PDA

View Full Version : 2016 US Presidential elections


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Terez
02-03-2016, 11:07 AM
I figured I'd start a thread to carry us through the cycle, since we've been ad-hoc discussing in the Mike Bloomberg (http://www.theoryland.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8823) spoiler thread because Kimon didn't feel like Iowa was worth starting a new thread.

Rand Paul just dropped out (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675). Of course, we lost O'Malley and Huckabee on Iowa night. Not sure why Santorum is still in there. IMO we'll probably lose Christie, Kasich, Fiorina, Carson, Gilmore, and Santorum by the time New Hampshire is done. Maybe Bush too, but perhaps he'll hold on through South Carolina. We'll see. None of the others have a real reason to hang on that long. I left Gilmore out of the poll because RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html) isn't even tracking him, but we all know it's a 3-man race at this point anyway.

SomeOneElse
02-03-2016, 02:27 PM
None of them have any real chance since your next president will be Hillary Clinton. The reason is that a black guy was already elected and now is the time to remind about women's rights. So who will be nominated doesn't matter.

Terez
02-03-2016, 02:39 PM
Well, that's a rather narrow take on it!

Davian93
02-03-2016, 02:41 PM
Santorum leaks himself out of the race. What a disgusting frothy mess of a campaign he ended up running.

No word yet on whether or not he and his wife brought the dead campaign home and introduced it to the kids yet.

Davian93
02-03-2016, 02:43 PM
None of them have any real chance since your next president will be Hillary Clinton. The reason is that a black guy was already elected and now is the time to remind about women's rights. So who will be nominated doesn't matter.

To be fair, we've never had a 74 year old Jew from VT as President either...so those are some major barriers to break down too. Unless you're some sort of sick anti-semitic, ageist, Green Mountain denying bastard at least.

Terez
02-03-2016, 03:39 PM
Santorum leaks himself out of the race.
Yay, more dead wood out of the way. I wonder who he'll endorse. (Word is he will be endorsing someone, unlike Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee.)

Davian93
02-03-2016, 03:44 PM
Yay, more dead wood out of the way. I wonder who he'll endorse. (Word is he will be endorsing someone, unlike Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee.)

If I were a betting man, I'd guess Cruz. Unless he's actually met Cruz since everyone who ever has apparently despises him.

Wasn't he at that TrumpFuhrer rally for Wounded Warrior though? Maybe he's been bought off.

Terez
02-03-2016, 03:53 PM
It wasn't for Wounded Warrior; Trump doesn't rally for legit veterans' organizations. You're talking about the night he skipped the debate right? Huckabee and Santorum were both there, probably hoping to draw a few votes in Iowa. Didn't work for either.

Cruz seems like a safe bet; Santorum's success in 2012 was largely based on the evangelical vote. I could see him going for someone else, though. Maybe Rubio. Probably not Trump.

Davian93
02-03-2016, 04:02 PM
It wasn't for Wounded Warrior; Trump doesn't rally for legit veterans' organizations. You're talking about the night he skipped the debate right? Huckabee and Santorum were both there, probably hoping to draw a few votes in Iowa. Didn't work for either.

Cruz seems like a safe bet; Santorum's success in 2012 was largely based on the evangelical vote. I could see him going for someone else, though. Maybe Rubio. Probably not Trump.

Calling Wounded Warrior "legit"...too funny. Pure corrupt scam at this point.

Terez
02-03-2016, 04:20 PM
Calling Wounded Warrior "legit"...too funny. Pure corrupt scam at this point.
More legit than these guys:

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/09/17/the-fake-vet-nonprofit-that-sponsored-trumps-uss-iowa-speech-on-veterans-issues/

Kimon
02-03-2016, 05:41 PM
Cruz seems like a safe bet; Santorum's success in 2012 was largely based on the evangelical vote. I could see him going for someone else, though. Maybe Rubio. Probably not Trump.

It's still difficult to assess until after New Hampshire, but I'll grudgingly say Rubio.

Iowa is such a fertile ground for the evangelicals that it is too difficult for any but the most natural of bible-thumpers to do well there - hence the recent sequence of Huckabee, Santorum, and then Cruz. None of the current crop are remotely as good of a candidate as McCain, but it's telling that Huckabee trounced McCain in the Iowa primary in '08. It just isn't a reliable indicator of who will be the nominee. That said, if Cruz can somehow pull out a victory in New Hampshire, then he's the candidate. Which is insane. The Republicans usually end up with the best candidate in their field eventually, after winnowing out the real crazies that peak early, but that was often because the establishment used money to suffocate the nuts. Citizens United might end up coming back to haunt them here, as Cruz has enough money to survive in spite of all the traditional powers that be trying to abort his ridiculous candidacy, which they must, as SomeOneElse is wrong on both counts, not only is Hillary very vulnerable in her own primary fight, but both she and Bernie will be very vulnerable in the general. Hillary because she just isn't liked, and Bernie because he stands no chance of winning any states in the south or plains, and probably only Illinois in the Midwest. He might well win just Vermont, Massachusetts, and California, with the rest of the country going red. The only thing potentially destroying Republican chances is allowing for a truly implausible candidate on their own side, and Cruz is, if not the worst candidate, it is only because Carson is even more of a clown. I'm still not convinced that Trump really wants to be president (this still feels like an intended free publicity stunt that got completely out of hand), but either he or Rubio would have a very good shot of winning. A ticket of Rubio-Kasich would be very difficult for the dems to beat.

The Unreasoner
02-03-2016, 05:45 PM
I think it will end up being Trump and Hillary, with Bloomberg sitting out.

Terez
02-03-2016, 06:30 PM
I'm still thinking this looks like a good year for a contested convention, just because it's easy to see Trump, Cruz, and Rubio sticking it out for the long haul. And it's easy to see a scenario where none of them gets 50% of the delegates.

That was looking less likely before Iowa because Trump's lead kept getting bigger and bigger, and between those who chose him as first choice and second choice, he had more than half. But a loss in Iowa makes Cruz and Rubio more viable, which puts the contested convention back in the realm of possibility. I think it would take 3 or 4 losses in a row to make Trump drop out, and it's hard to see that happening.

It will be interesting to see if the Iowa results affect Trump's prohibitive lead in New Hampshire in the polls. I think Rubio's results in Iowa will attract the Establishment voters who have been leaning toward Bush, Kasich, and Christie. I don't know where the Paul voters will go. Knowing Paul voters, they'll probably just stay home. Huckabee's will probably go to Cruz; Santorum's also, unless he endorses someone else.

Davian93
02-03-2016, 06:50 PM
I think Trump will implode shortly.

Terez
02-03-2016, 06:52 PM
We can hope. But we have good reason to be skeptical at this point. People have been predicting his imminent implosion for months now. He finally has a loss under his belt, and that matters, but I'm going to wait to see how much it matters.

Davian93
02-03-2016, 06:59 PM
We can hope. But we have good reason to be skeptical at this point. People have been predicting his imminent implosion for months now. He finally has a loss under his belt, and that matters, but I'm going to wait to see how much it matters.

If the establishment coalesces around Rubio in NH, Trumps finished as it'll be a Rubio/Cruz battle with Cruz taking the southern and super evangelical states but Rubio getting the same support that Romney got in 2012.

If.

I hope it doesn't go that way but that's my guess.


As for Sanders, I think Kimon is way too pessimistic about his chances.

Nazbaque
02-03-2016, 06:59 PM
I put Rubio, but you should have added the options "I don't live in the country so I don't care" and "I do live in the country and still don't care" for the sake of humor

Terez
02-03-2016, 07:06 PM
If the establishment coalesces around Rubio in NH, Trumps finished as it'll be a Rubio/Cruz battle with Cruz taking the southern and super evangelical states but Rubio getting the same support that Romney got in 2012.

If.

I hope it doesn't go that way but that's my guess.
Unlike most Democrats, I'm hoping Rubio wins because even though he's the most difficult candidate for us to beat, I'd be more comfortable with him as president than any of the others (despite his many flaws) and the idea of Trump or Cruz even as the nominee is frightening to me.

As for Sanders, I think Kimon is way too pessimistic about his chances.
Agreed. It will be tough for him because of the socialism thing and because he's not the most eloquent candidate we could hope for. But if he were the nominee, I don't see him losing the Midwest except Indiana and maybe Ohio. He's got good surrogates in Ohio.

I put Rubio, but you should have added the options "I don't live in the country so I don't care" and "I do live in the country and still don't care" for the sake of humor
I don't like easy options. Take a stand, whether or not you care! :p

Kimon
02-03-2016, 07:27 PM
Agreed. It will be tough for him because of the socialism thing and because he's not the most eloquent candidate we could hope for. But if he were the nominee, I don't see him losing the Midwest except Indiana and maybe Ohio. He's got good surrogates in Ohio.


Indiana is almost always out of reach. Even Bill Clinton lost Indiana. Indiana is basically just a colder version of Mississippi. Sanders has no shot there. Ohio is the second toughest Midwestern state (I wouldn't even consider Iowa as part of the Midwest - growing up in Michigan makes me associate the midwest perhaps unfairly with the Lakes and the original Big Ten - Iowa only meets one of those criteria). Sanders would get trounced there too. Illinois and Minnesota are his best chances in the Midwest. Maybe Michigan and Wisconsin. Those are all states that should be, and have been, reliably blue for most dems. Except Mondale. Who just got Minnesota, and basically nothing else. He was going up against Reagan, but bs revisionist thinking aside, Reagan is just a dumber version of Trump. Dukakis had a similar thrashing to Mondale, except he was going up against a much better rival than Mondale, as the Elder Bush was a northerner (unlike his incompetent son), not evangelical, and a centrist - so basically a democrat if running today. I don't think Sanders would produce as humiliating a defeat as Mondale's, but any decent Republican should be capable of producing something similar to the Elder Bush's defeat of Dukakis. Now, none of the Republicans are remotely as good a candidate as the Elder Bush, but Americans are stupid, and as a result have been easily manipulated into thinking that socialist=communist.

Nazbaque
02-03-2016, 07:33 PM
I don't like easy options. Take a stand, whether or not you care! :p

But taking a stand is the easy option.

Davian93
02-03-2016, 07:33 PM
I think you underestimate just how good a campaigner Bernie is. His populist message is a big winner for Dems and the map heavily favors Dems. That solid blue collar dem base in the Midwest would support him as would Iowa (pure blue too). He'd lose Indiana and probably Ohio but if he could swing Florida, he could win it all. The Dems will support either nominee just to prevent Cruz or Rubio, etc. you can count on that.

Ivhon
02-03-2016, 07:40 PM
Rubio is exactly no different from Cruz in terms of crazy or policy. He's just prettier and more likeable (most squid are more likeable than Cruz) - which actually makes him more dangerous. Of the three serious GOP contenders I'd actually rather see Cruz win because the loathing he instills anywhere but the evangelical base rules him out of the General. Rubio is the one I'd least like to see win because a) he can win and is no different from Cruz and b) of the three of them Trump at least has one or two policy positions that I don't recoil in terror from.

Ivhon
02-03-2016, 07:44 PM
I think you underestimate just how good a campaigner Bernie is. His populist message is a big winner for Dems and the map heavily favors Dems. That solid blue collar dem base in the Midwest would support him as would Iowa (pure blue too). He'd lose Indiana and probably Ohio but if he could swing Florida, he could win it all. The Dems will support either nominee just to prevent Cruz or Rubio, etc. you can count on that.

No they won't. There is a very sizeable contingent of Hillary haters in the Sanders camp that will not vote for her under any circumstances. I see it over and over again, no difference between Hillary and Cruz/Trump/Rubio

Davian93
02-03-2016, 07:46 PM
No they won't. There is a very sizeable contingent of Hillary haters in the Sanders camp that will not vote for her under any circumstances. I see it over and over again, no difference between Hillary and Cruz/Trump/Rubio

They would if Bernie endorses her at the Convention.


Santorum officially endorses Rubio.

Frenzy
02-03-2016, 07:53 PM
it's like trying to decide which way to die: a grenade down your throat or a grenade up your ass.

Davian93
02-03-2016, 07:57 PM
I could see this map if Bernie is the candidate and it's against Rubio who could swing Florida. It'd be a worst case scenario I think.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/5nGVv

Kimon
02-03-2016, 08:03 PM
I think you underestimate just how good a campaigner Bernie is. His populist message is a big winner for Dems and the map heavily favors Dems. That solid blue collar dem base in the Midwest would support him as would Iowa (pure blue too). He'd lose Indiana and probably Ohio but if he could swing Florida, he could win it all. The Dems will support either nominee just to prevent Cruz or Rubio, etc. you can count on that.

Florida (or at least everything north of Miami) is in many ways even more difficult for a democrat than Ohio. I just can't see him winning either of those states, and without at least one of those winning is nigh impossible. And if the Republican ticket was Rubio (Cuban-American from Florida) & Kasich (Ohio)? Not a chance in either. Or if it's Trump? Normally I'd put New York and New Jersey in the automatic column for the Blues, but against Trump? I honestly think we might have no choice but to hope that Bloomberg really runs.

Davian93
02-03-2016, 08:04 PM
Bloomberg running could end in a repeat of 1984. It'd be an absolute disaster.

Kimon
02-03-2016, 08:07 PM
I could see this map if Bernie is the candidate and it's against Rubio who could swing Florida. It'd be a worst case scenario I think.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/5nGVv

Here's my guess...

http://www.270towin.com/maps/5nGVv

For some reason it didn't save the changes...anyway flip Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. 167 to 371.

Davian93
02-03-2016, 08:21 PM
You seem amazingly pessimistic.

Terez
02-03-2016, 09:35 PM
Santorum officially endorses Rubio.
Proof that what Trump says is true; no one who knows Cruz likes him. I'm watching Maddow on a DVR lag; she's about to tell me why Santorum didn't endorse Cruz. (Not that I'm terribly surprised; see above.)

Frenzy
02-03-2016, 09:50 PM
84 or 92?

GonzoTheGreat
02-04-2016, 05:28 AM
I've picked Fiorina. Not because I think she is a particularly likely winner, but then, none of the Republicans this time are "likely winners", and with Carly I will have a massive "told you so" coming if she actually remains as the last not-Cruz* standing.

* Trump lost Iowa, which destroyed his "always win" mystique. Now he is a loser, and that's not something he can handle.

Kimon
02-04-2016, 07:50 AM
You seem amazingly pessimistic.

I'd feel more comfortable if we nominated an affable centrist. Unfortunately, neither Hillary or Bernie can be described as such. Cruz if elected can't grab the center. He's so hated he makes Hillary look charming. But Trump or Rubio? Normally neither of those two would be worrisome, but against Bernie or Hillary? I think either Trump or Rubio steals the center in such a match-up.

GonzoTheGreat
02-04-2016, 08:14 AM
All Bernie has to do is suggest that Carson had dropped out, and that would automatically let him steal the election from Trump.

fionwe1987
02-04-2016, 11:28 AM
I don't think Bernie has it that hard either. Not easy, but not that hard.

I picked Rubio, because I answered the poll shortly after the Santorum endorsement, which I'm taking as a sign of Rubio graduating to the big league.

Davian93
02-04-2016, 12:27 PM
In the 2012 election, VA went Dem by 3% making it a bluer state than OH or FL. NH (a formerly red state) went to the Dems by almost 6%. So its probably safe to put both of them in the "Likely Dem" category moving forward. That changes the election math quite a bit and allows a Dem to win election without OH or FL.

Technically, VA isn't needed either as long as the Dem takes NV, CO and IA. Those states were +6.6, +4.7% and +5.7% to Obama in 2012 by the way. None of them were really even in play. The map makes it possible to win without any southern or great plains states or even IN/OH. IE...that's a bad situation for the GOP to go up against even with a good candidate.

On the GOP side, the only state that was even close to being in play was NC which went red by 2.2%...a big part of why there have been so many voter suppression efforts by the GOP there since 2012. They're terrified of losing another former stronghold state for them.

Ivhon
02-04-2016, 01:22 PM
Rubio is the only GOP candidate Im concerned about. Because he's charming and affable and the lamestream media (see how I did that, Southpaw and Berniebros?) paints him as a moderate. Which the uneducated swing voter may believe.

Terez
02-04-2016, 01:27 PM
One of McCain's senior campaign people, is on MSNBC a lot, Steve Schmidt. His prognosis for Bernie's performance in the general was even more pessimistic than Kimon's, something not seen since the 80s. I think he said Bernie would win maybe Vermont and Washington State and the rest of the country would be red. I don't know if he said Washington, I think he mentioned a west coast state, and I don't think it was California. I really hope Bernie wins the nomination just so Schmidt can join the ranks of terribly bad election predictors.

