Kasich is doing a q&a with voters about a mile from me right now.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Certainly not, although the Pope and Sanders seem to have a similar views on a moral economy.
I'm pretty sure that the last time you stated you couldn't vote for him, you cited a couple of his policies, and nothing about it having to do with him not being able to implement. I can't find it, because this is clearly one of the most active threads on the caf.
Pretty sure Obama's nominee has no problem with CU, at least from what I've read? I didn't raise the point about her taking such money, but obviously I see the practical reasons for going after that kind of money, but that is exactly the point. Politicians can't afford to not cater to interests with money to stay in office, and that is why the system is corrupt. You know full-well, I assume, how senators and such have to start raising money for re-election the moment they get into office, that can't be good for democracy.
That's because i like Bernie, consider him a good man with good morals, who has his heart in the right place. Part of me wants to see him in the WH to see how the Republicans would meltdown; whereas another doesn't want to see him there as he would more or less become a lame duck the moment he swears in. Hillary has a lot of flaws as well, not the least of which is the fact that she pretty much had to be coaxed in to running after wanting to retire following her SecState job. She is not a natural politician and needs to get out and earn every vote, despite not being a populist. I've still not made up my mind (despite previous comments), and will probably decide literally a moment before i vote.
I really don't buy the lines that she had to be coaxed, or that she's not a natural politician. She clearly doesn't have the charisma of the likes of Obama and Bill, but she clearly wants this gig, or else she wouldn't have run twice. She could easily have neverminded it if she wanted to.
"That's because I like Bernie" etc. That's not answering anything I said, dude. I'd have to find your actual quote to settle this.
I don't think people realise just how much CU benefits the GOP over any Dem candidate, including Hillary, and thus once this cycle is over she's near certain to push for its striking down. Some figures:
Clinton main campaign (not affected by CU) - $160m
Clinton Super-PAC - $55m
Bush main campaign - $35m
Bush Super-PAC - $119m
Cruz main campaign - $66m
Cruz Super-PACs - $42m+
Rubio main campaign - $43m
Rubio Super-PAC - $58m
Kasich main campaign - $12m
Kasich Super-PAC - $10m
Carson main campaign - $63m (?!?!)
Carson Super-PACs - $13.5m
Walker main campaign - $8m
Walker Super-PACs - $24m
Fiorina main campaign - $12m
Fiorina Super-PAC - $14m
Christie main campaign - $8.5m
Christie Super-PAC - $20m
Those are the ones with over $10m from Super-PACs. Even bloody Bobby Jindal and Huckabee got $5m each. So anyone that ever says Clinton or the Dem establishment are anywhere near close the to GOP in terms of big money politics, and would try to keep CU alive, call them out on their complete bullshit. Clinton's fundraising strength is through standard, capped campaign donations.
That's probably down to the sheer number of GOP candidates who ran this time. If the situations were reversed, i'd imagine a good number of Dems would be using PACs and getting big donor contributions.
No, Dems just don't benefit from it. Romney got twice as much as Obama in 2012 as well, vast majority after he'd won the nomination already.
Looks like you missed the phenomenon that was Jon Stewart?
Did he say it as well? Thought he just went with standard "media". But given your recent binging I'll defer to you!
I think the quote I remembered was "the mainstream media has a bias towards sensationalism." Though the context was this was during a Fox interview and and he was contrasting CNN with Fox.
Edit: forgot Chomsky
Last edited:
I think the quote I remembered was "the mainstream media has a bias towards sensationalism." Though the context was this was during a Fox interview and and he was contrasting CNN with Fox.
Edit: forgot Chomsky
Good lord, considering that Sanders is considered too radical, I wouldn't start quoting Chomsky
Even though I think the man's analyses are fantastic.
Surprised at the levels of support Clinton's getting in Wyoming, still going to lose by a lot but actually managed to win a county and tie another! Imma rig up some bunting.
Wow, some at the moment actually saying it's going to be a delegate tie for the result. Paltry amount of delegates overall but emphasises Sanders' problem with closed contests.
Wow. Almost sounds like you´re on the verge of getting a lobotomy and joining us for a few sugary drinks.
600m or so, a very low percentage. They're still investing a lot for future growth, so it doesn't even post a profit certain quarters.
16m seems a lot bigger on that base, but its really not what's moving the needle for Amazon, rather when investment will slow down and the company can move to at least a 5% income margin or so.
Crazy closeness in Wyoming, looks like a single county delegate could decide whether it goes 8/6 in state delegates for Sanders or ties 7/7. Either way, final result in vote terms 56/44, which is surprising.I have to say, fair play Sanders.. I still think he hasn't a hope of getting close to the nom, but he's made a contest of it, which I never expected. He's got the narrative now of a huge run of form, whatever good it'll do him. NY is gonna be the end of him, but he's done way better than expected and introduced talking points I didn't expect to hear in an election.
