To say Clinton receives the majority of her funding from Super-PACs is just flat out wrong.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Democracy is a bad idea, benevolent tyranny ftw!
I honestly think the world would be a much much better place if every country has a Lee Kuan Yew.
I honestly think the world would be a much much better place if every country has a Lee Kuan Yew.
Let's all laugh at Ted Cruz.....
http://q13fox.com/2016/04/19/ap-ted...m-clinching-gop-nomination-before-convention/
http://q13fox.com/2016/04/19/ap-ted...m-clinching-gop-nomination-before-convention/
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/20/opinions/presidential-race-after-new-york-gergen/index.html
Really wish the pundits would stop with shite like this.
Momentum, momentum, momentum. Magic 'M' word. Explains everything.
Really wish the pundits would stop with shite like this.
Momentum, momentum, momentum. Magic 'M' word. Explains everything.
Just laziness, they can't be bothered to go through the balanced but boring analysis that both races have been pretty static for a while now.
no arguments. terrible candidates. The Republicans have been shell shocked. We need similar with the Dems.
He's probably one of the top 3 pundits in the business, and has worked for five previous Presidents. He's obviously not a stats guy like Silver.
It's an incredibly lazy analysis. While it's true that if momentum applies to anyone in this cycle, it's Donald Trump, since his early sweep of NH, SC, NV coupled with IA 2nd finish gave legitimacy to his candidacy. However, his demographics and support ceiling have remain pretty much constant throughout the race. There's no evidence to suggest that there's been a 'momentum' shift to Cruz or Trump has 'regained' it now.
Same applies to Bernie Sanders. 8 wins out of 9 states, wahhh, momentum. Nope. 16 points NY loss. In fact, he did worse with the AA vote than anywhere out of the South there and failed to break more undecideds, a relative new for his campaign.
The likes of Nate Silver or Nate Cohn while are not infallible, have been pretty much spot on regarding the trajectory of the races since voting began.
Incorrect. Hillary hasn't received most (or near it) the majority of her funding from Wall Street.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. Hillary's foreign policies have been a disaster.
But lets be fair, Trump/Cruz looks significantly worse.
Flip-flopper or evolve? Is it actually a bad thing to change your stance during 30 years?
Now, let's go to things that they are quite similar (and very different to Republicans):
1) SCOTUS picks. Hillary - at the moment - seems even more left-ish than Obama (who is the most left wing president of US in recent history), and her SCTOUS choices would be very left (not center left). So the laws on aborts, gay marriage, second amendment etc, have a good chance of changing during her presidency.
2) She will continue Obama's fight when it comes to gun control. Her stance there is better than Bernie's IMO.
3) She will continue Obama's care which is proving already to be challenging to implement. Bernie wants even more, but their position is much closer to each other than to Republicans.
4) Global warming. Hillary has in her platform how she wants to fight it. It is an almost identical position to Bernie's (and completely different to Republicans).
Bernie is definitely the idealistic one and would have been my choice, despite that I think that a Bernie presidency would be a disaster (Republicans will block everything). Hillary is not great but she has gone quite left, and if she picks someone like Liz as her VP (in order to appeal to Bernie's voters) it would be quite nice.
Really, it is a bad agenda-driven article. I couldn't even finish it cause it was so shit.
...
Anyway, if Bernie would have had a chance of winning as indie, he should have done that from the beginning. But of course, he hadn't. And he still doesn't have it.
Him becoming a total arsehole and running as indie (after he became famous as democrat candidate) would only give the presidency to Republicans (similar to how Trump running as indie would guarantee a blue white house). Fortunately, he is more pragmatic than Caftards and he will throw his full support to Hillary after she wins the nomination.
Good post @Revan
I don't think this is a given actually.
If Trump becomes the GOP nominee, a Clinton - Trump - Sanders race is more likely to be similar to Perot-Clinton-Bush than Gore-Bush-Nader. While the big two are busy flinging shit at each other, Bernie can go under the radar and be inoculated from the socialist attacks that would have gone his way had he been the Dem nominee. His candidacy will become a vehicle for protest and while it's a given he'll draw more from the Dem than GOP, the final result won't change much, if at all.