Terez
02-04-2016, 01:56 PM
Here's another breach (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/04/former-naacp-leader-ben-jealous-to-endorse-bernie-sanders/) of the firewall.

Davian93
02-04-2016, 02:58 PM
One of McCain's senior campaign people, is on MSNBC a lot, Steve Schmidt. His prognosis for Bernie's performance in the general was even more pessimistic than Kimon's, something not seen since the 80s. I think he said Bernie would win maybe Vermont and Washington State and the rest of the country would be red. I don't know if he said Washington, I think he mentioned a west coast state, and I don't think it was California. I really hope Bernie wins the nomination just so Schmidt can join the ranks of terribly bad election predictors.

Would that be the same Steve Schmidt that once thought adding Sarah Palin to a presidential ticket would be a "game changing" good idea? Yeah, why don't we not take advice from an idiot like him.

Also, California hasn't gone red since 1988...and it was carried by 23 pts in 2012. Its not going red no matter who is on the Dems ticket.

Ivhon
02-04-2016, 03:16 PM
/derail

Speaking of Sarah Palin....what dirt does she have over McCain? She has to....HAS TO...have humongous leverage over him. McCain is hardly softspoken about people he doesn't like....and yet nothing but kind words about her no matter how she provokes him

/rerail

There aren't very many Democrats who won't vote for Bernie if he's nominated. More that will stupidly not vote for Hillary. He'll carry every solid blue state quite easily against whomever. The question - which is absolutely unanswerable at this point - is how bad does the Socialist thing hurt him with swing voters. Who are not educated, motivated or discerning in general.

The Unreasoner
02-04-2016, 04:13 PM
I think Rubio has a decent chance at beating Sanders in CA, so long as no one pays too close attention to him before the nomination. Even more so if Bloomberg runs.

That said, I don't think he'll win the nomination. Bush is furious, Trump is stronger than most people believe, and Rubio is weaker.

Kimon
02-04-2016, 04:48 PM
There aren't very many Democrats who won't vote for Bernie if he's nominated. More that will stupidly not vote for Hillary. He'll carry every solid blue state quite easily against whomever. The question - which is absolutely unanswerable at this point - is how bad does the Socialist thing hurt him with swing voters. Who are not educated, motivated or discerning in general.

My concern isn't democrats, it's independents. I think Bernie has a lower ceiling that Hillary, just as Hillary has a much lower ceiling than Bill or Obama.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Bernie will get more than the 29% that Gallup most recently records as considering themselves Dems. But can he get the whole 45% that considers themselves as leaning dem? I think he tops out at around 40% of the populace. That will vary obviously from state to state too, but Mondale got nearly 41% in '84 when Reagon won everything but Minnesota. Dukakis got nearly 46% of the total vote but only won ten states and DC. I think most independents go red again if the nominee is Bernie.

Terez
02-04-2016, 04:53 PM
I like Rubio. I think he has a good shot in the general against either Hillary or Bernie. But CA? Explain how that works.

Bush's fury is not going to do him very much good in NH, if any. He may get people to like him more, because honestly, he's a lot more likable when he's struggling than, for example, Chris Christie.

Rubio is about as weak as everyone expects, which is why he hasn't done incredibly well in the polls thus far. His flip-flopping on immigration was terrible and very public and everyone knows about it. He is, however, the most likable candidate in the race, and not just because he's a pretty face. When he's not caught up in the sausage-making, he's a very down-to-earth, relatable person, and he's clearly very intelligent.

Most people who "lean Dem" are progressives who don't have the party loyalty, like Bernie himself. For those who lean Dem from the middle, how well Bernie does entirely depends on who the Republicans nominate.

The Unreasoner
02-04-2016, 05:09 PM
I think you'd be surprised how conservative some of our 'Democrats' really are. Many are just socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. If Rubio ditches the climate change denying nonsense (not likely since the Kochs own him) and comes back to sanity on immigration, California might be in play. And many of our minorities are socially conservative, they just don't vote Republican (usually because the GOP calls them rapists and criminals, or something like that).

Of course, Rubio has no backbone. I think Trump and Cruz will tear him apart at their leisure.

Even a brokered convention might not save him. IMO, Trump wins the brokered convention or the Establishment destroys the party.

Terez
02-04-2016, 05:29 PM
Even a brokered convention might not save him. IMO, Trump wins the brokered convention or the Establishment destroys the party.
Yeah, a brokered convention is definitely a Chinese finger trap for the GOP. It depends on who gets the plurality, though. If Trump and Cruz split the crazy and Rubio takes the Establishment vote, chances are he'll be the one with 40% or higher, and the GOP will be able to get away with picking him. If either Trump or Cruz has the plurality, though, they're in a very tough spot. I suspect if it goes to that, delegates will pick Rubio anyway, but the base will definitely not be happy about it.

Davian93
02-04-2016, 07:43 PM
/derail

Speaking of Sarah Palin....what dirt does she have over McCain? She has to....HAS TO...have humongous leverage over him. McCain is hardly softspoken about people he doesn't like....and yet nothing but kind words about her no matter how she provokes him

/rerail

There aren't very many Democrats who won't vote for Bernie if he's nominated. More that will stupidly not vote for Hillary. He'll carry every solid blue state quite easily against whomever. The question - which is absolutely unanswerable at this point - is how bad does the Socialist thing hurt him with swing voters. Who are not educated, motivated or discerning in general.

A lot of studies basically say that swing voters really don't exist anymore. There isn't any 20% that will think. its more like 3-5% at best. The country is more polarized now than any time in its history since the Civil War.

Davian93
02-04-2016, 07:46 PM
I think you'd be surprised how conservative some of our 'Democrats' really are. Many are just socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. If Rubio ditches the climate change denying nonsense (not likely since the Kochs own him) and comes back to sanity on immigration, California might be in play. And many of our minorities are socially conservative, they just don't vote Republican (usually because the GOP calls them rapists and criminals, or something like that).

Of course, Rubio has no backbone. I think Trump and Cruz will tear him apart at their leisure.

Even a brokered convention might not save him. IMO, Trump wins the brokered convention or the Establishment destroys the party.

As a white (sadly this matters) middle class warrior, you'd be surprised how strong Bernie could be. Think of him more as a New Deal Democrat (which is what he really is, not a Socialist) for appeal. There are a lot of pissed off but fairly progressive people that will vote for him on top of the traditional Dem base that will never vote for Rubio, Cruz or Trump. He won't have to deal with the race issues that Obama dealt with too with those conservative Dems that either stayed home or grudgingly voted for Romney or McCain.

Terez
02-04-2016, 09:21 PM
A lot of studies basically say that swing voters really don't exist anymore. There isn't any 20% that will think. its more like 3-5% at best. The country is more polarized now than any time in its history since the Civil War.
Yeah, the studies say that the myth of swing voters is perpetuated by turnout swings. There aren't a lot of people waffling between the Democratic and Republican parties; there are a lot of people who either show up or don't. People are motivated by different things, and whether they show up often depends on the candidates running.

Davian93
02-04-2016, 09:37 PM
Yeah, the studies say that the myth of swing voters is perpetuated by turnout swings. There aren't a lot of people waffling between the Democratic and Republican parties; there are a lot of people who either show up or don't. People are motivated by different things, and whether they show up often depends on the candidates running.

Dem voters very reliably show up every 4 years in presidential elections and that's it. Off year elections are lucky to get 40% turnout which is why the state governorships and legislatures are utterly dominated by the GOP.

Terez
02-04-2016, 11:34 PM
Tonight's debate was better than I expected. I haven't watched any of the Dem debates thus far; I tried to watch the first one but it was just too difficult; Bernie was embarrassingly awkward and Hillary was embarrassingly combative. I turned it off within 15 minutes. They were both much improved on those points tonight.

I would enjoy MSNBC much more without Chris Matthews. I'm watching the after-debate and I just want to set him on fire. Terrible, I know, but that's how mad he makes me. Whenever he's hosting, no one ever finishes a sentence. It's like a rule he has; he never lets anyone finish. And he ends his show with a segment called "Let Me Finish". Irony must sell. Sometimes I accidentally catch that segment when I'm watching Chris Hayes, and I have to mute it.

Southpaw2012
02-05-2016, 02:46 PM
Who do I think will get the nomination? Trump
Who do I want to get the nomination? Cruz or Rubio

Clinton and Sanders are mind-numbingly stupid, but Trump is scary. Ironically, I'd rather have Biden come in and steal the nomination from Clinton (or Sanders). He makes stupid statements here and there, as G.W. did, but he's not a crook, unlike Hillary. He's also not an economically illiterate, far left moron like Sanders. If it was Trump vs. Biden, I would honestly have to think about it.

Nazbaque
02-05-2016, 04:20 PM
Who do I think will get the nomination? Trump
Who do I want to get the nomination? Cruz or Rubio

Clinton and Sanders are mind-numbingly stupid, but Trump is scary. Ironically, I'd rather have Biden come in and steal the nomination from Clinton (or Sanders). He makes stupid statements here and there, as G.W. did, but he's not a crook, unlike Hillary. He's also not an economically illiterate, far left moron like Sanders. If it was Trump vs. Biden, I would honestly have to think about it.

There are so many ironies in that bolded sentence that it's actually pretty impressive.

Kimon
02-05-2016, 04:53 PM
There are so many ironies in that bolded sentence that it's actually pretty impressive.

Republicans have short memories and so tend to conveniently forget the alarmingly high correlation between Republican administrations and economic catastrophe. Every Republican Administration of the 20th and 21st Centuries with but two exceptions - Teddy Roosevelt, who was a progressive, and Eisenhower, who sponsored massive domestic spending (the highways) and warned of defense spending. Certainly two presidents who no longer seem much like today's Republicans. And even with Bernie's calls for raising taxes on the rich, he has made clear that he doesn't want them to be as high as that top income tax rate under Ike - of 91%. Most Republicans today would probably call both Ike and Teddy socialists.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

Nazbaque
02-05-2016, 05:06 PM
Republicans have short memories and so tend to conveniently forget the alarmingly high correlation between Republican administrations and economic catastrophe. Every Republican Administration of the 20th and 21st Centuries with but two exceptions - Teddy Roosevelt, who was a progressive, and Eisenhower, who sponsored massive domestic spending (the highways) and warned of defense spending. Certainly two presidents who no longer seem much like today's Republicans. And even with Bernie's calls for raising taxes on the rich, he has made clear that he doesn't want them to be as high as that top income tax rate under Ike - of 91%. Most Republicans today would probably call both Ike and Teddy socialists.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

They have memories? I thought they operate on pure gut instinct.

Southpaw2012
02-06-2016, 12:54 PM
Republicans have short memories and so tend to conveniently forget the alarmingly high correlation between Republican administrations and economic catastrophe. Every Republican Administration of the 20th and 21st Centuries with but two exceptions - Teddy Roosevelt, who was a progressive, and Eisenhower, who sponsored massive domestic spending (the highways) and warned of defense spending. Certainly two presidents who no longer seem much like today's Republicans. And even with Bernie's calls for raising taxes on the rich, he has made clear that he doesn't want them to be as high as that top income tax rate under Ike - of 91%. Most Republicans today would probably call both Ike and Teddy socialists.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

This actually sums up beliefs:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/five-things-millennials-should-understand-about-constitutional-conservatism/

I don't think many Republicans today, unless you look at establishment phonies such as McCain, think favorably of those two presidents you mentioned.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 01:29 PM
This actually sums up beliefs:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/five-things-millennials-should-understand-about-constitutional-conservatism/

I don't think many Republicans today, unless you look at establishment phonies such as McCain, think favorably of those two presidents you mentioned.

Southpaw the person who wrote that is not an adult. They may have reached the age but they do not have the mental maturity.

Kimon
02-06-2016, 02:20 PM
This actually sums up beliefs:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/five-things-millennials-should-understand-about-constitutional-conservatism/

I don't think many Republicans today, unless you look at establishment phonies such as McCain, think favorably of those two presidents you mentioned.

The fact that you disdain a pragmatist like McCain, or that you link to The Blaze, honestly is enough to make me question why I'm bothering to reply, but...

Bernie Sanders preaches a very clear message of solutions to what we’re all experiencing—especially those of us just now coming of age, and who have no concept of anything but a crappy economy and crippling, burdensome debt.

His promises bring hope to a generation that’s scared to death about its future.

He talks a lot about all the free stuff you’re going to GET.

Here's the thing. We're not asking for free stuff. We're asking that our taxes be spent on things we care about. I'm not getting any government handouts. I just want my taxes spent on infrastructure and maintaining the funding of Social Security (which I'm paying into) rather than on expensive and counter-productive wars overseas. And on that same point, I'd rather that my taxes also go to help fund welfare programs here than fund military misadventures abroad, because those welfare programs help maintain the health of our body politic, and hence help maintain the health of our own economy. Which makes it money much more well spent in my opinion.

There’s nothing wrong with needing a helping hand when there’s nowhere else to turn. But here’s the bottom line: We don’t want people trapped in an endless cycle of government benevolence where they are dependent on the government to give them more; dependent on the government to force some employer to pay them more; dependent on the government to force that employer to provide them with the benefits they need.

We hear a lot about what the government should give to the poor. When we do hear about how the poor will be raised up OUT of welfare? OUT of a minimum wage job? OUT of a Medicaid situation?

A lot of the people on welfare programs, like the majority on food stamps, are working. They just aren't making enough to get by. Which is why we on the left support both raising the minimum wage, and support things like food stamps, which is money that is funneled back into the economy, thus a net benefit both for those receiving them, and for the economy because they are spending money. And that says nothing about other welfare programs like Social Security, which again, is not a free handout, they paid into it, and it helps curtail poverty amongst the elderly, thus benefiting society as a whole.

Look, we don’t care about who you’re sleeping with. I mean, sure, many of us may have religious convictions about it, but really, we largely don’t care. We may try to convince you of that conviction, but ultimately it’s your business. We also don’t care if you want to celebrate that love with a big, beautiful ceremony and party.

But is it really constitutionally, justifiably fair to force someone whose religious beliefs say otherwise to lend their personal business, property or talent to it? And is it constitutionally justifiable to force a religion to redefine its institution because society has decided it’s no longer that religion’s business?

And it’s not just about marriage and homosexuality. When it’s ok to tell people that they MUST not only accept a certain view, but set their own aside in the process, who says where it all ends? And if you don’t have a Constitution that backs up a set of stationary rights, (see No. 1) what are your rights at all?

BS. Stop shoving your religion down everyone else's throat. For the party that is constantly harping about the danger's of sharia law, it is quite ironic that they are also the one imposing the Christian version of sharia law on all of the rest of us.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 02:44 PM
It's hard to take Southpaw and the people who write what he parrots seriously when the basic math seems to fail them. They talk balanced budgets, but they are incapable of actually producing a budget proposal that they can get behind.

The only one in the GOP who actually seems to be more than grandstanding with this BS is Ryan, who produced a plan that most in the GOP hate.

As for 'conservatism', at least as far as this retarded Buzzfeed writer seems to understand it, I'll quote the greatest president in US history (a Republican!):

"Fuck Habeas Corpus. Reality intrudes."

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 02:50 PM
Speaking of Sarah Palin....what dirt does she have over McCain? She has to....HAS TO...have humongous leverage over him. McCain is hardly softspoken about people he doesn't like....and yet nothing but kind words about her no matter how she provokes him
I meant to reply earlier to this:

She knows that when he was running for president in '08 he chose a wildly incompetent running mate without any vetting. If people found out, it would reflect badly on him.

Southpaw2012
02-06-2016, 03:01 PM
TheBlaze is more reliable and accurate than the garage the leftist media spews on a daily basis.

As to Sanders, here is one of many economists who disagrees with your assessment of Sanders government takeover plan.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/06/who-pays-bernie-sanders-free-college-proposal

Davian93
02-06-2016, 03:15 PM
TheBlaze is more reliable and accurate than the garage the leftist media spews on a daily basis.

As to Sanders, here is one of many economists who disagrees with your assessment of Sanders government takeover plan.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/06/who-pays-bernie-sanders-free-college-proposal

Yeah, I mean that Glenn Beck is a paragon of journalistic insight:

https://lynnrockets.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/glenn-beck-cant-spell.jpg?w=604
This is the guy you look up to, Southpaw. He's an utter moron and pathetic opportunistic shill. Is he still hawking gold on late night tv?

Southpaw2012
02-06-2016, 03:15 PM
The fact that you disdain a pragmatist like McCain, or that you link to The Blaze, honestly is enough to make me question why I'm bothering to reply, but...



