Master Index of Archived Threads


Democrat Race 2016

Frayed Knot Jan 15 2016 02:37 AM

Hillary now trails Bernie Sanders in Iowa, trails him in New Hampshire (she pretty much always has there), and is in front in some national polls by a smaller margin than she was over Barack Obama at the same point eight years ago. And we know how that went for her and her mantle of inevitability. The corollary to this is that the primaries beyond the first two set up better for her (less northern/more minority) now than they did when she was facing Obama then, and also better for her vs Sanders going forward. But, y'know, just sayin'.

cooby classic Jan 15 2016 11:22 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I think Hillary would make a kick-ass President, but I'm not ignoring the rest of the crowd. At least there are no fruitcakes in the mix.

Ceetar Jan 15 2016 02:13 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I don't particularly like Hillary. Love to see Sanders get the nod. Don't really see it happening nor do I believe anything these 'polls' say.

Frayed Knot Jan 15 2016 02:28 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Plus they recently sent Chelsea out to trash Sanders publicly (and probably dishonestly in the minds of most) in a very similar 'Democrat on Democrat' trashing that Hillary loudly cried about in 2008: "Shame on you Barack Obama!!" And then there's the FBI probe. Again, just sayin'

seawolf17 Jan 15 2016 02:33 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

FEEL THE BERN

d'Kong76 Jan 15 2016 02:41 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

ABC, it's easy as 123...

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 15 2016 03:46 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

The only R coming off as even a little trustworthy to me last night was Kasich who seemed to be reacting genuinely when he said the Rs would win every state in the country should Bernie be the nominee. It was offhand, and a slight exaggeration but made me worry since I'd sooner support Bernie than Hilary. For lots of reasons including sexism I just don't believe the USA will support her.

Edgy MD Jan 15 2016 03:49 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Governor Kasich has done a perfectly good job being a realistic human being all along. I'd sure like to see him graduate from the edge of the stage.

El Segundo Escupidor Jan 16 2016 09:58 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Wow, a political contest with normal people.

Lefty Specialist Jan 17 2016 01:53 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Point of order: This thread should be titled "Democrat[u:3leoae73]ic[/u:3leoae73] Race 2016" A race among Democrats is a 'Democratic' race. To call it a "Democrat" race is to buy into a Republican construction that's only about 10 years old, has been relentlessly used by Fox 'News', and is grammatically incorrect. Bernie, bless his heart, is right on most issues. He has a better than even shot of winning both Iowa and New Hampshire. But like the dog who catches up to the car he's been chasing, he won't be able to do much with it. Hillary is far better staffed and appeals to Democrats outside of the first two states where retail, small group meet-and-greet politics matters. I'm not crazy about her. But compared to the dystopian horror show the Republicans present, any Democrat (even poor ignored Martin O'Malley) is an easy choice.

Valadius Jan 19 2016 12:15 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Here's the deal. I know Bernie Sanders. He and I get breakfast at the same time at the Senate cafeteria most days. I know his Senate staff. They're all miserable, sour people. And here's the truth: as somebody who works in the Senate every day trying to get something good accomplished, Bernie Sanders would be an awful President who would only result in dashed dreams and hurt feelings. For starters, most of his "plans", such as they are, would be dead on arrival on Capitol Hill. Politics is the art of the possible, as Ben Franklin famously said, but Bernie Sanders and his supporters are so caught up in his ideas (Free college for everyone! Single-payer healthcare! Thirty pounds of flesh from Wall Street!) that they haven't considered the uncomfortable sausage-making that is the reality of life on Capitol Hill. Simply put, Bernie Sanders would not have the numbers on Capitol Hill to push any of that through - not to mention the fact that so much of it would get tied up in the courts for years. Have we already forgotten the fight over the Affordable Care Act? Even 6 years later we're still dealing with attempts to dismantle it. And passing it through Congress - by the skin of our teeth - required Democratic supermajorities that we hadn't seen since the 1970s. We will not be anywhere close to those numbers in the 115th Congress. I believe in progress. I believe in moving forward, towards a better life for all. I do not believe in tilting at windmills and selling people dreams that will never come to fruition. As a pragmatic progressive, although she wasn't my first choice, I support Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, because I know that what she's selling is in fact achievable and she'd be a competent hand at the tiller.

seawolf17 Jan 19 2016 12:20 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Honestly, that's my concern with Bernie -- he's too much of an "outsider" to get anything done with an obstructionist Congress. But if he can get enough support and turnout, then maybe, just maybe, he can swing enough of the smaller elections to make us all a little bluer, which gets us that much closer to a reality I'm comfortable with.

cooby classic Jan 19 2016 12:22 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Valadius wrote: Here's the deal. I know Bernie Sanders. He and I get breakfast at the same time at the Senate cafeteria most days. I know his Senate staff. They're all miserable, sour people. And here's the truth: as somebody who works in the Senate every day trying to get something good accomplished, Bernie Sanders would be an awful President who would only result in dashed dreams and hurt feelings. For starters, most of his "plans", such as they are, would be dead on arrival on Capitol Hill. Politics is the art of the possible, as Ben Franklin famously said, but Bernie Sanders and his supporters are so caught up in his ideas (Free college for everyone! Single-payer healthcare! Thirty pounds of flesh from Wall Street!) that they haven't considered the uncomfortable sausage-making that is the reality of life on Capitol Hill. Simply put, Bernie Sanders would not have the numbers on Capitol Hill to push any of that through - not to mention the fact that so much of it would get tied up in the courts for years. Have we already forgotten the fight over the Affordable Care Act? Even 6 years later we're still dealing with attempts to dismantle it. And passing it through Congress - by the skin of our teeth - required Democratic supermajorities that we hadn't seen since the 1970s. We will not be anywhere close to those numbers in the 115th Congress. I believe in progress. I believe in moving forward, towards a better life for all. I do not believe in tilting at windmills and selling people dreams that will never come to fruition. As a pragmatic progressive, although she wasn't my first choice, I support Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, because I know that what she's selling is in fact achievable and she'd be a competent hand at the tiller. Trouble is, those are good ideas, and we as a people are sick of settling for less.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 19 2016 01:55 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Valadius' statement rings true to me.

Ceetar Jan 19 2016 02:26 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Valadius wrote: I believe in progress. I believe in moving forward, towards a better life for all. I do not believe in tilting at windmills and selling people dreams that will never come to fruition. As a pragmatic progressive, although she wasn't my first choice, I support Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, because I know that what she's selling is in fact achievable and she'd be a competent hand at the tiller. Fine, then why should I care? Can I mute all talk of politics and all the candidates? why does it matter? Let the rich and the politicians do what they do and stop selling me this story of voting and change. It's not tilting at windmills to wish for fixes for programs that are broken and that exist in much less broken states in much of the rest of the developed world. Maybe Sanders wouldn't get much done, but I'd rather have someone TRYING to make this country a better place than playing this democrat vs republican game of power with little regard to actually making changes. We're cruising down the road occasionally shifting a little to the left or right, but I'd like to see what's down one of the side streets. Fuck it. How about we just let a couple of hundred people already in power or buying power to select the next president and we just talk the ridiculous sum of money they're using to pander for ratings on education? Saying we shouldn't do something because it'd probably never work is the stupidest reason for anything. The people that truly make a difference are often the ones that ignore that b.s. and just do it anyway.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 19 2016 02:58 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

The problem is, the professed Sanders way doesn't take you down side streets; it takes you to a stall or dead stop, especially-- but not exclusively-- given the Congressional climate. Single-payer, tax reform, massive economic-policy shifts... what makes Bernie so appealing to a lot of folk are PRECISELY the areas in which a Dem executive branch would have little to no power without Congressional support. (The areas in which he WOULD be able to effect change unilaterally, conversely, are areas where he has no ideas or enthusiasm-- much less anything substantive-- to order.) Noble tilting at windmills isn't a better option than measured, continued progression in the right direction. The adult choice to make-- however much I may crinkle or hold my nose to ultimately do so-- is probably Hillary.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 19 2016 03:05 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Beyond all that he didn't come off as particularly presidential in the debate which I watched with an open mind. As said above I would hope his voice can help to push things in a better direction. I guess his best shot resides with the same youngsters who today are having an impact in such collective action like overthrowing Big Food.

Ceetar Jan 19 2016 03:16 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The problem is, the professed Sanders way doesn't take you down side streets; it takes you to a stall or dead stop, especially-- but not exclusively-- given the Congressional climate. Single-payer, tax reform, massive economic-policy shifts... what makes Bernie so appealing to a lot of folk are PRECISELY the areas in which a Dem executive branch would have little to no power without Congressional support. (The areas in which he WOULD be able to effect change unilaterally, conversely, are areas where he has no ideas or enthusiasm-- much less anything substantive-- to order.) Noble tilting at windmills isn't a better option than measured, continued progression in the right direction. The adult choice to make-- however much I may crinkle or hold my nose to ultimately do so-- is probably Hillary. Well of course it's not even a choice I get to make so it matters even less to me. I'm not saying go full throttle down the side streets, I'd be happy with a serious glance down them to see if there's anything worthwhile. Maybe the answer is to also vote in other democrats that would support Bernie on congress? But those don't perhaps exist and the system is set up in ways that there are lot of districts where it barely matters who's running, and of course there are very few politicians that are running for congress that are as progressive as Bernie and even the ones that might be don't want to rock the boat and risk alienated people. Because what most people campaign on is being the least offensive to the most amount of people, and innovation doesn't do that. Again, I shouldn't have to vote on who's mostly likely to give us a shot at nudging the country to slight progress when there are so many avenues for real progress. Maybe Bernie should've formed his own party and gotten some other candidates for other positions on board. This almost definitely wouldn't work, but it would certainly be interesting. And it might have gotten the third party vote numbers high enough that people actually start taking the idea that the government isn't supposed to be a private battle between two parties seriously.

TransMonk Jan 19 2016 03:41 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

seawolf17 wrote: Honestly, that's my concern with Bernie -- he's too much of an "outsider" to get anything done with an obstructionist Congress. But if he can get enough support and turnout, then maybe, just maybe, he can swing enough of the smaller elections to make us all a little bluer, which gets us that much closer to a reality I'm comfortable with. I also share the concern, but in order to make progress towards real change, this dark forest will need to be walked through. My second concern, to seawolf's point, is that if Trump or Cruz becomes the Republican nominee, I could see the RNC throwing all of it's weight (and cash) into the smaller elections rather than into the presidential election to further combat the ability of Sanders (or even Hillary) to get anything done should they win.

Mets Willets Point Jan 19 2016 04:04 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Things people say that make no sense. Hillary Clinton is more electable. Clinton has been elected to office twice in her entire life. The first time her very popular opponent dropped out 5 months before the election. The second time was a mid-term election when there was a wave of anti-Republican/pro-Democratic sentiment and a weak opponent. Both elections were in a Democratic-leaning state that is also home to the financial industry with whom Clinton has close ties. The vast majority of Clinton's career in public office came by appointment (Secretary of State) or by marriage (First Lady). Bernie Sanders would not be able to work with an obstructionist Congress. The congress as it is currently composed is not going to work with ANY Democratic/liberal/left President. And Clinton has been the right's favorite Public Enemy No. 1 for 25 years, so they'd take special glee in not working with her. Considering again Clinton's chummy relationship with Wall Street and her history of being a war hawk, if Clinton and Congress ever would agree on something it would probably be for a cause the right is already in favor of advancing rather than something that would benefit the people. If you like Clinton and what she stands for, vote for Clinton. But if you don't like her and prefer Sanders, don't let these canards make you vote otherwise.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 19 2016 04:09 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

If Hillary is more electable it's because she never declared herself to be a socialist and because there will be many who will vote for her because she's a woman. (Presumably more than would vote against her because she's a woman, but who knows?)

seawolf17 Jan 19 2016 04:17 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

TransMonk wrote: seawolf17 wrote: Honestly, that's my concern with Bernie -- he's too much of an "outsider" to get anything done with an obstructionist Congress. But if he can get enough support and turnout, then maybe, just maybe, he can swing enough of the smaller elections to make us all a little bluer, which gets us that much closer to a reality I'm comfortable with. I also share the concern, but in order to make progress towards real change, this dark forest will need to be walked through. My second concern, to seawolf's point, is that if Trump or Cruz becomes the Republican nominee, I could see the RNC throwing all of it's weight (and cash) into the smaller elections rather than into the presidential election to further combat the ability of Sanders (or even Hillary) to get anything done should they win. I think your second concern is a very valid one -- both sides would rather stonewall and be assholes than actually DO anything. And that's why our system is so fucking broken.

