bernie is by far the strongest candidate against Donald Trump."
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-campaign-statement/
The media has totally railroaded Sanders from the get go. Such a farce.
The fact is the superdelegates should vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates and that's Clinton.
I wish Bernie had been able to pull it off, but the reality is this has been pretty much over since he lost Pennsylvania.
Sanders' campaign has been about a democratic revolution from the beginning. Part of that revolution involves swinging the super delegates based on the will of the people.
As an outsider, it seems like he is the bravest and most remarkable US politician of my generation, fighting the nomination process until the very end further strengthens that.
In reality, Bernie will continue to fight until the convention - should any major revelation derail Clinton between now and then it will be really easy for the supers to just change their vote at the convention and all would be legal, up to snuff, yada yada.
Doubt that happens at this point, but you never know. FBI slaps actual charges on her over the emails and we'll all be glad Bernie hung in there to the very end.
Quote from: mattstick on June 07, 2016, 11:21:52 AM
Sanders' campaign has been about a democratic revolution from the beginning. Part of that revolution involves swinging the super delegates based on the will of the people.
As an outsider, it seems like he is the bravest and most remarkable US politician of my generation, fighting the nomination process until the very end further strengthens that.
Well, if it's based on the will of the people, than, as Hicks stated, they should vote for Hillary, who has a 3M vote advantage in the popular vote (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html). What you and Bernie are saying is that the superdelegates should subvert the will of the people and vote for him. Where's the democracy in that?
If you want to say Bernie is doing the people of CA and NJ (and whoever else is voting today) a great service by allowing them to cast their votes and take part in the political process, that's fine. But I find the statements "Bernie is leading a democratic revolution" and "he should convince superdelegates to nominate him at the convention" to be diametrically opposed.
I'm probably in the minority (shocker!) in that I don't find the idea of superdelegates inherently undemocratic. They have never handed the nomination to the candidate with less delegates (in the admittedly small sample size; only the 9th cycle). And I would imagine the other party will strongly be considering adopting similar rules after this year's fiasco. But it just seems to me the amount of frustration against superdelegates is inversely proportional to the degree to which a person's preferred candidate is benefiting/getting shafted by them.
We've reached peak civility and sense, everyone. I agree with both jimbo and the stickman.
The reason I support Bernie's campaign all the way to the convention is because his insurgency--entirely unlike the Republican primary campaign--has all along promised (and delivered as best they could, notwithstanding Wasserman-Schulz, et al) a substantive, significant debate about Democratic politics in this country.
Quote from: sunrisevt on June 07, 2016, 01:37:51 PM
We've reached peak civility and sense, everyone. I agree with both jimbo and the stickman.
Go pound sand, hippie.
There, I feel much better.
:wink:
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 07, 2016, 02:28:37 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on June 07, 2016, 01:37:51 PM
We've reached peak civility and sense, everyone. I agree with both jimbo and the stickman.
Go pound sand, hippie.
There, I feel much better.
:wink:
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Quote from: sunrisevt on June 07, 2016, 02:44:18 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 07, 2016, 02:28:37 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on June 07, 2016, 01:37:51 PM
We've reached peak civility and sense, everyone. I agree with both jimbo and the stickman.
Go pound sand, hippie.
There, I feel much better.
:wink:
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Looks like Bernie will put his proverbial weight behind Hilldog today in New Hampshire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html)
Quote from: PGLHAH on July 12, 2016, 09:47:19 AM
Looks like Bernie will put his proverbial weight behind Hilldog today in New Hampshire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html)
And The Donald is ON IT
Quote@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752859250628648962)
Bernie Sanders, who has lost most of his leverage, has totally sold out to Crooked Hillary Clinton. He will endorse her today - fans angry!
Quote@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752860045084241920)
I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself and his supporters. They are not happy that he is selling out!
Quote from: runawayjimbo on July 12, 2016, 11:00:26 AM
Quote from: PGLHAH on July 12, 2016, 09:47:19 AM
Looks like Bernie will put his proverbial weight behind Hilldog today in New Hampshire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html)
And The Donald is ON IT
Quote@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752859250628648962)
Bernie Sanders, who has lost most of his leverage, has totally sold out to Crooked Hillary Clinton. He will endorse her today - fans angry!
Quote@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752860045084241920)
I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself and his supporters. They are not happy that he is selling out!
I guess I can agree with Donald on something.
I love how Trump always manages to squeeze in a drive-by insult in all of his tweets.
"Rubio, who is a total loser, can't win any states!"