Here's the thing. We're not asking for free stuff. We're asking that our taxes be spent on things we care about. I'm not getting any government handouts. I just want my taxes spent on infrastructure and maintaining the funding of Social Security (which I'm paying into) rather than on expensive and counter-productive wars overseas. And on that same point, I'd rather that my taxes also go to help fund welfare programs here than fund military misadventures abroad, because those welfare programs help maintain the health of our body politic, and hence help maintain the health of our own economy. Which makes it money much more well spent in my opinion.



A lot of the people on welfare programs, like the majority on food stamps, are working. They just aren't making enough to get by. Which is why we on the left support both raising the minimum wage, and support things like food stamps, which is money that is funneled back into the economy, thus a net benefit both for those receiving them, and for the economy because they are spending money. And that says nothing about other welfare programs like Social Security, which again, is not a free handout, they paid into it, and it helps curtail poverty amongst the elderly, thus benefiting society as a whole.



BS. Stop shoving your religion down everyone else's throat. For the party that is constantly harping about the danger's of sharia law, it is quite ironic that they are also the one imposing the Christian version of sharia law on all of the rest of us.


And how is Christianity being imposed like Sharia? Are people being killed for not worshipping? Are people being enslaved? I would say the attack on Christianity in this country is the non-violent equivalent to what's going on in the ME, punishing those who want to do or not do something based on faith.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 03:18 PM
The equivalent would be if we argued your points and quoted Bill Maher as our "expert"...when most reasonable people think he's just as much of a jackass hack as your boy Beck.

Try thinking for yourself for once in your damn life.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 03:20 PM
And how is Christianity being imposed like Sharia? Are people being killed for not worshipping? Are people being enslaved? I would say the attack on Christianity in this country is the non-violent equivalent to what's going on in the ME, punishing those who want to do or not do something based on faith.

Well, for one, nobody has or would ever impose Sharia law in the US...while hundreds of right wing politicians continually try to impose what they think is Christian law on the country on a daily basis...whether its keeping a braindead woman alive for years in Florida (Hi Jeb!) or passing laws to shut down Planned Parenthood in Texas (how's that working out by the way?...oh wait, there's been a 27% increase in medicaid funded births now that contraception isn't easily available.)

Kimon
02-06-2016, 03:21 PM
As to Sanders, here is one of many economists who disagrees with your assessment of Sanders government takeover plan.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/06/who-pays-bernie-sanders-free-college-proposal

I neither mentioned free college nor support it. I'd support reforming college loans, and I'd support increasing public funding for universities - part of the reason for why tuition has increased so much is the dramatic decrease in public funding.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/01/05/students-cover-more-of-their-public-university-tuition-now-than-state-governments/

It used to be that attending a public university all but guaranteed graduating with little to no debt. State governments funneled enough money into higher education that families could send their kids to a local school without worrying about taking out a second mortgage or private loans to pay their way.

Not so anymore. These days students pay more of the cost of attending public universities than state governments, a shift that is making college less affordable, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report.

This is the problem that I want addressed. Not free college, but a return to levels of public funding that existed in the past so as to lessen the debt burden accrued by many in attaining their college degree. And, alongside that, reforming college loans so as to make repaying that debt less crippling as well.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 03:23 PM
You want to fix college funding? Make student loans dischargable through a Chapter 07 Bankruptcy. Two things would happen if you did this:

1. A lifetime of debt could be wiped away for the idiot philosophy major that decided to get a doctorate.

2. Lenders would be less willing to lend money if there was a chance it wasn't a permanent form of financial indentured servitude.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 03:24 PM
Also, FWIW, I think public college should be free if you can qualify...not for all but for those that earn it through grades, etc. But then, I'm a bit more liberal than Kimon.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 03:29 PM
I wonder if Southpaw is employable, frankly. He has never (never) demonstrated any ability to think for himself.

I guess I pity him a bit, but willful stupidity should be painful.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 03:31 PM
I wonder if Southpaw is employable, frankly. He has never (never) demonstrated any ability to think for himself.

I guess I pity him a bit, but willful stupidity should be painful.

I would bet he's not as bad as you think if you met him in real life. The internet tends to bring people to the extremes in arguments. He's a bit sheltered and ignorant to reality but I don't think he's unsalvageable as a person. I mean, if sociopath assholes like Ted Cruz are employable, why not Southpaw who isn't nearly that bad?

Kimon
02-06-2016, 03:35 PM
Also, FWIW, I think public college should be free if you can qualify...not for all but for those that earn it through grades, etc. But then, I'm a bit more liberal than Kimon.

That would require something akin to the German model, in which case you'd be funneling the vast majority of the population into trade schools, and you'd be closing, or converting, a lot of universities. I suppose that would have meant I would have gotten free college at the University of Michigan, but do you close MSU and every other university in the state? Does MSU, Western, Central, et alia become trade schools? Are they free trade schools? Subsidized? Do you alter the composition of high schools as well? Do you create American versions of the German gymnasia? Do the MSU, WMU, CMU types get pushed into Hauptschule? Do the Community College types get pushed into Realschule? How many parents sue the government urging that this is discrimination?

It just strikes me as too dramatic a change. Just restore the lost public funding so that we can make college more affordable again.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 03:37 PM
That would require something akin to the German model, in which case you'd be funneling the vast majority of the population into trade schools, and you'd be closing, or converting, a lot of universities. I suppose that would have meant I would have gotten free college at the University of Michigan, but do you close MSU and every other university in the state? Does MSU, Western, Central, et alia become trade schools? Are they free trade schools? Subsidized? Do you alter the composition of high schools as well? Do you create American versions of the German gymnasia? Do the MSU, WMU, CMU types get pushed into Hauptschule? Do the Community College types get pushed into Realschule? How many parents sue the government urging that this is discrimination?

It just strikes me as too dramatic a change. Just restore the lost public funding so that we can make college more affordable again.

Its not something that would or could happen overnight obviously but there are plenty of kids in college right now or just out of college that likely should never have gone. Going into a trade is and should be a honorable, decent paying alternative to muddling through 4 years at a public school.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 03:40 PM
I also tend to think we should have mandatory public service of some sort too...whether its picking up trash on the highway or joining the military or anything in between.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 03:49 PM
I also tend to think we should have mandatory public service of some sort too...whether its picking up trash on the highway or joining the military or anything in between.

Why?

Davian93
02-06-2016, 03:51 PM
Why?

Remind people there are actual obligations to being a citizen instead of only wanting whatever they can get out of it. That's an issue on both sides of the political fence in the US.

And we'd get cleaner roads and maybe some fixed up national parks.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 04:01 PM
Remind people there are actual obligations to being a citizen instead of only wanting whatever they can get out of it. That's an issue on both sides of the political fence in the US.

And we'd get cleaner roads and maybe some fixed up national parks.

Ah. Well there were other potential reasons so asked for clarification. But there are some pretty huge downsides to that system especially when you aren't right next door to Russia and need to keep an army and haven't been keeping that system going by the force of tradition.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 04:15 PM
Ah. Well there were other potential reasons so asked for clarification. But there are some pretty huge downsides to that system especially when you aren't right next door to Russia and need to keep an army and haven't been keeping that system going by the force of tradition.

One option I'd see is to use it as a way to "pay" for college...give the State 2 years and get 4 years of public schooling paid for...or 1 for 2, etc. I know it can be a bit fascist to do that sort of public service but it could have some good upsides despite it likely costing money in the long run.

Frenzy
02-06-2016, 04:32 PM
This would be amusing if it weren't so damn easy.
And how is Christianity being imposed like Sharia?
Arizona lawmaker wants church attendance to be mandatory (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/arizona-lawmaker-church-attendance-mandatory-article-1.2164602)

Are people being killed for not worshipping?
Atheist woman murdered in Arizona for not believing in god (http://www.inquisitr.com/2664200/atheist-woman-murdered-in-arizona-for-not-believing-in-god/)


Are people being enslaved?
Google 'Human Trafficking in the US' and weep.

I would say the attack on Christianity in this country is the non-violent equivalent to what's going on in the ME, punishing those who want to do or not do something based on faith.
The only attack on Christianity in the US is a combination of no longer being the Majority, and actually being held to the CENTURIES-old standards of separation of Church and state & lack of religious tests. It's the equivalent of a toddler temper tantrum because other people want to share the ball and they're actually having to follow the rules now.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 04:36 PM
One option I'd see is to use it as a way to "pay" for college...give the State 2 years and get 4 years of public schooling paid for...or 1 for 2, etc. I know it can be a bit fascist to do that sort of public service but it could have some good upsides despite it likely costing money in the long run.

By itself good but the word "mandatory" is getting in the way. Because that mandatory should apply to everyone including people who wouldn't benefit from college or can afford better (or whose parents can afford it anyway). Make it so that those who can't serve for medical reasons have to pay extra taxes to get out of it and you've got the ingrates coming and going. This is true patriotism. How can Republicans object?

Davian93
02-06-2016, 04:46 PM
By itself good but the word "mandatory" is getting in the way. Because that mandatory should apply to everyone including people who wouldn't benefit from college or can afford better (or whose parents can afford it anyway). Make it so that those who can't serve for medical reasons have to pay extra taxes to get out of it and you've got the ingrates coming and going. This is true patriotism. How can Republicans object?

There area almost always ways to serve regardless of disabilities, etc but yeah making it completely mandatory might be a stretch of course.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 05:01 PM
There area almost always ways to serve regardless of disabilities, etc but yeah making it completely mandatory might be a stretch of course.

The idea is that some people are not living the glorious lives which their country made possible for most of its citizens and therefore do not owe it servitude.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 05:04 PM
The idea is that some people are not living the glorious lives which their country made possible for most of its citizens and therefore do not owe it servitude.

Belonging to a society means we get both benefits and owe obligations. In an ideal setup at least.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 05:13 PM
Belonging to a society means we get both benefits and owe obligations. In an ideal setup at least.

And it goes both ways so that when some aren't getting the benefits they don't owe obligations. It's the karma type of government.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 05:20 PM
And it goes both ways so that when some aren't getting the benefits they don't owe obligations. It's the karma type of government.

I agree...my country's gov't has gone the other way for far too long. We need a return to the New Deal ideals. We need to focus on our social programs and our infrastructure. The water crisis in Flint is just one of thousands throughout the US but none of that or our failing roads, bridges, rail services, and other key infrastructure make the news as its not sexy enough.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 05:23 PM
I agree...my country's gov't has gone the other way for far too long. We need a return to the New Deal ideals. We need to focus on our social programs and our infrastructure. The water crisis in Flint is just one of thousands throughout the US but none of that or our failing roads, bridges, rail services, and other key infrastructure make the news as its not sexy enough.

Last Week Tonight?

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 05:26 PM
Last Week Tonight?
Or everyone Oliver quoted...

Davian93
02-06-2016, 05:27 PM
Last Week Tonight?

LOL...haven't watched that in a while but I'm not surprised John Oliver mentioned something similar. Its a blatantly obvious problem in the US sadly. In VT alone, something like 70% of our bridges need serious repairs and there simply isn't money to do it. We focus on the worst of the worst. We have the same issues with water cleanliness and various superfund sites that are still pending cleanup of dangerous heavy metals 30-40 years after the factories that put them there have closed.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 05:29 PM
Or everyone Oliver quoted...

Well the people who make that show are pretty good at catching the patterns of stupidity.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 05:32 PM
LOL...haven't watched that in a while but I'm not surprised John Oliver mentioned something similar. Its a blatantly obvious problem in the US sadly. In VT alone, something like 70% of our bridges need serious repairs and there simply isn't money to do it. We focus on the worst of the worst. We have the same issues with water cleanliness and various superfund sites that are still pending cleanup of dangerous heavy metals 30-40 years after the factories that put them there have closed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpzvaqypav8

I've been a bit addicted lately

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 07:01 PM
I would bet he's not as bad as you think if you met him in real life. The internet tends to bring people to the extremes in arguments. He's a bit sheltered and ignorant to reality but I don't think he's unsalvageable as a person. I mean, if sociopath assholes like Ted Cruz are employable, why not Southpaw who isn't nearly that bad?
So I've been sifting through LU after seeing that last one and came across this one:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/1f3bfed2bbd3a2a9a85efd1ebb9a4e67/tumblr_mryld8Mlvb1qkt6yoo1_500.png

I guess more the article than the comment, but idk how to post an article w/ picture normally.

But it has a point. Perhaps I should give him more credit.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 07:17 PM
Okay, one more:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/133982df098150f365c34cda7f115391/tumblr_motfbyUv9P1qkt6yoo1_500.png

Explains the Trump phenomenon...

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 07:30 PM
So the Americans wouldn't mind a king so long as he's not black?

Terez
02-06-2016, 08:52 PM
Rubio just got killed by Chris Christie at the NH debate, which has barely started. Killed. It won't help Christie, so the question is, if Rubio can't recover from this tonight, who emerges as the establishment favorite on Tuesday?

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 09:32 PM
Rubio just got killed by Chris Christie at the NH debate, which has barely started. Killed. It won't help Christie, so the question is, if Rubio can't recover from this tonight, who emerges as the establishment favorite on Tuesday?
Trump. Not on Tuesday, because Bush will at least stay in until South Carolina. And Rubio has proved himself weak and vulnerable, though he'll stick around until the end. They'll make a pragmatic decision, and conclude that while Trump may be amenable, Cruz is a sociopathic opportunist.

If three (or even two, possibly) of the Establishment candidates stay through Super Tuesday, Trump will win. Many of those states are winner take all, not proportional, in terms of awarding delegates. They'll line up behind Trump after that.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 09:41 PM
Rubio just got killed by Chris Christie at the NH debate, which has barely started. Killed. It won't help Christie, so the question is, if Rubio can't recover from this tonight, who emerges as the establishment favorite on Tuesday?

Der FuhrerTrump

Terez
02-06-2016, 09:45 PM
Trump doesn't count as establishment, even if he benefits the most from Rubio's wounds tonight. The establishment choices are Rubio, Bush, Christie, and Kasich. Will Rubio stay on top of that particular pack, or will someone else benefit? Kasich seems to be in a decent position to benefit from the polls, but I'm not sure his performance tonight is helping him all that much. (Or hurting him all that much.)

Southpaw2012
02-06-2016, 09:48 PM
This would be amusing if it weren't so damn easy.

Arizona lawmaker wants church attendance to be mandatory (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/arizona-lawmaker-church-attendance-mandatory-article-1.2164602)


Atheist woman murdered in Arizona for not believing in god (http://www.inquisitr.com/2664200/atheist-woman-murdered-in-arizona-for-not-believing-in-god/)



Google 'Human Trafficking in the US' and weep.


The only attack on Christianity in the US is a combination of no longer being the Majority, and actually being held to the CENTURIES-old standards of separation of Church and state & lack of religious tests. It's the equivalent of a toddler temper tantrum because other people want to share the ball and they're actually having to follow the rules now.

Those who kill for not believing in God aren't true Christians. Read the Bible and look where Jesus says to do a thing like that. Now go read the Quaran and Hadith and see what Muhammed has to say.

The separation of church and state is a bs myth taken from a letter Jefferson wrote. Jefferson who wasn't even at the Constitutional convention nor the drafting of the First Amendment. The only thing the government can't do, historically speaking, is impose national law favoring a religion. I haven't heard any candidate preach that. Displaying your faith isn't violating anything. The way the First Amendment has been interpreted is inaccurate in the case of history and has been misinterpreted by bs progressive policies. America was built on Christian-Judeo principles, and that's a fact. No candidate has proposed using the government to take out other faiths, unless you look at the president in office now and what he's done against Christians.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 09:54 PM
Those who kill for not believing in God aren't true Christians. Read the Bible and look where Jesus says to do a thing like that. Now go read the Quaran and Hadith and see what Muhammed has to say.

The separation of church and state is a bs myth taken from a letter Jefferson wrote. Jefferson who wasn't even at the Constitutional convention nor the drafting of the First Amendment. The only thing the government can't do, historically speaking, is impose national law favoring a religion. I haven't heard any candidate preach that. Displaying your faith isn't violating anything. The way the First Amendment has been interpreted is inaccurate in the case of history and has been misinterpreted by bs progressive policies. America was built on Christian-Judeo principles, and that's a fact. No candidate has proposed using the government to take out other faiths, unless you look at the president in office now and what he's done against Christians.

And here we have the tantrum Frenzy mentioned.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 09:54 PM
@ Terez
You're assuming that there will be any Establishment consensus on Tuesday. I think they will mostly be mute, until and unless one of their own emerges from the fray.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 09:56 PM
Oh for fuck's sake, Southpaw.

A better response would have been: that killing was not state-sanctioned.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 10:01 PM
unless you look at the president in office now and what he's done against Christians.

Citation needed...



