How do we view it?
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
How do we view it?
The media (MSNBC and CNN) are trying to push the idea that Clinton will win NY and it's a done deal just because she was a senator from NY. Well, isn't Bernie from NY as well? The bias is just too much sometimes.
CNN were saying for weeks that Wisconsin is a very crucial state and a do-or-die fight for either candidate. Since Bernie won yesterday, there was barely a word about Wisconsin any more. They moved back to their stump coverage about Hillary. CNN has been extremely biased in this election. I'm never watching it ever again.
CNN were saying for weeks that Wisconsin is a very crucial state and a do-or-die fight for either candidate. Since Bernie won yesterday, there was barely a word about Wisconsin any more. They moved back to their stump coverage about Hillary. CNN has been extremely biased in this election. I'm never watching it ever again.
the corporate media are doing their paid job. But ol Hillary is not keeping pace with the narative.
btw Trump was in top form just now...destroying Lyin Ted. Bringing up his NY values' slight. Trump is going to wipe the floor with him. And he will be the nominee.
Oh for fecks sake, he's reciting the snake poem again. Wordsworth is turning in his grave.
The snake poem again.I'd pay money to see Trump bring Joaquin Phoenix to recite it at one of his events.
Even though you were somewhat joking, because I'm bored...
JFK: His nervous wreckedness didn't prevent him from standing up to war hawks in his organization eager to go to outright war with Cuba, plus he successfully navigated the Cuban Missile Crisis. His "connections" to Thurmond didn't prevent him from initiating Civil Rights Reform, and enforcing desegregation in the Deep South, alienating southern white Democrats in the process (something Nixon took advantage of down the road)
LBJ: All presidents are liars. Plus, he got the Civil Rights Bill and Voting Rights Act passed (byproduct of his excellent tenure as President of the Senate), despite whatever internal racism he may have had. His only black mark was Vietnam.
Carter: I'll give you that one
Bill Clinton: Presided over economic surge. Yeah he got a blowjob
Obama: Too early to judge his tenure, but I think history will place him in the upper 2nd quartile of presidents when it's all said and done.
In comparison, the only Republican presidents of note since WW2 are Eisenhower and Reagan. Nixon would get in if not for Watergate.
What's my point? I'm not sure. I'm off to watch this Trump speech
Confused whether there is a path to changing the constitution in India or not. Brazil has some special items on the constitution too, but to the extent people wanted to you could draft a wholly new constitution. This is all impractical and would probably need 90%+ support from the people, so I'm talking hypotheticals. But I'm just always careful with the notion that the laws appear out of thin air and can never change.
Is there any visible face in the Democratic party that can fill Sanders space for future elections or is that wonderful man a one-time opportunity?
I think I've beaten the horse to death regarding my feelings for the modern Republican Party, so I'm not denigrating the Dems there with right wing talking points. Dont disagree with what you said, but the things outlined in my original post were true with ample sources backing them up. I was merely pushing out against the notion that HC is 'how low the Dems have sunk' when she doesn't objectively do worse than most of them in the moral department.
Presidents are judged by their legislative legacy. None of them are what we'd consider decent human being, the effective ones.
Re: Kennedy. I wouldn't give him that much credit on Civil Rights. His role was similar to Obama's on LGBT's right. Ditto CMC.
Well there is Elizabeth Warren. Also, Sanders has just opened the door for a broadening of the Democratic platform at future elections. His positions will be advanced by a new group of younger faces in the future, especially if the current group of establishment dinosaurs keep ignoring them.
Remember he wasn't a Democrat before this race. So theoretically, anyone who can legitimately represent the same positions as Sanders.
There's Elizabeth Warren within the party.
it will be a gradual process. This election will have a lot of consequences. In some way a defeat for the DNC, assuming Hillary is the candidate, may do more long term good for ordinary democratic voters. A quicker move to the left.
both parties are controlled by huge money. That is why they bring forward candidates who in one way or another have to make the deals.
Tom Perez may be a contender. Liz will be as old as Sanders if Hillary serves two terms.
For all of their blusters, the progressive wing doesn't have many up and coming faces.
For all of their blusters, the progressive wing doesn't have many up and coming faces.
Fair enough.
