2016 Presidential Election [Archive] - Page 5

cynicmuse

01-11-2016, 04:38 AM

Still, it just seems pointless to even go there. Shouldn't he be in the red states tearing down the other republicans, or maybe putting in some time in the battleground states? Not that I'm his fucking campaign strategist, I don't even know why I'm saying this. Just seems like a weird place for him to visit. Regardless of who wins the democratic primary, there is literally zero chance of him winning that state.
He is multi-tasking; he has been questioning Ted Cruz's citizenship (http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-targets-ted-cruz-1452420003) while he was on that detour to Vermont. He goes into attack mode whenever someone else starts leading in Iowa. It's rather funny after all of those years of questioning Obama's citizenship that he's going after a Republican now.

allegro

01-11-2016, 06:50 PM

It's about time; I've been wondering when Trump was going to do that.

THIS IS INTERESTING (http://observer.com/2016/01/shock-poll-sanders-catches-clinton-and-crushes-trump-in-iowa-and-new-hampshire/).

halloween

01-11-2016, 09:11 PM

I don't give much thought to polls, but since TV news hosts do, this is making me want to hold my breath.

Dra508

01-11-2016, 10:14 PM

Fiorina and Paul get dropped from debate.

Finally, getting down to a number where we can actually hear them debate.

Oh who am I kidding.....

elevenism

01-12-2016, 03:52 AM

Fiorina and Paul get dropped from debate.

Finally, getting down to a number where we can actually hear them debate.

Oh who am I kidding.....

Rand Paul is the only one of them for whom i have even an ounce of respect.

Deepvoid

01-14-2016, 08:20 AM

16 days before the Iowa Caucus

Last poll (Gravis) on the Republican side has Trump up by 6.
Last Dems poll (DM Register/Bloomberg) has Clinton up by 2. Should note that Quinnipiac (slightly older) has Sanders up by 5.

DigitalChaos

01-14-2016, 12:04 PM

....sooo...... There is no way I'm the only one who thinks this is hilarious... right?

http://i.imgur.com/l6s54g5.jpg

elevenism

01-16-2016, 05:24 AM

no debate talk?

Deepvoid

01-16-2016, 01:24 PM

You want something to talk about? From the latest Donald Trump Rally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g

If you really need the lyrics ...

Cowardice
Are you serious?
Apologies for freedom—
I can’t handle this!
When freedom rings—
Answer the call!
On your feet!
Stand up tall!
Freedom’s on our shoulders.
USA!
Enemies of freedom
Face the music
Come on, boys—take ‘em down!
President Donald Trump knows how
To make America great
Deal from strength or get crushed every time…
Over here…
USA!
Over there…
USA!
Freedom and liberty everywhere…
Oh, say can you see
It’s not so easy
But we have to stand up tall and answer freedom’s call
USA! USA! USA!
We’re the land of the free and the brave… USA…
USA!
The stars and stripes are flying
Let’s celebrate our freedom
Inspire, proudly, freedom to the world
Ameri-tude…
USA!
American pride…
USA!
It’s attitude, it’s who we are
Stand up tall…
We’re the red, white, and blue
Fiercely free, that’s who!
Our colors don’t run, no sirree…
Over here…
USA!
Over there…
USA!
Freedom and liberty everywhere…
Oh, say can you see
It’s not so easy
But we have to stand up tall and answer freedom’s call!

Space Suicide

01-16-2016, 02:01 PM

That's fucking cheesy as shit. Anyone that gets into that and actually enjoyed it needs to have their head examined...a long time.

I don't know why anyone is afraid of him being president. It won't happen.

Piko

01-16-2016, 03:50 PM

Not sure why, but, while reading that, I imagined it to go along with the music of Angel of Death. The lyrics. Now that i've heard it....meh...

GulDukat

01-16-2016, 04:45 PM

thevoid99

01-16-2016, 09:18 PM

This looks like a modern Nazi rally. Oh man, we're all going to die if he becomes President.

aggroculture

01-16-2016, 10:16 PM

I love this Bill Maher quote about Cruz: "It’s high intelligence in the service of evil. It’s one thing to have evil people who aren’t that bright! There’s a reason why everyone hates Ted Cruz. There’s a reason why the big question about Ted Cruz is always, “When he shaves in the morning, how does he avoid spitting in the mirror?” To think of this guy being the president of the United States, this ambition and love of power combined with being on the wrong side of every issue, it’s a very scary prospect." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/14/bill-maher-we-must-stop-evil-ted-cruz-before-it-s-too-late.html

Also, I read this article last night, which is encouraging:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-america-is-moving-left/419112/

Random thought: wouldn't it be ironic if all these years of yelling about the "socialist" president in the white house have counterproductively served to normalize the idea of an actual self-proclaimed socialist being elected president? If "socialist" Obama can help get the economy back on track, maybe socialist Bernie isn't such a stretch.

aggroculture

01-16-2016, 10:22 PM

edit: double post

halloween

01-17-2016, 08:44 PM

I think Bernie Sanders is going to lose his voice by the time this debate is over.

cynicmuse

01-18-2016, 12:16 AM

no debate talk?
Well, I watched the Republican "debate". Carson posited a doomsday scenario combining a cyber attack and an EMP; it didn't make him sound knowledgeable about foreign affairs and national security... it sounded like he had watched too much 24. Bad hairdo doubled down on his definition of "natural-born citizen", and the scary bit is that a decent portion of the population seems to agree with him. Someone has even filed a lawsuit (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/ted-cruz-citizenship-lawsuit/424425/) challenging Cruz's eligibility. I also didn't buy bad hairdo's argument that the Dems would pull this nonsense on Cruz... they didn't with McCain. Rubio also had it in for Cruz and dumped a bunch of oppo research on him at the end of the debate; it would have been more effective if he'd done it earlier in the debate. At this point, I'm waiting to see what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire. Hopefully that will narrow the field.

allegro

01-18-2016, 01:14 AM

McCain's natural born citizenship had already been settled (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text/rs). Not so cut-and-dry with Cruz, since Cruz was born in Canada and his father was born in Cuba.

Deepvoid

01-19-2016, 02:26 PM

Jesus .. you guys can't catch a break.

Palin likely to endorse Trump. (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/266291-speculation-rises-that-palin-will-endorse-trump)

Can you imagine if Trump gets the nomination and announce Palin as his VP?
Can it get worse than a Trump/Palin ticket?

**Edit**

Confirmed. Palin is endorsing Trump.

aggroculture

01-19-2016, 02:40 PM

Interesting article, but the false equivalence between Trump/Sanders bothers me: no, they are NOT the same; that kind of cynicism is exactly what the Angry Mustache guy is doing: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/10/white-man-pathology-bernie-sanders-donald-trump

onthewall2983

01-19-2016, 10:18 PM

Bernie Sanders opens 60-33 lead over Hilary Clinton in New Hampshire. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-opens-60-33-lead-hillary-clinton/story?id=36383793&nwltr=abcn_fb)

GulDukat

01-19-2016, 11:12 PM

Bernie Sanders opens 60-33 lead over Hilary Clinton in New Hampshire. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-opens-60-33-lead-hillary-clinton/story?id=36383793&nwltr=abcn_fb)
Doubt it's that high.

Anyone see Palin endorse Trump. Good God....

elevenism

01-22-2016, 09:45 AM

Doubt it's that high.

Anyone see Palin endorse Trump. Good God....

Tulsa is just a few hours away. JESUS i wish i would have been there.
It would be like real life black comedy. But yes, i saw it on tv.

Also, OBAMA is to blame for Palin's son's domestic violence issues?

He caused my violent crimes too i think. THANKS Obama. ;)

Oh, and how in the FUCK is trump not elitist?
He is the goddamn epitome of the elite. How are people not seeing that?
Palin was going on about that too.

Donald Trump Vs The Elite. Uhhh...yeah, that makes perfect sense!

thevoid99

01-22-2016, 03:48 PM

Well, apparently Woody Guthrie wasn't a fan of Trump's dad: https://www.yahoo.com/music/woody-guthrie-wrote-scathing-poems-003017500.html

Rumor has it that Fred Trump was a member of the KKK.

Deepvoid

01-22-2016, 05:26 PM

Question for you guys. This is the first primaries I really pay attention to. I was wondering if the in-fighting has always been this crazy within the GOP?
Aren't they worried about permanently damaging their image?

On a related note, I saw a recent video taken at a Trump rally. At one point a supporter put what looks like a silent protester in a headlock and I was like .. Holy fuck! He really is scrapping the bottom of the barrel when you look at the type of supporters he's drawing.

I honestly cannot wait until the Iowa caucuses. It's been a long time coming.

aggroculture

01-23-2016, 12:19 PM

Read about Ted Cruz and weep: http://www.thenation.com/article/ted-cruz-is-smart-disciplined-and-has-a-strategy-to-win/

Deepvoid

01-24-2016, 09:57 AM

I love Colbert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LPR7DktumA

GulDukat

01-25-2016, 06:05 AM

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-2016-213560

Good article on why voters should pick Clinton over Sanders.

DigitalChaos

01-25-2016, 04:48 PM

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-2016-213560

Good article on why voters should pick Clinton over Sanders.
https://i.imgur.com/1yIogtF.jpg

DigitalChaos

01-27-2016, 07:21 PM

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-2016-213560

Good article on why voters should pick Clinton over Sanders.
So revisiting this... I really do think Clinton is just female Dick Cheney. It's horrible if that's your "credible democrat" option.

The main point I did agree with is that of age. Bernie is old as fuck for a candidate. That will be a major issue he needs to overcome, but it could be easy. It's all about his pick as VP and it could make or break his run.

If he chooses a Dem, there are very few "well known" candidates that don't have a lot of baggage. He would probably have to pick a fresh face. Maybe? I'm not really sure. If that's the route, you better hope it isn't a Sarah Palin situation though.

However, he could reach into the GOP for a VP pick and completely destroy anyone's chance at the election. Not only that, but you'd also see an end to this heavily divided congress problem (especially if there is some Tea Party support of the VP). I don't know who he would pick there, but Rand Paul would create some amazing potential. They both have a history of working together. They also both agree very heavily on the PROBLEMS the country has (more so than any other GOP candidate), they just have very different views as to what the SOLUTIONS should look like. When you have 2 people like that, you tend to get proposals that are much more solid.

That would also flip this as one of the most apathetic elections into something absolutely amazing... way beyond the "Hope" bullshit of the Obama runs.

so yea, fuck hillary

allegro

01-27-2016, 08:07 PM

]The main point I did agree with is that of age. Bernie is old as fuck for a candidate. That will be a major issue he needs to overcome, but it could be easy. It's all about his pick as VP and it could make or break his run.
I agree. All of those other points, about his plans not being viable, blah blah blah. It DOESN'T MATTER. THAT'S NOT THE FUCKING POINT. None of the plans are likely to pass a Republican Congress, anyway. The point is his ATTITUDE, that he even THINKS that way, that he WANTS that shit. This is all campaign bullshit, no President can get what he wants, that's not how it works; but Bernie speaks to the millions of American who are fucking sick and tired of business as usual.

DigitalChaos

01-27-2016, 08:17 PM

I agree. All of those other points, about his plans not being viable, blah blah blah. It DOESN'T MATTER. THAT'S NOT THE FUCKING POINT. None of the plans are likely to pass a Republican Congress, anyway. The point is his ATTITUDE, that he even THINKS that way, that he WANTS that shit. This is all campaign bullshit, no President can get what he wants, that's not how it works; but Bernie speaks to the millions of American who are fucking sick and tired of business as usual.
That's my biggest issue with Bernie and most of his supporters. They like him because of the problems he points out. But his plans to fix those problems could be just about anything and they would still love it. It's populist masturbation along the lines of what we saw in the Obama HOPE campaign. The ability to get any of his plans passed is absolutely an issue, but even if they could get passed, I think a lot of them are just bad solutions (especially anything on the economic end). But that's up for debate and its a debate we should really be having instead of arguing over dumb shit Trump says and other distractions like that.

allegro

01-27-2016, 08:26 PM

That's my biggest issue with Bernie and most of his supporters. They like him because of the problems he points out. But his plans to fix those problems could be just about anything and they would still love it. It's populist masturbation along the lines of what we saw in the Obama HOPE campaign. The ability to get any of his plans passed is absolutely an issue, but even if they could get passed, I think a lot of them are just bad solutions (especially anything on the economic end). But that's up for debate and its a debate we should really be having instead of arguing over dumb shit Trump says and other distractions like that.

Exactly. Single-payor healthcare? Ain't NEVER gonna fucking happen, and given the fucking clusterfuck that is Medicare and how Medicare is probably solely responsible for the rise in healthcare costs in history, and how our Government can fuck up anything it touches? yeah, works in Canada, France, any other fucking country, and I sure as shit wish it would work here, but it won't but the fact that Bern is still pushing for it MEANS SOMETHING. Free college for the first two years? Dude, high school is free, jr. high is free, elementary school is free, and those kids are so fucking dumb when they get out, college is now like THIRTEENTH GRADE, so FUCK YEAH, the first two years should be free! Is it going to HAPPEN? Fuck no, but YAY BERNIE for saying it! Etc. etc. etc. And double ditto for all the sticks he wants to shove up Wall Street's ass. So the argument that "it ain't gonna happen" is just a lot of shit, most of the shit that Clinton is saying ain't fucking gonna happen, and I sure as SHIT hope most of her foreign policy would never happen (she's Ashcroft Part II) but whatever, she's just The System.

littlemonkey613

01-27-2016, 08:58 PM

Question for you guys. This is the first primaries I really pay attention to. I was wondering if the in-fighting has always been this crazy within the GOP?

Not historically. It's sort of been building since Obama first took office and instead of going away eventually, it consistently hits new peaks of stupidity and validation by much of the public haha.

But I think Trump is great at that close combat shit and the rest of them are struggling for that very reason. He's in his perfect element and it took the GOP too long to realize they accidentally created a monster (ie. their base and its chosen candidate). I think what makes it all funny and unique is that they tend to not argue about real things? It's all about saving face. I can't even watch the Dem debates because they are so boring by comparison.