Also, since you brought it up...a quick excerpt from the Treaty of Tripoli which was written by many of those same Founders and then ratified by them as well as many were sitting Senators in 1797:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"

Also, James Madison can be quoted repeatedly on the requirement for separating church and state and I'm pretty damn sure he was a little part of drafting of the Constitution.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 10:03 PM
Oh for fuck's sake, Southpaw.

A better response would have been: that killing was not state-sanctioned.

The scary thing is that he's in school to be a lawyer and he doesn't understand basic concepts regarding the Constitution that a freshman Constitutional Law student would be able to understand.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 10:07 PM
The scary thing is that he's in school to be a lawyer and he doesn't understand basic concepts regarding the Constitution that a freshman Constitutional Law student would be able to understand.
I think it's a little sad. But, as you pointed out, his heroes have set a rather low bar.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 10:14 PM
I think it's a little sad. But, as you pointed out, his heroes have set a rather low bar.

pun detected! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU)

Kimon
02-06-2016, 10:14 PM
Trump doesn't count as establishment, even if he benefits the most from Rubio's wounds tonight. The establishment choices are Rubio, Bush, Christie, and Kasich. Will Rubio stay on top of that particular pack, or will someone else benefit? Kasich seems to be in a decent position to benefit from the polls, but I'm not sure his performance tonight is helping him all that much. (Or hurting him all that much.)

Kasich at this point just feels like he is positioning himself for VP.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 10:15 PM
Kasich at this point just feels like he is positioning himself for VP.

GOP cannot win election without Ohio. Sure, they can lose even if they win Ohio but the math is impossible without Ohio turning red.

Thus, having him on the ticket would make a ton of sense.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 10:23 PM
GOP cannot win election without Ohio. Sure, they can lose even if they win Ohio but the math is impossible without Ohio turning red.

Thus, having him on the ticket would make a ton of sense.
Do you think he'd even accept the job of running mate if Cruz or Trump wins the nomination?

Davian93
02-06-2016, 10:25 PM
Do you think he'd even accept the job of running mate if Cruz or Trump wins the nomination?

Stranger things have happened. I think he'd probably consider it if it was offered.

For example, Bush Sr. absolutely despised Reagan and thought he was a jumped up actor without real republican convictions but he ended up as his VP in 1980.

Kimon
02-06-2016, 10:34 PM
Those who kill for not believing in God aren't true Christians. Read the Bible and look where Jesus says to do a thing like that. Now go read the Quaran and Hadith and see what Muhammed has to say.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

The only thing the government can't do, historically speaking, is impose national law favoring a religion. I haven't heard any candidate preach that.

Eisenhower signed P.L. 84-140 on July 30, 1956, declaring that "In God We Trust" must appear on all currency. I'm an agnostic. I find its presence offensive. If you want to believe in Jehovah, or in some other deity or deities in the privacy of your own home, that's perfectly fine with me, but it should be a private matter, not an official imposition, and sponsorship by the state. I feel likewise that the addition of the phrase "under God" to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 is not just offensive, but should be deemed unconstitutional. Moreover, federal officials, like Kim Davis, have the right to personally and privately disapprove gay marriage, but they do not have the right to refuse to do their job on the basis of religious beliefs. If she found herself incapable of performing her obligations to the state she should have resigned, but she did not have the right to use her personal religious beliefs to place herself above the law.

Render onto Caesar. And on that note...

America was built on Christian-Judeo principles, and that's a fact.

This is not as true as many seem to insist. Our system owes some to Christianity, but in many ways more to the Romans, who only converted after their fall from grace, and to the Danes, via the Danelaw.

Southpaw2012
02-06-2016, 10:42 PM
Strong answer by Rubio calling ISIS an apocalyptic army. That's a strong difference from progressives who have labeled them as a group of economically deprived individuals looking for attention.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 10:44 PM
Strong answer by Rubio calling ISIS an apocalyptic army. That's a strong difference from progressives who have labeled them as a group of economically deprived individuals looking for attention.

Way to not answer any of the actual counterpoints and prop up a straw man there.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 10:46 PM
‘This Will Be The End Of Trump’s Campaign,’ Says Increasingly Nervous Man For Seventh Time This Year

http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/5217/3/16x9/608.jpg


NEWS IN BRIEF (http://www.theonion.com/features/news-in-brief) December 8, 2015
Vol 51 Issue 49 (http://www.theonion.com/issue/5149/) · Politics (http://www.theonion.com/tag/politics) · Politicians (http://www.theonion.com/tag/politicians) · Election 2016 (http://www.theonion.com/tag/election-2016) · Donald Trump (http://www.theonion.com/tag/donald-trump)




SALISBURY, MD—Repeating identical comments he had made in June, July, August, September, and twice in November, increasingly nervous local man Aaron Howe responded to Donald Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. Monday by once again stating this would be the end of the Republican frontrunner’s campaign, sources confirmed. “Well, that’s it—you just can’t say those kinds of things and expect to be taken seriously any longer,” said an anxious Howe, his voice quavering slightly as he spoke aloud the very same words he had previously uttered in reaction to remarks about Mexicans, women, the disabled, former POW John McCain, and a number of other targeted parties. “That’s the final nail in the coffin right there. There’s no way he’s coming back from this one.” At press time, a visibly tense Howe was steadily amassing the angst and exasperation that would be unleashed in his seventh expletive-filled exclamation of the year when he catches sight of the newest set of GOP poll numbers.

ETA:
I guess it works to just copy and paste the whole thing.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 10:47 PM
Strong answer by Rubio calling ISIS an apocalyptic army. That's a strong difference from progressives who have labeled them as a group of economically deprived individuals looking for attention.

Funny, the Pentagon also thinks that but what would they know about the causes of it, eh? Its not like they're professionals or something.

Also, ISIS is EXACTLY what tends to happen when you kick over the previous power authority in a region and then leave a vacuum in its place. Its not as if this is a new concept. You'd know that if you had any grasp whatsoever of history.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 10:48 PM
‘This Will Be The End Of Trump’s Campaign,’ Says Increasingly Nervous Man For Seventh Time This Year

http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/5217/3/16x9/608.jpg


NEWS IN BRIEF (http://www.theonion.com/features/news-in-brief) December 8, 2015
Vol 51 Issue 49 (http://www.theonion.com/issue/5149/) · Politics (http://www.theonion.com/tag/politics) · Politicians (http://www.theonion.com/tag/politicians) · Election 2016 (http://www.theonion.com/tag/election-2016) · Donald Trump (http://www.theonion.com/tag/donald-trump)




SALISBURY, MD—Repeating identical comments he had made in June, July, August, September, and twice in November, increasingly nervous local man Aaron Howe responded to Donald Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. Monday by once again stating this would be the end of the Republican frontrunner’s campaign, sources confirmed. “Well, that’s it—you just can’t say those kinds of things and expect to be taken seriously any longer,” said an anxious Howe, his voice quavering slightly as he spoke aloud the very same words he had previously uttered in reaction to remarks about Mexicans, women, the disabled, former POW John McCain, and a number of other targeted parties. “That’s the final nail in the coffin right there. There’s no way he’s coming back from this one.” At press time, a visibly tense Howe was steadily amassing the angst and exasperation that would be unleashed in his seventh expletive-filled exclamation of the year when he catches sight of the newest set of GOP poll numbers.

ETA:
I guess it works to just copy and paste the whole thing.

I get that Onion article on my twitter feed probably 2-3 times a week and I laugh every single time I see it.

Southpaw2012
02-06-2016, 10:49 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o



Eisenhower signed P.L. 84-140 on July 30, 1956, declaring that "In God We Trust" must appear on all currency. I'm an agnostic. I find its presence offensive. If you want to believe in Jehovah, or in some other deity or deities in the privacy of your own home, that's perfectly fine with me, but it should be a private matter, not an official imposition, and sponsorship by the state. I feel likewise that the addition of the phrase "under God" to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 is not just offensive, but should be deemed unconstitutional. Moreover, federal officials, like Kim Davis, have the right to personally and privately disapprove gay marriage, but they do not have the right to refuse to do their job on the basis of religious beliefs. If she found herself incapable of performing her obligations to the state she should have resigned, but she did not have the right to use her personal religious beliefs to place herself above the law.

Render onto Caesar. And on that note...



This is not as true as many seem to insist. Our system owes some to Christianity, but in many ways more to the Romans, who only converted after their fall from grace, and to the Danes, via the Danelaw.

The government should have made accommodations for Kim Davis's religious beliefs. That was a failure on the governments part. What's truly horrific is what they have done to bakers.

As for Christianity, it's always amazing to see the liberal media poke fun of Jesus, yet God-forbid they make fun of Mohammed... They'd lose their hands for that.. Literally.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 10:52 PM
The government should have made accommodations for Kim Davis's religious beliefs. That was a failure on the governments part. What's truly horrific is what they have done to bakers.

As for Christianity, it's always amazing to see the liberal media poke fun of Jesus, yet God-forbid they make fun of Mohammed... They'd lose their hands for that.. Literally.

Hey look kids, another straw man...

Also, she should have done her job since she's not performing the marriage, just saying they meet the LEGAL requirements to get a license. Did she pass judgment on every hetero couple that wanted a license or question their beliefs before issuing it? No? Because she's a fucking hypocrite in her job and in her life.

Nobody asked her to approve, they just asked her to do her job as county clerk and issue a freaking license. A clerk has one damn job...check to see if they boxes are all checked and if so, ISSUE THE FUCKING LICENSE REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS FOR FROM A DOG LICENSE TO A MARRIAGE LICENSE.

Kimon
02-06-2016, 10:53 PM
The government should have made accommodations for Kim Davis's religious beliefs. That was a failure on the governments part. What's truly horrific is what they have done to bakers.

As for Christianity, it's always amazing to see the liberal media poke fun of Jesus, yet God-forbid they make fun of Mohammed... They'd lose their hands for that.. Literally.

Should Kim Davis have the right to refuse to sign a marriage license for an agnostic or atheist couple? Or for an interracial couple? If not in those instances, why for a gay couple? Their marriage is legal too. Why should she have a religious right to deny them service? And as for a random hypothetical baker, should said baker be allowed to refuse to serve a black couple? A Muslim couple?

Davian93
02-06-2016, 10:55 PM
On the baker thing...I know this is hard for you to understand but you aren't allowed to discriminate against a protected class just because of your beliefs. Those bakers would have had to make a cake for a black couple or a mixed race couple too...or any other protected class.

You'd think an aspiring law student would understand the basic concepts of that sort of thing.

You run a public business, you have to make certain sacrifices like not being a bigoted asshole towards your customers.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 10:55 PM
I get that Onion article on my twitter feed probably 2-3 times a week and I laugh every single time I see it.
It's probably the best article so far for the 2016 election. Just hilarious.
What's truly horrific is what they have done to bakers.


Lmao...

Davian93
02-06-2016, 10:57 PM
Should Kim Davis have the right to refuse to sign a marriage license for an agnostic or atheist couple? Or for an interracial couple? If not in those instances, why for a gay couple? Their marriage is legal too. Why should she have a religious right to deny them service? And as for a random hypothetical baker, should said baker be allowed to refuse to serve a black couple? A Muslim couple?

Yet I bet she had no problem eating at Red Lobster or wearing mixed fibers...I'm no expert but I'm guessing some of those long-sleeve/short sleeve t-shirt getups she had were poly/cotton blends. Last I checked my Old Testament, we were allowed to stone her for that sin along with the shellfish she ate. Bet she ate pork a lot too...another sin. We know she was an adulterer and lived in sin repeatedly that way too. So we really should get a posse together and go have ourselves a good old-fashioned hanging. God would want us to.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 11:00 PM
Here's a fun fact Southpaw:

His Holiness the Pope thinks you should tone down the anti-gay shit.

And when he met Kim Davis (who was sprung on him), he also met one of his oldest friends. And his (male) partner.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 11:00 PM
I'd imagine somewhere on The Blaze or wherever there's something along the lines of the following being passed around:

First they came for the bakers but I didn't speak up for I was not a baker.
Then they came for the bigoted town clerks but I didn't speak up for I was not a bigoted town clerk.
Then they came for welfare abusing, illegally grazing, foster kid abusing cattle grazing hick, but I didn't speak up for I was not a welfare abusing, illegally grazing on federal lands, foster kid abusing cattle grazing hick.
...

Davian93
02-06-2016, 11:02 PM
Here's a fun fact Southpaw:

His Holiness the Pope thinks you should tone down the anti-gay shit.

And when he met Kim Davis (who was sprung on him), he also met one of his oldest friends. And his (male) partner.

A pope that doesn't judge people and thinks thats something reserved to God...how very CHRISTIAN of him for once.

A shame more so-called Christians can't actually follow the teachings of the Lord they claim to follow.

Help the poor, weak, innocents, turn the other cheek, judge not, etc. etc. etc.

Instead we get the Gospel of Prosperity, Fvck the poor, If they're poor, its because God is punishing them, make that slut have her baby to punish her, etc etc etc that we see time and time again out of American "christians".

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 11:05 PM
I'd imagine somewhere on The Blaze or wherever there's something along the lines of the following being passed around:

First they came for the bakers but I didn't speak up for I was not a baker.
Then they came for the bigoted town clerks but I didn't speak up for I was not a bigoted town clerk.
Then they came for welfare abusing, illegally grazing, foster kid abusing cattle grazing hick, but I didn't speak up for I was not a welfare abusing, illegally grazing on federal lands, foster kid abusing cattle grazing hick.
...

I always feel the stories lose something when you translate directly like that.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 11:06 PM
A pope that doesn't judge people and thinks thats something reserved to God...how very CHRISTIAN of him for once.

A shame more so-called Christians can't actually follow the teachings of the Lord they claim to follow.

Help the poor, weak, innocents, turn the other cheek, judge not, etc. etc. etc.

Instead we get the Gospel of Prosperity, Fvck the poor, If they're poor, its because God is punishing them, make that slut have her baby to punish her, etc etc etc that we see time and time again out of American "christians".
Imagine if Southpaw applied his 'original interpretive thought' to the Gospels. lol.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 11:09 PM
Is there a way to stop the NYT site from loading a new article when you hit the right arrow?

ETA:
I can't even begin to describe how much it pisses me off.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 11:10 PM
A pope that doesn't judge people and thinks thats something reserved to God...how very CHRISTIAN of him for once.

A shame more so-called Christians can't actually follow the teachings of the Lord they claim to follow.

Help the poor, weak, innocents, turn the other cheek, judge not, etc. etc. etc.

Instead we get the Gospel of Prosperity, Fvck the poor, If they're poor, its because God is punishing them, make that slut have her baby to punish her, etc etc etc that we see time and time again out of American "christians".

I've always felt that: "Father, please forgive them; for they know not what they do." pretty much sums up what Jesus was about. That level of tolerance is pretty high.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 11:12 PM
I've always felt that: "Father, please forgive them; for they know not what they do." pretty much sums up what Jesus was about. That level of tolerance is pretty high.

A shame they tend to gravitate towards an odd mix of Calvinism, certain old testament laws that support their natural bigotry and Paulist sentiments (mainly his opinions of women) while ignoring all the stuff that Christ actually taught and said.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 11:15 PM
On another note, all of the major contenders aside from Bush came out in favor of torture. I'm actually starting to like Bush. It's really too bad his brother so thoroughly poisoned the well.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 11:17 PM
On another note, all of the major contenders aside from Bush came out in favor of torture. I'm actually starting to like Bush. It's really too bad his brother so thoroughly poisoned the well.

Well...he was "the smart one" after all...right?

Though if for nothing else, I'd never vote for him for 2 reasons:

1. His despicable behavior during the Terry Schiavo fiasco.
2. His despicable behavior during the 2000 Election recount.


Even ignoring everything else, both of those things are utterly disgusting.

Nazbaque
02-06-2016, 11:18 PM
A shame they tend to gravitate towards an odd mix of Calvinism, certain old testament laws that support their natural bigotry and Paulist sentiments (mainly his opinions of women) while ignoring all the stuff that Christ actually taught and said.

Well the point about religion is that it offers a short cut for thinking. And the kind of people who look for those... well

Kimon
02-06-2016, 11:19 PM
On another note, all of the major contenders aside from Bush came out in favor of torture. I'm actually starting to like Bush. It's really too bad his brother so thoroughly poisoned the well.

I don't trust torture as a means of extracting useful information. As a means of extracting false confessions, it's really effective, but for accurate information, not so much. There's good reason why the witchcraft trials didn't get as out of hand in England as they did in France and Germany...

Davian93
02-06-2016, 11:21 PM
I don't trust torture as a means of extracting useful information. As a means of extracting false confessions, it's really effective, but for accurate information, not so much. There's good reason why the witchcraft trials didn't get as out of hand in England as they did in France and Germany...