Mets Willets Point Jan 19 2016 04:22 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Benjamin Grimm wrote: If Hillary is more electable it's because she never declared herself to be a socialist and because there will be many who will vote for her because she's a woman. (Presumably more than would vote against her because she's a woman, but who knows?) Sadly, I think that her being a woman works both ways and I think prejudice against women is still strong enough in this country that the GOP will use that negatively in a general election campaign. Considering that progressive people who'd like to see women in office are also the ones most turned off by the political beliefs of this particular woman, I believe that would make for a 1-2 punch that would make Clinton less electable.

Frayed Knot Jan 21 2016 01:18 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

So I was listening to (NBC News head politico) Chuck Todd on a (non-political) radio talk-show yesterday talking rather informally about the primaries and such -- and he opined that if Hillary were to stumble leaving the Dems with the prospect of an avowed Socialist at the head of the ticket then, forget about Biden getting in, that's when Bloomberg jumps in.

Nymr83 Jan 22 2016 03:19 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Frayed Knot wrote: So I was listening to (NBC News head politico) Chuck Todd on a (non-political) radio talk-show yesterday talking rather informally about the primaries and such -- and he opined that if Hillary were to stumble leaving the Dems with the prospect of an avowed Socialist at the head of the ticket then, forget about Biden getting in, that's when Bloomberg jumps in. that seems like a far-fetched scenario, are the Democratic big wigs really as bent out of shape about Sanders as the Republican ones are about Trump? I think its a more a case of him being in the way of THE ANOINTED ONE then it is about any particular dislike by Democrats for him. Imagine, though, that Sanders gets the bid and Bloomberg decides "fuck it, I'll finance my own run, I'm bored!" Meanwhile, Trump narrowly leads the way into a brokered convention in which the establishment bands together to reject him, selecting Rubio on the 10th ballot as the most palpable candidate to a coalition of moderates who just want to win the election and Cruz-delegates accepting their loss and deciding he is the most conservative they can get. An incensed Donald decides he still needs his ugly mug on TV and also announces an independent bid! it would be a fun summer/fall at least.

Frayed Knot Jan 22 2016 03:51 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Nymr83 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: So I was listening to (NBC News head politico) Chuck Todd on a (non-political) radio talk-show yesterday talking rather informally about the primaries and such -- and he opined that if Hillary were to stumble leaving the Dems with the prospect of an avowed Socialist at the head of the ticket then, forget about Biden getting in, that's when Bloomberg jumps in. that seems like a far-fetched scenario, are the Democratic big wigs really as bent out of shape about Sanders as the Republican ones are about Trump? I think its a more a case of him being in the way of THE ANOINTED ONE then it is about any particular dislike by Democrats for him. Trump and Sanders are different animals though. Donald wasn't even a Republican until about an hour ago and was, even in his very recent past, as likely to spout stuff that was opposite of what the elephant party faithful tend to believe as he was to sync up with them. It's why many (me included) have been both surprised and perplexed that his red-meat "message" is connecting with so many folks who seem to take it on faith that he's one of them. The Donkey party doesn't have the same conflict about Sanders - if anything he's the party's model. There are probably just too many who, no matter how much they like him, don't think he can win a general election and/or have once again thrown all their eggs into the thought-to-be-inevitable Hillary basket only to have her fail again (in this hypothetical anyway). Only this time, as opposed to eight years ago, they're not going to have an even better a consolation prize fall in their laps. And, again, this was just an informal musing on Todd's part. But it was also one he saw as very conceivable in the case of a Hillary crash (more conceivable than Biden in his mind), adding that the obstacles of missing filing dates and so on aren't as forbidding as they were in the days before 24 hour news and the internet. Imagine, he proposed, how much different (and presumably better) Ross Perot's candidacy 24 years ago would have been fast-forwarded to the internet age.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2016 02:38 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Trump was also a Republican twice before. It's been a pretty rocky ride: [list]????–1987: Democratic 1987–1999: Republican 1999–2001: Reform 2001–2009: Democratic 2009–2011: Republican 2011–2012: Independent 2012–????: Republican[/list:u] So the idea that he should be considered the choice of any primary voters who demand ideological purity from their candidate is... surreal.

Frayed Knot Jan 22 2016 02:55 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

But he's going to make America great again!!!

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 22 2016 04:30 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: If Hillary is more electable it's because she never declared herself to be a socialist and because there will be many who will vote for her because she's a woman. (Presumably more than would vote against her because she's a woman, but who knows?) Sadly, I think that her being a woman works both ways and I think prejudice against women is still strong enough in this country that the GOP will use that negatively in a general election campaign. Considering that progressive people who'd like to see women in office are also the ones most turned off by the political beliefs of this particular woman, I believe that would make for a 1-2 punch that would make Clinton less electable. Yup and yup.

Frayed Knot Jan 23 2016 09:09 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

This doesn't apply specifically to the democratic side of the race, but since I already brought up the topic in this thread I'll continue it here: NY Times: Michael J. Bloomberg has instructed advisers to draw up plans for a potential independent campaign in this year’s presidential race. His advisers and associates said he was galled by Donald J. Trump’s dominance of the Republican field, and troubled by Hillary Clinton’s stumbles and the rise of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on the Democratic side. If Republicans were to nominate Mr. Trump or Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a hard-line conservative, and Democrats chose Mr. Sanders, Mr. Bloomberg — who changed his party affiliation to independent in 2007 — has told allies he would be likely to run. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyreg ... f=cta&_r=1 btw, what a youth movement this race is shaping up as! Age as of election day 2016: Trump - 70 Hillary - 69 Bloomberg - 74 Sanders - 75 Only Clinton would be younger at Inauguration Day than Reagan was at his and even she only by 9 months

A Boy Named Seo Jan 24 2016 04:59 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

If you throw in Bloomberg as Independent, and Gary Johnson's already in as Libertarian, there's 2 kinda brand-name alternate candidates that could siphon more than a handful of votes away (likely from Trump or Teddy or whoever the R is). Not Ross Perot big, I bet, but biggish still and a good thing overall, IMO, not just for Hillary. Man, if Bernie got the nom, he'd prob start a super PAC and just give all his money to Bloomy and Johnson.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 24 2016 05:03 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

BTW - i saw this bumper sticker today for realz. LOLOLOL

Lefty Specialist Jan 24 2016 01:08 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Well, you can say, "Hillary, even if she's elected, won't be able to do much with this Congress." And that's true to an extent. The executive has vast powers, though, and things can still get done. However, If a Rubio or a Cruz get elected with a Republican Congress, a LOT of things will get done. Bad things. Gridlock in Washington is preventing really awful things from happening. If the Republicans in Congress actually were able to pass into law the things they're voting on, you wouldn't like the country that would result. Kiss the right to choose and net neutrality goodbye for starters. Environmental rules would stop being enforced (as has happened before). And imagine a young Scalia or two on the Supreme Court. They'd make Obamacare unworkable (not that they haven't tried already 60+ times) and then blame him when it collapsed due solely to their efforts. You can say Hillary is too cozy with the banks, but Ted Cruz was literally in hock to them and oops, he forgot to tell us. Republicans always run on the premise that government doesn't work. Then they get elected and work really hard to make the premise a reality. I discount Trump in this scenario. For one thing, he's a lot more liberal than he pretends (Do you seriously think he gives a rats ass about Evangelicals? Me neither.) For another, he can't get elected. He can certainly get nominated, but that's because Republicans are reaping the hostility to Washington that they've been sowing for years. But the electorate at large remember that he's a Reality TV star. I also discount Bernie Sanders. He'll have his moment, but he won't be able to grind out a win against Hillary. She has the black vote locked up for starters, and she'll win this one going away.

Frayed Knot Jan 24 2016 04:47 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Gridlock's a funny thing. Americans almost universally declare that they hate it but often it's the best thing that can happen to/for them. I recognize that the part where Hillary having the black vote locked up is conventional wisdom but it perplexes me to a degree. I know that bloc was ga-ga for Bill C. but I'm not sure how that automatically transfers to her or why Bernie would be a non-starter for them. One of those things to watch, should Sanders win both IA & NH, is if or how much momentum swings towards him and whether or not that 'Big Mo' picks up voters, like southern blacks, that have previously just been assumed to belong to HRC.

Lefty Specialist Jan 24 2016 06:07 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Bernie fumbled the 'Black Lives Matter' issue early. He's from the whitest state in the nation (Brooklyn accent aside). And Hillary has been courting the black vote for 15 years, in addition to the residual good will from Bill. It's no accident that the Clinton Foundation's headquarters are in Harlem. He'll lose South Carolina by 30 points, and Hillary will roll up lots of other victories. She's gathering endorsements and will not make the mistake she made in '08 by ignoring superdelegates. If Bloomburg jumps in it won't be because of Sanders.

Ashie62 Jan 24 2016 09:36 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Jebra. I try to stand where I live.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2016 09:48 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

There was a lot of black outrage eight years ago over some casual remark he made about Hillary losing South Carolina. I thought it was much ado about nothing then, so it's probably water under the bridge.

Frayed Knot Jan 25 2016 02:47 AM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Lefty Specialist wrote: It's no accident that the Clinton Foundation's headquarters are in Harlem. Well, it was partly an accident. As I recall, post-prez Bill originally called dibs on some primo (I believe it was) Park Ave digs until being informed that the yearly cost of this was about triple what even the very generous post-Presidency gov't stipend for office and staff allowed. So he had to change plans and suddenly 'remembered' that Harlem had always been his favorite NYC neighborhood ever since he walked from one end of 125th Street to the other during his post college days. Anyone want to take the odds that big-'ol dorky 23 y/o Bill was actually walking the streets of Harlem in the early 70s just enjoying the sights?

d'Kong76 Jan 26 2016 05:33 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

The Hillary indictment makes it's way to regular news sites: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2509659

Mets Willets Point Jan 26 2016 08:54 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Frayed Knot wrote: Anyone want to take the odds that big-'ol dorky 23 y/o Bill was actually walking the streets of Harlem in the early 70s just enjoying the sights? Are you implying that he was cruising for a prostitute? Cause that would fit his persona.

Ceetar Jan 26 2016 08:57 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

One thing that annoys me is the terminology of calling it a 'race'. Sanders is not "ahead" of Clinton right now, no more than the Mets are ahead of the Phillies.

Lefty Specialist Jan 26 2016 09:15 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Yes, but the Mets are ahead of the Phillies in all the pre-season polls. Here's hoping Ted Cruz tears a rotator cuff or something.