Dryalex12

01-28-2016, 04:33 PM

So everyones favorite dumbass cracker Trump just insulted the whole city of Brussels

GulDukat

01-30-2016, 10:19 AM

New York Times endorses Clinton.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html?smid=fb-share

allegro

01-30-2016, 11:37 AM

Meanwhile, they also endorsed Kasich. (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/a-chance-to-reset-the-republican-race.html)

DigitalChaos

01-30-2016, 01:14 PM

how does a NYT endorsement matter at all? It seems just as influential as my mailman's endorsement.

GulDukat

01-30-2016, 02:07 PM

Listening to Trump now. God help us if he is actually elected.

GulDukat

01-30-2016, 02:21 PM

Vampire Weekend are scheduled to play a benefit concert for Bernie Sanders. What people don't know is that this is a ploy by the Clinton campaign. The idea is for the band to put everyone to sleep so that they miss the caucus on Monday.

allegro

01-31-2016, 12:41 PM

Marco Rubio makes Sarah Palin look like a rocket scientist. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/01/29/by-insulting-bernie-sanders-marco-rubio-angers-swedish-royalists/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_wv)

DigitalChaos

01-31-2016, 02:10 PM

I love Greenwald

The “Bernie Bros” Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism
(https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/)

Not mentioned in the article is the narrative that its mostly millennial women that support Hillary (because they are supposedly more prone to blind gender-driven support or something?). Well, it turns out that's not true either. If it is true for a certain demographic, it would be with their mothers (45+yo crowd). I'd bet that narrative is also tied to Hillary supporters trying to drive up the youth vote that Sanders is leading her on.

onthewall2983

01-31-2016, 02:14 PM

Gallop Poll: Trump is the most unfavorably viewed candidate since at least 1992. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/30/donald-trump-is-the-least-favorably-viewed-presidential-candidate-since-at-least-1992/)

Mantra

01-31-2016, 02:20 PM

DigitalChaos

01-31-2016, 02:45 PM

^ That's the reality. The rhetoric is to chip away at that reality and shift it toward Hillary.

I highly recommend reading the full article. Greenwald connects the similarities of last year's British media treatment of Corbyn to the attempts at manufacturing scandals that would hurt Sanders. It's pretty gross.

Frankly, it's probably Hillary's team seeing how, lately, it's incredibly easy to use gender or race to rapidly push a topic to extreme moment without ever diving very deep into the topic. And they are right. But a campaign isn't one of those momentary news stories that eventually gets eclipsed by the next one. It's going to sit on the table and people are going to analyze the foundation. ...at least for some. Unfortunately, quite a few voters aren't the analyzing type and ARE swayed by these shallow narratives.

The black vote that has very heavily attached to Hillary is concerning. I wish Greenwald's article went more in depth on it. Because, as the article mentioned, the Clinton machine has done some horrible things to race equality.

GulDukat

01-31-2016, 02:45 PM

Because I generally travel in radical/left circles, I personally know waaaay more female Bernie supporters than Hillary supporters, and most of them are dead fucking serious about not voting for Hillary no matter what. So then, are they Bernie Bros too? That whole argument just seems really disingenuous, and I suspect that it doesn't have much sway over the average leftwing voter.
In the end, most Democrats are going to vote for the Democratic nominee in November. The Clinton faction came home and supported Obama in 2008, just as Sanders voters will vote for Clinton or Clinton voters will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee. There may be exceptions, but most Democrats don't want a President Cruz or Trump.

Mantra

01-31-2016, 03:05 PM

In the end, most Democrats are going to vote for the Democratic nominee in November. The Clinton faction came home and supported Obama in 2008, just as Sanders voters will vote for Clinton or Clinton voters will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee. There may be exceptions, but most Democrats don't want a President Cruz or Trump.

If I feel like my state is at a serious risk for going Republican (highly unlikely), I may begrudgingly vote for Hillary just to help prevent that from happening, but that is the only circumstance in which I would vote for her, and I would be pretty pissed off about it. In spirit, it wouldn't really be a vote for her, it would be a vote against Trump/whoever. And if it turns out that that situation is not happening in my state, then hell no. No fucking way. I will never vote for Hillary if I don't absolutely have to. Most of my lefty friends feel similarly (not that that's a representative sample of anything, of course). I think the DNC underestimates the amount of voter apathy that Hillary inspires. Democrats are always way more susceptible to voter apathy than republicans, so they should be taking that shit seriously. Hillary is no Obama.

allegro

01-31-2016, 05:34 PM

I love Greenwald

The “Bernie Bros” Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism
(https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/)

Women my age and older learned long ago not to pay attention to any of that shit. I don't think young women are stupid enough to believe that shit, either.

http://time.com/4107286/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-women-new-hampshire-2016/

Also, what Mantra said about Hillary inspiring voter apathy with Dems. I fear that young people and minorities, especially, are not going to get off their asses and vote for her.

GulDukat

01-31-2016, 07:47 PM

If Trump or Cruz is the nominee, that will be motivation enough to vote for Hillary.

allegro

01-31-2016, 08:46 PM

If Trump or Cruz is the nominee, that will be motivation enough to vote for Hillary.

I dunno, it wasn't enough with Reagan and he really sucked.

My husband is betting there will be a brokered Republican convention with Bush as the choice (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/22/a_brokered_convention_in_2016_why_it_might_happen_ what_it_might_mean_129119.html).

Mantra

01-31-2016, 09:13 PM

The "fear of Trump" motivation will be there no matter who wins the primary, so ultimately it's kind of a moot point. You can't just exist as an alternative to something bad, you need to have some actual political value of your own. Hillary and Bernie are both better alternatives than any of the republican freaks, that's just a given, but when it comes to what they each bring to the table beyond that, Bernie has way better politics. Hilary's too entrenched and compromised and boring, she's got too much baggage, and she isn't progressive enough to inspire the left. Bernie's already got the same "not Trump" factor as Hillary, but he offers something genuinely exciting and valuable in its own right. That's why polls show Bernie fairing better than Hillary in the general election against the republicans. He's just a way stronger choice for a candidate.

Mantra

01-31-2016, 09:21 PM

My husband is betting there will be a brokered Republican convention with Bush as the choice (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/22/a_brokered_convention_in_2016_why_it_might_happen_ what_it_might_mean_129119.html).

hah, yeah I've been praying for this to happen just so we can watch the whole party collapse under the weight of it's own rage. the trump crowd would fucking riot, and i'll be right there in my recliner with my popcorn watching the whole dazzling spectacle of it all.

that said, I was thinking cruz would get the brokered election over bush, since he might stand a slightly better chance of appeasing the raging bile of trump's voter base.

allegro

01-31-2016, 09:28 PM

that said, I was thinking cruz would get the brokered election over bush, since he might stand a slightly better chance of appeasing the raging bile of trump's voter base.
Except all Establishment Republicans CAN'T STAND Cruz. Even Sarah Palin (once a huge Cruz supporter) turned on Cruz. And Cruz won't stand a chance in the general election: a Tea Party conservative, too religious, was in favor of immigration amnesty but now lies and says he never said that. The GOP wants a candidate who can win the general election, not another Mitt Romney.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/ted-cruz-senate-revolt/

Trump has threatened to run as an independent if there is a brokered election.

And now Bloomberg is saying that he might run as an independent, if Sanders is the Dem candidate (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/).

cynicmuse

01-31-2016, 09:39 PM

I dunno, it wasn't enough with Reagan and he really sucked.

My husband is betting there will be a brokered Republican convention with Bush as the choice (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/22/a_brokered_convention_in_2016_why_it_might_happen_ what_it_might_mean_129119.html).
I hadn't realized how complex the process (http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/89137/how-2016-republican-primary-system-works)was to determine the number of delegates for a state. It would ironic if the Republican's efforts to streamline the nomination process after 2012's knock down drag out fight helped to create a brokered convention.

On an unrelated note, Ted Cruz is trying to shame (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ted-cruzs-iowa-mailers-are-more-fraudulent-than-everyone-thinks) people into going to the caucuses.

Mantra

01-31-2016, 10:06 PM

Trump has threatened to run as an independent if there is a brokered election.

And now Bloomberg is saying that he might run as an independent, if Sanders is the Dem candidate

Yup, but those two threats aren't at all the same, at least not in terms of how seriously they should be taken. Trump threatening to run independently is a deadly fucking threat to the Republicans. I think it's so funny because it's basically just Trump trying to blackmail/hold the party hostage. "You all BETTER choose me or I will split the conservative vote and then you can watch helplessly as the democrats win by a landslide. Nominate me OR ELSE!!" And the thing is, he's got enough support to successfully sink the right. But fucking BLOOMBERG? C'mon, the guy is a joke. Even the polls that he himself conducts show him as a total loser:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/30/a-bloomberg-poll-finds-little-support-for-michael-bloomberg/

"A poll of likely caucusgoers conducted for Bloomberg Politics and The Des Moines Register and released on Saturday night found just 17 percent of Democrats and 9 percent of Republicans had a “favorable” view of Mr. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York."

lol

Okay buddy, sure thing. Throw your hat in the ring. Hell, I'll throw mine in too. We'll show those democrats!

allegro

01-31-2016, 10:23 PM

Yes but hadn't Trump promised NOT to run as an Independent?

I don't understand Bloomberg's "Sanders" threat at all; it's insulting. And then my mom (a huge Sanders supporter) said the women on The View were wondering if Sanders could get elected because he's a Jew. If Bloomberg runs, that would be two Jews so that would make history, I think.

I have to admit, I have this secret hope that Trump wins so I can watch the Tea Party GOP squirm and suffer while President Trump cuts deals with Pelosi and Reid and screams "YOU'RE FIRED!!" to nearly everybody and brings his underwater photographer along on vacations.

Maybe he'll make Omarosa Secretary of State.

elevenism

01-31-2016, 10:54 PM

i'm a yellow dog democrat.

But i've also hit a point where physical reality is more important than idealism.
In Texas, for whatever convoluted reason, you flat out can't buy a PPO this year. Period.
And most doctors only take HMOs. My wife and i will be paying cash for healthcare this year, and my mom is only getting insurance because she's pushing sixty and worries about having a heart attack or something else catastrophic.
Obama may have had good intentions with his healthcare plan, but it didn't work.
I want to see it dismantled.
Idealistically, i'm a socialist. And therefore i hate a LOT of things about the republican party.
But i've hit a point where i have to be practical.
I want to be able to buy decent health insurance again, and i wouldn't mind trump's 0% tax bracket either.
Add to this my mistrust of Hillary Clinton, and good god, i don't know WHAT the fuck to think.

i'm having a bit of a political identity crisis.

allegro

01-31-2016, 11:58 PM

In Texas, for whatever convoluted reason, you flat out can't buy a PPO this year. Period.
Blame your STATE'S BCBC (which is different in each state) for that. Not the ACA. BCBS could have simply raised the rates but instead they got rid of the PPOs due to lack of profit margin. Because health insurance companies should be not-for-profit but they are all scam artists.

There are other PPO providers besides BCBS.

http://www.cigna.com/cignastatedirectory/cigna-in-texas

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/31/3231861/states-failing-obamacare/

The ACA was written by SCUMMY INSURANCE LOBBYISTS. It does NOTHING to make actual healthcare affordable.

The price of health insurance has been increasing since the 80s. The price of healthcare has been rising astronomically since the 60s.

It cost my mother $350 in hospital bills to give birth to me in the 60s. The average cost to have a baby via natural childbirth now in the US is $25,000.00.

The ACA was an attempt to fix the system, and some states like KY and OH now have citizens who have health insurance for the first time ever. Many people are now insured in spite of pre-existing conditions. The catastophic deductibles are way lower. Dismantling it would be a fucking DISASTER. Change it, yes. Improve it, yes. Increase Medicare, yes. And force your own state to comply with the ACA.

But the Republicans are not going to give you cheap health insurance. But I do agree with Trump when he said this:

TRUMP: As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It could have worked in a different age. What I'd like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands of employees. And if I'm negotiating in NY or NJ or CA, I have like one bidder. Nobody can bid. You know why? Because the insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians. They're making a fortune. Get rid of the artificial lines and you will have yourself great plans. And then we have to take care of the people that can't take care of themselves. And I will do that through a different system.

elevenism

02-01-2016, 04:52 AM

And force your own state to comply with the ACA.

that will never happen here, ever.

Deepvoid

02-01-2016, 07:02 PM

CNN announcing, based on entrance polls, that Clinton and Sanders are the "early leaders" on the Democratic side, is the most useless information I've heard in my life.

theimage13

02-01-2016, 07:06 PM

how does a NYT endorsement matter at all? It seems just as influential as my mailman's endorsement.

Millions of people read the New York Times; many of those people will take to saying "I trust their judgement" and that will factor into who they vote for. Anything involving a newspaper may seem antiquated and irrelevant, but there are a small handful of them that still have extremely large readerships.

Your mailman, not so much. Not saying he isn't capable of having a well informed political stance that could persuade people to vote for the candidate he believes in. He's probably a very pleasant person if you get to know him. But...well....yeah.

theimage13

02-01-2016, 07:07 PM

CNN announcing, based on entrance polls, that Clinton and Sanders are the "early leaders" on the Democratic side, is the most useless information I've heard in my life.

Up next on CNN: fire may be hotter than ice.

Deepvoid

02-01-2016, 09:43 PM

Cruz wins Iowa.
So freaking close between Sanders and Clinton. Sanders trailing by less than 1%.

DigitalChaos

02-01-2016, 10:10 PM

for anyone looking for a good source on the live results
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/iowa

GulDukat

02-01-2016, 10:46 PM

O'Malley and Huckabee are out.

I'm thinking Rubio will be their nominee. Cruz would be a disaster.

allegro

02-01-2016, 10:49 PM

GulDukat

02-01-2016, 10:59 PM

Nah, Bush is the safe bet for the general election. Rubio is too stupid, too religious, too flip-floppy.

I saw him on TV a few weeks ago where he kept referring to himself as Marco Rubio. What an asshole.
Bush came in sixth place tonight with 2.8 percent. That's a disaster, especially when you think about how much money was spent by his campaign and super- PACs. Unless he does very well in NH, he's unlikely to get the nomination. Rubio is the one establishment candidate who can compete with Cruz and Trump and who could win a general election.

bobbie solo

02-01-2016, 11:02 PM

GulDukat

02-01-2016, 11:15 PM

Jeb is done dude. What are you talking about? His poll #'s are entirely too low. And there's not gonna be some dramatic plan that puts him in as the candidate. He might drop out right before NH even.