"The Washington Post -- which no one reads anymore -- can't stand me!"
Quote from: mbw on July 12, 2016, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on July 12, 2016, 11:00:26 AM
Quote from: PGLHAH on July 12, 2016, 09:47:19 AM
Looks like Bernie will put his proverbial weight behind Hilldog today in New Hampshire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html)
And The Donald is ON IT
Quote@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752859250628648962)
Bernie Sanders, who has lost most of his leverage, has totally sold out to Crooked Hillary Clinton. He will endorse her today - fans angry!
Quote@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752860045084241920)
I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself and his supporters. They are not happy that he is selling out!
I guess I can agree with Donald on something.
That must have been hard for you. I'm proud of ya, big guy!
But don't worry: now you can donate the iconic $27 to Hillary!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnLRvyAWEAAytrB.jpg)
Quote from: runawayjimbo on July 12, 2016, 12:09:45 PM
Quote from: mbw on July 12, 2016, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on July 12, 2016, 11:00:26 AM
Quote from: PGLHAH on July 12, 2016, 09:47:19 AM
Looks like Bernie will put his proverbial weight behind Hilldog today in New Hampshire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html)
And The Donald is ON IT
Quote@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752859250628648962)
Bernie Sanders, who has lost most of his leverage, has totally sold out to Crooked Hillary Clinton. He will endorse her today - fans angry!
Quote@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752860045084241920)
I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself and his supporters. They are not happy that he is selling out!
I guess I can agree with Donald on something.
That must have been hard for you. I'm proud of ya, big guy!
But don't worry: now you can donate the iconic $27 to Hillary!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnLRvyAWEAAytrB.jpg)
No thanks.
Whole lot of Mike Pence for VP chatter going on...
ETA: and no official reports coming in
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-vice-president.html
And yet...
Quote
Donald J. Trump’s campaign has signaled strongly to Republicans in Washington that he will pick Mike Pence, the governor of Indiana, as his running mate, though Republicans caution the party’s mercurial presidential candidate may still backtrack on his apparent choice.
Super happy for that terrible person to stop being my Governor and also continue to not be my Vice-President.
Quote from: kellerb on July 14, 2016, 09:09:47 PM
Super happy for that terrible person to stop being my Governor and also continue to not be my Vice-President.
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Having locked up the Wall Street vote (and by vote I mean money), Clinton picks Tim Kaine for VP to make sure she gets the defense industry donations as well.
Doesn't really surprise me at all.
This will really electrify the campaign.
Quote from: mbw on July 22, 2016, 10:05:29 PM
This will really electrify the campaign.
Clinton/Kaine 2016:
Nothing To See Here!
Kaine was a good Governor for VA.
Not the most terrible guy in Washington.
Quote from: VDB on July 23, 2016, 12:12:40 AM
Quote from: mbw on July 22, 2016, 10:05:29 PM
This will really electrify the campaign.
Clinton/Kaine 2016:
Nothing To See Here!
Holy shit that's funny. Or is it sad? I don't know, who can tell anymore.
I will never forgive the Democrats for annointing Hillary. She keeps getting hammered by scandal and whatnot and just might cause the trumpkins to prevail. I understand how Justice Ginsberg feels!
Just took a stroll through town and I can confirm: Bernie supporters not ready to go quietly into the night.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-delegates-california_us_579619b7e4b0d3568f83cecc
This guy seems nice, tho
https://twitter.com/LovelaceRyanD/status/757633513663369216
Fishman finally threw in the Bernie Dress and announced he will vote for Hillary...
https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.fishman.39/posts/642823152544653 (https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.fishman.39/posts/642823152544653)
QuoteSo, lastly, having read and posted Shylas piece along w/the RS interview of Jane Sanders, and then the Thom Hartmann piece on the Supreme Court, and having read and mulled over hundreds of different opinions about all the different events that have transpired throughout the election season thus far, and having been an ardent Bernie supporter not just since he announced running, but for almost his entire career, not because anyone should give a shit what I think, but because this is social media and I feel like writing this where people can see it because it tests my convictions....here's where I'm at:
I could have never considered it before knowing for sure whether Bernie would be on the ticket, any ticket, or not. Now that he's out I have to say publicly that when push comes to shove I'm going to put aside my disgust and vote for fucking Hillary Clinton. Here's why:
I've trusted Sanders for 30 years and for 30 years I've watched him exercise sound judgement and be on the right side of history the vast majority of the time. Way more than anyone else I've observed in politics in my life. There are a lot of people I respect saying we should vote for her, but I could care less what even they say. It's the fact that Bernie is endorsing her himself that makes a difference for me. I've trusted him this far. Why would I decide not to trust him now just because he's saying something I hate like hell to hear and have to consider? The fact is, as dirty as her hands are as a politician I truly do not believe Sanders would give her his endorsement if he didn't feel as a country we would be at least in safe hands with her as president. It's clear he believes we would definitely not be in safe hands with Trump, and for me that's a no brainer to agree with.