Frayed Knot Jan 26 2016 09:43 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Anyone want to take the odds that big-'ol dorky 23 y/o Bill was actually walking the streets of Harlem in the early 70s just enjoying the sights? Are you implying that he was cruising for a prostitute? Cause that would fit his persona. No I was merely implying that such a walk never took place, rather that he was (as always) full of shit and only proclaimed his life-long love for Harlem and the backstory to go with it upon learning that the gov't wasn't going to foot the bill for the much pricier digs he really wanted.

Nymr83 Jan 27 2016 01:18 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I've never uttered these words before: "good job by MSNBC" trying to force another debate, sure its in their best interests, but there is no reason their best interests can't align with whats good.

Ashie62 Jan 27 2016 01:21 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

After Iowa I'm guessing the press will predict Trump v. Sanders. If this were baseball we might be 20 games into the season.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 27 2016 05:54 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Or, y'know, NO games. We're actually no "games" into the "season." Iowa? Iowa's, like, 1/50th of the thing, or 3 games.

Frayed Knot Jan 27 2016 01:04 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Nymr83 wrote: ... "good job by MSNBC" trying to force another debate, sure its in their best interests, but there is no reason their best interests can't align with whats good. But, even if this does come off, when are they -- 'they' meaning the DNC, not MSNBC -- going to put on the debate? After the last two: a Saturday night, and then a Sunday on a holiday/football playoff weekend, I'm not sure they can find better places to hide them unless they opt for opposite the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl.

Nymr83 Jan 27 2016 07:51 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

has either party ever rooted for a non-incumbent candidate, before the primaries even started, more than the DNC is for Hillary? I don't think Al Gore even got this treatment and he was the sitting VP of a fairly popular president. On another note, Hillary has won a couple of completely non-competitive races in her short political career, is Sanders actually the stiffest competition she has faced before actual voters?

Benjamin Grimm Jan 27 2016 07:56 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Well, as you recall she did get "schlonged" by Barack Obama in 2008. has either party ever rooted for a non-incumbent candidate, before the primaries even started, more than the DNC is for Hillary? Maybe Bush in 2000?

Edgy MD Jan 27 2016 08:17 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

What do you means by "rooting"?

Frayed Knot Jan 27 2016 09:25 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 27 2016 11:29 PM

Edgy MD wrote: What do you means by "rooting"? I'd say: - stories of the DNC discouraging others from tossing their hats into the ring in the first place thus limiting the field even in a year when neither the sitting POTUS or VEEP is running - the tactic both of keeping the number of debates down to a minimum and placing the few they did schedule during less than optimal weekend time slots so that fewer would be exposed to the other candidates - whacking Bernie's campaign across the nose for whatever procedure flap it was that went on a few months back All things that could be interpreted as skewed toward benefitting the person who came into the race with more national name recognition than every other Democrat put together.

Edgy MD Jan 27 2016 10:23 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

No doubt the DNC is playing her as the favorite. She has to be considered an incumbent, for all intents and purposes, I think, though, in the sense that she's the designated flag bearer to carry on the established leadership and their party-of-inclusion brand. In 2000, Senators Bob Kerrey and Paul Wellstone, Congressional leader Dick Gephardt, and Warren Beatty all opened up exploratory campaigns and withdrew early on, apparently at the get-the-heck-out-of-the-way request of the party leadership. Senator Bill Bradley stuck around to make a pretend race of it, running to Gore's left. He was too old at that point to put any aspirations on hold for four or eight more years. Besides, Gore needed to vanquish somebody to go into the general election looking like a winner. Beat a jock, the thinking perhaps went, and you look like a badass. I don't know if Sanders will be as sporting, but I assume he bows after Super Tuesday, just like Bradley did. Super Tuesday this time around is March 1, and includes Senator Sanders' home state of Vermont, so if he's not faring well, he can still get out with at least one win.

Ceetar Jan 28 2016 01:23 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Edgy MD wrote: No doubt the DNC is playing her as the favorite. She has to be considered an incumbent, for all intents and purposes, I think, though, in the sense that she's the designated flag bearer to carry on the established leadership and their party-of-inclusion brand. In 2000, Senators Bob Kerrey and Paul Wellstone, Congressional leader Dick Gephardt, and Warren Beatty all opened up exploratory campaigns and withdrew early on, apparently at the get-the-heck-out-of-the-way request of the party leadership. Senator Bill Bradley stuck around to make a pretend race of it, running to Gore's left. He was too old at that point to put any aspirations on hold for four or eight more years. Besides, Gore needed to vanquish somebody to go into the general election looking like a winner. Beat a jock, the thinking perhaps went, and you look like a badass. I don't know if Sanders will be as sporting, but I assume he bows after Super Tuesday, just like Bradley did. Super Tuesday this time around is March 1, and includes Senator Sanders' home state of Vermont, so if he's not faring well, he can still get out with at least one win. This makes it feel like the voters are an afterthought to the process, perhaps an annoyance. And people wonder why voter turnout is crap.

Frayed Knot Jan 28 2016 02:08 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I think a couple of things happened here. - the recent pastings the dems have taken in the last two non-prez election cycles have left the party with a dearth of fresher/younger choices that might have challenged HRC the way BHO did eight years back - the remainder (young or otherwise) had a reluctance to stick one's neck out and take on the Clinton money/publicity machine - and all that was A-OK with party leadership who could get their platform and organization all pulling in the same direction a year ahead of their opponents even if that meant being willing to put their thumb on her side of the scales every once in a while As things turned out, the only ones willing to buck the above obstacles were an out-of-office/low name-recognition Governor and a crazy northeast Socialist. That the party leadership is favoring the one who doesn't fit those descriptions is perhaps understandable even if it does carry some risks on its own as the safest candidates don't always make the best ones.

Chad Ochoseis Feb 02 2016 03:15 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

With the caucus results streaming in, it occurs to Martin O'Malley that he really isn't going to pull off that upset. Des Moines Register is saying he's suspended his campaign.

themetfairy Feb 02 2016 03:27 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Chad Ochoseis wrote: With the caucus results streaming in, it occurs to Martin O'Malley that he really isn't going to pull off that upset. Des Moines Register is saying he's suspended his campaign. It's hard to rebound from a 0% caucus showing.

Mets Willets Point Feb 02 2016 04:49 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Seems that the lesson Clinton got from Bush v. Gore is to declare victory early and count on the media to back up your assertion.

Frayed Knot Feb 02 2016 06:21 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Was the fact that they, in the end, were flipping coins to determine delegates done because Hillary & Bernie finished the regular season tied both in conference record and point differential?

Lefty Specialist Feb 03 2016 12:55 AM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Bernie needed a big win in Iowa and instead got a narrow loss. He'll win New Hampshire- Hillary's already trying to lower expectations. But she'll crush him in South Carolina and beat him handily in Nevada. He may win a few states on Super Tuesday but after that the handwriting will be on the wall.

Edgy MD Feb 03 2016 01:16 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Mebbe, but the Clintons have a history of being humbled in South Carolina.

Ceetar Feb 03 2016 02:11 AM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Lefty Specialist wrote: Bernie needed a big win in Iowa and instead got a narrow loss. He'll win New Hampshire- Hillary's already trying to lower expectations. But she'll crush him in South Carolina and beat him handily in Nevada. He may win a few states on Super Tuesday but after that the handwriting will be on the wall. if we're sure why bother with the primaries? just have the convention and nominate her and save us the wasted money.

Chad Ochoseis Feb 03 2016 06:50 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Lefty Specialist wrote: Bernie needed a big win in Iowa and instead got a narrow loss. He'll win New Hampshire- Hillary's already trying to lower expectations. But she'll crush him in South Carolina and beat him handily in Nevada. He may win a few states on Super Tuesday but after that the handwriting will be on the wall. Well, there's the "Iowa is the Vermont of the Plains" school of thought that says that Bernie had to win big in a lefty, rural, white state. And then there's the "Rocky vs. Apollo" school of thought that says that all Bernie had to do was hurt the Clinton machine to be successful. Six weeks ago, Hillary was up by 18 points in Iowa, and Bernie still wasn't being taken seriously. I'd still guess that Lefty is more or less correct, and that Bernie will take a big hit on Super Tuesday and probably have to drop out on March 16, the day after the Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida primaries. He doesn't figure to be competitive in any of those states. But it's not a foregone conclusion. He's gaining in South Carolina, and if he can start making a credible showing among black voters, it's going to be a long race.

Ashie62 Feb 04 2016 10:48 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I hope Hilary's Goldman Sachs connections do her in.

Lefty Specialist Feb 05 2016 01:27 AM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Well, they'll do in Ted Cruz before they do in Hillary. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the head of the DNC, is certainly in the tank for Hillary. Limiting debates was stupid, because Hillary's actually pretty good in debates, and the debates are actually about substantive issues, unlike the freak show the Republican debates are. There is nobody running for President who's more knowledgeable about the issues on either side. I'd pay good money to see her debate Donald Trump on actual issues, not bluster and bombast. She'd destroy him. Ted Cruz is the best debater on either side, but that's not the same thing as being the most knowledgeable. If it ever comes down to a one-on-one between him and Trump or Rubio, he'd cut them to ribbons. He's still got the 'smug asshole' problem, though.

Nymr83 Feb 10 2016 03:24 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

New Hampshire is probably the 2nd or 3rd most pro-Bernie state in the entire country so this is hardly a big loss for Hillary, but boy its fun to watch her lose.

Edgy MD Feb 10 2016 04:40 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

She's winning two demographics in the New Hampshire count: (1) people over the age of 65 and (2) those making $200K or more. Ouch.

Nymr83 Feb 10 2016 01:05 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Is she not winning blacks? Or does New Hampshire not have any minorities?

Frayed Knot Feb 10 2016 01:08 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Nymr83 wrote: New Hampshire is probably the 2nd or 3rd most pro-Bernie state in the entire country so this is hardly a big loss for Hillary ... Given that NH has long been seen as the most conservative of the six NE states it's probably at least a bit further down the list than that, neighbor to VT or not. But, regardless, losing by 20-plus points in a state that has been long been considered as quite Clinton-friendly is never a good sign no matter how well things lined up for the opponent. And, sure, conditions certainly start to favor HRC moving forward but that doesn't mean things are guaranteed to do an about-face. Already we see that women, and particularly younger women, aren't following their presumed marching orders to her side (which, according to Albright & Steinham, means they're either going to hell or are merely horny) and I don't see it as a given that blacks are going to automatically flock to her either; in a general election, sure, but not necessarily against a different and more leftist Democrat who currently has the wind at his back and a lot of money in the coffers. Obviously the smart money is still on her, but ol' Bernie is in this for the long haul and isn't likely to just politely step aside after a couple more primaries.

MFS62 Feb 10 2016 01:45 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Nymr83 wrote: Is she not winning blacks? Or does New Hampshire not have any minorities? In that regard, Bernie will be in New York this morning to have breakfast at Sylvia's in Harlem. He's meeting with Al Sharpton. That may win him some Black votes away from Hllary, but may lose him a lot of White ones who had been undecided about voting for him. And it will certainly be waving a red flag in front of some of the GOP candidates who have been playing the race card. Later

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 10 2016 03:05 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

MFS62 wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Is she not winning blacks? Or does New Hampshire not have any minorities? In that regard, Bernie will be in New York this morning to have breakfast at Sylvia's in Harlem. He's meeting with Al Sharpton. That may win him some Black votes away from Hllary, but may lose him a lot of White ones who had been undecided about voting for him. And it will certainly be waving a red flag in front of some of the GOP candidates who have been playing the race card. Later I seriously doubt this makes any difference at all, particularly with regard to Bernie "losing" potential supporters over this. Geez.

dgwphotography Feb 10 2016 03:05 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

None of this matters. Hilliary has the superdelegates in her pocket, so the popular vote means nothing.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 10 2016 03:15 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I'm just glad Bernie didn't use the word "schlonged" in his acceptance speech.