Tonight was very,very good for Rubio. Plan on seeing a big establishment push for him on the right.

Bernie down .2% right now. So it's basically dead even and they will split delegates. Great news, since he has NH locked up. Hope some momentum carries into South Carolina after NH, but thats gonna be tough. The black voters love Bill and will vote for Hillary as such.
A Clinton loss would have been bad, especially if she loses in NH. Assuming that she does win Iowa, even by a hair, she can still lose NH and be well positioned to win the nomination, as she will do well in later statea. I'm betting on a Rubio-Clinton for the general election.

allegro

02-01-2016, 11:19 PM

Bush came in sixth place tonight with 2.8 percent. That's a disaster, especially when you think about how much money was spent by his campaign and super- PACs. Unless he does very well in NH, he's unlikely to get the nomination. Rubio is the one establishment candidate who can compete with Cruz and Trump and who could win a general election.

Yep it's a disaster but as I said none of them have enough delegates yet, so I meant if the GOP goes for a brokered convention and chooses who they think could win the general election (since Trump screwed up this whole process and the Repugs went far Right).

This thing is hilariously bad for Repugs. They haven't learned one god damned thing.

GulDukat

02-01-2016, 11:23 PM

Yep it's a disaster but as I said none of them have enough delegates yet, so I meant if the GOP goes for a brokered convention and chooses who they think could win the general election (since Trump screwed up this whole process and the Repugs went far Right).
I think a more likely scenario would be Rubio winning the nomination on the first ballot, but we'll see.

allegro

02-01-2016, 11:27 PM

Welp, Rubio came in Numero Tres today so we shall see.

Meanwhile, Hillary was speaking and Bill was behind her and holy crap he looks way older than he should look. He makes Bernie look athletic.

Cruz' acceptance speech, wtf. "Weepeth at night, but hath joy in the morning" Lord save me from this fake lying asshole. "And shuteth down the Government and hold it hostage because I'm a lawyer, not an economist. Oh, and I was Canadian until relatively recently."

Deepvoid

02-02-2016, 06:25 AM

I would also bet on Rubio being the nominee. He'll take the votes from Fiorina, Christie, Kasich and Bush when they eventually drop out.

**EDIT**

So Hilary won 6 precincts by coin flip?! I didn't know that was a thing!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/02/clinton-wins-at-least-six-iowa-precincts-by-coin-flip/

Then, the caucus got down to business. It had split, 61-61; Clinton was awarded two delegates, and Sanders was awarded two. What would become of the fifth delegate?
Enter the coin. Tails — Clinton won.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfCJFQVPM6E

Mantra

02-02-2016, 06:17 PM

Bush came in sixth place tonight with 2.8 percent. That's a disaster, especially when you think about how much money was spent by his campaign and super- PACs.

A dude on twitter pointed out that Jeb spent 15 million dollars on advertising in Iowa and got around 5,000 votes, which comes to roughly $3,000 dollars per voter. lol

elevenism

02-02-2016, 06:52 PM

allegro , i don't expect the republicans to give me cheap health insurance.
i just want to be able to buy a ppo PERIOD.
Cigna's ppo wasn't available yet when we were shopping for insurance.
But i'll give you that one, especially since someone else i look up to told me basically the same thing that you did on the subject.
I understand that the ACA was a step in the right direction. I often call it the Bait and Switch act though ;)

I just hope that they get it worked out before too much longer.

The issue of healthcare makes my fucking blood boil. Whenever we marveled at the fact that this is the only country in the free world that straight up allows people to DIE because of their finances, my mother would say "at least we get the best care in the world here." One day we looked that up, and it turned out to be just another lie force fed to us since we were children.

Michael Moore can be irritating, but Sicko really opened my eyes on this subject.

GulDukat

02-02-2016, 07:45 PM

Why last night was better for Clinton than Sanders

Http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/upshot/how-the-virtual-tie-in-iowa-helps-hillary-clinton.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

allegro

02-02-2016, 08:00 PM

allegro , i don't expect the republicans to give me cheap health insurance.
i just want to be able to buy a ppo PERIOD.
Cigna's ppo wasn't available yet when we were shopping for insurance.
But i'll give you that one, especially since someone else i look up to told me basically the same thing that you did on the subject.

If you can find an insurance AGENT or BROKER who can shop on your behalf, that's what I did when I had individual insurance; they had computer access to the best deals and are really knowledgeable about who has what, vs. me individually shopping and it made a huge difference. In this case it's my Farmer's house and auto insurance agent who also deals with all this stuff.

INTERESTING, see this: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/medical/article/New-Humana-plan-to-offer-access-to-Houston-s-top-6687778.php

I had individual insurance from around 2002 through 2012 and had to have a $1,500 deductible to keep the monthly costs down and my monthly payments for a Humana PPO was $800. Before Obamacare. This is individual insurance, self-paid. No, we don't have the best healthcare in the world. That is a lie.

Mantra

02-02-2016, 11:59 PM

Why last night was better for Clinton than Sanders

Http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/upshot/how-the-virtual-tie-in-iowa-helps-hillary-clinton.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

*eyeroll* whatever, nate cohn is a sloppy writer whose arguments change like the weather because they're almost never grounded in anything real. not too long ago he was claiming that walker and bush would be the major republican candidates. And I don't bring that up to criticize him over that particular prediction. After all, who could have foreseen the way the campaigns have gone (Trump's rise, etc)? No one really saw that shit coming, which is the whole point. It's just dumb to even try making predictions about these things, especially when the results are THIS fucking close. I mean, Bill Clinton got less than 3% of the Iowa caucus back in 92. In fact he lost all but one of the early primaries until he finally won huge on Super Tuesday. You honestly gonna try to call it based on a caucus with fucking 50/50 results? come on, get the fuck outta here with that nonsense.

Deepvoid

02-03-2016, 08:11 AM

Rand Paul is dropping out. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675)

So who's getting his votes? He was polling 2.8% in N.H.
I think it'll help Rubio. I think the people who are voting for Paul, don't want to see Trump getting the nod and are not conservative enough to switch to Cruz.
So they'll go to the one who has the momentum and that is Rubio.

DigitalChaos

02-03-2016, 12:21 PM

So Hilary won 6 precincts by coin flip?! I didn't know that was a thing!

THIS is the biggest reason I like the Sanders situation. It has created a lot more support for an "underdog" candidate, which means more people are going to be much more engaged in the political process. The same type of thing happened during the Ron Paul 2008/2012 runs. This results in people realizing how fucked the whole process is beyond what typically gets attention.

A LOT of people just learned how fucked the caucus situation is. "DEMOCRACY IS NOT A COIN FLIP" they say... and then they learn that what happens inside a political party is not democracy. A party can make any set of rules they want to dictate how a candidate is chosen for the party. And the rules can be changed to benefit a certain candidate.

Oh, and there were at least SEVEN coin flips (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders/). 6 of them were Clinton v Sanders (Sanders won 5 of them). 1 was Sanders v OMalley (Sanders won). It's kind of odd that only the single Clinton-winning flip is getting attention... but hey, that's the problem with media. Maybe we will all learn that lesson eventually too!

But you want to see what's worse than coin flips? The completely shoddy record keeping during a caucus. They don't know how many coin flips there were in total because everyone used different reporting mechanisms. Also, when they were doing counts on the delegates, the numbers would change between initial count and recount. OOPS. These things are incredibly easy to corrupt if you wanted to do so. Some aspects of them allow the corruption by design.

DigitalChaos

02-03-2016, 12:23 PM

allegro

02-03-2016, 01:07 PM

i'd say itll most likely go to 3rd party (Gary Johnson) and Cruz
um ... maybe not (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/28/audit-the-ted-crowd-of-rand-paul-supporters-break-into-boos-for-ted-cruz-hours-before-debate/).

DigitalChaos

02-03-2016, 01:19 PM

um ... maybe not (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/28/audit-the-ted-crowd-of-rand-paul-supporters-break-into-boos-for-ted-cruz-hours-before-debate/).
I'd assume these are the ones who would go 3rd party. I'm not up to speed on who the "tea party favorite" is currently though. Last I knew, it was Cruz. The guy who I use to keep up on that topic is now running in the Libertarian race and has handed over his media duties to someone else.

On the topic of your link.... I think it's worth reminding people that the Audit the Fed bill that Cruz is getting shit for skipping is the same one that Sanders voted for while Elizabeth I-Hate-Big-Money Warren voted against it because she would rather side with a partisan divide.

Deepvoid

02-03-2016, 02:34 PM

Trump to file civil suit over Iowa Caucuses results. (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268073-trump-says-he-probably-will-sue-over-iowa)

Looks like he will accuse Cruz of voter fraud as a result of the Ben Carson rumors he spread.

thevoid99

02-03-2016, 02:35 PM

allegro

02-03-2016, 03:05 PM

On the topic of your link.... I think it's worth reminding people that the Audit the Fed bill that Cruz is getting shit for skipping is the same one that Sanders voted for while Elizabeth I-Hate-Big-Money Warren voted against it because she would rather side with a partisan divide.
Well, right, and that's why I think some of Paul's side might even go to Sanders, you never know. A lot of Republicans have actually been jumping ship for Sanders.

Deepvoid

02-03-2016, 03:18 PM

Santorum is dropping out. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rick-santorum-dropping-presidential-bid/index.html)

They are dropping like flies!

onthewall2983

02-03-2016, 03:53 PM

"please clap"

theimage13

02-03-2016, 04:20 PM

Oh, and there were at least SEVEN coin flips (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders/). 6 of them were Clinton v Sanders (Sanders won 5 of them). 1 was Sanders v OMalley (Sanders won). It's kind of odd that only the single Clinton-winning flip is getting attention... but hey, that's the problem with media.

Or maybe reporting on someone who isn't even a candidate anymore just isn't worth their time, and they focus on discussing things that are happening between people who are actually running.

DigitalChaos

02-03-2016, 04:34 PM

Or maybe reporting on someone who isn't even a candidate anymore just isn't worth their time, and they focus on discussing things that are happening between people who are actually running.

How is this a coherent response to someone saying "nope, sanders won 6 of 7 coin tosses" in response to another saying "Clinton won 6 coin tosses"?

Are Clinton or Sanders no longer candidates? Did you get fixated on OMalley being involved in 1 of the 7 tosses so much that you forgot to read anything else?

Deepvoid

02-03-2016, 05:53 PM

I don't understand how this thing went from Clinton won 6 coin tosses to Sanders winning 5.

In any case, focus should be on the method used and not the actual outcome of those coin flips.

DigitalChaos

02-03-2016, 06:14 PM

Ted Cruz, born-again libertarian (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/ted-cruz-libertarian-218687)
His team has been working for months to take Rand Paul's support. Now Paul is out, and the takeover attempt is in full effect.

Hey Ted, FUCK YOURSELF!

Frozen Beach

02-03-2016, 06:25 PM

http://i67.tinypic.com/2qis03p.png
Can't help but laugh every time I see this image. It's pretty pathetic. Imagine going to DD for a cup of coffee before a long, hard day at work, then out of nowhere, Jeb Bush runs to your car to beg you to vote for him. I'd drive off and just go somewhere else.

edit: also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdCYMvaUcrA

elevenism

02-03-2016, 06:38 PM

Santorum is dropping out. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rick-santorum-dropping-presidential-bid/index.html)

They are dropping like flies!

LOL. You said santorum.

theimage13

02-03-2016, 06:57 PM

How is this a coherent response to someone saying "nope, sanders won 6 of 7 coin tosses" in response to another saying "Clinton won 6 coin tosses"?

Are Clinton or Sanders no longer candidates? Did you get fixated on OMalley being involved in 1 of the 7 tosses so much that you forgot to read anything else?

A few points:

I'm saying that the media reports on what is relevant and generally of interest to their readership. If there are seven coin tosses - six between the two neck and neck candidates and one between a candidate and, in the context of the caucus results, a nobody - that last coin toss isn't going to be something that most people care about.

Second, I'm not sure what you're actually complaining about. "The seventh coin flip isn't getting any attention - that's the problem with the media." You then link to an article on fucking CNN, one of the largest news outlets in the entire world, which is where you learned about seven coin tosses. So...the media's not talking about it? Sorry, they are. But back to point one: no one gives a crap about the one between Sanders and O'Malley because they aren't the ones battling for the democratic nomination. O'Malley is a no one in the context of these stories. So yeah, the media is talking about it - but no one else is going on about it because no one else cares.

Third: I'm not saying that media isn't without their issues. Pointing again to the CNN article, the fact that they even have to have a headline that says "no, a coin toss did not decide the caucus" is what does bother me about a lot of modern media coverage. Sensationalist headlines with misleading stories, which then have one or two paragraphs (at best) which then offer the actual story and largely contradict (or heavily downplay) everything else written around it. Stop it with the goddamn click bait and out of context quotes and write rational, coherent stories. It's times like this I regret walking away from the newsroom.

DigitalChaos

02-03-2016, 07:05 PM

I don't understand how this thing went from Clinton won 6 coin tosses to Sanders winning 5.

In any case, focus should be on the method used and not the actual outcome of those coin flips.

Agree. I hope people actually act on the fucked up process though. It was even worse in 2008 but everyone moved on to the next stages of the election after it got brief attention. Then the problem just sits around for the next cycle.

@thimage13 Deepvoid gets what I was saying, so I'm not really interested in explaining all the ways the actual story differs from the highly incorrect "Clinton won 6 coin tosses" story that tons of people (such as Deepvoid) saw.

allegro

02-03-2016, 07:39 PM

People people people ... it's only Iowa ... as Mantra already said, Bill Clinton had an abysmal loss in Iowa in '92 (less than 3%) and in New Hampshire, and didn't kick butt until Super Tuesday and he ended up being PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON. People are too smitten by the recent Obama Effect.

Oh, and DigitalChaos, I TOTALLY SUPPORT THIS (https://www.randpaul.com/issue/audit-the-fed) and bravo to any member of Congress who does (including Bernie) -- and fuck Ted Cruz and the Dems against it.

More importantly, Bernie KICKED ASS in Iowa which is going to help his FUNDRAISING.

orestes

02-03-2016, 07:42 PM

Seriously.