This idea that Bernie has been publicly pro-gay marriage for 30 years is also not true. He said as recently as 2006 that he wasn't yet in favour, preferring to stick with civil partnerships, until "evolving" to back it in 2009, a YUGE four years before Clinton. His stated reasoning at the time for voting against DOMA was on states' rights grounds (and backed an amendment to the bill allowing states to decide, which didn't pass).
Cruz has a 97.1% conservative voting record. The only time he flip flopped was during the H1B vote when he was greased by Facebook and Google, but so far he has consistently voted for all the wrong stances. He's an idealogue who almost defaulted US and shut down the government. You can accuse him of being a cnut, but not a flip flopper.
I'm sorry, that huffpost article is a joke. It's as bad as this article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/establishment-candidate-wins-home-state_b_9734242.html
Something that could excite the base : http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/politics/hillary-clinton-female-running-mate/
Warren as a running mate could be seriously good. Normally, she would have been considered radical left, but after this election and Sanders popularity, it may be a go.
However, other names touted are Cory Booker, Julian Castro and a couple of other women Senators that I don't know.
Warren as a running mate could be seriously good. Normally, she would have been considered radical left, but after this election and Sanders popularity, it may be a go.
However, other names touted are Cory Booker, Julian Castro and a couple of other women Senators that I don't know.
It'll be Castro, Kaine or Tom Perez for the Hispanics outreach/ticket balance. Warren won't give up her Senate seat unless she gets to run in 2020.
Isn't she already old? 2020/2024 may be late for her. HRC may calculate that Warren would be a serious pull on Sanders voters and she seems to be attracting Latino/minority/colored voters anyway without a running mate.
She's 66. Will be as old as Hillary now in 2020. Point is, why would she give up being a Senator where she can actually affect policies for the vice-presidency for the next 8 years,'the most useless post ever invented by men', in the words of John Adams.
A younger man who can be an aggressive attack dog like Castro or Perez is perfect. Kaine is in the running but Virginia governor is a GOPer, so if he runs, that Senate seat is lost.
I thought the same after watching West Wing, that VP is perhaps the worst of all thinking I'd rather be Chief of Staff.
Most of her funding has come from her self set-up SuperPac her family set up decades ago for political campaigns. She consequently fills this fund from her $250,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs and friends. She's definitely very cosy with Wall Street and its no secret the feeling's mutual.
Trump/Cruz may be worse (actually I don't think Trump would be worse) but the fact remains her foreign policy is more in line with those two than it is with Sanders.
Its obviously not uncommon for politicians to have the odd view changed, but she makes it into an art. Just do a quick google for her flip flops and you'll see that we have a different Hillary Clinton depending on the year and what populist sentiment dictates at that given time. She's the antithesis of a principled politician and may as well permanently carry a "For Sale" sign around her neck.
This is also assumptive conjecture at this point. There's no knowing she'll honour all or even any of those pledges. And its not like history has painted her as honest.
She's anything but left. I'd argue the main reason Sanders has been immensely popular is because of how reluctant genuine US progressives are that she's the primary Dem candidate.
Its definitely a bitter article, but the points listed are pretty much factual, which only reinforces the chasm between her and US progressives.
Nope, McAuliffe is a Dem. People have suggested Sherrod Brown (Ohio) though, which has been dismissed for that reason.
Hillary already meeting with Sandy Hook parents here at CT. There's a very strong Anti gun sentiment here and the governor is also driving it against Sanders. This gun issue could make it very tough for Bernie.
SuperPAC and decades ago
Edit: re:Kaine. You are right, memory got fuzzy there for a sec.
Furthers my suspicion that a lot of the Bernie or Bust lot don't actually know what Super-PACs are, or any details of the case that spawned them.SuperPAC and decades ago
Edit: re:Kaine. You are right, memory got fuzzy there for a sec.
I'm fully aware of what Super PACs are so there's no need for the patronising tone.
Instead of the green smiley spam have a read of this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/
Sanders knows that he can't win that race, and can easily cost the Democrats the race (some might argue that Perot cost the race to Bush). He wants to reform the American political scene, but that would not achieve it, instead it will ensure that everything he cares about won't happen. Ideologically he is more similar to Hillary than to Republicans (by a country mile), so better Hillary than Republicans.