TransMonk Feb 10 2016 04:30 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Nymr83 wrote: New Hampshire is probably the 2nd or 3rd most pro-Bernie state in the entire country so this is hardly a big loss for Hillary, but boy its fun to watch her lose. Hillary expected to get beat, but the fact that she couldn't close the gap to under 20 points during the last week in a state where primary voters are known for making their decision at the buzzer has to sting this morning. Additionally, she did not even beat the percentage of voters that pulled the lever for her in 2008 (when she won the NH primary). She is still Goliath to Sanders' David, but she did not have a good showing in NH. Narrowing the loss to 10-15 points would have at least afforded her the opportunity say she beat expectations...but she did not. dgwphotography wrote: None of this matters. Hilliary has the superdelegates in her pocket, so the popular vote means nothing. This is exactly what most folks were saying during February of 2008, IIRC.

Frayed Knot Feb 10 2016 04:36 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Nymr83 wrote: Is she not winning blacks? Or does New Hampshire not have any minorities? They have seven. Among those Bernie won 4-3. Yes I made that all up

Nymr83 Feb 10 2016 05:13 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 10 2016 05:24 PM

TransMonk wrote: dgwphotography wrote: None of this matters. Hilliary has the superdelegates in her pocket, so the popular vote means nothing. This is exactly what most folks were saying during February of 2008, IIRC. the thing with superdelegates is that they can change their minds, particularly if they see one candidate get a clear mandate from the voters. MFS62 wrote: He's meeting with Al Sharpton. That may win him some Black votes away from Hllary, but may lose him a lot of White ones who had been undecided about voting for him. And it will certainly be waving a red flag in front of some of the GOP candidates who have been playing the race card. Al Sharpton is a despicable human being, you don't need to be "playing the race card" to criticize anyone who would seek his endorsement as being questionable as well.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 10 2016 05:19 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

The quoty thing is making it look like I said what I didn't say.

Nymr83 Feb 10 2016 05:24 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: The quoty thing is making it look like I said what I didn't say. fixed, sorry.

El Segundo Escupidor Feb 10 2016 06:40 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Boom bye bye like Buju he's crucial Bernie's a Brooklyn boy he may take some gettin' use to [youtube]6Zy6G8jVvaM[/youtube]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 10 2016 07:00 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I've always respected Gloria Steinem, and admired Secretary Albright, but regarding these TeamUnconditionalLadySupport comments... wotta revoltin' development.

d'Kong76 Feb 14 2016 04:00 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Not a fan of reality television, haven't watched 15 seconds of any the so-called "debates."

Ceetar Feb 14 2016 05:35 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

d'Kong76 wrote: Not a fan of reality television, haven't watched 15 seconds of any the so-called "debates." but then how will you know which candidate has lied to you the best?

d'Kong76 Feb 14 2016 07:18 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Twitter and facebook haha

Mets Willets Point Mar 01 2016 04:36 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Bernie Sanders got at least one vote Massachusetts this morning.

Lefty Specialist Mar 01 2016 06:22 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Hillary's already pivoting to the general with her swipes at Trump. Bernie will win a few states and he has plenty of money, but after tonight things will pretty much be over.

TransMonk Mar 01 2016 07:37 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Over as far as delegates go, but Sanders has succeeded in spreading a message and getting Clinton to tack to the left on some things, which is all I really think he ever set out to do.

Ceetar Mar 01 2016 07:42 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

TransMonk wrote: Over as far as delegates go, but Sanders has succeeded in spreading a message and getting Clinton to tack to the left on some things, which is all I really think he ever set out to do. Is there any data that suggests pushing to left in message in a campaign correlates to actually shifting that way in practice, should one get elected?

TransMonk Mar 01 2016 07:51 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Ceetar wrote: Is there any data that suggests pushing to left in message in a campaign correlates to actually shifting that way in practice, should one get elected? No, but if candidates don't shift their practice to match their message, they run the risk of not being re-elected, depending on the issue and the emphasis of the message.

Ceetar Mar 01 2016 08:00 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

TransMonk wrote: Ceetar wrote: Is there any data that suggests pushing to left in message in a campaign correlates to actually shifting that way in practice, should one get elected? No, but if candidates don't shift their practice to match their message, they run the risk of not being re-elected, depending on the issue and the emphasis of the message. What? Is Bernie, 4 years older, going to run against her in 2020? And we've still got 8 months anyway, were she to pull away and Sanders drops out that's 8 months to shift back over to her 'true' beliefs. What, are the Sanders supporters going to vote Republican? or Independent? Or not at all? Perhaps the last two, but I'd be surprised if Hillary shifted enough to placate most of those folk anyway. And it's not like she's capitulated on any real specific points right? "Oh, at least Bernie got Hillary to say she'll address Wall Street" and then be mad when she doesn't.

Nymr83 Mar 01 2016 08:17 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Clinton's true beliefs are "get elected", she will be sounding like her husband in the general election moving right back to the center

TransMonk Mar 01 2016 10:11 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

You lost me, Ceets. Sometimes I think the biggest problem with American politics is that Americans think real change can happen in four to eight year cycles. Take the long-view.

Ceetar Mar 01 2016 10:30 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

TransMonk wrote: You lost me, Ceets. Sometimes I think the biggest problem with American politics is that Americans think real change can happen in four to eight year cycles. Take the long-view. Maybe the biggest problem is that people seem to think that change shouldn't happen in 4-8 year cycles and that "we'll eventually get it right, maybe" is good enough. Maybe the reason people, like me, are disinterested is because it's all a 'lesser of two evils' battle between two parties that do everything they can to retain power among themselves. (Or maybe it's that the election isn't even for 8 months and even when I try to minimize it I'm bombarded with election coverage, mostly about candidates who I'll never even actually have the chance to vote for whereas you hear nothing about ones I might actually be interested in.

Mets Willets Point Mar 01 2016 10:52 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I'm not giving up on Sanders yet, but as long as he's in the race Clinton - and to a smaller extent the Republicans - are going to have to address the issues he raises regarding economic inequality, racial justice, climate change, war, healthcare, and Wall Street reform. These are things the other candidates and the media don't want to discuss at all. For that reason alone, I hope Sanders stays in the race as long as possible, even to the convention, to keep the issues in the public sphere when everyone else just wants to have a reality show smackdown. And I don't think his chance for the nomination is dead yet.

Mets Willets Point Mar 01 2016 11:12 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

And the Clinton campaign violates election laws just a mile or so from where I live. Of course, being Clintons there will be absolutely no punishment. They even had the mayor help them out.

Ashie62 Mar 02 2016 12:03 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Big Tuesday for Hillary.

Frayed Knot Mar 02 2016 12:25 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Mets – Willets Point wrote: And the Clinton campaign violates election laws ... That's both stunningly arrogant and completely expected at the same time.

Lefty Specialist Mar 02 2016 04:59 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Hillary rolls on. A few victories for Bernie (Oklahoma!) but she's in control.

Ashie62 Mar 03 2016 03:21 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Hard not to be in control with "superdelagates." they may vote on the floor for whoever they want. Superdelegates were established in case the delagates as we know them are not toeing the line. I am assuming donors and big shots get such designation.

Chad Ochoseis Mar 03 2016 03:53 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Superdelegates are elected officials, plus some members of the Democratic National Committee. Sanders is himself a superdelegate, as is Bill Clinton. [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016#List

Ashie62 Mar 05 2016 01:16 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I just want Hlilary to get a brandy new pants suit for her inauguratuion.

Frayed Knot Mar 05 2016 01:35 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Ashie62 wrote: I just want Hlilary to get a brandy new pants suit for her inauguratuion. Well, she is a fine girl.

Ashie62 Mar 05 2016 04:25 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I believe more everyday she will win it all, handily. Elizabeth Warren for VP?

Lefty Specialist Mar 05 2016 06:18 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Warren can do a lot more good in the Senate than she could as a VP. Plus I don't trust the people of Massachusetts to replace her properly. (Scott Brown, really, people?) A young Latino like Julian Castro is more likely. Former Mayor of San Antonio and now HUD Secretary. Has an identical twin brother Joaquin so he can campaign in two places at once.

Frayed Knot Mar 05 2016 06:54 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Yeah, I've long thought that one of the Castro twins (either/or - pretty much doesn't matter) has been a given as far as Hillary's VeeP choice goes.

Mets Willets Point Mar 06 2016 04:24 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Bernie wins two more states, Nebraska & Kansas. Hillary gets Louisiana.

Ashie62 Mar 09 2016 10:23 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Bernie takes Michigan. Game on.

Lefty Specialist Mar 10 2016 02:04 AM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Ashie62 wrote: Bernie takes Michigan. Game on. Not really. Hillary got more delegates last night than he did (she won Mississippi 83-17). And she has an enormous lead in superdelegates, which are highly UN-democratic but that's the way the game is played. She lost those superdelegates to Obama in '08 and she wasn't going to make the same mistake again. Bernie can stay in until the convention- he's got the money. But after March 15th, the writing will probably be on the wall unless he absolutely runs the table.

Ashie62 Mar 10 2016 10:45 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

At least Bernie is pulling Hillary somewhat to the left.

Lefty Specialist Mar 11 2016 02:28 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Ashie62 wrote: At least Bernie is pulling Hillary somewhat to the left. Which is useful in and of itself. And the loss in Michigan will hopefully teach her a lesson about not assuming support in the Rust Belt. There's anger there, and a demagogue like Trump can tap into it. I think it's safe to say in a general election that Hillary will lock down 80-90% support among Blacks, Latinos and Muslims. But Trump will nail down the Cranky White Guy vote, and since this isn't a national election but actually 50 state elections, those CWG's can be pivotal. They're buying what Trump's selling. What concerns me is that women aren't breaking for Hillary at all. Now, I know that this is a primary and you've got a more closed set of voters, but that's a concern. Another group she can't take for granted; remember, Trump is less anti-choice than the average Republican (although I would hope that the average woman would find him repulsive anyway).

Mets Willets Point Mar 12 2016 12:53 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

- We need mass incarceration to bring these black superpredators to heel! - Whoops! I mispoke when I said that. - We need to invade Iraq because Sadaam has weapons of mass destruction he is ready to use on us! - He didn't. My bad. - The Reagans were great advocates for helping gay people with AIDS! - Just another mistakey-poo, don't mind me. I really don't understand how anyone can support this dissembling, self-interested egomaniac.

Ceetar Mar 12 2016 01:16 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Mets – Willets Point wrote: - We need mass incarceration to bring these black superpredators to heel! - Whoops! I mispoke when I said that. - We need to invade Iraq because Sadaam has weapons of mass destruction he is ready to use on us! - He didn't. My bad. - The Reagans were great advocates for helping gay people with AIDS! - Just another mistakey-poo, don't mind me. I really don't understand how anyone can support this dissembling, self-interested egomaniac. as I understand it, you gotta pick one of the dissembling, self-interested egomaniacs or you're an affront to democracy or don't get to complain or something.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 12 2016 01:32 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I don't think I've ever really been enthusiastic over a politician. I got a kick out of Bill Clinton unseating George Bush in 1992, but that was more because I was down on Bush (who looks much better in retrospect) than that I was high on Clinton. I voted for Gore, Kerry, Obama because I preferred them to their opponents. And I know I'll vote for Hillary (unless Bernie gets the nomination) because she'll be much more palatable than Cruz or Trump. But I can better understand the people who don't like her than those who do.