(Also, thank goodness no one has posted a link to that aggro, all caps "article" about the liberal backlash against HRC. Reading it gave me second-hand embarrassment.)

GulDukat

02-03-2016, 09:23 PM

Watching the town hall tonight. Both Sanders and Clinton are very impressive. I'm a Clinton supporter, but would certainly vote for Sanders if he is the nominee.

allegro

02-03-2016, 10:04 PM

(Also, thank goodness no one has posted a link to that aggro, all caps "article" about the liberal backlash against HRC. Reading it gave me second-hand embarrassment.)
Okay now I'm curious. Well, not really. This all gets nasty too fast.

Mantra

02-04-2016, 12:10 AM

Well, right, and that's why I think some of Paul's side might even go to Sanders, you never know. A lot of Republicans have actually been jumping ship for Sanders.

hmmm, you might be onto something: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-08/meet-the-voters-who-can-t-decide-between-rand-paul-or-bernie-sanders

onthewall2983

02-04-2016, 01:47 AM

Seriously.

(Also, thank goodness no one has posted a link to that aggro, all caps "article" about the liberal backlash against HRC. Reading it gave me second-hand embarrassment.)

I really don't like that Radiohead meme going around either. I'm full-on for Sanders, but I have no shame in saying I'll vote for Hillary if that's the choice. It would definitely be a case of voting for the lesser of two evils.

GulDukat

02-04-2016, 08:26 AM

Marco Rubio on Obama visiting a mosque
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-obama-muslims_us_56b2bf8ae4b04f9b57d879d5

Ted Cruz's college roomate, and this is funny
http://www.dailydot.com/lol/ted-cruz-college-roommate-craig-mazin-2016/

allegro

02-04-2016, 09:34 PM

Hillary didn't know how to use a computer to read or send email, she only used her Blackberry (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/267727-clinton-didnt-know-how-to-access-email-by-computer-state-dept).

I also love how they ask her how come she has no emails about the Benghazi attacks (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/257739-clinton-most-of-my-work-was-not-done-on-emails). What the fuck. What kind of moron would think that the U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE would be informed VIA EMAIL about something like that? Like they wouldn't PICK UP THE FUCKING PHONE AND CALL HER ON A SECURE PHONE LINE?

“What kind of culture was created in the State Department that your folks couldn’t tell you in an email about a bomb in April of 2012?” Brooks asked.

In response, Clinton insisted that she performed a great deal of her work during a series of meetings with top officials, whether they be at the State Department, the White House or elsewhere in Washington. She also relied on “a great deal of classified information” sent by cable, Clinton said, as well as secure calls and other protected means of communication.

“I did not conduct most of the business that I did on behalf of our country on email,” Clinton said. “If you were to be in my office in the State Department, I did not have a computer.”

DigitalChaos

02-04-2016, 10:24 PM

I had no idea that Hillary was on the board of directors for wal mart. How did I never know this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtdwcbqeE5s

Mantra

02-04-2016, 11:35 PM

tonight's debate was pretty fun, but i don't imagine it shifted anyone's perspectives too much. it was probably hillary's best performance so far, although she did fumble that one question pretty badly, where they asked her whether she'd be willing to release the transcripts of all those paid speeches she made to goldman-sachs, etc. i'm guessing that one really came out of left field for her.

not too much direct conflict, although there were definitely some heated moments, especially when hillary made accusations of sanders running an subtle "smear" campaign with all his constant comments about wall street donations. that said, it seems like they were mostly making a real effort to be friendly and respectful, i'm guessing in an effort to set an example and calm down some of the meaner stuff that's been showing up a bit more since iowa.

Frozen Beach

02-05-2016, 02:43 PM

Anyone else notice how Trump seems to have an outstanding love for exclamation points? It's ridiculous. You could make a drinking game out of it almost.

onthewall2983

02-05-2016, 09:44 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9GXkjk8Y1w

allegro

02-06-2016, 08:49 PM

Man, Kasich is killing this debate! Dude!

Edit: and Ted Cruz really does look like Count Chocula.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWURipvWsAAvssb.jpg

cynicmuse

02-06-2016, 10:46 PM

onthewall2983

02-06-2016, 11:36 PM

Edit: and Ted Cruz really does look like Count Chocula.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWURipvWsAAvssb.jpg

I'm more convinced of the one that said he looked like a cross between Richard Nixon and Grampa Munster.

He reminds me of someone I went to high school with, who was not a friend to put it lightly.

Hazekiah

02-07-2016, 12:09 AM

Arrived in New Hampshire two days ago and passed the Marco Rubio Express today.

Wanted to egg it but by the end of the debate tonight the point seemed moot.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Hazekiah/Mobile%20Uploads/IMAG2158_1_zpsnqteeowq.jpg

allegro

02-07-2016, 07:56 AM

I didn't watch this debate and skimmed news articles afterwards. I'm glad that I didn't watch it, or else I would have been throwing things at the screen, due to Trump's desire (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/06/donald-trump-waterboarding-debate/79951320/) to bring back waterboarding and worse (because "enhanced interrogation" totally works) and Cruz's love of carpet bombing.

Yeah, Trump was really nuts during that part, "but, they are doing things to OUR PEOPLE that you wouldn't BELIEVE, CUTTING OFF HEADS!!" Um, dude, they aren't getting intelligence when they're doing that; they're killing them.

When he "shushed" Bush and got boo'd, crazy shit.

DigitalChaos

02-07-2016, 05:31 PM

I just lost a lot of respect for Gloria Steinem over this ridiculous attempt to support Hillary.

"young women support Bernie to find boys" holy fuck what an anti-feminist thing to say.

throw in the silly "older women support Hillary because they get more radical as they age" ...lol yeah.. Hillary is so much more radical than Sanders....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNF0y1hhjzY

She later "apologized" with a sort of indirect way of addressing what she said. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/gloria-steinem-apologizes-implying-women-back-sanders-meet-men-n513311

DigitalChaos

02-07-2016, 05:36 PM

allegro

02-07-2016, 06:37 PM

oh jesus christ

Madeline Albright too.
"there is a special place in hell" for those who don't vote for Hillary

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0
No, it's worse than that:

"There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

Never mind those women who are campaigning for Jill Stein ...

More radical as they age. Wtf. I think they drank their lunch.

People, men, women, young, old, are leaning toward candidates based on WHAT THEY ARE SAYING AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR, not their fucking chromosomes. And Steinem has to stop thinking that females vote solely about issues that affect females (equal pay, domestic violence); we also care about health care, entitlement programs, military spending, foreign policy, Wall Street, taxes, war or no war, and all the things the "boys" care about.

DigitalChaos

02-07-2016, 07:06 PM

No, it's worse than that:

"There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

Ah yeah, I failed to include the "because Hillary is a woman" implication that came with her statement... which is super fucked

Never mind those women who are campaigning for Jill Stein ...

More radical as they age. Wtf. I think they drank their lunch.

People, men, women, young, old, are leaning toward candidates based on WHAT THEY ARE SAYING AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR, not their fucking chromosomes.

which is so much more feminist!

This really shocked me though, especially Steinem who seemed to really represent solid feminism. Watching it get tarnished over attempted support of a mediocre politician that represents non radical corporate feminism is just depressing. And it's not even an anti-Hillary thing or whether Hillary is a "good feminist choice." There are ways to voice support for her without going against feminism.

fuck man :(

allegro

02-07-2016, 07:41 PM

Ah yeah, I failed to include the "because Hillary is a woman" implication that came with her statement... which is super fucked
Yeah, it's an attempt to SHAME women into voting for Clinton solely because Clinton is a female, even though she is a corporate establishment hawk who voted for the war in Iraq. Which is like expecting all black people to vote for the black candidate, even though he's a Republican and they may not agree with one word he is saying.

Steinem's nasty words about young women picking up guys while campaiging is just too stupid to ponder further. It's why so many young women can't stand 2nd wave feminists.

DigitalChaos

02-07-2016, 08:19 PM

It's why so many young women can't stand 2nd wave feminists.

This is probably something for the feminism thread, but I'd love to hear more about this and hopefully learn more too.

What just happened here seemed a lot more representative of 3rd wave, which would be atypical coming from 2nd wave feminists. From what I have seen, 2nd wave tends to be more focused on "equal opportunity" goals while portions of the very diverse 3rd wave sometimes exhibit the "equal results" goals. For 3rd wave, if the the numbers are increasing in a way that produces a more even statistical distribution toward women, it is preferred even if the approach is done unequally and with preferential treatment due to gender. So, hearing Steinem and Albright push support for a candidate due to gender instead of what they are saying or what they stand for seems to overlap quite a lot.

Maybe I am fucking up my labels, but I'd appreciate clarity around the equal opportunity vs equal results separation that I have seen.

allegro

02-07-2016, 09:00 PM

This is probably something for the feminism thread, but I'd love to hear more about this and hopefully learn more too.
In this case, Steinem being the quintessential 2nd wave feminist, it's the total inability to see beyond the few "white feminist" issues that people like Steinem defined, vs. 3rd wave feminist issues being defined by feminists, themselves (and fluid and intersectional); also, Steinem's automatic denegration of the female Bernie activists as being misguided and only there to pick up guys and writing these young women off as not as radical as aging feminists just creates a bigger divide between 2nd wave (aging) and 3rd wave (younger) feminists.

It's a shame, because I grew up as a 2nd wave feminist although I pretty much shun the wave definition.

The ironic thing is that until relatively recently, women were not any good at helping each other succeed; in the competitive workplace, they were much better at stabbing each other in the back. They weren't socialized in the Old Boys' Network of helping each other up the ladder.

DigitalChaos

02-07-2016, 09:20 PM

Ah, I am totally in understanding of that. Hillary is very much the candidate that lines up most with white women issues (2nd wave) while Bernie is much more in line with all women's issues (3rd wave).
I guess I am less confused on why they support Hillary and more confused about *how* they did it in this very specific instance. Albright's situation probably better demonstrates this. Telling women they need to support someone based on their gender is against "equal opportunity" goals but it is inline with "equal results" goals because it puts "one of your own" in power. Maybe there is not enough connection to the opportunity vs results separation that I've noticed, but that separation is something that's always been a point of contention for me (and other feminists I chat with) and I want to better understand that separation. But i'm really drifting now so I'll take it to the nearly dead feminism thread for another stab at asking about that.

allegro

02-07-2016, 09:30 PM

elevenism

02-08-2016, 12:06 AM

allegro

02-08-2016, 07:57 AM

infighting aside, i think it's pretty damn cool that i haven't heard much gender bias against Clinton or Fiorina, and guys named Cruz and Rubio are jockeying for position.
Things ARE getting better in terms of racism and sexism, ever so slowly.
Some analysts on MSNBC were saying that Clinton was "yelling" and sounded "angry" in her speech during the Iowa caucuses. One of the analysts noted that nobody yells as loudly as Bernie Sanders, and they have to be careful about gender bias. They all moved on.

DigitalChaos

02-08-2016, 11:37 AM

Reflecting on Albright speaking of a special place in hell...
Where in hell do people go when they think the lives 500,000 children is "worth it"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

Deepvoid

02-08-2016, 02:31 PM

A protester attempted an exorcist on Cruz at one of his recent event.
Video in the link.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/hes-possessed-by-a-demon-man-attempts-exorcism-on-ted-cruz-during-campaign-event/

littlemonkey613

02-08-2016, 05:57 PM

A lot of the progressive/ liberal infighting has really been annoying me lately. I am a Bernie supporter first and guess I get why in this stage of the game Hillary has to be blasted to get Bernie momentum, but something about the dynamic is silly to me. I watched the last debate and I found it a fascinating and informative discussion between very competent intelligent individuals. The contrast between them and the GOP right now is just staggering.

But ya re: things like what Steinem said, it is really annoying how some observers are totally not getting how female millennials feel about Bernie vs Hillary and why, but I watched that Bill Maher segment live and I scratched my head and rolled my eyes at that comment, but the context was a pretty nuanced discussion about feminism in general. I hate the way media functions now where a sound byte can totally invalidate someone as a "true feminist" or something. It wasn't like she was making a serious declaration anyhow. It was just a flawed observation made in passing within a deeper conversation. And you know I have sympathy for the passionate Hillary supporters left bahahah home gurl is in deep trouble.

It's crazy how much politics has changed since the last election though, def for the better imo. Bernie and Trump are sort of two sides of the same coin in terms of combatting an old order. Of course on the left this has resulted in more truth and nuance and on the right.... lol....

allegro

02-08-2016, 07:37 PM

I scratched my head and rolled my eyes at that comment, but the context was a pretty nuanced discussion about feminism in general. I hate the way media functions now where a sound byte can totally invalidate someone as a "true feminist" or something. It wasn't like she was making a serious declaration anyhow. It was just a flawed observation made in passing within a deeper conversation.
Where Steinem made it WORSE was her apology and attempt to explain it; gahhh. Just say it was a joke and shhhhhh. The "aging women are more radical" (in the liberal sense, which is unproven) is, like, whaaaaa? Of course Steinem is still a feminist, but where she was wrong was calling out anybody else as not true feminists.

This is gonna be a loooooooong ass time until November.

theimage13

02-08-2016, 08:12 PM

orestes

02-08-2016, 08:12 PM

I don't think anyone is seriously trying to invalidate Steinem as a feminist, other than pundits who have a biased agenda to push. The problem with her and Albright's comments is that it reflects the nature of "white feminism" as being the default voice for all feminists but that's probably a discussion better suited in another thread (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3873-The-Feminist-Thread).

allegro

02-08-2016, 08:23 PM

I don't think anyone is seriously trying to invalidate Steinem as a feminist, other than pundits who have a biased agenda to push. The problem with her and Albright's comments is that it reflects the nature of "white feminism" as being the default voice for all feminists
Exactly, and that the only true feminists are female feminists (who stick with other females and only care about white feminist issues). But littlemonkey613 is right, Steinem's and Albright's comments are just desperation because Clinton's support is threatened.