A lot can change, and if Hillary serves two terms then Elizabeth Warren could easily serve two after. That time (nearly 16 years) is more than enough for hundreds of electable Democrats to work their way up through the system.
Saying all that though, it's not like the Republicans have a huge list of up and coming Presidential candidates either.
Tim Howard reckons Giggs deserves to be President.
There is, but the SC ruled that some parts are beyond amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine
I'd love for nothing more than a Liz presidency, she's got the knowledge to play the game and the expertise to draw up meaningful financial reforms, but it's unusual to say the least of a consecutive 5th Democratice term, and what'd be 3rd woman's.
All focus should be on 2020, a redistricting year. A Dem win would ensure that even with a Republican White House in 2024, there's a check in place.
Seems unlikely that one party will be in power for 24 years, voters will lose enthusiasm at some point. Best chance for getting Liz is if Hilary loses her reelection or has some horrific heart attack.
I agree, (and even this election isn't completely assured yet) but if the GOP keep imploding like this and throwing up more and more hateful candidates, then unless a third party emerges, which of course is possible, it's also possible that the Dems could continue in the White House until someone provides a viable and acceptable challenge to them.
They need to do a better organizing job at grassroots level. You look at the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements respectively and there's no contest which has been the more effective. Yesterday when Sanders won WI, a lot of his supporters didn't vote for the Dem candidate for WI Supreme Court. Quelle surprise, Walker's nominee got the gig, a gay hatin', God fearin', anti abortion pos.
http://www.benchmarkpolitics.com/2016/04/did-sanders-voters-doom-kloppenburg.html?m=1
Wow.
He got 57% of the vote on the Dem side, translating to ~25% of the vote overall. (She got something like ~20%). Trump, Cruz, and Kasich voters toeghter made up >50% of the electorate yesterday.
Whom exactly are you blaming here and on what grounds?
EDIT: I saw the link, 78% did. He did get some Repub votes this time, which could explain the ~15% difference.
I'm also a little scpetical of that data since the county where Kl... did best (Madison) is where Bernie got most of his lead, and is also one which is dominated by univ students. That data shows her rival got a significant amount of young Bernie votes. I'm finding it hard to imagine a Bernie-supporting college student being anti-gay.
EDIT2: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...cle_1eb83529-ec5f-59d1-83a4-d7be4ff02b6d.html
He specifically asked for Bradley to be defeated. And it was one of the top posts in the subreddit.
Conclusions:
1. His endorsements may not mean that much to his voters. Interesting for Hillary in the general.
2. If he can win over homophobes, surely he is the most cast-iron Dem GE nominee ever
Last edited:
The Dems could nominate their donkey mascot and it would still win 2 terms over anyone from the current GOP circus.
Wow.
He got 57% of the vote on the Dem side, translating to ~25% of the vote overall. (She got something like ~20%). Trump, Cruz, and Kasich voters toeghter made up >50% of the electorate yesterday.
Whom exactly are you blaming here and on what grounds?
EDIT: I saw the link, 78% did. He did get some Repub votes this time, which could explain the ~15% difference.
I'm also a little scpetical of that data since the county where Kl... did best (Madison) is where Bernie got most of his lead, and is also one which is dominated by univ students. That data shows her rival got a significant amount of young Bernie votes. I'm finding it hard to imagine a Bernie-supporting college student being anti-gay.
EDIT2: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...cle_1eb83529-ec5f-59d1-83a4-d7be4ff02b6d.html
He specifically asked for Bradley to be defeated. And it was one of the top posts in the subreddit.
Conclusions:
1. His endorsements may not mean that much to his voters. Interesting for Hillary in the general.
2. If he can win over homophobes, surely he is the most cast-iron Dem GE nominee ever
The link itself said that only in the most hopeful of circumstances would KL win. I'm not blaming those 15% alone for the defeat but you can't deny a pattern of the youth vote being negligent or ignorant towards down ballot races. Also, bold is just wrong. They specifically explained that they mightn't be homophobic, but clueless about the candidates, so just tick the first name on the ballot.
Re: edit 2. We've done this to death and never will see eye to eye on it. Those homophobes will ditch him in a heartbeat once the attack ads come out.
Bernie just had an epic meltdown, flat out going on a rant about how Clinton 'isn't qualified to be President'.
Now watch her win NY by 20 points.