Edgy MD Mar 12 2016 06:04 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Ceetar wrote: as I understand it, you gotta pick one of the dissembling, self-interested egomaniacs or you're an affront to democracy or don't get to complain or something. No, you really don't. Vote for David Wright.

d'Kong76 Mar 12 2016 01:26 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Bill: Hillary is the best change maker! [youtube]DmbQx5u5i7w[/youtube] Yesterday's gone! Yesterday's gone!

Ceetar Mar 12 2016 05:46 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: as I understand it, you gotta pick one of the dissembling, self-interested egomaniacs or you're an affront to democracy or don't get to complain or something. No, you really don't. Vote for David Wright. I did that last year but for some reason he's still not my mayor. I don't get it. How many write in votes for a weird candidate like that for it to actually get reported? Would getting a few hundred to vote for Wright get mentioned?

Edgy MD Mar 12 2016 05:54 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

It doesn't have to be reported. It just has to be recorded. And I don't mean my write-in votes to be weird. I certainly disagree that David Wright is "weird." He's as square as I know.

Ceetar Mar 12 2016 09:06 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Edgy MD wrote: It doesn't have to be reported. It just has to be recorded. And I don't mean my write-in votes to be weird. I certainly disagree that David Wright is "weird." He's as square as I know. No no, but I want it to be reported. I want the entire discussion the next day to be "This just in: 64,000 people wrote in a vote for Pikachu." I mean, Deez Nutz was the best day of this election.

Edgy MD Mar 12 2016 11:56 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Well, Deez Nutz, and Wright for that matter, is under 35 and therefore couldn't serve.

Chad Ochoseis Mar 13 2016 12:10 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

And a Pikachu vote would result in all sorts of birther lawsuits. Also, I'd bet the Dodgers' payroll that Wright is a Republican. Which gets me wondering, tangentially...if a meaningful number of people did vote for him, would it be necessary to prove that they were voting for our very own Sugarpants and not one of the hundreds of other David Wrights that are out there?

Ashie62 Mar 14 2016 11:35 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I would bet my nutz that David Wright is a card carrying Republican.

d'Kong76 Mar 15 2016 12:48 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

He'd probably bet your nutz too! (sorry, but I had to swing at that hanger)

d'Kong76 Mar 15 2016 01:40 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

d'Kong76 wrote: He'd probably bet your nutz too! (sorry, but I had to swing at that hanger) I apologize for being abrasive... OE: He'd probably bet your nutz on something arbitrarily posted on his forum of choice too.

Mets Willets Point Apr 03 2016 02:46 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Somehow Bernie has won Nevada now too.

Nymr83 Apr 04 2016 12:57 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Somehow Bernie has won Nevada now too. I wonder if Teflon Hillary has finally managed to run too many people the wrong way, doesn't she finally have a date with the FBI to answer questions about her emails?

Ashie62 Apr 04 2016 03:50 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I am awaiting the Hillary-Bernie NY showdown.

TransMonk Apr 06 2016 02:22 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Bernie wins Wisconsin, which I feel will cause Hillary to go on a full offensive to squash him leading up to the NY primary in two weeks. If Hillary does win the nomination, she is going to have to fight a lot harder for Wisconsin in the general election. It is a state that typically runs blue in presidential elections, but that has a strong (establishment) conservative base and organization. There was a state-wide down ballot election for a State Supreme Court justice yesterday where the conservative Scott Walker appointed judge won by six points over the more liberal judge. If it ends up being a race between Hillary and a Republican not named Trump in the general, Wisconsin could be redder than it usually is in presidential elections.

Frayed Knot Apr 06 2016 03:00 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

So Hillary just continues to lose her way into the nomination by a comfortable margin.

d'Kong76 Apr 07 2016 08:43 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Just Gretzy her in already and be done with it. (like I believe I suggested a year and a half ago here but I can't find the post) I never really thought I could be more sick of American politics than I am right now. I suppose it will never get better until some new system comes along. Probably not in my lifetime.

Mets Willets Point Apr 07 2016 10:22 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Bill Clinton shows how theyreally feel about black people.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 08 2016 04:46 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Hillary appealing to Fox... Mulder, that is: Clinton campaign chair: 'The American people can handle the truth' on UFOs

Frayed Knot Apr 08 2016 04:57 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Bill Clinton shows how theyreally feel about black people. Not that I thought there was any particular reason(s) why black voters should be anti-Clinton(s), but at the same time I also never understood the almost unquestioned love affair nor the whole 'first black President' thing. One could imagine some of the things mentioned in that linked article, or the 'end welfare as we know it' campaign, 'three strikes and you're out', etc., coming from other politicians bringing condemnation from black leaders and voters (and cries of Nazi-ism if from a Republican) but, what, because Bill was raised in the south by a single mom (although had a step-father most of that time) and played the saxophone he's not just given a pass on all that but is treated as someone who could do no wrong. I just never got the connection.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 08 2016 05:24 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

RE: Bill? Personal ease/cultural fluency with people-of-color on the campaign trail (and in personal life) that was unmatched in a major-party national candidate is only part of it. There's the unwavering long-term support for affirmative action. Appointing people of color-- mostly black-- to form something like half of his Cabinet. And the booming economy, too (however minimal his actual impact on that may have been). The crime bill was alarmist, dumb, and superdeleterious to the community in retrospect, granted, but it was a different time, and it was kind of seen as a necessary evil, IIRC-- hell, i'm pretty sure the congressional black caucus voted for it in overwhelming numbers. Welfare reform... yeah, that was a terrible concession.

Frayed Knot Apr 08 2016 07:06 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Maybe it was all those black folk he hung out with at Georgetown and Oxford. I just never got the supposed unique connection. His personal warmth/charm was pretty much with everyone (at least to those who bought into it) and he was no more or less supportive of affirmative action than your typical (D) politician. And, again, this isn't to say that he should have been disliked only that I never understood the 'he's one of ours' vibe or why it automatically transfers to her even within leftist/democratic circles.

Edgy MD Apr 08 2016 07:13 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Because, sometimes, if you say it enough times, it's true, particularly in the myth-making and spin-cycling world of big league politics.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 08 2016 08:30 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Bernie's having a rally down the street from me. Gonna check it out!

Ashie62 Apr 10 2016 01:22 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Bern baby Bern!

Frayed Knot Apr 10 2016 12:12 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Bernie wins Wyoming caucus by a comfortable 56 - 44 margin. But Hillary wins a majority of the state's delegates: 11 - 7

Mets Willets Point Apr 10 2016 05:45 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Frayed Knot wrote: Bernie wins Wyoming caucus by a comfortable 56 - 44 margin. But Hillary wins a majority of the state's delegates: 11 - 7 Democracy inaction!

Ashie62 Apr 10 2016 10:37 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Are Superdelegates for sale yet?

Mets Willets Point Apr 11 2016 02:45 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Ashie62 wrote: Are Superdelegates for sale yet? Already sold to the highest bidder.

Edgy MD Apr 11 2016 01:53 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

There's a special place in Hell for superdelegates who won't help a woman.

Frayed Knot Apr 11 2016 04:34 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Are Superdelegates for sale yet? Already sold to the highest bidder. Eh, only 94% of them are committed to her.

Ashie62 Apr 11 2016 05:17 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Superdelegates were created as a safeguard with the belief that the general electorate was too dumb to be trusted with the electoral process.

Mets Willets Point Apr 11 2016 05:23 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Frayed Knot wrote: Mets – Willets Point wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Are Superdelegates for sale yet? Already sold to the highest bidder. Eh, only 94% of them are committed to her. Not so much Clinton, but her corporate sponsors.

Lefty Specialist Apr 11 2016 07:36 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

And that's why all this Bernie-mentum won't get anywhere. Love the guy, but he didn't take the process seriously enough at the beginning. Super-delegates are undemocratic, but that's the game you're playing and everybody knew the rules at the outset. So yes, Hillary swept up the Super-D's early, which is why the delegate count is far more in Hillary's favor than the primary math would lead you to believe. A guy named Barack Obama figured this out in 2008 and left Hillary in Bernie's position; she learned from her mistakes. Bernie wanted to be a gadfly at the beginning, just like he is in the Senate. By the time he started winning primaries, it was too late and go back and woo Super-D's.

Nymr83 Apr 11 2016 07:37 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Ashie62 wrote: Superdelegates were created as a safeguard with the belief that the general electorate was too dumb to be trusted with the electoral process. Trump seems to be proving that point.

Frayed Knot Apr 11 2016 08:23 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Sampling form the talking heads shows Sunday morn, George Will talked about how Democrats had expanded the primary process following their 1968 debacle of a convention which wound up nominating Hubert Humphrey because he was the insider choice despite him winning few if any states during that cycle's run-up. But that adjustment produced the populist but ultimately trounced George McGovern and so the super-delegate system was added as an antidote to the voters producing another McGovern. IOW, the 'fix' brought in to keep out the likes of a Bernie Sanders is doing exactly what they designed it to do.

Ashie62 Apr 11 2016 11:42 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

ouch

Lefty Specialist Apr 12 2016 06:19 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

1968 was an anomaly. First you had a President who said he wasn't running after the primary season had started. Then Bobby Kennedy, who probably would have won the nomination, got shot in June. That was a very messy year, politically.

Frayed Knot Apr 12 2016 06:33 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Sure, but then based on that cockeyed year, the Dems changed their primary process and then re-jiggered it again based on the 1972 results. And now all these years later, Bernie is at least partially the victim of those decisions.

Lefty Specialist Apr 13 2016 12:27 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Samantha Bee last night: "Don't you think Republicans would give their left nut for superdelegates right about now?"

MFS62 Apr 13 2016 03:19 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Samantha Bee last night: "Don't you think Republicans would give their left nut for superdelegates right about now?" Funny line. But we have to remember these are Republicans she's talking about. They would give your left nut for superdelegates. Later

batmagadanleadoff Apr 13 2016 07:14 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Hillary appealing to Fox... Mulder, that is: Clinton campaign chair: 'The American people can handle the truth' on UFOs I doubt it. They can barely handle contraceptives, as just one example. No. Let me rephrase that: They can barely handle other people using contraceptives without asking the Supreme Court to butt into other people's business and interfere with other peoples independent right to use contraceptives on the basis of --what?-- what the bible says? Never mind that some or many of the other people who want to use contraceptives don't give a flying fuck about the bible and maybe even think it's dumber than Sarah Palin. But as long as one person believes in the bible, no one else should be allowed to use contraceptives. [/rant] But it's a coded and clever way to get the UFO'ers vote.

Edgy MD Apr 13 2016 12:27 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Don't worry about the contraceptives. Nobody's having trouble getting them.

Lefty Specialist Apr 13 2016 01:37 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Edgy MD wrote: Don't worry about the contraceptives. Nobody's having trouble getting them. Yet. Republicans are on the case, though. Many of them believe that hormonal contraception is an abortion, and 'Personhood' laws are aimed squarely at prohibiting contraception.

Ceetar Apr 13 2016 01:51 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Edgy MD wrote: Don't worry about the contraceptives. Nobody's having trouble getting them. This is pretty much completely false, especially if expand the definition beyond "are some products fitting this description physically in existence somewhere nearby?" to things like birth control pills, prescriptions, insurance coverage and Plan B.

Edgy MD Apr 13 2016 01:53 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

No, it's not completely false. There are real issues. This is just a thing.

Ceetar Apr 13 2016 01:57 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Edgy MD wrote: No, it's not completely false. There are real issues. This is just a thing. this is a real issue, it's one of the bigger issues facing everyday people. It's actually one of the issues "single issue voters" use to make decisions.

Lefty Specialist Apr 13 2016 08:31 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

It's an issue if you have lady parts and are of childbearing age.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 14 2016 12:12 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Or know/love someone who is. With all due respect, Edge, you're wrong.