DigitalChaos

02-08-2016, 08:25 PM

A lot of the progressive/ liberal infighting has really been annoying me lately. I am a Bernie supporter first and guess I get why in this stage of the game Hillary has to be blasted to get Bernie momentum, but something about the dynamic is silly to me.
I know this isn't aimed at me but I'd like to mention that I don't really even like Sanders. I'm about as likely to vote for him as I am for a shithead like Trump. However, the tactics used by Hillary and her supporters to prop up Hillary and/or lessen Bernie is really really off-putting and it's really hard not to point it out.

It wasn't like she was making a serious declaration anyhow. It was just a flawed observation made in passing within a deeper conversation.
Not only did her subsequent apology make things worse, as allegro said, but Maher immediately called attention to the statement. He repeated it, and she doubled down on it. That made it more than just a slip or something casual. We are seeing Republican (and dem) candidates get skewered for much less. It definitely had a lot of weight to it, but sure... it's not like that was her main message. That was just her *entire* defense for why younger women like Sanders.

GulDukat

02-08-2016, 08:48 PM

Good article arguing that Bush might be able to make a comeback.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/jeb_bush_may_actually_have_a_shot_at_the_republica n_nomination.html

orestes

02-09-2016, 05:42 AM

When people don't get memes. (http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-rocky-horror/)

GulDukat

02-09-2016, 08:22 AM

I'm sure this will endear Trump with female voters:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UHcD5-TGHvY

allegro

02-09-2016, 12:34 PM

I'm sure this will endear Trump with female voters:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UHcD5-TGHvY

I guess it actually started with a female yelling out "Cruz is a pussy!" at a Trump rally (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/268714-trump-calls-cruz-a-puy).

"She just said a terrible thing," Trump said, stopping his own remarks at the arena in Manchester and pointing out a woman in the audience, beckoning her to raise her voice.

"You know what she said? Shout it out, 'cause I don't want to," Trump continued. "OK, you're not allowed to say – and I never expect to hear that from you again – she said ... he's a pussy."

"That's terrible, terrible," Trump said as the audience erupted into a mix of laughs and cheers and he threw his hands into the air and moved away from the microphone.

Trump continued by providing a mock "reprimand" of the woman in an effort to belay comparisons to a rally in September when he failed to correct a supporter who said President Obama was a Muslim and not an American.

"For the press, this is a serious reprimand," Trump said after asking the audience if the woman could stay.

GulDukat

02-09-2016, 12:54 PM

That may be how it started, but Trump is the one who repeated it. Just because he attributed it to the woman at the rally doesn't negate the fact that he said it. He's such an asshole.

allegro

02-09-2016, 02:26 PM

That may be how it started, but Trump is the one who repeated it. Just because he attributed it to the woman at the rally doesn't negate the fact that he said it. He's such an asshole.
Not denying that, but it DID start with a woman calling Cruz a vagina. Loudly. In public. At a political rally. Just saying.

Deepvoid

02-09-2016, 07:07 PM

Trump and Sanders projected N.H. winners.

GulDukat

02-10-2016, 12:26 AM

Clinton lost by 22 points, that's bad.

Deepvoid

02-10-2016, 06:27 AM

Clinton lost by 22 points, that's bad.

It says that Clinton got 2 more delegates than Sanders.
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/nh/Dem

How does that work?

http://www.cnn.com/election/

Not even close compared to the popular vote

baudolino

02-10-2016, 07:14 AM

It says that Clinton got 2 more delegates than Sanders.
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/nh/Dem

How does that work?

http://www.cnn.com/election/

Not even close compared to the popular vote

they only have to follow their party's preferences, not the voters.

Deepvoid

02-10-2016, 09:05 AM

Looks like Chris Christie may be dropping out of the race. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/chris-christie.html?_r=0)

I don't know why Fiorina is still in the race.

*edit*

And Fiorina has announced that she's dropping out of the race.
Down to 6: Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Kasich and Carson.

cynicmuse

02-10-2016, 11:03 AM

they only have to follow their party's preferences, not the voters.
I think that CNN has the wrong numbers. NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/new-hampshire) has Sanders with 13 and Clinton with 9. NH has 24 delegates appropriated according to the popular vote and 8 superdelegates who are undeclared until the convention.

baudolino

02-10-2016, 03:06 PM

I think that CNN has the wrong numbers. NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/new-hampshire) has Sanders with 13 and Clinton with 9. NH has 24 delegates appropriated according to the popular vote and 8 superdelegates who are undeclared until the convention.

honestly i don't have much insight in the american election system. i also thought that pledged delegates have to vote in accordance to the election results. but was tricked into questioning that due to an apparently wrong publication. it was merely a silly comment from afar.

orestes

02-10-2016, 04:54 PM

Glenn Greenwald is reading HRC for filth right now on his twitter timeline (https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/697551335458107393), heh.

allegro

02-10-2016, 05:19 PM

Glen Greenwald is reading HRC for filth right now on his twitter timeline (https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/697551335458107393), heh.

He linked this, which is fascinating: Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote: From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America. (http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/).

GulDukat

02-10-2016, 06:22 PM

they only have to follow their party's preferences, not the voters.http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/10/thanks-to-superdelegates-hillary-clinton-still-wins-after-getting-crushed-in-new-hampshire.html

cynicmuse

02-10-2016, 06:46 PM

honestly i don't have much insight in the american election system. i also thought that pledged delegates have to vote in accordance to the election results. but was tricked into questioning that due to an apparently wrong publication. it was merely a silly comment from afar.
Actually, you and CNN were right. That's what I get for posting before drinking my coffee. HRC has 6 of 8 superdelegates locked up, hence her total (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268935-clinton-likely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates) in NH (CNN just didn't state this fact, which is why their total is misleading in a sense).

Mantra

02-10-2016, 06:59 PM

GulDukat

02-11-2016, 06:31 AM

How Trump wins.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10961324/donald-trump-win-november

Frozen Beach

02-12-2016, 07:10 PM

http://davidbyrne.com/the-echo-chamber

DigitalChaos

02-12-2016, 07:19 PM

Really interesting article that breaks down the whole superdelegate thing in a very simple way and puts it all in perspective

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html

It's obviously a bullshit system that has no legitimacy whatsoever, but still, a lot of people are writing about this in totally inaccurate ways.

Man, thats a huge wall of text. Ben Swann explains it well in this short video: https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck/videos/1052824864782463/

honestly i don't have much insight in the american election system. i also thought that pledged delegates have to vote in accordance to the election results. but was tricked into questioning that due to an apparently wrong publication. it was merely a silly comment from afar.
Nor does most of the voters. There are various types of delegates. Some have different rules in how they vote. See the above video.

The most important thing to know is that our primary system is not a democratic system. They party uses whatever process they want to pick the candidate that runs in the general election (which is, in theory, a democratic system). The party can also change those rules as they wish, and that happens all the time when they want to help a certain candidate. That very thing is happening right now.

The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html) Gee... i wonder who that will help!

allegro

02-12-2016, 10:33 PM

WELLLLLL now we are pretty sure that Bernie Sanders hates Henry Kissinger (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/12/why-bernie-sanders-just-brought-up-hillary-clintons-ties-to-henry-kissinger/).

Mantra

02-13-2016, 02:05 AM

^I fucking couldn't believe it when Bush Jr. brought him back from the dead to lead the 9/11 commission. The guy's a fucking abomination. I'm honestly kinda shocked that Hillary didn't try to downplay the entire thing, given that one of her biggest weaknesses with progressive voters this election is how blood thirsty and hawkish she is. Standing with Kissinger doesn't exactly do much to dispel that image, sheesh.

"Look, I may disagree with Heinrich Himmler on many things, but he may have some relationships that are important for the president."

allegro

02-13-2016, 08:25 AM

Mantra

02-13-2016, 03:58 PM

^
I think Bernie's a little off in saying that Kissinger was SO evil, he knew back then that we'd be shipping all our manufacturing jobs to China and that the Chinese would be making iPhones.

Having studied American-Chinese relations in a grad school course, that trip and everything that happened there was 100% Nixon's idea. Not that I'm a Kissinger fan, mind you.

Well, I'm not really sure that the China stuff can even begin to offset all the incredibly fucked up things he did. Pretty sure that, if we do a retrospective cost/benefit analysis on Kissinger, we can reasonably conclude that his influence in our world has resulted in a horrific net loss. The Pinochet/Chile bullshit alone is unforgivable. The guy should be serving out a life sentence, not rubbing shoulders with our current political leaders.

Bernie's 100% in the right about this. I'm still honestly kind of shocked that Hillary would even think of defending that guy in the slightest, although I guess I shouldn't be. *shrug*

allegro

02-13-2016, 04:03 PM

Well, I'm not really sure that the China stuff can even begin to offset all the incredibly fucked up things he did. Pretty sure that, if we do a retrospective cost/benefit analysis on Kissinger, we can reasonably conclude that his influence in our world has resulted in a horrific net loss. The Pinochet/Chile bullshit alone is unforgivable. The guy should be serving out a life sentence, not rubbing shoulders with our current political leaders.

Not going to argue with that at all, nope.

Again, Clinton "defended" Kissinger with China but that wasn't really Kissinger's success (or blame); it was NIXON'S so she is incorrect in bringing that up other than a lame attempt to defend herself (and Kissinger wrote a book about China way after the fact).

The funniest (?!) thing about all this was I thought Kissinger was DEAD lol.

Clinton just bugs the shit out of me.

SarahConnor

02-13-2016, 07:25 PM

Justice Scalia is dead in Texas. he was there quail hunting and died of natural causes in a hotel room. Intensifies the political drama tenfold.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=38dOYW7-B0E

implanted_microchip

02-13-2016, 07:38 PM

This is going to be insane, the Republicans are already trying to prevent Obama from appointing another Justice.

My hope is that because of this, a lot of voters will realize how big this election is, because Scalia is the first of several that will be going, be it due to death or retirement, in the next few years.

I don't talk politics much here, but as a hardcore progressive and Democrat I shudder to think what this country would be like if Republicans controlled all three branches of government, and if a Republican is elected in November it'll very likely happen. I hope this makes a lot of Bernie supporters who say they won't vote if Hillary's the nominee realize a lot more is at stake than just the name of the next president. And I say this as someone who loves Sanders and intends to support him in my state's primary. I just also happen to not think Hillary Clinton is Satan incarnate.

DigitalChaos

02-13-2016, 07:49 PM

I hope this makes a lot of Bernie supporters who say they won't vote if Hillary's the nominee realize a lot more is at stake than just the name of the next president.
I hope Hillary supporters realize that if Hillary wins the primaries she could completely destroy the Dem chances if the FBI investigation into her turns into an indictment.

allegro

02-13-2016, 09:21 PM

Justice Scalia is dead in Texas.
HOLY shit. omg.

Obama is the sitting President, of course he replaces Scalia. These politicians are idiots.

WHY COULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN THOMAS??? WHAAAAAA?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

allegro

02-13-2016, 09:27 PM

if Republicans controlled all three branches of government
To be clear: Republicans never "control" the Supreme Court of the United States. That is a total misconception. Even "conservative" justices have written moderate opinions. Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was put on the SCOTUS by Reagan, was one of the most moderate SCOTUS Justices in history.

We've had a Republican President and Congress and a majority conservative SCOTUS before and ... we didn't implode. It's only four years.

If we survived two terms of REAGAN, we can survive anything.

DigitalChaos

02-13-2016, 09:28 PM

allegro

02-13-2016, 09:32 PM

haha, I was wondering where the hell you were when that news hit.

Just pretend the appointment can be blocked/delayed until the next president. I wonder which party this will help most for the election. Clearly, it will increase voter turnout in some demographics.
I was out to dinner with my husband. Holy shit, again, why couldn't it have been THOMAS?!?!?!?? LOL.

I ain't pretending shit. By Constitution, the selection process must start immediately.

I can't remember a SCOTUS Judge dying while serving, this is weird.

Mantra

02-13-2016, 11:20 PM

By Constitution, the selection process must start immediately.

Obama will make his appointment, no doubt, but doesn't he need like 60 senate votes before the new justice can be confirmed? So he'd need all 44 Democrats plus an extra 16 Republicans? What happens if he doesn't get that? Couldn't they realistically stall this for a year?

allegro

02-13-2016, 11:49 PM

Obama will make his appointment, no doubt, but doesn't he need like 60 senate votes before the new justice can be confirmed? So he'd need all 44 Democrats plus an extra 16 Republicans? What happens if he doesn't get that? Couldn't they realistically stall this for a year?

Yup, they can certainly reject his nomination(s). But they can't "block" him from nominating somebody. They can try, but I suspect the SCOTUS itself will find them in violation of the Constitution.

If he's smart, he'll choose a known moderate.

cynicmuse

02-14-2016, 01:02 AM

Here's a post (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/) from scotusblog (bunch of lawyers who blog about the Supreme Court... they've won a few awards for their coverage) in which they give the history of appointing justices during election years. The Republicans have no precedent for what they're currently suggesting, which is waiting for the next president to appoint the new justice.

allegro

02-14-2016, 01:11 AM

Good link!!

And I posted this in the Dead Souls thread:

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987692/14-supreme-court-confirmations

GulDukat

02-14-2016, 08:21 AM

allegro

02-14-2016, 08:32 AM

I am no fan of Donald Trump, but he was 100 correct during this exchange.

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/02/donald-trump-shocks-gop-debate-stage-blames-iraq-war-mess-on-george-w-bush-00787079.html

Yeah he's been doing that all along, and also going after Jeb since it's his brother (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/jeb-bush-george-bush_us_55fa25f2e4b0fde8b0ccf678). He's also been going after anybody who voted for the war in Iraq.

GulDukat

02-14-2016, 08:39 AM

Yeah he's been doing that all along, and also going after Jeb since it's his brother (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/jeb-bush-george-bush_us_55fa25f2e4b0fde8b0ccf678). He's also been going after anybody who voted for the war in Iraq.
Some cognitive dissonance for Trump supporters who voted for and still love Dubya.

allegro

02-14-2016, 08:48 AM

Some cognitive dissonance for Trump supporters who voted for and still love Dubya.

I don't know that they still love W. A LOT of W voters started really disliking him after Iraq dragged on for more than 8, 10 years and was an obvious disaster that many of us knew it was going to be before they decided to go in. And now that we have ISIS as a gift from that whole mess, it's even more reason. Jeb is only trying to do "Trump damage control" because Trump had been PUMMELING him because of W. Not sure Jeb can blow off that stink with this "leave my family alone" shit.