And yet oddly enough, in Calvinist New England, they got out of hand too. Almost as if that sort of thing happens when you allow religious "reasoning" to supersede common law precedents.

I mean, its not like there are dozens upon dozens of studies that show torture doesn't work despite what shows like Homeland or 24 would have you believe. Those are FICTIONAL shows, not reality.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 11:24 PM
Well...he was "the smart one" after all...right?

Though if for nothing else, I'd never vote for him for 2 reasons:

1. His despicable behavior during the Terry Schiavo fiasco.
2. His despicable behavior during the 2000 Election recount.


Even ignoring everything else, both of those things are utterly disgusting.
I forgot about those. But I didn't say I'd vote for him, nor would I.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 11:28 PM
I don't trust torture as a means of extracting useful information. As a means of extracting false confessions, it's really effective, but for accurate information, not so much. There's good reason why the witchcraft trials didn't get as out of hand in England as they did in France and Germany...
I wasn't advocating it. I absolutely agree on it's effectiveness.

We have way better techniques for enhanced interrogation these days. None could be called torture. IARPA has some really cool stuff that has proven effective, and at least one entity is working on amazing stuff using fMRI machines.

It may not be 'field-ready' just yet, but our investment in the space has borne fruit.

The Unreasoner
02-06-2016, 11:36 PM
I'm pretty sure this is a fake tweet...
http://img.ifcdn.com/images/73ac82f6a0ba18b8bd695ed9fccf6946d4e862dc40ca08359e ac0626501a6d9d_1.jpg


But the scary thing is his supporters love this shit.

Davian93
02-06-2016, 11:37 PM
I'm pretty sure this is a fake tweet...
http://img.ifcdn.com/images/73ac82f6a0ba18b8bd695ed9fccf6946d4e862dc40ca08359e ac0626501a6d9d_1.jpg


But the scary thing is his supporters love this shit.

Even if its a lie, its such a good one because its believable that he would send something along those lines.

Frenzy
02-07-2016, 01:00 AM
Those who kill for not believing in God aren't true Christians.
They seem to think so. Just like those who kill for Islam seem to think they are true muslims too. Even when the VAST majority of other believes say otherwise. But hey, i'm sure casting them out on a WoT message board totally absolves you of any responsibility for what's becoming a more and more common interpretation of your religion.

Read the Bible and look where Jesus says to do a thing like that. Now go read the Quaran and Hadith and see what Muhammed has to say.
i have read the bible. i have also read the Koran. i've also studied Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Polynesian, Indian, and far eastern religious texts. i love mythology. You can really get a flavor for a culture's psychology based on their belief systems.

The separation of church and state is a bs myth taken from a letter Jefferson wrote. Jefferson who wasn't even at the Constitutional convention nor the drafting of the First Amendment. The only thing the government can't do, historically speaking, is impose national law favoring a religion.
Separation of church and state is backed up by centuries of legal precedent. Tossing that out is like tossing out all the legal precedent used to interpret the 2nd amendment. i don't see too many people clamoring over that, and i sure as hell don't see too many people bemoaning the separation of church & state. Those who disagree just tend to ignore it, breaking the law be damned. But sure, go ahead and play it both ways. It's apparently the christian thing to do, according to how you apparently practice your faith.

Which is perfectly legal.

America was built on Christian-Judeo principles, and that's a fact. No candidate has proposed using the government to take out other faiths, unless you look at the president in office now and what he's done against Christians.
Who calls it Christian-Judeo?

And i want to waste your time. Find me sources for your claim in that last bit. Otherwise it's worth less than a fart in a tornado.

Frenzy
02-07-2016, 01:13 AM
The government should have made accommodations for Kim Davis's religious beliefs. That was a failure on the governments part.
I work for government, and I've had to implement accommodations for religious reasons. There's a very difficult process to make this happen: You ask.

Kim Davis didn't ask for an accommodation. She chose to break the law and impose her personal religious beliefs under the color of her secular position.

And, in my opinion, she was coddled for it. Insubordination and blatant misconduct should be grounds for termination.

Davian93
02-07-2016, 01:32 AM
I work for government, and I've had to implement accommodations for religious reasons. There's a very difficult process to make this happen: You ask.

Kim Davis didn't ask for an accommodation. She chose to break the law and impose her personal religious beliefs under the color of her secular position.

And, in my opinion, she was coddled for it. Insubordination and blatant misconduct should be grounds for termination.

If she were a federal employee, she would have been disciplined and very likely fired for violating the Hatch Act by bringing politics into work and openly advocating them. But yeah, she's a real hero.

GonzoTheGreat
02-07-2016, 04:07 AM
Atheist woman murdered in Arizona for not believing in god (http://www.inquisitr.com/2664200/atheist-woman-murdered-in-arizona-for-not-believing-in-god/)
I have been told that while the US Constitution promises freedom of religion, it does not give any guarantees of freedom from religion. Thus, as long as you are religious, you deserve the protection of the law, but when you are an atheist, you can forget about that.
More or less the same way that all those Constitutional guarantees for fair and speedy trials and against mistreatment do not apply to foreigners held on Cuban soil.

Does Arizona have any specific laws against killing atheists on the book?

Those who kill for not believing in God aren't true Christians. Read the Bible and look where Jesus says to do a thing like that.
Matthew|10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

Matthew|10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Matthew|23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

Let me give you some advice: do not prate about what can be found in the Bible until after you've actually read the thing.

GonzoTheGreat
02-07-2016, 04:10 AM
And, in my opinion, she was coddled for it. Insubordination and blatant misconduct should be grounds for termination.
I thought that she held (holds?) an elected office, so she can't be terminated in such a way. In theory, she could probably be impeached or something, but that doesn't seem to be a realistic option in this case.

Terez
02-07-2016, 04:21 AM
I am starting to believe that Chris Christie is the Democrats' secret weapon. He killed Romney's chances, however small they might have been, when he worked with Obama after Hurricane Sandy. And he just took down Marco Rubio, who was probably the most electable candidate they had. He identified Rubio's weakness and he exploited the fuck out of it, not just tonight, but all week long in New Hampshire. Then he jumped on the opportunity to drive the nail home when it arose in the debate, and he executed the kill perfectly. I think Rubio might be done. I don't know if he can recover from this. He came across like a total amateur because he should have seen Christie coming from a mile away.

Davian93
02-07-2016, 11:32 AM
I don't even know if it's that or if it's more "fuck these people, if I gotta lose, they're coming with me" mentality. His takedown was epic. Never seen a guy cut down like that outside of maybe "You're no Jack Kennedy!"

The Unreasoner
02-07-2016, 03:49 PM
I am starting to believe that Chris Christie is the Democrats' secret weapon. He killed Romney's chances, however small they might have been, when he worked with Obama after Hurricane Sandy. And he just took down Marco Rubio, who was probably the most electable candidate they had. He identified Rubio's weakness and he exploited the fuck out of it, not just tonight, but all week long in New Hampshire. Then he jumped on the opportunity to drive the nail home when it arose in the debate, and he executed the kill perfectly. I think Rubio might be done. I don't know if he can recover from this. He came across like a total amateur because he should have seen Christie coming from a mile away.

I'm pretty sure this is a joke, but if not...

There was no viable path for Christie to play saboteur without Sandy. So unless you think Obama really can cause hurricanes (and I've met people who do), that doesn't really scan.

As for now:
Christie wants to be President. If he thinks Trump will implode, then what he did makes perfect sense. Stave off defeat until Trump's blunt-loving base becomes available; and right now, Rubio is the proximal threat. The weakness Christie exploited has been evident for I while (I even called it in the other thread, iirc).

Just draw a little blood to scare away the Establishment machine, and keep afloat.

The Unreasoner
02-07-2016, 04:16 PM
http://i.imgur.com/a1iaZjt.gif

Terez
02-08-2016, 01:43 AM
I'm pretty sure this is a joke, but if not...

There was no viable path for Christie to play saboteur without Sandy. So unless you think Obama really can cause hurricanes (and I've met people who do), that doesn't really scan.
My comment was definitely hyperbolic (in the sense of hyperbole, rather than hyperbola) but if he were in fact working for Democrats on purpose he would be waiting for any opportunity to strike. Sandy definitely gave him an unexpected opportunity, but even before that, he gave a speech at the Republican Convention that didn't mention Romney once, and that was taken as a betrayal by many in the party. His motives in all these cases are probably both personal and political; he couldn't have ever expected to gain much from these stunts politically. He does have a similar appeal to Trump, though, so maybe that simple fact has him on top of his game in NH. He did his homework; we'll see if it pays off for him in the primary race.

Christie wants to be President. If he thinks Trump will implode, then what he did makes perfect sense. Stave off defeat until Trump's blunt-loving base becomes available; and right now, Rubio is the proximal threat. The weakness Christie exploited has been evident for I while (I even called it in the other thread, iirc).

Just draw a little blood to scare away the Establishment machine, and keep afloat.
Christie's problem is that he has been sinking all of his resources and time into NH. If he doesn't make a good showing there—at least a strong fourth place—he won't be able to raise the money he needs to set up shop in other states, and he's already far behind well-funded campaigns in the upcoming states. His appeal is not worth much in South Carolina and the rest of the Deep South because these people hate Obama more than they like assholes who aren't afraid to say what they think. Christie's Obama hug was a career-defining moment for him. It might have played well in a general election but it will probably prevent him from ever getting past the primary. I would love nothing more than to see Christie emerge as the Establishment favorite, though. It wasn't even a consideration before the debate. It's barely a consideration now.

yks 6nnetu hing
02-08-2016, 08:28 AM
I'm a bit late to the party, and apologize for bringing up a point that has sort of already passed but still, my 2 cents on the maybe-mandatory serving of state:

Ah. Well there were other potential reasons so asked for clarification. But there are some pretty huge downsides to that system especially when you aren't right next door to Russia and need to keep an army and haven't been keeping that system going by the force of tradition.

And it goes both ways so that when some aren't getting the benefits they don't owe obligations. It's the karma type of government.

Personally, I'm in favour of an arrangement where a year service in either charity work, army or some other kind of public service is standard. I don't really favour the mandatory bit, but I would like a structure where if you've done your year, you get an additional pension payment, or can retire a year early or you get a year subsidy on your chosen study or a certain tax break. I think it's too simple to say "yeah, but everyone's not cut out for this" - there are lots of ways a person can help that still easily falls in their capabilities; for example in Estonia military service (8 months) is still mandatory for all males; and normally you do have to be in good physical (and mental) shape, so there's ways to sort of... not serve. But, recently the army has modified the regulations - now it's possible to join the IT defence rather than running around shooting things defence. Which is proving to be very interesting to a surprisingly large segment of the of-age males.

I must say, having spoken to some Germans where this system works extremely well, it's also good to be able to take a year off between High School and College/University and do something else. But not party "woo-woo!" the whole time, actually do something. To figure out what you really want out of life, where your passion lies and what you're good at. Or, just importantly, what you don't want, what you really hate and what you're not good at. Even if you happen to pick something that you thought would be awesome but you ended up kinda hating, at least you know that now without having done an expensive study in the field only to find out you HATE it.

Davian93
02-08-2016, 08:30 AM
Christie's biggest problem is that he has just the smallest little bit of a conscience left that makes him want to be a good governor from time to time. His response during Sandy is a great example of it even though it destroyed his chances of ever winning a national office as a GOP candidate. I'm not saying he's a good governor by any means but he at least wants to be from time to time and it hurts him with the GOP base. He forgot he's supposed to be a sociopath that hates all things Dem no matter what. The Dems are supporting not killing puppies? You better damn well drop a puppy in boiling water to keep the base in line.

He simply isn't sociopathic enough...yes, I know that's not a real word but it is now dammit.

Davian93
02-08-2016, 08:39 AM
If Christie, Kasich and Bush could all agree on just 1 of them going forward, they'd have a real shot at the nomination. Right now, the 3 are polling at a combined 32% in NH...easily enough to win the state. But they wont do so and by the time 2 of them drop out, it'll be far too late for the remaining one.

Terez
02-08-2016, 09:14 AM
Christie's biggest problem is that he has just the smallest little bit of a conscience left that makes him want to be a good governor from time to time.
I really doubt that it has much to do with conscience. He was planning on running for president; he couldn't do anything other than take care of his state. He didn't have to hug Obama to maintain his image as a conscientious governor, nor did he have to be so laudatory; he did it to piss off Romney. He also didn't have to be so harsh when Fox asked whether Romney was coming to do a disaster tour.

I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested. I've got a job to do here in New Jersey that's much bigger than presidential politics and I could care less about any of that stuff. I have a job to do. I've got 2.4 million people out of power. I've got devastation on the shore. I've got floods in the northern part of my state. If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics then you don't know me.
But he didn't have a problem taking a break from another, smaller disaster to campaign in New Hampshire.

Davian93
02-08-2016, 09:46 AM
There's a huge difference between Sandy and the recent blizzard though.

I dont think he consciously hugged Obama to hurt Romney. I think it was just one of those "See, I can cross the aisle" moments and "we're all united here" kind of things...similar to the post 9/11 moments for that same area.

But it backfired badly because the GOP base is utterly insane and they really really hate Obama.

GonzoTheGreat
02-08-2016, 10:19 AM
If Christie, Kasich and Bush could all agree on just 1 of them going forward, they'd have a real shot at the nomination.
All three agree that the other two should step out of the race, so they easily satisfy this requirement.

Kimon
02-08-2016, 10:56 AM
If Christie, Kasich and Bush could all agree on just 1 of them going forward, they'd have a real shot at the nomination. Right now, the 3 are polling at a combined 32% in NH...easily enough to win the state. But they wont do so and by the time 2 of them drop out, it'll be far too late for the remaining one.

Considering how much dirt there is on Christie, it's amazing that he's still in the race. And it's not just the bridge nonsense. He also misused Sandy funds to produce personal campaign ads and withheld funds from certain cities, notably Hoboken, to punish political rivals and to coerce capitulation on business projects that he favored, much as he had done also with the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge to punish the mayor of Fort Lee for not endorsing him. He's just as much a schmuck as Cruz. As for Jeb, he seems even more incompetent than his brother. The fact that he alone of the clan didn't go to Yale is starting to make more sense. The establishment basically only has Rubio and Kasich to chose between, or else panic and support Trump to avoid Cruz.

Terez
02-08-2016, 11:14 AM
Considering how much dirt there is on Christie, it's amazing that he's still in the race. And it's not just the bridge nonsense. He also misused Sandy funds to produce personal campaign ads and withheld funds from certain cities, notably Hoboken, to punish political rivals and to coerce capitulation on business projects that he favored, much as he had done also with the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge to punish the mayor of Fort Lee for not endorsing him. He's just as much a schmuck as Cruz.
No one is talking about that stuff because he's a non-factor. If he shows well tomorrow, people will be talking about it.

Davian93
02-08-2016, 01:11 PM
No one is talking about that stuff because he's a non-factor. If he shows well tomorrow, people will be talking about it.

Same with Kasich or Bush for that matter. All 3 have massive issues in their background but nobody cares until they show themselves to be a threat.


Best part of the SuperBowl was seeing a Jeb commercial with his brother as the star saying Jeb would be a good president. And who would know better than Dubya, right?

Terez
02-08-2016, 01:16 PM
Best part of the SuperBowl was seeing a Jeb commercial with his brother as the star saying Jeb would be a good president. And who would know better than Dubya, right?
I didn't watch the game, but Maddow warned us that one was coming. She argued that it was probably supposed to be their end-game ad and that they were probably surprised and alarmed that they were forced to use it so early. And since his super PAC had $100 million to blow and his candidacy is decidedly on its last legs, they figured they might as well blow it on a Super Bowl ad.

Davian93
02-08-2016, 01:21 PM
I didn't watch the game, but Maddow warned us that one was coming. She argued that it was probably supposed to be their end-game ad and that they were probably surprised and alarmed that they were forced to use it so early. And since his super PAC had $100 million to blow and his candidacy is decidedly on its last legs, they figured they might as well blow it on a Super Bowl ad.

As soon as I heard his voice during the initial voice over, I just busted out laughing.

Probably would have been better off getting HW to do it.

GonzoTheGreat
02-08-2016, 01:31 PM
Best part of the SuperBowl was seeing a Jeb commercial with his brother as the star saying Jeb would be a good president. And who would know better than Dubya, right?
Jebbie, you're doing a heck of a job.

Ivhon
02-08-2016, 02:41 PM
I'm sure W has looked into Jeb's eyes a number of times...

Terez
02-08-2016, 02:49 PM
Bimbo eruptions (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268590-bill-clinton-sexual-assault-accuser-to-campaign-against) incoming.

