Jesus that's a bit of a that's a bit of a stretch. Also Cherie Blair, those poor feckers.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Jesus that's a bit of a that's a bit of a stretch. Also Cherie Blair, those poor feckers.
Because it is a Republican she will face in the general and demanding they do the same pre-empt any attempt on their part to turn this against her. It's not rocket science.
The rest is hyperbolic nonsense as usual. Whose intelligence is she insulting? This woman has been subjected to scrutinies more intense than any American politicians in living memory, and she'll likely face worse in the general. What's wrong with being defensive when she knows being compliant is counter-productive?
tbh I don't know what is in them. But yeah, rather than guess, just release the damn transcripts. If Trump is the nominee, you can be sure he will use this.
The more important debate is how we are going to help the whole country. Drastic changes in directions are needed. I certainly do not think the policies Bernie is pushing is a fix all. But health care? surely we can do a a lot better than what we have. And if we had an interest free education loan repayable on a low repayment income based agreement? This is highly doable....of course there is the congress that has should its soul. Still we need to fight for the country.
ahh the poor Hillary defense. your reply is nonsense.
address the issues if you can.
I've addressed it. If you aren't willing to acknowledge it then it's not my fault.
Arguing with you is a lost cause though, here's a gem from 08.
Question for ya RD.
Whose Presidency do you think would be more likely to repeal Citizens United, out of Trump and Hilary?
I've addressed it. If you aren't willing to acknowledge it then it's not my fault.
Arguing with you is a lost cause though, here's a gem from 08.
I stand by what I posted then. because you lack critical thinking its not my fault.
The difference between you and Raoul is while we are on absolute opposite sides of the discussion we can agree to disagree on substance.
But you...
" I don't even like the woman"...but she is being crucified. ...blah blah..on here. Oh..you don't have a stake in these elections...by you keeping awake all nights and posting you obviously feel you do even if you cannot vote.
A very good question. I think Hillary. Because she would likely nominate a center left judge. Trump is an absolute loose cannon. That is the one reason I would have to choose someone else. But that does not mean I give Hillary a free pass. I have said, I would even vote for her if she moves left on certain issues.
I will wait for the GE Debates to decide. It may not be either.
I stand by what I posted then. because you lack critical thinking its not my fault.
The difference between you and Raoul is while we are on absolute opposite sides of the discussion we can agree to disagree on substance.
But you...
Oh..you don't have a stake in these elections...by you keeping awake all nights and posting you obviously feel you do even if you cannot vote.
Not really, I like arguing and I like politics in general, and due to the nature of my work having trouble sleeping is not something unusual, but whatever floats your boat.
The fact that I've been right more often than not, and certainly a damn sight more than you regarding the primaries result suggests that I don't lack for critical thinking, but insulting others' intelligence has been a staple of you posts of late so it's nothing new really.
I find it crazy how much Hilary is hated, much like @fishfingers15 post on the last page. People don't (seem to) hate Bill, so where does it come from for her? I didn't engage as much in 2008, but reading the first page of that thread you can see that it was exactly the same then.I've addressed it. If you aren't willing to acknowledge it then it's not my fault.
Arguing with you is a lost cause though, here's a gem from 08.
Also, when would news from New York come through tonight? I'm going to be up pretty late anyway, tempted to just stay up and watch some of the coverage.
what? we are comparing primary result predictions???
alright. here is why Hillary Should release her transcripts. Trump will be the nominee. His campaign is similar to Bernie saying he does not have outside influence.
Do you agree he will have an advantage over her in the generals?
The hate is for what she has done. being on all sides of any issue.
She cannot be trusted.
9pm eastern is poll closing time, 2am for us.
Am I right in assuming that if Shillary wins New York tonight it's pretty much over?
I'm sure she will be more than happy to release the transcripts once Trump is confirmed as the nominee, and gleefully pointing out via proxies his auspicious comments such as 'wages here are too high'. No reason, however, to shoot herself in the foot when it looks increasingly likely it's Cruz or someone else entirely she'll face in the general. It's about controlling the narrative.
As for Trump himself, those who buy into his crap about being beholden to no one, sure, he has an advantage there. For those who realize that he's been the outside interest all his life, no.
she will win NY...but Bernie is fighting it all the way because his voters want him to. Proportional delegates remember.
Exit polls usually come out 2-3 hours before poll closed, so you can have a gander at around 12
This isn't getting enough love. Bernie is a genuinely good human being and he always seems like he is just trying to do the right thing.
It will be interesting to see what the final victory margin is. From the start NY should have been a huge victory for Hillary. Being essentially a home state for her it always should have been a cake walk.