Bar the unqualified comment for Hillary, he has been quite respectful to her and hasn't attack her on sensitive things (like the FBI process), so hard to see him going for the twitter glory at the cost of a Trump presidency and right wing nutters as SCOTUS for the next few decades.
It depends on the man. Gore was quite powerful, while Cheney was extremely powerful.
Biden is there just for the talk and photos though.
Liz would be a dream scenario for VP, and I think that anyone would give his/her seat at Congress for VP. Especially to be a VP of an old president.
She can feck off with the pandering to victim's families, and the ads on TV politicizing the Sandy Hook event. If I'm not mistaken, Malloy has already endorsed her. I think CT will be an easy pickup for her.
The Walmart letter (https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/sam-waltons-memo-on-supporting-bill-clinton/1875/) inside that is damning. "Bill Clinton supports our way of keeping costs low." I guess they are a lot more careful with directives like this nowadays.
she will walk over dead bodies to get to the white house. she already has. what is a few kids eh?
This is false though, hence my prediction. The Republicans tried to save face after the race and that myth became accepted as common wisdom, but exit polls showed that Perot drew significantly more from Clinton than HW. Sanders can stake his claim on the independents who can't stomach Clinton, but are iffy with Trump rhetorics. Those would usually break Republicans in the scenarios when they smear him as an atheist Jewish tax-raising big government communist, but if he doesn't get attacked then they will go for him, theoretically.
Part of me really wish Sanders would do just that so 1) the BernieBros can be happy and 2) we can really see how viable he is as a general candidate. Then again, there's a part in each and everyone of us that wish to see the world burns
Clearly you don't, because you said a) that she gets most of her funding from it, which isn't true, and b) that it's been set up for decades, when they only became a thing in 2010. You're complaining about the Clinton Foundation.
$1 billion from this foundation has gone into legal and political campaigns. It's not all benevolent philanthropy.
I see @Kaos is clearly feelin' the Bern....
..and some are feeling the Hills
Then I'm not at all sure why you'd refer to it as a Super-PAC. Far more damaging to accuse her and Bill of creaming the top off a charitable foundation for their own political ends, rather than putting it in the bracket of such a widely used and legal mechanism.
Kaos is a case in point that I think Hillary Clinton gets undue hate here. It's puzzling because Bill Clinton seems to be a popular Dem president.
There are legitimate reasons on why people would prefer Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. He's a better candidate with more left leaning platform that appeals to the liberals who haven't had a voice like this ever in US politics, but that doesn't explain this amount of vitriol. I read the links given by @berbatrick, many voild points are discussed there and at worst, she's an opportunistic politician who has changed her stance a few times according to changing times and at best, she has evolved herself from a Goldwater republican to a left leaning centrist politician. She's not a saint, but she's not a devil either. I'd vote for Bernie Sanders, but anyone who thinks along the lines of 'Bernie doesn't owe anything to the party, and if it leads to a Trump/Republican win so that it can clean up the system' is clearly bonkers.
There are legitimate reasons on why people would prefer Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. He's a better candidate with more left leaning platform that appeals to the liberals who haven't had a voice like this ever in US politics, but that doesn't explain this amount of vitriol. I read the links given by @berbatrick, many voild points are discussed there and at worst, she's an opportunistic politician who has changed her stance a few times according to changing times and at best, she has evolved herself from a Goldwater republican to a left leaning centrist politician. She's not a saint, but she's not a devil either. I'd vote for Bernie Sanders, but anyone who thinks along the lines of 'Bernie doesn't owe anything to the party, and if it leads to a Trump/Republican win so that it can clean up the system' is clearly bonkers.
Wouldn't say @Kaos 's hate is undue. He has legitimate cause for grievance in general against the US government. The US's folks here however, is a different matter.
Edit: interesting
Saint Reagan
Edit: interesting
Saint Reagan
Last edited:
On the VP debate - if you're a liberal, I don't think you'd want Warren as the VP pick. In the Senate, she stays on the banking committee and leads the Dems on the economic sub-committee, and considering the Dems have a good chance of winning the Senate back, she can do a hell of a lot more good there than being Veep. Kaine's an excellent all-round choice from my perspective.
- Status