Hillary won the final county, so a 7/7 tie it is! 12% win for Sanders, but for an all-white caucus state that's not great for him.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ther-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/
He's getting crushed in the popular vote. Super delegates won't be ditching Clinton anytime soon.
Goes to show again how caucuses are just plain fecked up. How can you win by a 12 points margin and take home the same amount, or even less delegates (Nevada)?
Indeed. I know people probably think I've been dickish by saying it was over since Super Tuesday, but...
In fairness this is more about the tiny number of delegates on offer than the caucus status, though I'm not sure what they use to determine the threshold (56.25% was the threshold to receive 8 delegates here, Sanders got 55.7%).
I'll imagine we'll be hearing something about surrogate ballots in the not too distant future.
http://abc.go.com/shows/the-view/ne...pope-clinton-gun-control-and-more-on-the-view
Fundraising letter
The president of the academy's protestation
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-of-discourtesy-in-seeking-vatican-invitation
Yeah, nothing at all from the Sanders campaign to mislead his people into thinking this event in Vatican is a tacit approval from the Pope, nothing. You can spin it how you want, this is Hillary 2008-ish campaign chaos.
Which one? In your last reply to me it was the Morning Joe MSNBC video. The ABC link in the post above have a link to the part where he ostensibly agreed with Joy Behar that he will meet the Pope.
This is not that big of a deal compare to 'unqualified-gate', but the blow back from the Vatican has been embarrassing to say the least.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-vatican-conference-221708
This is Tad Devine when asked to clarify the situation, not dodging at all.
If this is not dysfunctional then I don't know what it is. The media didn't create the controversy, they dug their own rabbit hole.
Again, he mentioned this 1st on Morning Joe, where he didn't use the word pope when discussing the invite. The reply I was referring to was about the Margaret Archer quote at the end of your post. My Reuters link was a direct reply to that quote, from the Social Sciences people.
Given the topic of his speech and the views of the pope it's not a surprise that people jumped to conclusions. But not once did he say that he was invited by the pope.
It's amazing that this is being spun negatively. Perhaps it is to make sure a comparison with Hillary is never made -- after all, the Pope turned down an audience at the Clinton foundation.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35999269
seems all above board. He was invited by the Vatican. He is not sure if he will meet the Pope.
seems all above board. He was invited by the Vatican. He is not sure if he will meet the Pope.
IB is stretching... As evidenced by the fact that part of his evidence presented are two meme jokes.
unqualified gate...Vatican gate.
blah blah...
Nothing gate.
blah blah...
Nothing gate.
The Vatican can't be seen to influence national politics. Rightly or wrongly, an audience at the foundation will be linked to the candidate herself.
Why would 1st has to do with anything, when following appareances seem to contradict it? So what was agreeing about the characterization as 'meeting the Pope' on The View all about? I think he himself is in the dark about the true nature of the event, given that one of the attendees, Correa, is a cvnt that Sanders wouldn't give the time of day in a normal situation.
The write up by Dana Houle in my original post also made clear that he isn't in the wrong, but it's a case of surrogate overextending. This fits with the recent out of control comments by Sanrandon, Robbins and Dawson. You don't want to be seen as lacking control over your own campaign. This reminds me of when there were reports everyday on how chaotic the Clinton campaign was.
Exactly, the overreaction is hilarious and preposterous. Nobody has really given a shit about either so far, and they certainly aren't as bad as being made out here. Anyone would think WWIII had started and the candidates were all caught snorting coke off hookers arses. FFS.
Posted by a Bernie supporters.
Exactly, the overreaction is hilarious and preposterous. Nobody has really given a shit about either so far, and they certainly aren't as bad as being made out here. Anyone would think WWIII had started and the candidates were all caught snorting coke off hookers arses. FFS.
building up a controversy where there is none.
I'm actually quite interested in what he will say there and teh debate before NY.
My hope is eventually, if it is Hillary she will absorb a big part of Sanders' ideas. Otherwise she may lose the election.
As a frickin' joke. Can't be pressed into the service of backing the notion that Bernie's campaign is trying to mislead.
Yeah, but it's like a vendetta or obsession, i'm starting to think maybe IB is Eric Trump.
I see no evidence Bernie's campaign is misleading anyone. Obviously they must feel honoured that the Vatican has asked him to speak. Sure Hillary's campaign would have loved that honour too.
FFS.
As a joke on Hillary, he himself seems to believe that the invitation has something with Francis. And the fundraising letter certainly indicates that they were mischaracterising it to their benefits. If I'm stretching, then 'Pope feeling the Bern' is as well.
I don't know why it's preposterous to point out that his campaign fecked up. This happens every cycle, especially when a campaign is failing. After March 15, when the 'flipping Supes' was first touted by Devine, it's been a series of feck-ups, but yeah, it's just a campaign increasingly confident on 'momentum'.
IBGate
- Status