Everyone and their dog thinks she praised GS, not releasing them just leads to wild speculation about exactly how much.
Also, it would be illegal to hint at running for the presidency during the speech.
The campaign knows this. But they are in a catch-22 situation. Without holding the Republicans to the same standard, they risk letting the right define her while their nominee run away as the outsider who will reform Washington/Wall Street. The Dem base will go for her, but this is one of the few issues they need to be at least even to win independents.
As for hinting, it's notoriously difficult to interpret in a court of law, so... Valid concern, granted.
I just saw the exit poll data. He's losing by 15ish. (38% want policies more liberal than Obama; Michigan had 46%; 31% identify as "very liberal"; MI was more). Demographically 21% black (not insurmountable, same as Michigan). But only 16% under-30 (MI was 13% though).
I think the 1st question is enough evidence to bury him.
The only worry for her is voters in this closed primary had her as "honest" at 60% (he was 80).
Source for all of this: r/SandersforPresident
I think the 1st question is enough evidence to bury him.
The only worry for her is voters in this closed primary had her as "honest" at 60% (he was 80).
Source for all of this: r/SandersforPresident
Edit: I wonder if they would have their sanity and loyalty questioned
Just something to be wary of with these early exit poll figures.
His own words:
I can’t assume that the money chase didn’t alter me in some ways. …
Increasingly I found myself spending time with people of means — law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1 percent or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate. They believed in the free market and an educational meritocracy; they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cured by a high SAT score. They had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were upended by the movements of global capital. Most were adamantly prochoice and antigun and were vaguely suspicious of deep religious sentiment.
And although my own worldview and theirs corresponded in many ways — I had gone to the same schools, after all, had read the same books, and worried about my kids in many of the same ways — I found myself avoiding certain topics during conversations with them, papering over possible differences, anticipating their expectations. On core issues I was candid; I had no problem telling well-heeled supporters that the tax cuts they’d received from George Bush should be reversed. Whenever I could, I would try to share with them some of the perspectives I was hearing from other portions of the electorate: the legitimate role of faith in politics, say, or the deep cultural meaning of guns in rural parts of the state.
Still, I know that as a consequence of my fund-raising I became more like the wealthy donors I met, in the very particular sense that I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of the other 99 percent of the population — that is, the people that I’d entered public life to serve. And in one fashion or another, I suspect this is true for every senator: The longer you are a senator, the narrower the scope of your interactions. You may fight it, with town hall meetings and listening tours and stops by the old neighborhood. But your schedule dictates that you move in a different orbit from most of the people you represent.
And perhaps as the next race approaches, a voice within tells you that you don’t want to have to go through all the misery of raising all that money in small increments all over again. You realize that you no longer have the cachet you did as the upstart, the fresh face; you haven’t changed Washington, and you’ve made a lot of people unhappy with difficult votes. The path of least resistance — of fund-raisers organized by the special interests, the corporate PACs, and the top lobbying shops — starts to look awfully tempting, and if the opinions of these insiders don’t quite jibe with those you once held, you learn to rationalize the changes as a matter of realism, of compromise, of learning the ropes. The problems of ordinary people, the voices of the Rust Belt town or the dwindling heartland, become a distant echo rather than a palpable reality, abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought.
Very candid extract, that. A little bit disheartening to hear but good for him to say if you get me.
Any word on exit polls?
Any word on exit polls?
76-24 AA Clinton, 57-43 Hispanics Clinton, 69-31 under 30s Sanders.
Gotcha. Thanks.
Lizzy had some free time today
Bigger than recent polls.
I did read that piece of text and I have a lot of sympathy for Obama. I'm not sure where you stand on Obama, but my original query was if Clinton and Obama both took donations from special interest groups, the hate towards Hillary is disproportionately large.
Yeah, Deep South-like. I expect the share of millenials to drop. He usually wins them 80-20.
Well that is based on her previous 40 years in politics. Obama still has a lot more integrity than her, even after 8 years as POTUS.
Time has been his enemy.
If he had more time on each of these primaries, he would have closed a lot more and perhaps upset her too.
Also these closed primaries ignore Independednts a lot. Bernie attracts a lot of independednts.
But the DNC are banking on the chaos on teh GOP side. But I honestly think Trump is not the candidate they want. They should hope it is Cruz, whose appeal is very narrow.
Bernie is tying her speeches to the Superpacks. The narative is big money follows her. If she does not release her transcripts now I dont see her doing it in the GE. And more importantly instead of hiding behind Obama she should reach out to ordinary people. Offer them what she can really do for them.
She has run a very poor campaign once again.
- Status