See this: http://theweek.com/articles/606035/why-donald-trumps-vicious-attack-george-w-bush-brutally-effective--brilliant

Trump has also gone after W for all those Saudi Sept 11 guys being in the country with expired visas, and how that whole thing got pulled off even though the CIA had been warned.

GulDukat

02-14-2016, 10:02 AM

allegro

02-14-2016, 10:59 AM

G.W. Bush is still very popular among Republicans, at least in South Carolina, with 84 percent approval.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bewildered-by-2016-race-george-w-bush-returns-to-the-trail-to-boost-jeb/2016/02/12/49cf7242-d1a6-11e5-abc9-ea152f0b9561_story.html
G (husband) has read a few articles saying that it doesn't matter, Trump is doubling down on this because he truly believes he has the GOP nomination locked up and that his stance on W (which has been consistent since Day One yet he still leads in the polls) might appeal to moderate independents or Dems in the general election.

GulDukat

02-14-2016, 11:08 AM

G (husband) has read a few articles saying that it doesn't matter, Trump is doubling down on this because he truly believes he has the GOP nomination locked up and that his stance on W (which has been consistent since Day One yet he still leads in the polls) might appeal to moderate independents or Dems in the general election.
Maybe. The point is, Bush 41 and 43 are still very popular among Republican voters, and it remains to be seen if Trump's comments last night will have any impact going forward. And maybe G.W.'s campaigning will help his brother with voters. We won't know until people vote in SC on 2/20.

This article states that maybe this time Trump went too far.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/14/10988380/donald-trump-9-11

allegro

02-14-2016, 11:29 AM

Maybe. The point is, Bush 41 and 43 are still very popular among Republican voters, and it remains to be seen if Trump's comments last night will have any impact going forward.
But this isn't NEW, he has been blaring that all along. I linked that from the debate back in September, and he was STILL leading in the polls in S.C. even though he's been openly blaming W for more than six months. I read a comment today by Mark Sanford, former Governor of S.C. and R-SC, who said Trump and Sanders are doing really well there because, contrary to beliefs and "polls" that think that S.C. voters are divided into blacks going for Clinton or conservative evangelicals going for GOP candidates, a "wave of economic populism" is driving the Trump and Sanders campaigns and is motivating the GOP.

Look, this is from Oct of 2015: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/21/donald-trump/trump-says-cia-warned-president-bush-9-11-attacks/

So is this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/did-george-w-bush-do-all-he-could-to-prevent-911/411175/

Yet, he has STILL BEEN LEADING THE POLLS in the South. For MONTHS after he has been saying this.

The audience last night was cherry-picked with various candidate supporters.

GulDukat

02-14-2016, 11:40 AM

That was back in October and people might not have been paying as much attention. Last night was a televised debate, a week before the SC primary, and Trump very publicly rebuked George W. Bush, a sacred cow for many Republican voters in that state. But as I said, we won't know until February 20 if it will have any impact.

allegro

02-14-2016, 11:55 AM

We shall see. Like I said, he has been saying it all along, it's not news. It's been at other debates, TV interviews, etc. He has been saying it so loudly, that is one of the biggest reasons he GOT attention (and Jeb looked like a wimp). Trump has used it to highlight how this country got into so much DEBT and "isn't winning." Which is why so many of his followers love him, because he just blurts out shit the establishment won't say. Even Clinton won't admit that Iraq was a mistake. Trump is REALLY BIG with vets, he keeps telling vets that they shouldn't have been sent to Iraq, etc. And there are a LOT of vets in S.C.

GulDukat

02-14-2016, 12:01 PM

She has said her Iraq War vote was a mistake.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mistake-iowa-118109

allegro

02-14-2016, 12:13 PM

She has said her Iraq War vote was a mistake.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mistake-iowa-118109
Yet each time it's brought up in debate, now (when Sanders says he voted AGAINST it), she just visibly bristles. It doesn't reflect well on her. And Sanders is correct that Libya was just another Iraq Part 2, creating yet another power vacuum to be filled by groups like ISIS. A lot of what she says seems to be lip service political speak. Hindsight is 20/20 but isn't totally useful to us taxpayers or families of dead veterans.

GulDukat

02-14-2016, 12:36 PM

Yet each time it's brought up in debate, now (when Sanders says he voted AGAINST it), she just visibly bristles. It doesn't reflect well on her. And Sanders is correct that Libya was just another Iraq Part 2, creating yet another power vacuum to be filled by groups like ISIS. A lot of what she says seems to be lip service political speak. Hindsight is 20/20 but isn't totally useful to us taxpayers or families of dead veterans.
She was wrong and Sanders was right on Iraq. I'm a Clinton supporter but there is no way around that and it's a stain on her legacy. That Iraq War vote was why I supported Obama in 2008 over Clinton.

DigitalChaos

02-16-2016, 04:59 PM

Yup, they can certainly reject his nomination(s). But they can't "block" him from nominating somebody. They can try, but I suspect the SCOTUS itself will find them in violation of the Constitution.

If he's smart, he'll choose a known moderate.
How about constantly rejecting any nominations until Obama is out?
The Democrats already set a prescident for rejecting a SCOTUS nomination based purely on ideological grounds. Anyone remember Robert Bork? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination

allegro

02-16-2016, 05:06 PM

How about constantly rejecting any nominations until Obama is out?
The Democrats already set a prescident for rejecting a SCOTUS nomination based purely on ideological grounds. Anyone remember Robert Bork? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination
Yup, and the Republicans can do the same thing. Although, there are a few recent Appellate court appointees that met with high Republican approval that might be moderate enough to make the cut for SCOTUS.

DigitalChaos

02-16-2016, 05:07 PM

Yup, and the Republicans can do the same thing. Although, there are a few recent Appellate court appointees that met with high Republican approval that might be moderate enough to make the cut for SCOTUS.
I'm just laying it out there because Dems are going to pretend it never happened so that they can point fingers at GOP being obstructionist. :)

Also, In the press conference that Obama just held, he specifically said that he has no plans to choose a moderate just to appease republicans. This will be fun! Maybe we can find to have a SCOTUS shutdown!

allegro

02-16-2016, 05:10 PM

I'm just laying it out there because Dems are going to pretend it never happened so that they can point fingers at GOP being obstructionist. :)]
No, I think the Dems are saying that the Repubs can't block the NOMINATION (which McConnell was threatening to do). They can delay an approval (confirmation) all they want. They need a 60% vote in the Senate to confirm or reject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_ of_the_United_States#Confirmation).

Robert Bork was WAYYYYY too conservative, that wasn't just a political move. Some REPUBLICANS voted Nay.

The SCOTUS won't shut down; it will continue with only 8 members. People don't realize this, but there are many times when the SCOTUS sits with less than nine members (a few are out sick or must recuse him/herself). But a minimum of six must be present to hear a case.

DigitalChaos

02-16-2016, 05:15 PM

allegro

02-16-2016, 05:27 PM

well shit, now I have to research it. I had always assume they were talking about rejecting a nomination. Now I'm really curious what legal basis they are proposing to block POTUS from even making a consideration/nomination.
They can't block the President from nominating, it is his/her duty under the Constitution (Article Two, Section Two (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution)). Some of these idiots in Congress haven't READ the fucking Constitution.

Clause 2: Advice and Consent Clause
The President exercises the powers in the Advice and Consent Clause with the advice and consent of the Senate.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

"Advise and consent" is this. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent#Constitutional_provision)

theimage13

02-16-2016, 06:11 PM

well shit, now I have to research it. I had always assume they were talking about rejecting a nomination. Now I'm really curious what legal basis they are proposing to block POTUS from even making a consideration/nomination.

Yeah, not much to research there. There is no legal grounds for blocking that I'm aware of. Just some Republicans talking out of their asses.

Jinsai

02-17-2016, 03:01 PM

I would like to hear the presidential candidates weigh in on this issue that Apple is bringing up. They have posted a public letter, asking for support in their defiance to the US Government demanding that they create a security-hole/backdoor to grant them access to encrypted personal data. At this point, even Apple cannot access a user's iPhone, because they have intentionally locked-out their ability to do so. If only Google was half as considerate when it came to protecting its customers.

It's outrageous for the government to require a company to intentionally create a security flaw for a device which stores so much personal and financial information, and Apple is correct in asserting that this backdoor would inevitably be exploitable by other nefarious parties and hackers. People need to stand up and support a company that says no to government overreach and unwarranted surveillance, even if they hate Apple for everything else they do, and I would love to hear Clinton and Sanders offer their take on this (although I have a feeling I know what the majority of plausible Republican candidates would say).

https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

allegro

02-17-2016, 05:11 PM

The FBI sucks. Plain and simple. The FBI couldn't find a terrorist if the terrorists were the bathroom in the FBI HQ. Most FBI agents probably have passwords that are "123456."

This shouldn't be a matter for Presidential candidates; this should be a matter for the public to understand fully: HEY, IF YOUR IPHONE IS STOLEN, THIS MEANS SOME HACKER CAN STEAL YOUR FUCKING BANK DATA OR ANY OTHER CONFIDENTIAL DATA OFF THAT PHONE!

JUST LIKE WHEN THE FBI'S UNENCRYPTED SERVER CONTAINING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION RELATED TO EMPLOYEE'S SECURITY CLEARANCE WAS HACKED (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/opm-hack-fingerprints/406900/) AND OVER 20 MILLION FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' DATA WAS STOLEN BY HACKERS, INCLUDING SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS OF THE EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS, AND FINGERPRINTS (!!!) BECAUSE THE FBI WAS USING COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FROM THE FUCKING 80s.

And you want to TRUST WHAT THE FBI THINKS ABOUT THIS SHIT or what it wants??? When the FBI can't even manage to protect itself or its own employees?

Hey, the CIA Director's email was hacked (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/politics/john-brennan-email-hack-outrage/)!

Yet the Republican candidates are worried about Hillary's email not being on a "secure server."

But they don't care if any of YOUR CONFIDENTIAL DATA is on a secure server or if it can be stolen by spies in China subjecting you to blackmail (LIKE WHAT HAPPENED ON THE FBI SERVER).

These idiots are just that .... IDIOTS.

The FBI being given any data is like giving your house keys to thieves, SINCE THAT IS WHO WILL END UP WITH IT ANYWAY.

Deepvoid

02-18-2016, 02:45 PM

Gotta love this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlE5vLaymB0

thevoid99

02-18-2016, 02:54 PM

Deepvoid

02-18-2016, 03:00 PM

The Pope says what Trump is doing about the wall is wrong and now that Fascist Fuck calls the Pope's comments "disgraceful". Trump is going to need a body bag if he thinks he can win a fight against a man of God.

The Trump camp is already calling the Pope an hypocrite because the walls surrounding Vatican City..
The best one is this tweet which said: "Regarding the Pope, I could be wrong but isn't there a "wall" next to the Gates of Heaven? Even heaven isn't an "open" border."

I laughed pretty hard at that last one.

thevoid99

02-18-2016, 03:10 PM

Fascist Asshole really doesn't get it. If he does become the president and the country gets fucked by war and we're all in danger. This is what I hope would happen to him:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Mussolini_e_Petacci_a_Piazzale_Loreto,_1945.jpg

I'm not kidding. I want to see him hanged. He's an evil piece of shit.

allegro

02-18-2016, 03:42 PM

Ugh, just stop. This is just silly, there's no stupid ELECTION that's worth getting this worked up over. Trump does this just for effect, and obviously he's working you up just as planned. I get more worked up over Marco Rubio, then I stopped looking at this shit. Mexicans aren't even coming into this country, anymore; we have net zero Mexican immigrants. We have more Chinese and Indian immigrants. So this is just silly talk.

I'm more pissed off at the FBI wanting Apple to build iPhones with security holes in them. But nobody cares about that; they get all upset over Trump vs. the Pope, like it's a cage match.

implanted_microchip

02-18-2016, 08:31 PM

thevoid99 so you're insulting him by calling him a Fascist and calling for hangings, no dissonance there

I'm about as liberal as it gets but good god the way I see a lot of people talking about Trump sounds a lot like the things people are supposedly so against.

Mantra

02-18-2016, 09:12 PM

In general I've been thinking that people might wanna dial it down a few notches on all the fascist accusations towards trump and sometimes just all republicans in general. it was actually this post aggroculture made some weeks back that got me thinking...

Random thought: wouldn't it be ironic if all these years of yelling about the "socialist" president in the white house have counterproductively served to normalize the idea of an actual self-proclaimed socialist being elected president? If "socialist" Obama can help get the economy back on track, maybe socialist Bernie isn't such a stretch.

I'm just speculating out of my ass here, but I've thought about this post a lot and I wonder if this could be true to some extent, which would be pretty funny and cool. But if it is, I've also found myself wondering if the opposite could happen too, where all the far rightwingers/trump supporters start to become more and more desensitized to the fascist accusation and eventually start to embrace it as some kind of defensive measure, and thereby end up pushing the idea further into the realm of acceptability in more people's minds.

*shrug* Not saying I believe this theory 100%. It's just something I've been wondering about.

thevoid99

02-18-2016, 10:05 PM

@thevoid99 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=254) so you're insulting him by calling him a Fascist and calling for hangings, no dissonance there

I'm about as liberal as it gets but good god the way I see a lot of people talking about Trump sounds a lot like the things people are supposedly so against.

What? You don't see how evil he is. I would love for him to be dead. The fact that he threatened my own family background and the idea that my own parents could be deported because of his bullshit just forced me to do something. That cabron went too far.

implanted_microchip

02-18-2016, 11:35 PM

What? You don't see how evil he is. I would love for him to be dead. The fact that he threatened my own family background and the idea that my own parents could be deported because of his bullshit just forced me to do something. That cabron went too far.

Then you should support democracy and respect human life by voting against him, or donating to candidates running against him, which would do a lot more than posting a photograph of hanging bodies and wishing his death, which achieved a whole nothing other than reflecting poorly on yourself.

Besides, your enemy isn't Trump -- it's the masses that support him. No candidate gets anywhere without support. They represent a contigency of voters and in turn values. He says what will let him win. That should be the part you're upset about. He's an avatar of a chunk of America. If you murdered him, guess what? Someone else would take his place and represent the same values because he is interchangeable, much like other politicians.