Hillary and the DNC are probably lying their asses off to Bernie about doing any of the things he's fought to get her to publicly state her support for. Whatever...she's a fucking professional liar, but the fact remains that if she does become president it'll be as the head of a party who's platform clearly has his permanent finger print on it which is not going to just go away. With Sanders remaining in office with a much louder voice on a national level now than ever before, and especially if we who supported Bernie do our job by keeping up pressure and momentum of the progressive agenda he just got on the map, Hillary will end up a one term president if her overtures and accolades turn out to be only lip service. I'd much rather have a president that Bernie and his supporters can continue to exert influence on throughout their tenure as president than not. From the momentum that's been started and the influence of Bernie on down ticket candidates over the next few years we may have a real chance to turn around the house and senate and get not just business as usual dems, but progressive dems and independents in there too. If that's happening Hillary has to adjust accordingly. With Trump or anyone else in there Bernie's, and by default, our hand in what happens is much weaker, and possibly negated altogether. It sucks he lost the presidential bid, but to lose his influence and the influence of all the support he generated for progressives too would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Of course, if she were to continue to go out of her way to give the progressive wing of the party the finger like she has been recently with her VP pick and hiring of Shulz on the heels of the DNC rigging against Sanders scandal that could translate into a Cruz presidency or something equally insane by 2020, but I'm still not willing to take Trump in the short term.
I just can't do it. I can't imagine allowing a guy who picked Mike Pence as a running mate to choose Supreme Court justices. That would just be way too willful a dereliction of duty to my self conscience to ignore. I simply don't have the capacity for denial required to pretend I could suppress the level of self hatred that would eventually arise in me as a result of having actually supported that agenda. It could be grounds for suicide! So that ain't happening on my watch, especially when there's an alternative that Bernie can find it in himself to actively support.
It's got to be harder for him to endorse her than for anyone else, and like I said, I really believe him when he says he believes she's qualified. As qualified as him? Not by a long shot! But qualified enough for him to actually say so? I don't think he'd say it at all if he didn't think so. I trust that if he thought she'd be as bad for the country as Trump he'd say so, and that's not what he's saying. I know Trumps presence in the race adds urgency that he might not have otherwise, but I still don't think he'd endorse her strictly out of fear of Trump if she was equally to be feared?
But I do think the fear of Trump is serious and should not be taken lightly. That guys a fucking idiot! I mean, we are staring into the abyss when we're considering actually handing that guy the keys to the kingdom. We don't need our own version of Nero or Caligula! He's the beginning of a whole new level of incompetence and insanity. I mean, the thing that's so messed up is he was actually not the worst the GOP put up this year! He might have even been the best and he's already way scarier than W was. Trump is just as stupid as W, but way meaner spirited. Just add religion and you have Cruz! I just don't want to head any further in that direction. I don't want worse than W and I just do not believe Hillary is worse than W or that if she were, Bernie wouldn't say something.
Finally, though I'd rather vote my conscience than have to go the LEV ( lesser evil) route, and I truly don't believe anyone voting 3rd party is to blame for any potential Hillary loss, I'm also not going to kid myself and pretend that there's a viable third party right now that could win, or that the third parties available that I could vote for wouldn't be siphoning off more votes for Hillary than for Trump.
So, for me, realistically it's down to Hillary and Trump, which is a giant disappointment on the whole, but between the genuine horror show potential of Trump, and my trust in Sanders judgement, and the potential for Sanders influence to remain much higher with a Clinton presidency, I'm fucking taking the plunge and doing what I think is the most sensible option left.
I'm not "with" her, but I'll vote for her because it's the best chance we have to keep Bernie's influence as high as possible.
There. I fucking said it.
:clap:
That probably took a lot of guts, not as much as Bernie's endorsement, but still a lot.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on July 29, 2016, 11:19:21 AM
:clap:
That probably took a lot of guts, not as much as Bernie's endorsement, but still a lot.
Wait, Bernie's endorsement took guts? How do you figure that?
He should start a blog, fishman is very outspoken on the internet, kinda hard to imagine him saying this much in person.