Now watch her win NY by 20 points.
Having watched the clip. I wouldn't call that a meltdown.
Me neither, he's not lying either. The more I see of Hillary, the less I like her.
It is by election cycle standard. You can insinuate all you like, but explicitly saying it is a big no no.
Maybe his internals tell him he must make a big play to catch up in NY, but it's definitely not the one.
She must be way too old for future elections?
I think he was saying as a retort to her pretty much but not saying the same thing.
Personally think it's a good play because a) it's getting a lot of coverage and b) he quite explicitly gave his reasons why and highlights Hillary's position on Iraq/Trade agreements/Wall street funding/Panama etc etc.
If this is a meltdown, i don't know what you would call Hillary's blowing up at a Greenpeace activist and calling Bernie a liar about her funding from fossil fuels (which is actually true) or her dismissive comments about young voters, or using Sandy Hook to attack Bernie... The refusal to debate unless Bernie 'changes his tune' etc etc
They are debating next week though aren't they? I said a few months ago the race wasn't over then said it again a couple of months ago, then again last month and each time was laughed at and told I was talking rubbish and yet here we are just before the extremely important home state primary for both candidates of NY. The debate could be crucial and somehow Bernie manages to win NY then the pressure on many superdelegates to change their stance and switch will be immense and then the Dems will be facing exactly the same shit the Republicans are facing now. At least it's made things interesting again, and I don't think Hilary is helping herself with many of her comments about Bernie lately, not to mention yet again she is outright lying with some of them.
.
Why are you laughing? It's entirely true. I'm a democrat btw.
He died before he could do anything, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was something of his making. His advisers, civilian and military said that missiles on Cuba did not change the strategic outlook at the time. The US had something like 10x as many ICBMs at the time. Many times more strategic bombers at the time. Basically at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis the US was miles ahead in nuclear armaments and delivery systems.
His advisers told him that it wasn't really a big deal at all, and that they were roughly equivalent to the medium range nuclear missiles the US had stationed in Turkey and other nations on the doorstep of the USSR. The US had "Jupiter" class missiles in Turkey. The missiles in Cuba were taken as a political threat to him, and that is how he dealt with them. They were not deemed a military threat and he didn't really consider them as such in private. In public he stated they were essentially an imminent first strike threat.
An adviser of his recommended that through back channels the US could trade the Jupiter missiles in Turkey for the missiles in Cuba. Kennedy threw him under the bus, destroyed his career, and then went ahead and did exactly that. Kennedy also threatened Khrushchev that if the USSR made the deal public, Kennedy would back out of the deal and immediately reinstall the weapon systems on the Soviet border.
So, in short, Kennedy took the world to the brink of global annihilation, so he could look good. His civilian and military advisers did not consider the missiles on Cuba as representing an increase in the USSRs nuclear threat, nor a first strike weapon. He lied about what he was doing. He hid his deal with the USSR, and then he and his advisers invented a narrative that made the USSR look weak and made him look strong.
I guess laugh away. It must be fun not being educated
The mental gymnastics here is amazing. Even in the heat of the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama never called each other unqualified. It's one of the gravest insult you could hurl at each other. Social media is exploding over this, Hillary's base is fired up and the MSM coverage is damaging to say the least.
A good play would be to keep her base complacent while campaigning to pick off pocket of votes that can win him some congressional districts in NY to peel off delegates. This one is a colossal mistake and he's just kissed goodbye to the Dem base. You don't say that about a candidate beloved by 80% of the party.
Yeah they are now, but initially she refused to debate, then one of her team came out and said she was open to debate, then they said Bernie had to 'change his tune' and stop attacking her on Wall Street links and who funds her, then she said she would debate but on a Saturday, then only on a date that Bernie had a rally planned in NYC, then she initially wanted George Stephanopoulos, who use to work for Bill and donates to the Clinton foundation, as moderator etc etc
She done everything she can to dodge it, and i wonder if she's angry that Bill deBlaso offered to push through permits for Bernie so he could re-arrange his April 14th rally to the 13th.
This is the hilarious thing. Way to go Bernie
Both campaigns have said some really dumb things over the past few weeks, the sooner this is over with the better.
Says a lot about Hillary's base if it took Bernie to fire them up.
- Status