If Trump scares you, you should be focused on changing minds, promoting education and spreading facts that support you and enlighten others, because that's what stops those sorts of ideas, not executions.

DigitalChaos

02-18-2016, 11:51 PM

I would like to hear the presidential candidates weigh in on this issue that Apple is bringing up.
Here is Sanders and Hillary on the issue: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/19/clinton-and-sanders-refuse-to-choose-between-apple-and-the-fbi/

Big surprise that neither of them have a backbone and what to take "both sides" so they can try and appeal to as many people as possible.

Jinsai

02-19-2016, 12:28 AM

Big surprise that neither of them have a backbone and what to take "both sides" so they can try and appeal to as many people as possible.

Sanders at least directly addressed the concern.

But I wanted to hear one of them say "NO!"

That would have gotten my vote.

allegro

02-19-2016, 08:09 AM

Some facts to further expand on this:
- The FBI "tried for 2 months" to get into the phone. Turns out they haven't tried a single passcode. (there is some justification here, but they are still really dumb)
- In at least one prior instance of the FBI physically bringing a phone to Apple for help getting in... Apple picked up the phone and there was NO FUCKING PASSCODE ON IT (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html)
- The FBI sets quotas for how many terror plots they will disrupt. Just... just fucking think about that for a second!
- The FBI thinks there is going to be some possible data on his work phone and not his personal phone that the terrorist destroyed.
See, Exhibit A of Why the FBI is STUPID.

They don't even have their own department that does this. And, yes, it is a testament to the bulletproof security of (newer) iPhones, which the FBI is attempting to render useless.

And, as you said, what they are doing also sets a precedent FOR SOMETHING AFTER THE FACT, FOR TWO LONE WOLF DEAD TERRORISTS, ON THE GUY'S WORK IPHONE.

Nearly EVERYTHING the FBI does is REACTIVE, because they are TOO FUCKING STUPID to be proactive.

I watched a really in-depth lengthy documentary about the Black Panthers on PBS last night.

Mind. Blown.

How J Edgar Hoover could get away with the shit that he did, basically issuing a death warrant to hunt down and kill all Black Panthers, is unbelievable.

And the FBI still gets away with unbelievably stupid crazy shit all the time. They have WAY TOO MUCH fucking power. And Americans are afraid of stripping them of that power. But what people have to understand is: THESE FBI PEOPLE ARE STUPID.

THIS IS WHERE FBI DIRECTOR COMEY SHOWS HOW FUCKING STUPID HE REALLY IS (https://theintercept.com/2015/07/08/fbi-director-comey-proposes-imaginary-solution-encryption/). The guy knows SHIT about tech yet is insisting on a magic rainbow unicorn solution that CANNOT EXIST. Like, well, I'm sure you nerd geniuses can come up with something! No, ASSHOLE, YOU DO IT! WE DARE YOU! YOU AND YOUR BRILLIANT FBI SUITS, WHO SO DEFTLY SECURED THE OPM SERVERS, GO AHEAD! And then maybe you can DRIVE TO MARS AND GET ME A MCSHAKE WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT!

And Hillary and Bernie? Both can't use a computer to save their respective lives, I bet Bernie still uses fucking AOL. Hillary admits she only uses a Blackberry. So whatever they say on this subject is going to be a rehearsed answer from some congressional idiot else because they have NO FUCKING IDEA what any of this means and because PATRIOTISM evidently means bending over and taking it up the ass by the FBI.

This shit just gets me SO fucking pissed off. WAY fucking more than 2nd Amendment shit or any of this other pseudo important shit. The Government intruding into our lives, and in this case DEMANDING that REALLY REALLY EXPENSIVE equipment be MADE SUBPAR and SUSCEPTIBLE to hackers and making us subject to things like identify theft so that the Government can access it AFTER a possible act of terrorism has occurred to POSSIBLY gain information is BULLSHIT.

DigitalChaos

02-19-2016, 11:08 AM

And the FBI still gets away with unbelievably stupid crazy shit all the time. They have WAY TOO MUCH fucking power.

And Hillary and Bernie? Both ... have NO FUCKING IDEA what any of this means and because PATRIOTISM evidently means bending over and taking it up the ass by the FBI.

This shit just gets me SO fucking pissed off. WAY fucking more than 2nd Amendment shit or any of this other pseudo important shit. The Government intruding into our lives, and in this case DEMANDING that REALLY REALLY EXPENSIVE equipment be MADE SUBPAR and SUSCEPTIBLE to hackers and making us subject to things like identify theft so that the Government can access it AFTER a possible act of terrorism has occurred to POSSIBLY gain information is BULLSHIT.

Putting all of this together, maybe this means Hillary and Sanders are unqualified to be POTUS then. The only acceptable option with their technical capacity is for them to strip/block the govt from doing this. And that's something they certainly aren't proposing.

I'm not sure what all the GOP heads are saying but I know a lot are completely backing the FBI like a flashback to 9/11 "anything to get the terrorists" mentality. Rand Paul and Ron Paul are not only backing Apple, they want to stop the govt from doing this shit. It's a shame neither are running anymore.

This is why im fairly sure I'll be going 3rd party. If I vote at all... my time seems better spent finding more actionable ways to fix this shit.

If you haven't seen McAfee's OpEd where he offers to decrypt the phone so Apple doesn't... Well it's entertaining and he trashes the FBI a bit :) http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2

allegro

02-19-2016, 11:52 AM

The sad thing about some of the people talking about this are the ones who support the FBI. The answer to "should Apple help the FBI get into just the terrorist's phone" is all too frequently "yes." Nobody stops to think about the legal precedent or the fact that a backdoors for 1 mass produced phone is a backdoor into all of them.
The thing is, those terrorists in Paris were using cheap throw-away phones and unencrypted data, NOT FUCKING SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLAR IPHONES! They use phones that can't be traced, then they toss them into the trash. They aren't spending a fuckload of money on expensive smartphones! What kind of unicorn world are these morons at the FBI living in? And these idiot Americans, are they REALLY thinking that terrorists ARE THAT FUCKING STUPID?

The FBI is just going for easy, low-hanging fruit, here, that will REAP ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT WILL EXPOSE AMERICANS TO 1980s LEVELS OF SECURITY HOLES.

Finding shit AFTER A FUCKING TERRORIST ATTACK HAS ALREADY HAPPENED doesn't mean shit. It's kinda like killing Osama bin Laden way the fuck after he already killed people. Yeah, big fucking deal, very anticlimactic, thousands of people were ALREADY DEAD.

Putting all of this together, maybe this means Hillary and Sanders are unqualified to be POTUS then. The only acceptable option with their technical capacity is for them to strip/block the govt from doing this. And that's something they certainly aren't proposing.
When I saw Bernie almost fall off a stage after speaking to a bunch of students in Iowa, showing how "elderly" he really is, as much as I didn't want to admit it, I don't know that I'd vote for him, either. He'll be dead in a year, with that job. When asked about campus sexual assaults and affirmative consent education, he answered yes we need to have assaults reported to the police (good answer) but then he said "no means no" which means the guy is still living in the 60s protest era, and I don't think he can grasp modern concepts like the NSA and this thing about Apple or even affirmative consent. He now has a bunch of black people pissed off at him for his flip negative response when asked about slave reparations, when he could have easily equivocated.

Honestly, I want to eventually get the fuck out of this country. Two choices just isn't enough. And I don't want to be in a country where there is an FBI and a Patriot (ha) Act.

But I sure as fuck will be voting 3rd party in this election.

Edit: FWIW, even though I generally really dislike Rubio, it ends up he is against this back door idea (http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-court-order-marco-rubio-ted-cruz-2016/). See also this (http://www.businessinsider.com/marco-rubio-apple-fbi-encryption-privacy-backdoors-2016-2).

See Rubio's video response imbedded in this Tweet (https://twitter.com/benthompson/status/700206104345600000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw).

allegro

02-19-2016, 03:14 PM

The 'Good Billionaire' - Silicon Valley Roots for Bloomberg for President (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/16/michael-bloomberg-president-silicon-valley-2016-election).

DigitalChaos

02-19-2016, 08:41 PM

When I saw Bernie almost fall off a stage after speaking to a bunch of students in Iowa, showing how "elderly" he really is, as much as I didn't want to admit it, I don't know that I'd vote for him, either. He'll be dead in a year, with that job.
If age were the only issue, I wouldn't have an issue with Sanders. It just puts much more importance on the who the VP is. If I truely thought Sanders would be good for the country, I would be ok with maybe only getting 1-2 years of Sanders and then the VP takes over.

allegro

02-19-2016, 08:44 PM

If age were the only issue, I wouldn't have an issue with Sanders. It just puts much more importance on the who the VP is. If I truely thought Sanders would be good for the country, I would be ok with maybe only getting 1-2 years of Sanders and then the VP takes over.

I guess. I dunno, I think I might take Bloomberg over Bernie at this point. I am tired of Senators trying to run things.

Mantra

02-20-2016, 12:25 AM

Nah, Bloomberg is repulsively anti-union. Fuck that dude.

allegro

02-20-2016, 10:01 AM

Nah, Bloomberg is repulsively anti-union. Fuck that dude.
Yeah well but he was in a state like Illinois that was not a right to work state, so unions were killing their budget. I am from Detroit and have seen the good and the really not good side of unions. I think a US President would not really have any dealings with any of it. The states and courts are handling that.

theimage13

02-20-2016, 10:35 AM

When asked about campus sexual assaults and affirmative consent education, he answered yes we need to have assaults reported to the police (good answer) but then he said "no means no" which means the guy is still living in the 60s protest era

Wait, what? Are you implying that no sometimes means yes and a college student saying "no" might not actually mean she doesn't want someone to fuck her? I'm not sure I understand why a presidential candidate saying "no means no" on the topic of sexual assault seems antiquated or out of touch with modern times.

allegro

02-20-2016, 10:46 AM

Wait, what? Are you implying that no sometimes means yes and a college student saying "no" might not actually mean she doesn't want someone to fuck her? I'm not sure I understand why a presidential candidate saying "no means no" on the topic of sexual assault seems antiquated or out of touch with modern times.

No, he was asked specifically about "Affirmative consent (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/10/13/why-we-made-yes-means-yes-california-law/)" education. Affirmative consent says that both parties must willingly say yes; if the victim is so drunk (or unwittingly drugged), they are unconscious and are unable to say "no" or "yes," the lack of no does not mean yes. So the old "no means no" mindset has been enhanced by affirmative consent education ("yes means yes"); Sanders was asked specifically about affirmative consent education on college campuses, because young women are being assaulted while so drunk they are unconscious and cannot say yes or no so they cannot consent, so he missed the point. "No means no" occurs with forced assault (when the victim says "no" but is ignored), but the predominant sexual assault on college campuses right now is drunk and unconscious assault where the victim cannot say "yes" or "no" because the victim is rendered legally unconscious per most state statutes, so a "no" (or "yes") could not be conveyed and is deliberately interpreted as "yes"; "lack of a conscious yes or no" = "no" in addition to "no means no."

Affirmative consent laws and education isn't a total panacea. But, it's a step in the right direction. This is a good article (http://www.thenation.com/article/why-yes-means-yes-so-misunderstood/).

theimage13

02-20-2016, 12:41 PM

Gotcha. I didn't see the context in which the no means no answer was given. I'm fully aware of affirmative consent, and you're right...it's not the cure, but it helps.

elevenism

02-20-2016, 01:37 PM

aren't the words of the pope infallible to Catholics?
So does this little feud mean that Trump has lost the Catholic vote?

Mantra

02-20-2016, 01:40 PM

Yeah well but he was in a state like Illinois that was not a right to work state, so unions were killing their budget. I am from Detroit and have seen the good and the really not good side of unions. I think a US President would not really have any dealings with any of it. The states and courts are handling that.

Nah, the deficit/overall economic situation in NY wasn't caused nor solved by union matters. It was caused by a huge number of things, first and foremost Giuliani's shitty legacy, pissing away shit loads of cash on publicly funded sports stadiums, private consultation groups, misguided tax cuts, etc. Bloomberg, in all fairness, inherited that financial legacy and had to do his best with a bad situation, but it was incredibly fucked up to punish the teachers union (and others) over that. And I'm not sure how referencing Detroit's situation could support that kind of policy, given that Michigan IS a shitty ass right-to-work state (which undermines union membership, hurts the overall economy/wages, damages the ability to properly cover pensions, etc). If that was the path forward, the south would be an economic promised land instead of the republican ghetto that it is.

I think a US President would not really have any dealings with any of it. The states and courts are handling that.

Well that's true, but for me, it demonstrates bad values. I wouldn't trust Walker for the same reason, and yet, as you said, the president doesn't usually get super caught up in those things. Not that Walker and Bloomberg are remotely on the same level (obviously, yikes), but it's comparable in that those kinds of attitudes are always reflective of something other shitty way of thinking that will manifest in other ways once in office. So I'm just saying, Bloomberg's economics wouldn't exactly fill me with much hope.

allegro

02-20-2016, 03:17 PM

Michigan RECENTLY BECAME a right-to-work state (http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/01/michigan_union_membership_down.html), via their current Governor. It was always a union state, controlled by the UAW and Teamsters, but the economy was a shithole. The Michigan voters changed that. I am not against unions, but when the unions started being totally unreasonable they started tolling their own death knell (Detroit Bankruptcy is the prime example with the unions in that city refusing to compromise when the city was totally broke).

It's the same battle that Rauner and Emanuel are fighting in Chicago and Illinois right now. Chicago teachers contribute 2% to their pension fund and taxpayers kick in the remaining 7%. Others are required to kick in the full 9%. The teachers are asking the state (taxpayers) to kick in the City's shortage yet again, but downstate and suburban taxpayers are saying fuck you, fuck Chicago. Our property taxes are the 2nd highest in the country. If the teacher's union doesn't compromise, and the state taxpayers don't kick in the cash, Bankruptcy will be Chicago's only option. Then the BK judge will throw out the union contract.

But, again, this is not an Executive Branch issue.

SCOTUS, however, will be making a pretty big decision soon.