Edgy MD Apr 14 2016 02:46 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Yeah, I'm used to it.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 19 2016 12:55 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Discovered this morning I'm one of the 50,000+ voters in Brooklyn who've been purged from the rolls. Wifey Bucket still on the list. I voted, but had to fill out new forms. I've voted in nearly every local/state/national election for the last 12 years at the same address. Very suspicious.

Edgy MD Apr 19 2016 02:13 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I was just looking at a map of New York's 10th Congressional District. It's probably not the gerrymanderiest district in America, but it sure looks like a candidate. Looks like the West Side, from Columbia all the way down to the Battery, then through the Battery Tunnel with one long meandering street to take you Borough Park.

Vic Sage Apr 19 2016 03:09 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Ceetar wrote: No, it's not completely false. There are real issues. This is just a thing. this is a real issue, it's one of the bigger issues facing everyday people. It's actually one of the issues "single issue voters" use to make decisions. See SCOTUS decision: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/3 ... 21444.html From Ginsburg's dissent: "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs." Ginsburg argued that the government has a “compelling interest” in providing no-cost birth control to women. “Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence...To recapitulate, the mandated contraception coverage enables women to avoid the health problems unintended pregnancies may visit on them and their children...President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them. Today’s decision jeopardizes the health of women that are employed by these companies.” Sen. Ted Cruz issued a statement at the time, calling the decision a “landmark victory for religious liberty.”

Edgy MD Apr 19 2016 03:12 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I'm certainly familiar with the decision and the opinions.

Vic Sage Apr 19 2016 03:31 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Edgy MD wrote: I'm certainly familiar with the decision and the opinions. Then i don't understand your statement: "Don't worry about the contraceptives. Nobody's having trouble getting them." Particularly when put in the current context of Cruz's statements and other Republican leadership like *Marco Rubio, who introduced a bill in the senate a few years ago that could cut off birth control access for millions of women by allowing even non-religious employers to refuse birth control coverage as long as they cite a religious reason, * Mitt Romney, who slammed President Barack Obama for requiring most employers to offer insurance that provides birth control at no cost to women who want it, * Rick Santorum, who thinks Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that said states can not deny married couples access to contraception, should be overturned, and * Former Speaker John Boehner, who warned that he would soon push forward legislation that would allow employers to refuse to provide birth control to their employees, and * Majority leader Mitch McConnell, who noted that several Republican senators have already introduced bills on the subject. One of those bills is Rubio's aforementioned Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynacologists have gone on record saying that "multiple barriers prevent women from obtaining contraceptives or using them effectively and consistently. All women should have unhindered and affordable access to all U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives. This Committee Opinion reviews barriers to contraceptive access and offers strategies to improve access." They went on: "Unfavorable legal rulings and restrictive legislative measures can impede access to contraceptives for minors and adults and interfere with the patient–physician relationship by impeding contraceptive counseling, coverage, and provision. With the U.S. Supreme Court’s Burwell v Hobby Lobby ruling that a closely held corporation can exclude contraceptive coverage from workers’ insurance benefits based on the company owner’s religious beliefs, additional employers may now refuse to comply with federal birth control coverage requirements. Some corporations also may use the legal process to challenge laws in states that ensure equitable contraceptive coverage. Additionally, state lawmakers may be emboldened to further restrict access to contraception. For example, in 2012, Arizona revisited its decade-old law that ensures equitable insurance coverage for birth control and authorized a much broader class of employers to exclude this coverage from employee health insurance plans. In 2013, bills designed to weaken existing contraceptive equity laws or to allow employers—secular and religious—to deny contraceptive coverage to their workers were introduced in more than a dozen states. Measures that define life as beginning at fertilization and, thereby, conferring the legal status of “personhood” on fertilized eggs also pose a significant risk to contraceptive access. Supporters of “personhood” measures argue erroneously that most methods of contraception act as abortifacients because they may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting; if these “personhood” measures were to be implemented, contraception opponents may assert that hormonal contraceptive methods and IUDs are illegal. Currently, 20 states restrict some minors’ ability to consent to contraceptive services. Although the Title X family planning program and Medicaid require that minors receive confidential health services, state and federal legislation requiring parental notification, parental consent, or both for minors who receive contraceptive care has been increasingly proposed. Even though policies should encourage and facilitate communication between a minor and her parent or guardian when appropriate, legal barriers and deference to parental involvement should not stand in the way of needed contraceptive care for adolescents who request confidential services."

batmagadanleadoff Apr 19 2016 03:53 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Vic Sage wrote: Sen. Ted Cruz issued a statement at the time, calling the decision a “landmark victory for religious liberty.” It's a landmark decision that allows one group of people, based on their religious beliefs, to veto the legal rights of other people. Personally, I don't know how a government can even function if some groups can disobey compelling laws based on religious beliefs. I'm thinking of joining a pacifist religion .. a religion that doesn't believe in wars or fighting or any kind of non-consensual physical contact --- even in self-defense. Then maybe I won't have to pay taxes knowing that the government apportions a large part of its budget for military related expenses.

Edgy MD Apr 19 2016 04:08 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

There is such a religion. Quakers. Among others. They aren't explicitly exempt from the military portion of their taxes, but they have an easy time obtaining conscientious objector status with regard to the draft, which hasn't been an issue since, like 1973 or something. Some withhold a chunk of their taxes anyway. So has Joan Baez, as a matter of fact, and the IRS somehow hasn't jailed her yet. (I think she affiliated with the Quakers for a time.) Vic, if you want to re-litigate Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, go ahead. It's just being used as a proxy for the culture wars, and I have no investment in either side in that fight. We might as well talk about Starbuck's cups. The characterization of "They can barely handle other people using contraceptives without asking the Supreme Court to butt into other people's business and interfere with other peoples independent right to use contraceptives on the basis of --what?-- what the bible says? Never mind that some or many of the other people who want to use contraceptives don't give a flying fuck about the bible and maybe even think it's dumber than Sarah Palin. But as long as one person believes in the bible, no one else should be allowed to use contraceptives." is a silly distortion no matter where you stand. And while I'm at it, so is my contention using the subject "No one." As soon as you use "no one" or "everyone," you're on weak ground, logically. But up to 70% of insured women using the birth control pill are paying nothing out of pocket for it, compared to 15% in 2012. Women are saving hundreds of millions annually since the advent of the Affordable Care Act. Birth control is far and away more affordable and available now than at any time in American history, as offended as batmagadan may be about Burwell. The movement for proliferation may have its share of pushback. Maybe it always will. I'm just saying that it's clearly winning anyhow.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 19 2016 04:23 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Edgy MD wrote: The characterization of "They can barely handle other people using contraceptives without asking the Supreme Court to butt into other people's business and interfere with other peoples independent right to use contraceptives on the basis of --what?-- what the bible says? Never mind that some or many of the other people who want to use contraceptives don't give a flying fuck about the bible and maybe even think it's dumber than Sarah Palin. But as long as one person believes in the bible, no one else should be allowed to use contraceptives." is a silly distortion no matter where you stand. It was part schtick and you're definitely intelligent enough to get that.

Lefty Specialist Apr 19 2016 06:04 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

It's not just lawmakers..If a pharmacist thinks you're a slut they can refuse to give you birth control, due to so-called 'conscience clauses'. Because religious freedom. Frequently Asked Questions Does a pharmacy or pharmacist violate a woman’s federal constitutional rights by refusing to satisfy her request to purchase birth control? No. A pharmacy’s or pharmacist’s refusal to sell birth control does not violate a woman’s federal constitu- tional rights. The U.S. Constitution imposes no limitations on nongovernmental institutions like privately owned pharmacies. Even if the refusal takes place in a state-owned pharmacy, a woman has no federal constitutional right to receive contraception. Although the Constitution protects a woman’s right to contra- ception, it does not ensure that women can access reproductive health services. So, more than just a thing.

Ashie62 Apr 19 2016 09:59 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Lefty Specialist wrote: It's not just lawmakers..If a pharmacist thinks you're a slut they can refuse to give you birth control, due to so-called 'conscience clauses'. Because religious freedom. Frequently Asked Questions Does a pharmacy or pharmacist violate a woman’s federal constitutional rights by refusing to satisfy her request to purchase birth control? No. A pharmacy’s or pharmacist’s refusal to sell birth control does not violate a woman’s federal constitu- tional rights. The U.S. Constitution imposes no limitations on nongovernmental institutions like privately owned pharmacies. Even if the refusal takes place in a state-owned pharmacy, a woman has no federal constitutional right to receive contraception. Although the Constitution protects a woman’s right to contra- ception, it does not ensure that women can access reproductive health services. So, more than just a thing. This is a transcript of my appearance on John Quinones "What Would you do?" The setup was a young girl being denied birth control pills by the pharmacist and the reactions of customers. I totally waffled but it is interesting. [url]http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=7021986&page=1

Nymr83 Apr 20 2016 01:44 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Edgy MD wrote: There is such a religion. Quakers. Among others. They aren't explicitly exempt from the military portion of their taxes, but they have an easy time obtaining conscientious objector status with regard to the draft, which hasn't been an issue since, like 1973 or something. Some withhold a chunk of their taxes anyway. So has Joan Baez, as a matter of fact, and the IRS somehow hasn't jailed her yet. (I think she affiliated with the Quakers for a time.) this is pretty much a dead ringer for the 'hobby lobby' issue. If you think religious conscientious objectors should have been forced into the draft then I have no issue with your believing that those who object to birth control should be forced to provide it. but if you side with those pacifist quakers and against hobby lobby you are really just saying that you think only religious objections that you agree with are valid.

Mets Willets Point Apr 20 2016 03:15 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

No one is forcing anyone to pay for someone else's contraception. Employers pay employees compensation for ... get this ... the WORK THAT THE EMPLOYEE DOES. This compensation comes in the form of money and benefits. Benefits include health care coverage. The health care coverage is whatever the individual and their doctor decide is necessary for the health of the individual. It works just like money that way. An employee of McDonald's may chose to spend their wages at Burger King. McDonald's wouldn't like that, but guess what, they don't get a choice in the matter. An employee of Hilton may chose to take their vacation time and stay at Ramada. Hilton wouldn't like that, but guess what, they don't get a choice in the matter. And an employee of Hobby Lobby may chose to get contraceptives as part of their health care benefits. Hobby Lobby doesn't like that, but guess what THEY DON'T GET A FUCKING CHOICE IN THE MATTER! The compensation doesn't belong to the employer. It belongs to the individual who earned it with their work. It's basic capitalism 101, the stuff you righties pretend to care about, except for the people you don't like.

Nymr83 Apr 20 2016 03:25 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

You are completely wrong in your characterization of the situation, and i don't even agree with the hobby lobby side of this when it comes to the end result. The government forces Hobby Lobby to buy their employees a health plan and then forces that health plan to include contraceptive coverage. How would you like it if the government forced employers to buy their employees a gun... hey, just like the contraceptives they can choose not to use it, but employees of hypothetical employer LiberalMart are now required to buy them.

Mets Willets Point Apr 20 2016 03:41 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

How many guns are we talking about? One gun for every paycheck? I suppose the employee could get a good amount on the resale market. I suppose if there were any real life examples of a company with a gun-based compensation program this would make sense, but nope it makes no sense. Bad analogy. But hey, if you don't like employers having to buy insurance plans for their employees (I agree it is inefficient and riddled with conflict) there's this totally awesome solution I'm sure you'll be on board with.

Lefty Specialist Apr 20 2016 01:26 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Hillary puts Bernie a little further in the rear view by virtue of a solid win in New York. And yes, single-payer is the only rational way to do this (as virtually every other developed nation found out decades ago).