Nazbaque
02-08-2016, 03:03 PM
Bimbo eruptions (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268590-bill-clinton-sexual-assault-accuser-to-campaign-against) incoming.

So these women would vote against Hillary even if the opponent is Trump?

Kimon
02-08-2016, 03:11 PM
Bimbo eruptions (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268590-bill-clinton-sexual-assault-accuser-to-campaign-against) incoming.

She doesn't seem particularly credible...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3261023/Another-blast-past-haunt-Hillary-Kathleen-Willey-says-harasser-s-wife-step-way.html

Willey went on 60 Minutes in March of 1998 to make her allegations public, but then her reputation began to unravel.
The press covered previous instances where she'd been caught lying. A former confidante of Willey's told the FBI she had fibbed before, faking a pregnancy and then a miscarriage to an ex-lover to get him back for ruined Fourth of July plans.
Other stories like these began to trickle out and a 1998 article from Time magazine said Willey was 'tangled in untruths.'
The FBI caught her giving contradictory accounts and the Independent Counsel's office decided not to prosecute her for giving false statements.
The final report from the U.S. Office of Independent Counsel also noted discrepancies in Willey's testimony about the incident.
'Willey and President Clinton, the only two percipient witnesses to the alleged encounter, substantially and materially disagree on what occurred,' the report said.
'In the Independent Counsel’s judgment, the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the President’s deposition testimony about his conduct with Willey was false,' it continued.
While this was a case closed for the government, Willey said she's going to make sure people remember her story throughout Hillary Clinton's campaign.
On the radio this week, first reported by WND.com, Willey had a direct message for Hillary Clinton.
'I am going to be shadowing you every single place you go to remind people, especially young people, young women, college-aged students who don't remember any of this. I want them to know all about this,' Willey said.
'Because once they do they are not going to be real proud of supporting her as the first women president,' Willey concluded.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Willey

According to Willey, during a meeting in the private study of the Oval Office, Clinton had embraced her tightly, kissed her on the mouth, grabbed her breast, and forced her hand on his genitals.[2] Clinton denied assaulting Willey. According to Monica Lewinsky's testimony, Clinton stated that the allegation was absurd because Willey is a small-breasted woman and he would never pursue such a woman.[3] The Clinton White House released details of 15 letters and 12 telephone messages that Willey had sent to Clinton after the alleged incident.[citation needed] In all of these, she appeared friendly and eager for more contact with Clinton.

According to Linda Tripp's grand jury testimony, she felt Willey pursued a romance with Clinton from the start of her White House affiliation. Willey had speculated with Tripp as to how she might be able to set up an assignation between herself and the president. She routinely attended events at which Clinton would be present, wearing a black dress she believed he liked. According to Tripp's testimony, Wiley wondered if she and Clinton could arrange to meet in a home to which she had access, on the Chesapeake Bay.[4]

Seems like this woman's flirting, maybe affair, with Bill caused her husband to commit suicide, and in guilt she decided to try to take down Bill and Hillary in revenge...

Willey's second husband, Edward E. Willey Jr., was found dead from a gunshot wound next to his vehicle parked along a hunting trail in rural King and Queen County, Virginia on November 29, 1993 — the day she claimed Clinton's sexual misconduct took place. His death was determined to be a suicide by investigators. She wrote in her book, and acknowledged in a 60 Minutes interview her suspicions of the Clinton's involvement in her husband's death pointing to similarities with White House aide Vince Foster's death which was also determined to be a suicide.

Davian93
02-08-2016, 04:15 PM
Jebbie, you're doing a heck of a job.

Jeb seems like the kind of President who has a brother who I'd like to have a beer with. After all, I've always thought Neil would be a good drinking buddy.

Davian93
02-08-2016, 04:19 PM
On a side note, Hillary's internal polling numbers must be terrifying. She's going all out in a sudden attack on Bernie...bringing in the big dog to rip Bernie repeatedly, using Albright and Steinem to try and pull together the female vote (you know, because if you are female and you dont vote for a woman, you are an idiot or something...which I find to be about as pathetically pandering as McCain picking Palin to "win the woman vote"). Seriously, what's up with that? Women aren't that idiotic...if anything, you'd think this sort of transparent pandering would turn women off of her.

Kimon
02-08-2016, 04:54 PM
On a side note, Hillary's internal polling numbers must be terrifying. She's going all out in a sudden attack on Bernie...bringing in the big dog to rip Bernie repeatedly, using Albright and Steinem to try and pull together the female vote (you know, because if you are female and you dont vote for a woman, you are an idiot or something...which I find to be about as pathetically pandering as McCain picking Palin to "win the woman vote"). Seriously, what's up with that? Women aren't that idiotic...if anything, you'd think this sort of transparent pandering would turn women off of her.

It does feel like the same sort of mean-spirited desperation that plagued the end of her campaign against Obama. On the subject of pathetic pandering, I also find it really pathetic when politicians try to look like everyday yokels to connect with the plebs, as Bill was while on this recent attack, giving a speech in flannel and jeans...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/bill-clinton-after-months-of-restraint-unleashes-stinging-attack-on-bernie-sanders.html

Nazbaque
02-08-2016, 04:55 PM
On a side note, Hillary's internal polling numbers must be terrifying. She's going all out in a sudden attack on Bernie...bringing in the big dog to rip Bernie repeatedly, using Albright and Steinem to try and pull together the female vote (you know, because if you are female and you dont vote for a woman, you are an idiot or something...which I find to be about as pathetically pandering as McCain picking Palin to "win the woman vote"). Seriously, what's up with that? Women aren't that idiotic...if anything, you'd think this sort of transparent pandering would turn women off of her.

The question isn't if women want a woman as president, but who do they want to be the first female president.

Davian93
02-08-2016, 05:24 PM
It does feel like the same sort of mean-spirited desperation that plagued the end of her campaign against Obama. On the subject of pathetic pandering, I also find it really pathetic when politicians try to look like everyday yokels to connect with the plebs, as Bill was while on this recent attack, giving a speech in flannel and jeans...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/bill-clinton-after-months-of-restraint-unleashes-stinging-attack-on-bernie-sanders.html

I'm sure Big Dog routinely wears flannel and jeans when he's tooling around his house in NY. That's totally believable.

~rolls eyes~

The Unreasoner
02-08-2016, 05:57 PM
My comment was definitely hyperbolic (in the sense of hyperbole, rather than hyperbola)
Am I that much of a pedantic asshole that you felt the need to clarify that? lol. Though are you studying hyperbolic geometry? For the Terezian analysis, Hilbert spaces are probably closer to what I had in mind.

but if he were in fact working for Democrats on purpose he would be waiting for any opportunity to strike. Sandy definitely gave him an unexpected opportunity, but even before that, he gave a speech at the Republican Convention that didn't mention Romney once, and that was taken as a betrayal by many in the party. His motives in all these cases are probably both personal and political; he couldn't have ever expected to gain much from these stunts politically.
I think in 2012 he played the hand he was dealt. No one really thought Romney could win. So he raised his profile. His response to Sandy was probably authentic.

He does have a similar appeal to Trump, though, so maybe that simple fact has him on top of his game in NH. He did his homework; we'll see if it pays off for him in the primary race.


Christie's problem is that he has been sinking all of his resources and time into NH. If he doesn't make a good showing there—at least a strong fourth place—he won't be able to raise the money he needs to set up shop in other states, and he's already far behind well-funded campaigns in the upcoming states. His appeal is not worth much in South Carolina and the rest of the Deep South because these people hate Obama more than they like assholes who aren't afraid to say what they think. Christie's Obama hug was a career-defining moment for him. It might have played well in a general election but it will probably prevent him from ever getting past the primary. I would love nothing more than to see Christie emerge as the Establishment favorite, though. It wasn't even a consideration before the debate. It's barely a consideration now.

I think you're assuming that they will behave rationally. Christie may not have a plan beyond 'draw a little blood, stay in the news, wait until after SC to make a final push'. They're probably playing it by ear, waiting to see who trips. And Christie has access to certain funding sources that will become available after SC, which he probably knew he'd never win. He probably thought he could rally Romney's base.

Terez
02-09-2016, 02:36 AM
So these women would vote against Hillary even if the opponent is Trump?
Many of Clinton's dalliances were Arkansas Dixiecrats who now identify as Republicans. The most famous woman who accused him of rape, Juanita Brodderick, has publicly said she will be voting for Trump.

She doesn't seem particularly credible...
She never has been, and because of that I'm not sure how much traction she'll get with her website. Other women, even Paula Jones, might do a better job at drawing out Clinton's spoils of power type women. But we have no idea what the terms of her settlement were. She's not prohibited from speaking about her experiences with the press.

On a side note, Hillary's internal polling numbers must be terrifying. She's going all out in a sudden attack on Bernie...bringing in the big dog to rip Bernie repeatedly, using Albright and Steinem to try and pull together the female vote (you know, because if you are female and you dont vote for a woman, you are an idiot or something...which I find to be about as pathetically pandering as McCain picking Palin to "win the woman vote"). Seriously, what's up with that? Women aren't that idiotic...if anything, you'd think this sort of transparent pandering would turn women off of her.
Albright and Steinem were both so disgusting that I'm just grateful neither was ever a role model for me so I don't have to suffer disappointment along with disgust.

For those who don't know and don't feel like googling, Steinem said that young women (really, women under 50) were campaigning for Bernie because that's where the boys are, and Albright said there was a "special place in Hell" for women who don't "help" other women, i.e. women who support Bernie over Hillary. I'm not sure if Albright has apologized, but Steinem issued a "I was misinterpreted" apology.

The question isn't if women want a woman as president, but who do they want to be the first female president.
I came across this May 1992 article in Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/1992/05/hillary-clinton-first-lady-presidency) yesterday while I was searching some things, and it's got a lot of quotes that relate to this year's cycle in interesting ways.

Her mother had hoped Hillary would be the first woman on the Supreme Court, “but Sandra Day O’Connor beat her to it,” she jokes. Friends along the way have told her what Dorothy Stuck says today: “Regardless of what happens to Bill, the nation will be exposed to Hillary Clinton, and Hillary could—and should—be our first woman president.”
Hillary has always wanted to be the first woman president. Not just a woman president, but the first. Her whole career has been meticulously tailored for that goal. Her biggest mistake was also potentially her best move: she moved to Arkansas (of all places) to marry Bill Clinton. I say "potentially" because I'm not sure it matters that she chose Bill; she could have married any number of young politicians and had the same result. No one has ever doubted that Hillary was the driving force behind Bill's ambition and success in politics. From the very end of the article:

Hillary Clinton also has developed her own form and substance, her survival instincts and resilience. Maybe the next gubernatorial election the other Clinton will run. There could be a role switch: Bill might find rewards in replicating his childhood—supporting the woman who defines and controls his existence.

And maybe the next presidential election, or several more down the line, the other Clinton will be on the ticket. As Hillary told a Los Angeles audience recently, “We’ll have a woman president by 2010.”

Would she consider running? she was pressed. “We’ll talk later.”
And of course, she ran in 2008. But she didn't count on Obama.

Am I that much of a pedantic asshole that you felt the need to clarify that?
Yes.

GonzoTheGreat
02-09-2016, 04:54 AM
She's going all out in a sudden attack on Bernie...bringing in the big dog to rip Bernie repeatedly, using Albright and Steinem to try and pull together the female vote (you know, because if you are female and you dont vote for a woman, you are an idiot or something...which I find to be about as pathetically pandering as McCain picking Palin to "win the woman vote").
Maybe Bernie will start targeting men with the argument "if you don't vote for a man, you're an idiot". Then again, maybe not. There are differences between the sexes, after all.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 08:29 AM
If Hillary had even 1/100th of Big Dog's natural charisma and political acumen, she'd already be President.

Terez
02-09-2016, 09:01 AM
If Hillary had even 1/100th of Big Dog's natural charisma and political acumen, she'd already be President.
Charisma, yes. Political acumen? I think she has him beat in that department, and she was often forced to manage his message and his crises when he was in office, as governor and president.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 09:12 AM
Charisma, yes. Political acumen? I think she has him beat in that department, and she was often forced to manage his message and his crises when he was in office, as governor and president.

Big Dog is probably the best politician this country has had since LBJ if not FDR.

Terez
02-09-2016, 10:30 AM
What makes him a successful politician is his charisma, so either you were being redundant or you were overestimating his role in formulating his political strategy.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 10:41 AM
What makes him a successful politician is his charisma, so either you were being redundant or you were overestimating his role in formulating his political strategy.

His abilities in the political strategy arena are quite legendary. The whole "Clinton machine" thing is a big part of that knowledge and ability.

Terez
02-09-2016, 10:45 AM
His abilities in the political strategy arena are quite legendary. The whole "Clinton machine" thing is a big part of that knowledge and ability.
I have been reading a lot about the Clinton machine lately. Old journalism, polemical books, etc. Everyone attributes the strategy to Hillary, even their close friends and advisers.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 10:50 AM
I have been reading a lot about the Clinton machine lately. Old journalism, polemical books, etc. Everyone attributes the strategy to Hillary, even their close friends and advisers.

He's always been renowned for his knowledge of the local players though...down to things like who was the Dem chairperson in that voting district and what are their likes/dislikes, etc.

Given Hillary's issues the last 2 elections now, I wonder how much of her reputation is inflated as she gave away a gimme in 2008 and is making 2016 way harder than it should be. Bernie shouldn't even be competitive.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 10:53 AM
Latest national polls have her in a dead heat with Bernie all of a sudden.

He's a 74 year old Independent Socialist from a tiny state who had zero broad appeal...yet he's giving her the run of her life suddenly.

Pretty sad for the anointed one.

Terez
02-09-2016, 11:13 AM
He's always been renowned for his knowledge of the local players though...down to things like who was the Dem chairperson in that voting district and what are their likes/dislikes, etc.
That's true; he's smart and has a good memory, and that has always worked in his favor. Hillary's pretty good at that too, though; she loves to name-drop. It's kind of amazing that she name-dropped Henry Kissinger at the last debate, though. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't know how self-identified progressives feel about Henry Kissinger. It's like she was telling self-identified progressives that she doesn't give a damn about their vote, lol.

Given Hillary's issues the last 2 elections now, I wonder how much of her reputation is inflated as she gave away a gimme in 2008 and is making 2016 way harder than it should be. Bernie shouldn't even be competitive.
It still comes down to charisma. She's made mistakes, and yeah, her reputation is definitely over-inflated, but so is Bill's. He made mistakes left and right; when it happened, Hillary (primarily) managed the message and Bill pulled it off with charisma.

Latest national polls have her in a dead heat with Bernie all of a sudden.
As far as I can tell, only one poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html) has them in a dead heat: Quinnipiac, rated B+ at 538 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/). National polling is slowing down now that the early states are voting.

He's a 74 year old Independent Socialist from a tiny state who had zero broad appeal...yet he's giving her the run of her life suddenly.

Pretty sad for the anointed one.
Yeah, it does say a lot about her appeal. The push in Iowa and New Hampshire is similar to what she got from Obama, but the comparison definitely diverges in South Carolina.

Watching Tamron Hall fence with Trump. It's great. I have heard Trump interviewed so many times, and he's just totally empty, I'm a winner, we don't win any more, build a wall just randomly inserted in weird places...he's a mess. And no one pushes him. She's grilling him; it's awesome.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 11:26 AM
He's also closing in the upper midwest and other big states like CA, PA, etc. That's bad news for her. She should be able to hold him off but its way closer than it should be.

I find it hard to believe that she doesn't know how self-identified progressives feel about Henry Kissinger.

Kissinger is one of those guys you want on your side rather than against you but he is basically a War Criminal.

Terez
02-09-2016, 12:21 PM
Andrea Mitchell interviewing Jane Sanders. Andrea asked how she felt about Bill's recent attacks on Bernie's campaign, and she hit the nail on the head:

It's disappointing, but at the same time, it's Politics 101. "I want to run a negative campaign, so I'll accuse my opponent of running a negative campaign."
Any time Bernie makes a reasonable policy/practice differentiation, Hillary responds with indignation. Every time, it's an overreaction. The journos go along with it to the point that she gets trapped in a media bubble where she thinks it's working, but on the ground she's turning off more voters every day. That "Berniebro" media bubble is part of what led to Albright and Steinem.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 01:39 PM
Andrea Mitchell interviewing Jane Sanders. Andrea asked how she felt about Bill's recent attacks on Bernie's campaign, and she hit the nail on the head:


Any time Bernie makes a reasonable policy/practice differentiation, Hillary responds with indignation. Every time, it's an overreaction. The journos go along with it to the point that she gets trapped in a media bubble where she thinks it's working, but on the ground she's turning off more voters every day. That "Berniebro" media bubble is part of what led to Albright and Steinem.