Mantra

02-20-2016, 03:39 PM

aren't the words of the pope infallible to Catholics?
So does this little feud mean that Trump has lost the Catholic vote?

lol, Not exactly, papal infallibility is more complicated than that. It's not like every single word that flows from the pope's mouth at every single minute of the day is considered is "infallible." If the pope says he likes Kanye West more than David Bowie, it doesn't mean that God himself has now weighed in on the issue. There are very specific situations in which the pope is speaking infallibly, called "ex cathedra" statements or something like that, and they don't happen very often. Catholics can and do disagree with the all sorts of things that the pope may say.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's statements about the pope didn't hurt him a bit the catholic voting block.

SCOTUS, however, will be making a pretty big decision soon.

Yeah, and I'm incredibly nervous about that. However, now that Scalia has kicked the bucket I'm feeling a bit more hopeful.

I mean, we could have a huge long debate about union/city economics, and this probably isn't the thread for it. I started writing up this huge reply but changed my mind cause if I start ranting away about this stuff it's just gonna clutter the thread, lol. And really, my main point is simply that I think Bernie's economic vision is about seventy thousand times more inspiring than Bloomberg's, at least given their respective histories and professed values and whatnot.

allegro

02-20-2016, 04:14 PM

Yeah, and I'm incredibly nervous about that. However, now that Scalia has kicked the bucket I'm feeling a bit more hopeful.

I mean, we could have a huge long debate about union/city economics, and this probably isn't the thread for it. I started writing up this huge reply but changed my mind cause if I start ranting away about this stuff it's just gonna clutter the thread, lol. And really, my main point is simply that I think Bernie's economic vision is about seventy thousand times more inspiring than Bloomberg's, at least given their respective histories and professed values and whatnot.
The union SCOTUS decision should be interesting but in this global economy, unions just don't have the same pull that they used to. We shall see.

Also, what starts as a brotherhood of socialism (unions) ultimately can become corrupted by individualistic greed when people stop looking toward the brotherhood and only toward what they can get for themselves.

But while Bernie's views are admirable, and I'm basically a socialist at heart, I'm afraid they won't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting anywhere in this ultra-Capitalist American society.

GulDukat

02-20-2016, 05:43 PM

Clinton will win SC next week and should do well on super Tuesday. I'd be very surprised if Clinton doesn't win the nomination at this point.

Mantra

02-20-2016, 07:16 PM

So I saw them saying that the estimated turnout for the Democratic caucus in Nevada tonight was 80,000. In 2008 the turnout was 120,000. In Iowa, the turnout was down 30% compared to the 2008 caucus. Meanwhile, the Republican turnout in Iowa was 50% higher than it was in 2012, and they're saying South Carolina is also way higher.

Kind of troubling. I guess that's the enthusiasm gap.

GulDukat

02-20-2016, 08:18 PM

Watching Rubio address his supporters and he kind of reminds me of Michael P. Keaton.

Dryalex12

02-20-2016, 08:38 PM

Jebs out....................

elevenism

02-20-2016, 08:56 PM

marco and ted kissed jeb's ass in a blatant attempt to get his supporters' votes.
at this point, i want rubio to win the nomination.
Trump would embarrass us on the world stage, but his understanding of government is limited to the point where i don't think he could do any real damage.
But Cruz DOES know what he's doing, and that scares the shit out of me.
Rubio is the lesser of 3 evils.

theimage13

02-20-2016, 09:19 PM

Bookmark it. 2/20/16.

Trump and Clinton win the nominations, Sanders runs independent and splits the liberal vote. Donald Trump some fucking how ends up POTUS.

Please god, let me be wrong about this. But I cannot see it going any other way, except for MAYBE Sanders bowing out altogether once he realizes that his running would single-handedly give the White House to Hitler reincarnated.

orestes

02-20-2016, 09:37 PM

Guys, we're only two primaries in. We haven't even reached Super Tuesday yet so chill.

allegro

02-20-2016, 10:05 PM

Guys, we're only two primaries in. We haven't even reached Super Tuesday yet so chill.
This it the third, right? Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina?

Trump would embarrass us on the world stage, but his understanding of government is limited to the point where i don't think he could do any real damage.
This is EXACTLY right. He at least isn't crazy pro-life and isn't a crazy tea party asshole. This xenophobe shit is all talk; the guy is married to a woman from Slovenia.

And the Trump you are seeing not is the the Trump from 5 or even 10 years ago. He is just saying what he knows the right wing wants to hear.

orestes

02-20-2016, 10:12 PM

Iowa was a caucus but still, too early to start saying Trump has a clench on the nomination, much less the Presidency.

allegro

02-20-2016, 10:19 PM

Iowa was a caucus but still, too early to start saying Trump has a clench on the nomination, much less the Presidency.

True. But with Republican turn-out higher than in recent history, this is certainly sending a message. And we have just established that the Northern and the Southern Republicans like Trump.

This sure is fucking entertaining! And, as I keep saying, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, NOTHING CAN BE AS BAD AS 2 TERMS OF REAGAN!

Mantra

02-20-2016, 10:45 PM

How about Trump runs independent and splits the conservative vote while Sanders splits the left? In some ways that would be the best way to do it, because usually if you have only one party splitting the vote it just guarantees that party's defeat. But if you were to split both sides in the same election, that could actually mean that running independently wasn't such a long shot. Maybe it would even shake up the stale two party system....Sorry, I'm just daydreaming a bit here.

allegro

02-20-2016, 10:46 PM

Mantra

02-20-2016, 10:59 PM

Since it's basically all down to Trump, Cruz, and Rubio, why haven't all the others (Carson, etc) followed Jeb's lead and thrown in the towel yet? Seriously dudes, give it up already.

allegro

02-20-2016, 11:01 PM

Since it's basically all down to Trump, Cruz, and Rubio, why haven't all the others (Carson, etc) followed Jeb's lead and thrown in the towel yet? Seriously dudes, give it up already.

Carson is like the dude who won't leave the party. It's 5 am, dude, go home! "No, hey, I ain't leaving!"

Mantra

02-20-2016, 11:07 PM

Love this picture of Jeb that all the news sites keep posting

http://www.trbimg.com/img-56c91ae0/turbine/ct-jeb-bush-suspends-campaign-20160220-002/550/550x309

Poor little dude. All that dunkin donuts campaigning for nothing. You fucking blew it man.

thevoid99

02-20-2016, 11:12 PM

And he didn't have the balls to actually take a swing on Trump for insulting his family.

Mantra

02-20-2016, 11:16 PM

man, www.jebbush.com (http://www.jebbush.com) now just forwards to a youtube clip of trump's SC victory speech

damn, lol

implanted_microchip

02-20-2016, 11:27 PM

I'd never want Jeb! as president and he did a bang-up job of making my state worse off, but the guy's always seemed sincere and has spent the last however many debates constantly looking on the verge of tears. A friend of mine attended a rally he did in Ocala, FL and met him and I asked "So does he smell like desperation and anxiety as much as I'd expect?" and he just paused and went "Yeah." Watching Trump routinely bully the shit out of him has been the most mixed-emotion affair of the whole election. Now what will the debates look like?

It's really fascinating to me how a year ago he was the "safe bet" nominee and everyone was convinced we'd be seeing a Clinton v. Bush ticket. Definitely assumed we'd see Carson drop before Jeb! ever did. It's going to be awkward as hell at the Bush family Thanksgiving table this November.

Volband

02-21-2016, 02:13 AM

I have to say, your presidential runs are the most entertaining stuff in modern politics. There is just something adorable when a handful of politicians from the same party are murdering each-other. What's troubling is how incompetent some of them are. I mean, how can someone like Jeb or Cruz get even near to being considered as a nominee for the president of the USA?

As a neutral in every way possible, Trump is definitely my favorite. On one hand, he's obviously funny to watch, but on the other, if he is really as incompetent as some people say, it's even more entertaining how actual politicians are struggling against him.

Anyway, just please don't let Sanders win. Not only /r/all is a mess because of him, I am sincerely worried about his zealous fanatics, who are making a very good job of antagonizing this otherwise possibly great man in the eyes of many. I can relate to the feeling of being young and thinking that I'm about to change the world if I support an unorthodox candidate, but this is stretching it. I made the mistake once of trying to understand what all the fuss is about and visit /r/sandersforpresident, but aside from getting guilt-tripped by not donating my entire savings to the reincarnation of Jesus Christ himself, and getting informed that Hillary Clinton, is in fact, Satan, I did not learn much.

Wolfkiller

02-21-2016, 06:05 AM

You're judging all of his supporters based on reddit and therefore hope he loses? Well done. Please don't register to vote.

Volband

02-21-2016, 07:04 AM

How could I even register to vote... Anyway, I was merely talking about the absurdity of the cult which surrounds him. I'm just gazing out of my head when I think about that common people are donating money to a political campaign. Just wow. 30 years ago we had a Great Leader too, but to be fair, we did not have much choice in that matter.

I'm just looking forward the Trump vs. Hillary debates. Sanders and Hillary are way too nice with each-other, while Trump is having a field day in landing free punches on his opponents. Though I can't imagine how people in their right mind could actually vote Trump into presidency.

Mantra

02-21-2016, 09:47 AM

dude, reddit is an intellectual septic tank. stop going there.

Volband

02-21-2016, 02:40 PM

You obviously can't judge an entire nation or even a fraction of it based on their behavior on the Internet, but completely ignoring it seems, well, ignorant to me. There are 200k subs already and you can check out how much money they keep raising and raising. I remember the first time I could vote, the extreme right wing party seemed like the ideal choice for me, the next generation. They said they would put an end to the bullshit of the two parties which have been in office in the last 20 years, put clean water in the glass, etc. Really, just what you'd like to hear when your blood is boiling because you are "obviously" mature enough to vote for the future of your country. Then I read/heard many stuff from their supporters which I just could not get behind. Like, Nazi-bad stuff. Now, the party never actually said any of those stuff (later did, but that's not the point now), but seeing that zealous bloodlust in the eyes of many of their supporters made me nope the fuck out behind them.

If I were a neutral voter in the USA, I would be definitely annoyed that boards on the Internet (not just reddit) are littered with obnoxious Bernie-fanboys. As much as politics should be 100% mind 0% heart in a hermit world, we all know that many, many, many final votes have even more heart in them, than mind, so having a bad taste in your mouth towards someone can actually derail you from voting to him/her.

Even with very little knowledge about the politics in the USA, I would be very surprised if Bernie would even reach the nominee status, given his anti-corporate agenda. I just don't see how the higher ups could profit from him.

elevenism

02-21-2016, 02:47 PM

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) i think trump just wanted to WIN. if he felt that he would have had a better chance running as a dem, he would have done that.

Mantra

02-21-2016, 03:46 PM

If I were a neutral voter in the USA, I would be definitely annoyed that boards on the Internet (not just reddit) are littered with obnoxious Bernie-fanboys. As much as politics should be 100% mind 0% heart in a hermit world, we all know that many, many, many final votes have even more heart in them, than mind, so having a bad taste in your mouth towards someone can actually derail you from voting to him/her.

I haven't found Bernie supporters to be any more obnoxious than the supporters of any other politician. Close primaries can get a little ugly at times, but, for the most part, things seem relatively civil. I haven't seen anything from Hillary or Bernie supporters that would, in itself, warrant the outright rejection of either politician. Your experience on the Bernie subreddit says nothing about him or his voter base or whether he would make a good president. That's just another facet of reddit's overall toxic culture. If I viewed the whole world through reddit lenses, I'd be forced to conclude that all of humanity was just a bottomless, pseudo-intellectual frat house. Luckily I have reality to cross check that interpretation with.

In general, most of what you've written here seems like a really strange, superficial way of engaging with politics. No wonder you almost voted for nazis.

allegro

02-21-2016, 03:58 PM

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) i think trump just wanted to WIN. if he felt that he would have had a better chance running as a dem, he would have done that.
Yup, I agree.

Your Name Here

02-21-2016, 03:59 PM

.................

allegro

02-21-2016, 04:04 PM

Roe vs Wade overturned.
Um, no. The SCOTUS won't overturn itself re Roe vs Wade. It has had many opportunities, even with a predominately moderate-to-conservative court, and did no such thing. Scalia was the only old-fart Catholic who wanted it overturned due to his originalist overly-moral views. But he couldn't do it himself and he's dead. And this threat has been constant since 1973. Ain't happening. The court VERY RARELY completely overturns its own decisions because it would be then saying something it did was totally wrong and it doesn't like saying it's wrong. Look up the times it has completely overturned itself, and it was related to things like slavery.

HOWEVER, that being said, many states are placing UNDUE RESTRICTIONS on abortions, which is in direct violation of Roe v Wade. And the SCOTUS is about to hear Women's Health v Cole (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/11/supreme-court-and-abortion-why-whole-womans-health-v-cole-matters). Which won't OVERTURN Roe v Wade, but certainly has the opportunity to REINFORCE Roe v. Wade and bitchslap these states like Texas that are violating Roe v. Wade.

Now, a full nine-justice SCOTUS doesn't always happen, as justices are sometimes ill or recuse themselves. But there is mostly a full court for big cases like this. And we really need a full court for this case so that there isn't a 4-4 vote which would hand the case back down to the Appellate Court.

Here is the current breakdown (but with Scalia's seat open) (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/upshot/a-more-nuanced-breakdown-of-the-supreme-court.html?_r=0).

There is no dispute that the court has a four-member liberal wing and a four-member conservative wing, with Justice Anthony Kennedy somewhere in the middle.

But not every liberal is liberal in the same measure. In the term that ended in June 2013, the three women on the court — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — were tightly bunched on the left side of the array. They cast liberal votes around 70 percent of the time.

Justice Stephen Breyer was substantially more conservative, casting liberal votes 59 percent of the time. [Breyer was appointed by Clinton.]

Justice Kennedy is indeed smack-dab in the middle [casting liberal votes 50 percent of the time. [Kennedy was appointed by Reagan.]

The court’s conservative wing has two blocs separated by a slight gap. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia were tied at about 44 percent.

More to the right were Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr.; they voted in a liberal direction around 40 percent of the time.

It is worth noting that retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was a Reagan appointee, and she was one of the most moderate Supreme Court Justices in history. Speaking of O'Connor, THIS IS A GREAT PIECE ON HER REGRETS (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/justice-oconnor-regrets).

Technically, studies have shown that the current SCOTUS is the most liberal since the 50s.