Ashie62 Apr 21 2016 07:12 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Lefty Specialist wrote: Hillary puts Bernie a little further in the rear view by virtue of a solid win in New York. And yes, single-payer is the only rational way to do this (as virtually every other developed nation found out decades ago). Might the U.S. be too big for single payer? You would almost have to bar code everyone. Then again Ashie1's medical bills for four years of cancer treatment exceeded six million dollars. No hyperbole.

batmagadanleadoff May 11 2016 01:09 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Hillary appealing to Fox... Mulder, that is: Clinton campaign chair: 'The American people can handle the truth' on UFOs I doubt it.... But it's a coded and clever way to get the UFO'ers vote. _________________________________________________________________________ Hillary Clinton Wants More Transparency (About Aliens) She has pledged to declassify government files on aliens, if they exist, provided that there’s no national security risk. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hil ... ut-aliens/ It'll never happen and the world'll never get official confirmation without the aliens themselves unmistakably revealing themselves to us in a way that leaves no doubt about their existence. No reasonable doubt, anyways.

Frayed Knot May 11 2016 03:37 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Every once in a while I catch these UFO nutcases on late night radio programs. As a group, those folks are extraordinarily excited about the prospect of officials high in the Gov't finally "telling the truth" on UFOs and the presence of aliens amongst us, etc. Former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff and current liberal think tank guru John Podesta is their patron saint right now. As far as what Hillary actually believes, I suspect she's just saying whatever she thinks will get her the most votes. There's probably some poll taken somewhere that says that publicly denying UFOs will tick off a certain pct of people but leaving open the possibility of them doesn't upset the non-believers enough to matter.

Lefty Specialist May 11 2016 11:57 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. Gotta be better than Trump.

Edgy MD May 11 2016 01:21 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Frayed Knot wrote: Every once in a while I catch these UFO nutcases on late night radio programs. As a group, those folks are extraordinarily excited about the prospect of officials high in the Gov't finally "telling the truth" on UFOs and the presence of aliens amongst us, etc. Former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff and current liberal think tank guru John Podesta is their patron saint right now. As far as what Hillary actually believes, I suspect she's just saying whatever she thinks will get her the most votes. There's probably some poll taken somewhere that says that publicly denying UFOs will tick off a certain pct of people but leaving open the possibility of them doesn't upset the non-believers enough to matter. Unfortunately for her, she understands triangulation enough not to alienate the UFO people, but not enough to placate the Pennsylvania coal miner — a dying breed to be sure, but the population of those that identify with him certainly are legion.

batmagadanleadoff May 13 2016 02:29 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Edgy MD wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Every once in a while I catch these UFO nutcases on late night radio programs. As a group, those folks are extraordinarily excited about the prospect of officials high in the Gov't finally "telling the truth" on UFOs and the presence of aliens amongst us, etc. Former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff and current liberal think tank guru John Podesta is their patron saint right now. As far as what Hillary actually believes, I suspect she's just saying whatever she thinks will get her the most votes. There's probably some poll taken somewhere that says that publicly denying UFOs will tick off a certain pct of people but leaving open the possibility of them doesn't upset the non-believers enough to matter. Unfortunately for her, she understands triangulation enough not to alienate the UFO people, but not enough to placate the Pennsylvania coal miner — a dying breed to be sure, but the population of those that identify with him certainly are legion. Her comment is so disingenuous because, if UFO's and aliens exist, then of course it's a matter of National security. And the US government'll never declassify any evidence they might have. And she goddamn knows that.

Ashie62 May 25 2016 04:35 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

The IOG dropped the hammer on State and emails. She better win cause the new Attorney General will be Chris Christie IMHO.

TransMonk May 25 2016 04:54 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I have no idea why Hillary Clinton would appoint Chris Christie as AG. And if we ever got to a point where Christie was AG, why would any of this matter anyways?

themetfairy May 25 2016 05:25 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

After thinking about this, I think that Ashie means that Trump will appoint Christie AG. Which is yet another sign of the apocalypse.....

TransMonk May 25 2016 05:27 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I know what he meant. I was making fun of the premise that Trump would win. ;)

themetfairy May 25 2016 05:34 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

TransMonk wrote: I know what he meant. I was making fun of the premise that Trump would win. ;) I pray that a year from now we'll be laughing at the absurdity of the premise.

Ashie62 May 26 2016 01:52 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

It is going to be very very close. I can't get with the Clinton foundaton. The Mets won today?

Lefty Specialist Jun 03 2016 02:57 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Well, Hillary finally gave the speech everyone wanted her to give, and it left The Donald with burn marks. The beauty of it was just using his own words against him..... http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/ ... index.html

Ashie62 Jun 03 2016 06:02 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Bill's speech helped I believe. Talking about white non-college educated men feeling left behind with lower incomes and less job opportunities yearning for past, and that is what it is, the past. We move forward as a nation. I would say quite a few more educated people also feel left behind too. All in all a good couple days for team Clinton. Well played.

Nymr83 Jun 07 2016 03:18 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Bill Clinton's brother Roger arrested for DUI in California the day before the Primary. Hillary might make him disappear before the General Election.

Ceetar Jun 07 2016 02:01 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Happy meaningless NJ Primary day!

themetfairy Jun 07 2016 02:19 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Ceetar wrote: Happy meaningless NJ Primary day! It's the closest to a meaningful primary that I've ever experienced out here.

Ceetar Jun 07 2016 02:24 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

themetfairy wrote: Ceetar wrote: Happy meaningless NJ Primary day! It's the closest to a meaningful primary that I've ever experienced out here. low bar, true. I don't belong to a party anyway so it doesn't matter. They still mailed me a ballot and it annoys me how many uncontested positions there are. I should start a grassroots campaign for people to write-in Mr. Met or someone ridiculous.

Frayed Knot Jun 07 2016 03:22 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Some NYT reporter asked Bernie yesterday if his continued presence in the race (ie. the delaying of Quenn Hillary's coronation) was sexism on his part. After getting an acknowledgment from her (the reporter) that it was, in fact, a serious question, he got around to answering 'no', but you could also tell that it was all he could do to keep from calling her a fuckin' moron.

Lefty Specialist Jun 07 2016 03:44 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

It's not a coronation if you win by, you know, the rules. The results tonight will make that crystal clear. Bernie can do what he wants, but if he just wants to be remembered as a cranky old man he can keep fighting until the convention. If he does, he'll be Donald Trump's best friend. Otherwise, he can bow out gracefully, as 16 Republicans and 4 Democrats already have (and as Hillary did in 2008). He can give her his donor list in exchange for a speaking spot, a tweak of the superdelegate rule and some platform concessions. There's an existential threat to the republic, and it's no time for a disunited party.

Ceetar Jun 07 2016 04:26 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Lefty Specialist wrote: It's not a coronation if you win by, you know, the rules. The results tonight will make that crystal clear. Bernie can do what he wants, but if he just wants to be remembered as a cranky old man he can keep fighting until the convention. If he does, he'll be Donald Trump's best friend. Otherwise, he can bow out gracefully, as 16 Republicans and 4 Democrats already have (and as Hillary did in 2008). He can give her his donor list in exchange for a speaking spot, a tweak of the superdelegate rule and some platform concessions. There's an existential threat to the republic, and it's no time for a disunited party. Despite joining the party for the election, he's an elected independent. Doesn't really mean disunited party.

Frayed Knot Jun 07 2016 04:51 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Lefty Specialist wrote: It's not a coronation if you win by, you know, the rules. The results tonight will make that crystal clear. I realize all that. But part of Bernie's goal is to help shape the future of the party -- both in terms of policy goals and probably also in the rules that he feels rigged this race from the start -- and while some may prefer that he get out now and give up any leverage he might have in things going forward that's fine, but I (and obviously he) object to the notion that by not following the script he becomes a de facto sexist simply based on the idea that the one he won't step aside for is female. If I were a more cynical person I might suggest that the NYT reporter was an undercover Clinton flack merely posing as one. And there'll still be plenty of time for acting all lovey-dovey from August through November. He's not going to ruin everything by not disappearing in early June based on the gap in verbal commitments from non-elected delegates. Cranky? Sure! Hell he got most of his support out of being cranky. And how fucked up is this year when the biggest forces in the two parties essentially don't belong to either of those parties - or at least didn't until declaring so only recently and as a matter of convenience.

Edgy MD Jun 07 2016 05:09 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Lefty Specialist wrote: It's not a coronation if you win by, you know, the rules. The results tonight will make that crystal clear. Bernie can do what he wants, but if he just wants to be remembered as a cranky old man he can keep fighting until the convention. If he does, he'll be Donald Trump's best friend. Otherwise, he can bow out gracefully, as 16 Republicans and 4 Democrats already have (and as Hillary did in 2008). He can give her his donor list in exchange for a speaking spot, a tweak of the superdelegate rule and some platform concessions. There's an existential threat to the republic, and it's no time for a disunited party. I disagree that Governor Christie's withdrawal from the Republican race can be described as graceful.

Lefty Specialist Jun 07 2016 08:01 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Bernie could have won this race if he'd taken it seriously as a race at the start. He didn't. He figured he was fighting a quixotic campaign that was destined to lose nobly after being crushed by the Clinton machine. As such, he didn't work hard in the early states with the exception of Iowa. He didn't have any infrastructure in place to get him past New Hampshire. He was too pure to woo superdelegates. The money started rolling in, but he didn't know how to deal with it. Bernie was more about raising issues than getting the nomination. By the time he realized he had the capability to go for it, it was too late. The bitterness now is as much for what might have been than anything else. That being said, he'd lose to any Republican except maybe Trump. And even Trump would have a puncher's chance. Bernie has so much weird stuff in his past that Hillary didn't bother to unearth because she was winning. Any Republican would take that stuff and run with it. So the cries of 'Bernie would do better against Trump than Hillary' ring hollow. He'd be 'Crazy Socialist Bernie' in about two seconds. And Trump would be dumping truckloads of dirt on him. Now, there's a valid criticism of superdelegates. There shouldn't be such a large number of them who could theoretically tip the balance one way or the other. But Hillary is winning anyway, supers or no.

Ceetar Jun 07 2016 08:10 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Lefty Specialist wrote: That being said, he'd lose to any Republican except maybe Trump. And even Trump would have a puncher's chance. Bernie has so much weird stuff in his past that Hillary didn't bother to unearth because she was winning. Any Republican would take that stuff and run with it. So the cries of 'Bernie would do better against Trump than Hillary' ring hollow. He'd be 'Crazy Socialist Bernie' in about two seconds. And Trump would be dumping truckloads of dirt on him. Yes, because all of Trump's dirt is doing so much right? I mean, his voters criticize Hillary for using a private email server even though they don't know what it means meanwhile Trump was literally scamming _them_ with Trump University. You certainly hear a lot more Sanders supporters talk about not voting or not voting for Hillary (like me) but you don't seem to hear that in reverse. Granted, this is anecdotal, but it's how it seems to me. But I guess that's what digging dirt would target? All the Hillary supporters that would've voted the party line but maybe lose interest and don't if they manage to cast Sanders as unfit?

Lefty Specialist Jun 08 2016 12:54 AM Re: Democratic Race 2016

The concern is that the young voters won't come out. Unfortunately young voters are the worst at participating. Bernie voters will be more likely to come out if he ends his campaign in a dignified fashion and pledges to support the nominee. I think the 'I'll never vote for her' stuff is overblown. They said the same thing in 2008 with Hillary and Obama. Remember the 'PUMA's' who supposedly were so pissed after she lost that they were going to vote for McCain? Never happened. If they come out, they'll vote for her. Partisans come home when faced with a common foe.