I wonder how long till Hillary and team clinton decide to attack Bernie through Jane and her failures as president of Burlington College. She basically ran a small art school into the ground during her presidency.

It shouldn't matter of course as she's not running for office but it'll happen soon enough.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 01:41 PM
Andrea Mitchell interviewing Jane Sanders. Andrea asked how she felt about Bill's recent attacks on Bernie's campaign, and she hit the nail on the head:


Any time Bernie makes a reasonable policy/practice differentiation, Hillary responds with indignation. Every time, it's an overreaction. The journos go along with it to the point that she gets trapped in a media bubble where she thinks it's working, but on the ground she's turning off more voters every day. That "Berniebro" media bubble is part of what led to Albright and Steinem.

Yeah, Hillary has basically co-opted the Karl Rove playbook of accusing her opponent of the things she's doing that are bad. Pretty sad really.

Terez
02-09-2016, 03:32 PM
Yeah, Hillary has basically co-opted the Karl Rove playbook of accusing her opponent of the things she's doing that are bad. Pretty sad really.
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-alleged-barack-obama-sold-access-big-donors-now-criticizes

Davian93
02-09-2016, 03:55 PM
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-alleged-barack-obama-sold-access-big-donors-now-criticizes

Doing this sort of thing is totally normal for a politician. Its being seen doing it that is the problem and the lesson she never learned from the greats. You need to slide the knife in with a smile and with deniability. That's what made LBJ so good at his maneuvering and dominance of the Senate and later Congress as President. he knew every pressure point, every skeleton and how to use those points without being seen doing it.

Big Dog was also rather gifted at such attacks...a shame she cant follow his lead.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 04:14 PM
Bernie leading among likely democratic females 18-34 by a slim 87%-8% margin...for NH that is.

Guess they're not super interested in supporting the first female president but would rather impress the boys.

Kimon
02-09-2016, 04:58 PM
Bernie leading among likely democratic females 18-34 by a slim 87%-8% margin...for NH that is.

Guess they're not super interested in supporting the first female president but would rather impress the boys.

It does have the feel of very close to over for Hillary. She has no chance in New Hampshire, and Iowa was a Pyrrhic Victory. With or without South Carolina, it feels too late. People just don't like Hillary. Bernie still worries me though. Hopefully he is careful in the choosing of his running mate. Cory Booker would make a lot of sense. So would Kirsten Gillibrand. They're both much more centrist than him, and realistic candidates for four years from now whether or not Bernie wins. That might be a too Northeastern a ticket, but I can't really think of many other obvious options. Debbie Stabenow maybe. Just not Warren. Has to remember that he's not running for President of New England.

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 05:26 PM
Big Dog was also rather gifted at such attacks...a shame she cant follow his lead.
Bill Clinton has the best political instincts of any president since LBJ and natural charisma on par with Kennedy. But I know people who were part of the Clinton machine (and are now part of the Sanders campaign), and they all say ambition, strategy, and discipline all come from Hillary. You only need to watch her at the Benghazi hearings to see the truth of it. Even her exasperated flashes seem calculated.

That being said, I wonder what happened with Steinem and Albright. They kinda fucked up big time, and I'm shocked Hillary would miscalculate that badly. I'm thinking that, given their status, they are more 'surrogates emeritus' than proper field agents. Probably they were told to play the gender card, but weren't given any specifics for the message or its delivery.

As for the internal polling numbers, I think they are most worried about the optics of Hillary losing the young women vote by an overly wide margin. That explains the campaign's behavior and is consistent with the data Dav provided.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 06:26 PM
It does have the feel of very close to over for Hillary. She has no chance in New Hampshire, and Iowa was a Pyrrhic Victory. With or without South Carolina, it feels too late. People just don't like Hillary. Bernie still worries me though. Hopefully he is careful in the choosing of his running mate. Cory Booker would make a lot of sense. So would Kirsten Gillibrand. They're both much more centrist than him, and realistic candidates for four years from now whether or not Bernie wins. That might be a too Northeastern a ticket, but I can't really think of many other obvious options. Debbie Stabenow maybe. Just not Warren. Has to remember that he's not running for President of New England.

Gillibrand would be a great choice but remember she's very Liberal too...at least her voting record has been since she became a Senator. She was much more centrist as a Representative and her explanation has been that she represents her district (which was center right) and then the whole state (which is more liberal) as to her change in voting pattern.

On paper though, she doesn't seem to have any major skeletons, she's from a big state, has a good record, is younger and (sad that this would matter) she isn't hard on the eyes either.

Kimon
02-09-2016, 07:18 PM
Gillibrand would be a great choice but remember she's very Liberal too...at least her voting record has been since she became a Senator. She was much more centrist as a Representative and her explanation has been that she represents her district (which was center right) and then the whole state (which is more liberal) as to her change in voting pattern.


Her voting record strikes me as more pragmatic than ideological. That might not appeal to Bernie, but it strikes me as a quality that Bernie, or his advisers, should be looking for. People that would help in widening his appeal. Someone that people would be comfortable with maybe taking over, since, Bernie is really old...

On paper though, she doesn't seem to have any major skeletons, she's from a big state, has a good record, is younger and (sad that this would matter) she isn't hard on the eyes either.

Being from New York is perhaps the biggest problem with her, but most of the other usual suspects that jump to mind either seem to be from the Northeast or New England. Too bad she's not from Ohio or Michigan, or Virginia. I'd still suggest her over Debbie Stabenow though. Gillibrand is younger, smarter, and prettier than Stabenow. And let's face it, it may seem shallow, but this is America, being younger and prettier is important. Gillibrand is basically a newer, friendlier model of Hillary.

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 07:35 PM
If you want a pretty face, go with Gavin Newsom. He's kinda slimy, but he's very liberal and still has broad appeal. He's also incredibly well disciplined. And it would be a nice olive branch to the Clinton campaign, tapping a surrogate.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 07:41 PM
If you want a pretty face, go with Gavin Newsom. He's kinda slimy, but he's very liberal and still has broad appeal. He's also incredibly well disciplined. And it would be a nice olive branch to the Clinton campaign, tapping a surrogate.

I doubt any sort of olive branch would matter if Clinton somehow loses again...this is her last shot and she knows it. She'll be a very embittered Ted Kennedy in 1980 type of person if this goes down.

Which is scary as it could divide the party. Also, if Bernie wins, Bloomberg will almost certainly enter the race as an Independent which will likely mean a GOP victory.

So I, for one, welcome our insect overlords and would like to note that I could be helpful in recruiting others to work in their underground sugar caves.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 07:45 PM
I think Bernie should go completely out of the box and find a running mate that will make him look younger...and someone from the West Coast with a pragmatic reputation who can get things done.

Therefore, saddle up Governor!!!

http://lgbtweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/California-Governor-Jerry-Brown.png

Kimon
02-09-2016, 07:47 PM
If you want a pretty face, go with Gavin Newsom. He's kinda slimy, but he's very liberal and still has broad appeal. He's also incredibly well disciplined. And it would be a nice olive branch to the Clinton campaign, tapping a surrogate.

I'll be blunt. He's only a Lieutenant Governor, and of a very Blue State. And he's white. If he he had at least been the Governor, then okay, but still a meh pick. But as is, he'd be a really odd choice. If I'm Bernie, I'm not worried about white dems (male or female really) voting for me. I'd be slightly worried about women (hence Gillibrand), more worried about the African-Americans (Booker) and Hispanics (? - any options, I can't think of any), and massively worried about white independents. Not much that can be done on that last one, but trying to fix the other worries seem where you look for vp options.

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 08:02 PM
I'll be blunt. He's only a Lieutenant Governor, and of a very Blue State. And he's white. If he he had at least been the Governor, then okay, but still a meh pick. But as is, he'd be a really odd choice. If I'm Bernie, I'm not worried about white dems (male or female really) voting for me. I'd be slightly worried about women (hence Gillibrand), more worried about the African-Americans (Booker) and Hispanics (? - any options, I can't think of any), and massively worried about white independents. Not much that can be done on that last one, but trying to fix the other worries seem where you look for vp options.
Still executive experience. And he has business experience. I don't know that a three year Senator from a blue state is any more 'experienced' than him.

As for women and blacks, they're not as shallow as you seem to think (case in point, Bernie's getting plenty of women voters). And as I said, he has plenty of broad appeal. Everyone likes him. So will independents. And he's young and pretty, which is apparently a plus.

Gillibrand would be a mistake. So would most candidates, frankly. Does Sanders choose a pragmatist, undercutting his message? Or another idealist, narrowing his base? Newsom being mostly an unknown is a plus, he can appear as either as needed. And he is, once again, highly disciplined.

ETA:
And Sanders is a really odd choice. So is Trump. And Cruz. And Palin was too. The normal political calculus doesn't seem to be relevant right now.

Kimon
02-09-2016, 08:09 PM
Still executive experience. And he has business experience. I don't know that a three year Senator from a blue state is any more 'experienced' than him.

As for women and blacks, they're not as shallow as you seem to think (case in point, Bernie's getting plenty of women voters). And as I said, he has plenty of broad appeal. Everyone likes him. So will independents. And he's young and pretty, which is apparently a plus.

Gillibrand would be a mistake. So would most candidates, frankly. Does Sanders choose a pragmatist, undercutting his message? Or another idealist, narrowing his base? Newsom being mostly an unknown is a plus, he can appear as either as needed. And he is, once again, highly disciplined.

He'd make sense to run for high office in California - governor or senator. But not beyond that.

The only positions from which you traditionally draw for vp or president is governors, senators, and generals. Or mayors of NYC. Sometimes Reps, but rarely are they viewed as legitimate candidates. And while a business background would help if he was a Republican, it doesn't as a Democrat. We prefer to vote for lawyers or academics.

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 08:10 PM
And let's be clear: that blue state is one of the most advanced, diverse, economically successful, pragmatic with climate change, and populous regions in the world. He was mayor of San Francisco, started issuing gay marriage licenses on his own authority, and managed the political fallout and national stage very well. And San Francisco is like 3 times the size of freaking Newark.

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 08:12 PM
The only positions from which you traditionally draw for vp or president
Sure.

Kimon
02-09-2016, 08:12 PM
And let's be clear: that blue state is one of the most advanced, diverse, economically successful, pragmatic with climate change, and populous regions in the world. He was mayor of San Francisco, started issuing gay marriage licenses on his own authority, and managed the political fallout and national stage very well. And San Francisco is like 3 times the size of freaking Newark.

All of which will look good when he runs for governor or the senate.

Kimon
02-09-2016, 08:18 PM
Sure.

Our Cursus Honorum isn't as strict, but there's a reason that people like Trump and Carly Fiorina are unfit for high office. Newsom's resume is better than theirs, but it still isn't good enough. Your mention of him is like calling for a quaestor to skip past tribune, aedile, and praetor and just run for consul.

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 08:19 PM
All of which will look good when he runs for governor or the senate.
I think you're missing the mood of the electorate. Palin, Cruz, Trump, Ryan, and Sanders are all really odd choices for the office sought. Your calculus is outdated. Booker? Gillibrand? That won't work with the anti-Washington crowd. Sanders may have avoided that stigma, but he was (is?) an independent.

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 08:23 PM
Our Cursus Honorum isn't as strict, but there's a reason that people like Trump and Carly Fiorina are unfit for high office. Newsom's resume is better than theirs, but it still isn't good enough. Your mention of him is like calling for a quaestor to skip past tribune, aedile, and praetor and just run for consul.
I think you need to get out more.


And I threw him out because I thought he'd be the best choice for Sanders specifically. Sanders has unusual weaknesses and requires an unusual balance. A key caveat is that I don't think Sanders is the best choice for the party. I would have been far happier with Brown or Biden.

Kimon
02-09-2016, 08:23 PM
I think you're missing the mood of the electorate. Palin, Cruz, Trump, Ryan, and Sanders are all really odd choices for the office sought. Your calculus is outdated. Booker? Gillibrand? That won't work with the anti-Washington crowd. Sanders may have avoided that stigma, but he was (is?) an independent.

Four of those five are appealing to the Tea Party. Sanders is more a product of how weak of a candidate Hillary is, than of an iconoclastic spirit on the left.

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 08:25 PM
Sanders is more a product of how weak of a candidate Hillary is, than of an iconoclastic spirit on the left.
This is true today. It won't be if he wins.

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 08:34 PM
Rubio 5th in the current tally. Kasich running a strong second, which is good news for those of us who hope for someone palatable winning the GOP nomination. And I think Bush would leave the race in favor of Kasich, but never for Rubio. Not clear what Christie's gonna do. Seems we were right about the attack not being a part of some overarching strategy.

Kimon
02-09-2016, 08:45 PM
Rubio 5th in the current tally. Kasich running a strong second, which is good news for those of us who hope for someone palatable winning the GOP nomination. And I think Bush would leave the race in favor of Kasich, but never for Rubio. Not clear what Christie's gonna do. Seems we were right about the attack not being a part of some overarching strategy.

Before Citizens United, this result would have thinned the Republican herd to Trump, Cruz, and Kasich. Everyone else would be gone. But that was due to money. Now? Normally Rubio would too, but he has so much money left. Christie, Carson, and Fiorina should all likely drop out now, or at the very least there is no longer any point in paying any attention to them.

The perhaps larger question, does Kasich obliterate Trump and Cruz in a three man race, or do the crazies really rule the roost?

Davian93
02-09-2016, 08:55 PM
5th, if it holds up (I think he might sneak into 4th) is an utter disaster for Rubio. He's a dead man walking if he finishes 5th.

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 08:57 PM
The perhaps larger question, does Kasich obliterate Trump and Cruz in a three man race, or do the crazies really rule the roost?
There was a fascinating poll done on Rubio vs Trump, Rubio vs Cruz, and Rubio vs Trump vs Cruz.

Not sure how, but iirc, Rubio won against either but lost when running against both. I'll see if I can find it.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 08:58 PM
Before Citizens United, this result would have thinned the Republican herd to Trump, Cruz, and Kasich. Everyone else would be gone. But that was due to money. Now? Normally Rubio would too, but he has so much money left. Christie, Carson, and Fiorina should all likely drop out now, or at the very least there is no longer any point in paying any attention to them.

The perhaps larger question, does Kasich obliterate Trump and Cruz in a three man race, or do the crazies really rule the roost?

There is no moderate wing of the GOP anymore...so I don't think he will. If anything, it feels like it could be a near 3 way tie with a brokered convention that shatters the party like the 1860 race destroyed the Dems for a generation.

Or how the rise of the GOP destroyed the Whig Party...We might very well finally be seeing a realignment for the first time in probably 2 generations (1964 was the last major shakeup when the Dems lost the entire South due to the Civil Rights Act...just as LBJ predicted when he was signing it).

Davian93
02-09-2016, 09:01 PM
If Bush or Kasich were to flip a coin and have one drop out and endorse the other, the remaining guy standing could have a solid shot at the nomination. I wonder if one of them will do so "for the good of the Party" or some crap like that.

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 09:09 PM
If Bush or Kasich were to flip a coin and have one drop out and endorse the other, the remaining guy standing could have a solid shot at the nomination. I wonder if one of them will do so "for the good of the Party" or some crap like that.
They probably should...but the optics of something like that? Telling the half of their party that support Trump, Cruz, or Carson that they are the ones destroying the party? Or did you mean behind closed doors?

Davian93
02-09-2016, 09:11 PM
They probably should...but the optics of something like that? Telling the half of their party that support Trump, Cruz, or Carson that they are the ones destroying the party? Or did you mean behind closed doors?

Behind closed doors obviously...they meet, figure out who has the best chance going forward and the other ends their campaign and endorses the other. Not that unheard of really.

Will either do it? I doubt it.



In other news, Sanders won the female vote by 11% in exit polls...that's the overall female vote, not just young females. So, um...women don't like Hillary in NH apparently.

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 09:15 PM
The most amazing statistic in the poll came from a question that asked voters about what should be done with undocumented immigrants who were already in the United S.tates Trump, of course, has said he would deport all 12 million of them. It was no surprise, then, that Trump won among the voters who supported mass deportation.
But, astoundingly, he also won among voters who said that deportation was the wrong choice. Among that group of voters – the 66 percent of Republicans who supported offering legal status to undocumented immigrants, the exact opposite of Trump’s plan – 22 percent supported Trump anyway. That was enough to tie Kasich for first place.

Holy shit...I don't even know what to make of this.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 09:19 PM
Holy shit...I don't even know what to make of this.

Its a personality cult effect...they support El Duce, not his policies necessarily.

Its fascism at its worst.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 10:04 PM
Trump is the most insanely idiotic speaker I've ever heard. Its amazing how random he is with these just awful tangents and jumping around on random things.