Ceetar Jun 08 2016 01:52 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Lefty Specialist wrote: The concern is that the young voters won't come out. Unfortunately young voters are the worst at participating. Bernie voters will be more likely to come out if he ends his campaign in a dignified fashion and pledges to support the nominee. I think the 'I'll never vote for her' stuff is overblown. They said the same thing in 2008 with Hillary and Obama. Remember the 'PUMA's' who supposedly were so pissed after she lost that they were going to vote for McCain? Never happened. If they come out, they'll vote for her. Partisans come home when faced with a common foe. This ignores the large and growing non-partisan faction which is EXACTLY what they're annoyed about and where the complaints about a rigged/weighted/biased system come from. And all the people saying "fuck you, just vote the party line cause it's the lesser of two evils" are not helping it. There's so much wrong with the process and it feels like the people that most want to try to change it are dismissed out of hand for not playing along. It's silly.

TransMonk Jun 08 2016 03:33 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Frayed Knot wrote: -- and while some may prefer that he get out now and give up any leverage he might have in things going forward that's fine... I don't know that his political leverage will get any higher than it is now. I would hate to see him squander all he has accomplished by becoming a trivial footnote instead of using what he has done to enact real change. As a supporter, donor and voter, I feel like I'm standing behind my buddy at a Vegas craps table while he is winning big. He's already beat the house, but wants to "let it ride". I just want to use the winnings to make this hot hellhole more tolerable by getting a suite upgrade and some show vouchers.

Vic Sage Jun 08 2016 03:38 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

For all the whining about super delegates, if the Republicans had them their party might not be about to nominate Donald Drumpf, as unfit a candidate for national office as has appeared on the scene in my lifetime, which even their party leadership understands. The parties are essentially private clubs. They used to pick their nominees in the back room. They've "democratized" their process in recent years, and this have made people think the public is somehow entitled to choose the party nominees, but it ain't so. And, by the way, there was a reason the founding fathers created a republic, not a democracy. They were smart guys and realized most people were morons, fearing a dictatorship by the mob as much as a king. Of course, now that our representatives have let our republic devolve into an oligarchy, all bets are off and folks are angry (and rightly so). And so we get legit candidates outside mainstream party politics who are not beholden to those failed institutions, yet are criticized for not playing the party game. fuck the parties. what have they done for this country, besides let it get devoured by the moneyed elite? The parties are archaic brands that used to stand for a set of differing principles that allowed voters a shorthand and relieved them of the obligation of critical thought when casting votes. Now both parties are owned outright by a ruling elite that have effectively destroyed the middle class while people are busy fighting among themselves for the scraps left behind, squabbling over race, religion, gender and other irrelevancies. Trump is simply the inevitable outcome of such a process... an intellectual dwarf who turned his name into a media brand identified with success, despite his never really being one... being, instead, a scam artist who was born rich, and has now bullied, blamed and lied without conscience, demagoguing his way toward a presidential nomination by a national party. If Bernie continues to point out these facts for as long as he can, he will have done more for this country than either of the other 2 bozos driving the party bus.

themetfairy Jun 08 2016 04:00 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

TransMonk wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: -- and while some may prefer that he get out now and give up any leverage he might have in things going forward that's fine... I don't know that his political leverage will get any higher than it is now. I would hate to see him squander all he has accomplished by becoming a trivial footnote instead of using what he has done to enact real change. This. If he plays ball now he can actually effect some changes, but if he holds on he won't have any real power no matter who's elected in November (Dear Lord don't let it be Trump!).

Lefty Specialist Jun 08 2016 05:26 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

I've said this before. He and Hillary have a private sit-down. He lays out his demands, says he'll take it to the convention if he has to. In the interest of having a quiet time in Philly, she accepts some and negotiates her way out of others. They appear together; she thanks him, praising his campaign effusively. He says that the work goes on, but the priority now is for Democrats to be united. They hold raised hands and pledge to defeat Trump in the fall. At least that's what I think will happen. If Bernie holds out past the Washington DC primary, he'll do nothing but make it ugly. It's one thing to have a principled stand, it's another to be a sore loser and threaten to screw things up if you don't get your way. He'll have his peak negotiating power in that private sit-down. She doesn't want a messy convention, and there's no realistic way he can win but he can threaten. He'll get a curb on superdelegates (which he was against before he was for them); I think everyone wants to see them reduced anyway. He'll get a speaking slot to give a fiery speech. Maybe he gets a few tweaks to the other rules- although those rules as they stood were pretty favorable to him early on (Caucus in Iowa, Primary in his back yard in NH). He'll get some planks in the platform which nobody reads and nobody runs on anyway. The real gold is his donor list, which the Clinton people will be salivating over. Normally the winner also does a fundraiser to retire the debts of the loser (like Trump did for Christie), but Bernie's probably not in need of that given that he's a fundraising machine. My guess is that he gives up after the DC primary, just to say he saw it to the end. He jeopardizes all his good will if he proceeds beyond that. Hillary will ignore him from here on in; she's turned to the general. He'll be an old man yelling at clouds.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 09 2016 06:00 AM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Lefty Specialist wrote: At least that's what I think will happen. If Bernie holds out past the Washington DC primary, he'll do nothing but make it ugly. It's one thing to have a principled stand, it's another to be a sore loser and threaten to screw things up if you don't get your way... My guess is that he gives up after the DC primary, just to say he saw it to the end. He jeopardizes all his good will if he proceeds beyond that. Hillary will ignore him from here on in; she's turned to the general. He'll be an old man yelling at clouds. He's kind of been there for the better part of 25 years. And what the f*ck does he care about party unity? He joined up last year, to make this run.

Edgy MD Jun 09 2016 01:41 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I never knew why it's bad sportsmanship to keep your campaign going to the end. It's not your fault if your state is the last in line to hold a primary, but your vote is as sacred as anybody else's, isn't it? Secretary Clinton certainly continued to campaign through early June eight years ago, and even challenged rules to fight for delegates from Michigan and Florida, even though the dispute over whether those primaries actually counted made the results from those states somewhat farcical. Campaign on, you barking, avuncular socialist.

Vic Sage Jun 09 2016 01:46 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

preach it.

MFS62 Jun 09 2016 02:13 PM Re: Democratic Race 2016

Lefty Specialist wrote: At least that's what I think will happen. If Bernie holds out past the Washington DC primary, he'll do nothing but make it ugly. It's one thing to have a principled stand, it's another to be a sore loser and threaten to screw things up if you don't get your way. My guess is that he gives up after the DC primary, just to say he saw it to the end. He jeopardizes all his good will if he proceeds beyond that. Hillary will ignore him from here on in; she's turned to the general. He'll be an old man yelling at clouds. That said, he has only let go about half of his campaign staff. He's keeping a lot of workers around just to win the DC primary. It makes me think he'll at least investigate trying a third party run. Berneleh. Listen to me. Sit down Have a nice glass tea. Don't be a schmuck. Later

Frayed Knot Jun 20 2016 03:33 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

So you suppose Hillary can convince Chelsea to somehow produce another kid real soon ... y'know, like maybe just before election day? I mean, I'm sure they're thrilled with #2 and all but the timing wasn't quite optimal.

Ashie62 Jun 20 2016 01:13 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I read somewhere that Sanders is hlding out to see if Hillary gets indicted. An Obama nominated AG will not go there.

Frayed Knot Jul 05 2016 04:52 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

FBI recommends NOT to pursue charges: "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information," he said, "there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

d'Kong76 Jul 05 2016 07:04 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

[fimg=450:3att9b2m]http://www.kcmets.com/CPF/hillary2016a.jpg[/fimg:3att9b2m]

TransMonk Jul 05 2016 07:41 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Is that meme to imply that if she is getting away with something (which I'm definitely not sure that she is), it is because she is rich??? I think there are more accurate targets than her wealth under such a scenario. OE: Also, I'm glad there is a dollar sign and not a "sheriff's star" on the image!

d'Kong76 Jul 05 2016 08:20 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Just passing along some fun at the expense of our soon-to-be prez.

TransMonk Jul 05 2016 09:34 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

I hear ya.

Nymr83 Jul 05 2016 09:41 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

This is fucking absurd, the FBI guy basically admitted that someone other than Hillary could have been charged. He even quotes the statutes they were investigating her conduct under as having a standard of either 'gross negligence' or 'knowingly', but then defends her conduct by stating she didn't do it 'intentionally', which is a higher standard. That makes no sense except that the general public won't understand the difference.

Ashie62 Jul 05 2016 11:45 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Nor will they understand tomorrow Atlantic City did GREAT for over 20 years. Blame gambling competition in six nearby states, not Trump for Abandon City. If she wants to help get Carl Icahn to provide better benefits. He is the owner. AC was a cash cow under Trump. Crazy.

Ceetar Jul 06 2016 12:51 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Nymr83 wrote: This is fucking absurd, the FBI guy basically admitted that someone other than Hillary could have been charged. He even quotes the statutes they were investigating her conduct under as having a standard of either 'gross negligence' or 'knowingly', but then defends her conduct by stating she didn't do it 'intentionally', which is a higher standard. That makes no sense except that the general public won't understand the difference. As I understand it they were only investigating whether she did anything criminally, and she didn't. less-general public doesn't understand the difference. Nor do they really understand how email works.

Frayed Knot Jul 06 2016 03:26 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Ashie62 wrote: Nor will they understand tomorrow Atlantic City did GREAT for over 20 years. Blame gambling competition in six nearby states, not Trump for Abandon City. If she wants to help get Carl Icahn to provide better benefits. He is the owner. AC was a cash cow under Trump. Crazy. Not that Trump alone is to blame for AC heading into the toilet, but if "competition from nearby states" is the reason for it failing then those who thrived because they had been permitted to operate under monopoly conditions can't also get credit for its one-time "cash cow" status.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 06 2016 03:36 AM Re: Democrat Race 2016

Ashie62 wrote: Nor will they understand tomorrow Atlantic City did GREAT for over 20 years. Blame gambling competition in six nearby states, not Trump for Abandon City. If she wants to help get Carl Icahn to provide better benefits. He is the owner. AC was a cash cow under Trump. Crazy. This is total bullshit. AC may have had a good run but Trumps' casinos were failing well before AC gambling went south. So to the extent that AC did great for over 20 years, I don't see how Trump gets credit for that run. Trump's casinos underperformed and Trump screwed everybody that had anything to do with his casinos, from the builders to the suppliers to the contractors, the banks and the investors. Trump conned everybody.

Lefty Specialist Jul 06 2016 03:52 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

This is fucking absurd, the FBI guy basically admitted that someone other than Hillary could have been charged. He even quotes the statutes they were investigating her conduct under as having a standard of either 'gross negligence' or 'knowingly', but then defends her conduct by stating she didn't do it 'intentionally', which is a higher standard. That makes no sense except that the general public won't understand the difference. Blame General David Petraeus. If he wasn't indicted for passing CIA secrets to his mistress (a published author no less), there was no way they were indicting Hillary for how she set up her e-mail server. Comey's a W. appointee, so he's not in the tank for the Clintons. Now, was it wrong, stupid, arrogant? Absolutely. Was it criminal? No. I'll trust the FBI's judgment in the matter. If Hillary was running against anybody but You Know Who, she'd be toast, because the State Department and FBI were both scathing. Fortunately for her, though.... Brian Beutler ‏@brianbeutler Manafort: Whatever you do don't draw attention away from Comey and Hillary. Trump: ok [faces camera] Saddam was very good and I liked him.

Nymr83 Jul 07 2016 01:30 PM Re: Democrat Race 2016

i wonder if Comey said "shit, I can't help indict Hillary and get us stuck with Trump"