How the hell does anyone support this idiot?

The Unreasoner
02-09-2016, 10:17 PM
Is this real?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBX0Z1MkDyQ

It looks real, but they cut to a different camera in the middle. I mean, I thought it had to be a prank, but..

And if it is, I mean, he just got called on this shit.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 10:18 PM
Is this real?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBX0Z1MkDyQ

It looks real, but they cut to a different camera in the middle. I mean, I thought it had to be a prank, but..

And if it is, I mean, he just got called on this shit.

100% real apparently. I'm thinking they need to reinstall Windows on the Rubiobot or something. Definitely needs to have updates installed as that's a serious glitch there.

Terez
02-09-2016, 10:19 PM
Is this real?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBX0Z1MkDyQ

It looks real, but they cut to a different camera in the middle. I mean, I thought it had to be a prank, but..

And if it is, I mean, he just got called on this shit.
100% legit. You can tell because the second time he says "rammed down our throats", he noticeably perceives the glitch in the Matrix.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 10:21 PM
100% legit. You can tell because the second time he says "rammed down our throats", he noticeably perceives the glitch in the Matrix.

Its almost as if he's obsessed with ramming things down throats or having it rammed down his own.

I wonder if he ponders this obsession in highway rest stops and random public restrooms...

Terez
02-09-2016, 10:29 PM
There is no moderate wing of the GOP anymore...so I don't think he will. If anything, it feels like it could be a near 3 way tie with a brokered convention that shatters the party like the 1860 race destroyed the Dems for a generation.
Trump's margin tonight actually makes that a little less likely IMO. He's in position to possibly win the nomination outright. His loss in Iowa was the dent we needed to avoid that—just one loss on his record, distant-ish 2nd—but that dent might not be enough.

Or how the rise of the GOP destroyed the Whig Party...We might very well finally be seeing a realignment for the first time in probably 2 generations (1964 was the last major shakeup when the Dems lost the entire South due to the Civil Rights Act...just as LBJ predicted when he was signing it).
This has been my suspicion for a long time now, partly because the transfer of white identify politics from the Democrats to the Republicans is finally, after decades, almost complete. We're approaching peak party purity, and it's unsettling voters in ways they might not themselves fully understand.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 10:30 PM
Well, I'm off to bed pretty much. I just hope Rubio stays in 5th as it slams the door on his "bounce" narrative from last week. Between the debate and last couple days, he's completely imploding and it'll be interesting to see where his support goes...maybe Kasich, maybe Cruz, maybe Trump. The GOP is such an utter clusterfuck right now that its insane.

Sanders had a great night but he did it in a super white state and he will need to prove he can appeal to the Latino and Black base of the Democratic party. If he can do that and bring the youth vote along the lines of what Obama did, he's got a shot but the next couple weeks do not favor him at all going forward with Nevada, SC and then a ton of southern states on Super Tuesday where demographically, he's a huge disadvantage. Hillary is trending in the wrong direction but she could easily bounce back and win.

It'll be fun to watch.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 10:32 PM
This has been my suspicion for a long time now, partly because the transfer of white identify politics from the Democrats to the Republicans is finally, after decades, almost complete. We're approaching peak party purity, and it's unsettling voters in ways they might not themselves fully understand.

We're also seeing the rebirth of the Progressive Wing of the Dem party after a couple of decades in the wilderness. We saw it in 2008 with Obama but we're seeing another wave of it under Sanders right now...the anti-establishment and the generation of pissed off youth that have dealt with the Great Recession seem far more willing to embrace Progressive politics once again. The GOP southern strategy is hitting up against a demographic wall too as there simply aren't enough pissed off white people to win a national election anymore...I suspect they'll have to jettison that far right wing and form a moderate right/center right party again peeling off the remaining blue dog/corporate dems again.

It'll be ugly and interesting to see.

Davian93
02-09-2016, 10:39 PM
One last thing before I go...Trump holds massive leads in SC and NV right now. If he takes both in the next couple weeks by big margins, you're right that it might be all over.


Sounds like Christie has dropped out. Hey Chris...thanks for destroying Rubio for us, we appreciate it.

Kimon
02-09-2016, 11:19 PM
Here's another example of why we need to make sure the next few SC Justices aren't members of the Black Ajah...

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35538350

President Barack Obama's plans to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide from US power plants have been stalled by the US Supreme Court.
The court ruled that the president's Clean Power Plan could not go forward until all legal challenges were heard.
Designed to cut US emissions by 32% by 2030, the scheme put huge emphasis on a shift to renewable energy.

An initial attempt to halt the implementation of the plan until legal challenges were heard was thrown out by a US appeals court in Washington in January.
However the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to suspend the plan pending the outcome of the litigation.

Terez
02-09-2016, 11:33 PM
One last thing before I go...Trump holds massive leads in SC and NV right now. If he takes both in the next couple weeks by big margins, you're right that it might be all over.
Oh, I don't think it will be "all over" that soon. But if he continues to do well as the season goes on, a majority is possible for him. Possible is not probable. If he hadn't won by such a big margin tonight, then that possibility would be even more narrow. Even as it stands right now, he's looking at less than 30% of the delegates, but there are some winner-take-all states coming up that could change the calculus for him.

Sounds like Christie has dropped out. Hey Chris...thanks for destroying Rubio for us, we appreciate it.
He hasn't officially dropped out yet, but only because the results aren't yet completely reported. He says he's going back to NJ to wait on the final results and reevaluate his campaign; that in itself is big news because he had just changed his original plans to go back to NJ, announcing a schedule of events in SC. It was obvious he was doing that to project confidence in NH, but he had to retract it very quickly. We'll have an announcement by morning, I expect.

Terez
02-09-2016, 11:37 PM
Here's another example of why we need to make sure the next few SC Justices aren't members of the Black Ajah...
SCOTUS is important. So are Cabinet positions. We don't need another banker at Treasury or another Wall St. lawyer at Justice.

PS: I realize we're talking about lifetime appointments for SCOTUS, but it's just a tiresome narrative that seems aimed at getting people to support the "electable" candidate.

Terez
02-09-2016, 11:51 PM
It does have the feel of very close to over for Hillary. She has no chance in New Hampshire, and Iowa was a Pyrrhic Victory. With or without South Carolina, it feels too late. People just don't like Hillary.
It's true that people just don't like Hillary, but I think you're exaggerating a little here. She's still got enormous advantages in this race, the minority loyalty being the most difficult for Bernie to overcome. It's kind of huge that he's got Ben Jealous, but I don't know how much good it will do him. Hillary's got all the prominent black journalists and their influence in the black community is probably greater than anything a former NAACP leader can hope to wield without their help.

Hillary also has the superdelegates on her side, but that could ultimately work against her because it reinforces her image as the Establishment candidate, and reinforces the idea that all these elected officials are reluctant to cross her.

Bernie still worries me though. Hopefully he is careful in the choosing of his running mate. Cory Booker would make a lot of sense. So would Kirsten Gillibrand. They're both much more centrist than him, and realistic candidates for four years from now whether or not Bernie wins. That might be a too Northeastern a ticket, but I can't really think of many other obvious options. Debbie Stabenow maybe. Just not Warren. Has to remember that he's not running for President of New England.
I don't think Warren would be a bad choice, but I don't think she wants that job. She'd be better at Treasury.

Davian93
02-10-2016, 08:25 AM
SCOTUS is important. So are Cabinet positions. We don't need another banker at Treasury or another Wall St. lawyer at Justice.

PS: I realize we're talking about lifetime appointments for SCOTUS, but it's just a tiresome narrative that seems aimed at getting people to support the "electable" candidate.

Yeah but it's also actually true so it is really important. The last thing we need is another Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito appointed.

Let alone some idiot like Robert Bork...who would likely get confirmed these days given that his views are basically what mainstream Republicans believe now...as hard as that is to think about given how far right he was considered 25 years ago.

Davian93
02-10-2016, 08:25 AM
I don't think Warren would be a bad choice, but I don't think she wants that job. She'd be better at Treasury.

She'd be better staying in the Senate.

Hillary also has the superdelegates on her side, but that could ultimately work against her because it reinforces her image as the Establishment candidate, and reinforces the idea that all these elected officials are reluctant to cross her.

For now she does...those are soft commitments at best. If the wind blows in the other direction, those superdelegates could easily jump ship...and it would look really, really bad if Bernie were to go into the Convention with a lead in the popular vote and only lose out due to all the superdelegates siding with Hillary. Talk about terrible optics and the sort of dirty trick that would cause a rebellion among Bernie's supporters who could very well stay home in November just to spite her.

GonzoTheGreat
02-10-2016, 08:38 AM
Yeah but it's also actually true so it is really important. The last thing we need is another Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito appointed.

Let alone some idiot like Robert Bork...who would likely get confirmed these days given that his views are basically what mainstream Republicans believe now...as hard as that is to think about given how far right he was considered 25 years ago.
Then again, you might be lucky and get some more moderates like Scalia.

Davian93
02-10-2016, 08:46 AM
It'll be interesting to see the SC and NV polling numbers in a few days to say the least. Hillary was a good 30 points ahead of Bernie in SC a month ago . If NH turns it into a dead heat or even into a competitive race, it could spell trouble to Hillary who should be walking away with the nomination.

Terez
02-10-2016, 08:52 AM
Yeah but it's also actually true so it is really important.
It's true that SCOTUS is important. It's not necessarily true that Hillary Clinton is the ticket.

She'd be better staying in the Senate.
This is so much bullshit. People have actually tried to argue she has more power and influence in the Senate than she would as president. It's ridiculous. She'd definitely be more effective at Treasury than in the senate.

Davian93
02-10-2016, 09:08 AM
4 years (most likely only 4 as its very rare to stay in a Cabinet post more than 1 term) at Treasury vs 12-18 years in the Senate?

I would argue she'd have more influence as a senior Senator with Committee assignments than she would for temp assignment at Treasury where any successor could reverse her in quick order.

Davian93
02-10-2016, 09:14 AM
It's true that SCOTUS is important. It's not necessarily true that Hillary Clinton is the ticket.

I would say its important that a Dem win over a GOP president, not specifically Hillary or Bernie. We dont need another generation of a Far Right court...the next president is looking at at least 2, probably 3-4 SCOTUS appointments due to age:

Scalia is 79 so he is already getting up there.
Ginsburg should have retired 2-3 years ago as she's a sickly 82.
Kennedy is 79
Breyer is 77.

So that's potentially 4 appointments of which 3 are considered moderate or centrist and only 1 is on the right wing side of the court. If someone like Trump, Cruz, Rubio, etc were to win, we could easily see a stacked Court with 6 or even 7 sure-thing conservative Justices for the next 20 years. It'd be worse than the Far Right House of Lords was for the UK around the turn of the 20th century for impeding progress...and we don't have the option of creating 500 new Peers to dilute their influence.

Terez
02-10-2016, 11:12 AM
Christie is out.

Ta-Nehisi Coates is voting for Bernie.

Davian93
02-10-2016, 11:56 AM
Christie is out.

Ta-Nehisi Coates is voting for Bernie.

No huge surprise on Christie...at least he did some good before he left.


I wonder if Bernie's breakfast with Al Sharpton was helpful.

Terez
02-10-2016, 12:08 PM
I wonder if Bernie's breakfast with Al Sharpton was helpful.
Sharpton's importance is limited relative to Michelle Alexander, Ben Jealous, and TNC.

PS: to an extent that's not true. Jealous as a former NAACP operative has some experience with get-out-the-vote operations, but Sharpton could be useful in that area if he decides to endorse anyone. I just tend to doubt that he will endorse. He's currently being "courted" by both camps, but I suspect that if anyone Hillary will be more appealing to him, and I would not be surprised to see him stay neutral until after SC.

Davian93
02-11-2016, 10:53 AM
I wonder how long till Hillary and team clinton decide to attack Bernie through Jane and her failures as president of Burlington College. She basically ran a small art school into the ground during her presidency.

It shouldn't matter of course as she's not running for office but it'll happen soon enough.

And here it is...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-jane-vermont-burlington-college-219114?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

That didn't take long, Hillary.

Davian93
02-11-2016, 11:02 AM
For reference, Burlington College is a tiny art school that focuses on non-traditional majors and film school. My wife got her BFA from there and it was a really good school at the time. To be honest, Jane did a pretty solid job as President but her grand plan to expand simply didn't work out. Her CFO Christine Plunkett was completely incompetent and Plunkett took over as President once they pushed Jane out. Plunkett basically ran the school into the ground and was and is under investigation for inproper accounting...she was dipping into the school's endowment to pay for things like salary and the electric bill (that's not allowed for reference). She also raised zero money for the school and blew a ton of money on quixotic schemes that went nowhere. She was also renowned for her "Lunches with the President" where she'd go out to eat at the most expensive restaurants in town on the school's dime. She was forced out herself last year due to gross incompetence and the school has been teetering on the edge of collapse since then.

EDIT: One thing they forget in the article (or likely dont know) is that Jane Sanders DID raise money for the school...and she had a bunch more pledged by donors but that money went away when Plunkett & Co forced her out...Plunkett is literally a POS. She also ran a small private school down in Middlebury, VT that she ran into the ground as well once she took over. She's utterly incompetent. The students of Burlington had to literally force her out of her position to get rid of her.

GonzoTheGreat
02-11-2016, 12:14 PM
Well, my pick (Fiorina) just ran away, so I suspect she's not going to win. Then again, perhaps the Republicans will surprise us ...

Terez
02-11-2016, 12:54 PM
My pick got destroyed by Chris Christie. Oh well. He had a better chance of beating the D nominee than Trump, but I would really rather have gotten rid of Trump early, for obvious reasons. I'm not willing to gamble it on my assumptions about his unelectability.

Bernie's wife...she has made it clear that she's not a 2-for-one wife. We don't need her to be a good college president; we just need her to be a person of good character. Easy to forget that in a race against a very singular First Lady.

Davian93
02-11-2016, 01:54 PM
My pick got destroyed by Chris Christie. Oh well. He had a better chance of beating the D nominee than Trump, but I would really rather have gotten rid of Trump early, for obvious reasons. I'm not willing to gamble it on my assumptions about his unelectability.

Bernie's wife...she has made it clear that she's not a 2-for-one wife. We don't need her to be a good college president; we just need her to be a person of good character. Easy to forget that in a race against a very singular First Lady.

She's pretty cool...she has to be since she bought some photos off my wife for her office. Burlington College really isn't on her. They'll try to smear her with it but there wasn't any corruption, kick backs, or anything like that. Its a small art school that tried to expand during the Great Recession and screwed it up a bit...and her underling was a disgusting pig of a human being who is corrupt as all hell.


On Trump...you have to understand, Trump is out there. He cant be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop ever until we're all dead.

Terez
02-11-2016, 02:01 PM
An aside, not really related to the election, except that I think he is a Bernie guy, Alan Grayson looks to be in a deep pile here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/alan-graysons-double-life-congressman-and-hedge-fund-manager.html

I have never liked Grayson. He's like the Ted Cruz of the left or something. Doesn't seem human.

Davian93
02-11-2016, 02:08 PM
Ted Cruz of the Left? Yeah, that's pretty damn accurate. He's a disgusting human being.

Rand al'Fain
02-12-2016, 01:15 AM
And so the race narrows down between, as South Park so wisely put it, giant douches and turd sandwiches.

A very sad day when the likes of Trump and Clinton are front runners. Bernie boy? Meh. At least he's talking about actual things in his ads. I give him that much.

Can we just jump four years into the future and pray to God we get some better candidates than the ones running this time around?

GonzoTheGreat
02-12-2016, 04:13 AM
Can we just jump four years into the future and pray to God we get some better candidates than the ones running this time around?
That worked so well in the past, didn't it?
I still remember when Dan Quayle seemed bad. Since then, the Republican candidates have gotten consistently worse, with each time people believing "next time they'll be better".

Terez
02-12-2016, 07:04 AM
I was falling asleep after the debate last night so I didn't get to comment. Just wanted to say I'm pleased Bernie found an opportunity to push back on Henry Kissinger last night. If young people don't know who he is, they should.

Davian93
02-12-2016, 09:00 AM
I was falling asleep after the debate last night so I didn't get to comment. Just wanted to say I'm pleased Bernie found an opportunity to push back on Henry Kissinger last night. If young people don't know who he is, they should.

Hillary telling people that Kissinger is a good friend and that he approved of her job as SecState really shows how disconnected she is from the base of her own Party. How can she not grasp how controversial a figure he really is?


I mean, if I were SecState and Kissinger called, I'd pick up the phone. I'd even bounce things off of him but I sure as hell wouldn't advertise it. Using his knowledge is one thing...but thinking hes a good guy? No, not so much.