Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2017, 08:03:14 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 776
76  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 43 Senators Sign on to Bill to Outlaw Support for Israel Boycotts on: July 20, 2017, 03:41:56 pm
It's not about allies; it's about right or wrong. Israel is an illegal colonialist settler state and must be abolished and replaced with a single state solution where Jews and Arabs can live in peace under secular government.
77  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / DAE feel like the Dem candidates all suck? on: July 20, 2017, 03:28:33 pm
Not a single one of them is good. And frankly, Trump's support is more resilient than is appreciated. Don't let his poll #'s fool you.
78  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Gillibrand co-sponsoring bill to make BDS (not BDSM) illegal on: July 20, 2017, 03:25:26 pm
Gillibrand is a living catastrophe. Why must every Democrat politician be so horrible? Are there no people around these gremlins to tell them not to do despicable things?
These gremlins are hungry for money. At least Bernie is decent.

The Jeb and Hillary campaigns should have taught them money is overrated and message is underrated. Bernie is okay but the FBI investigation is tarnishing him. The shine is off.
79  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Gillibrand co-sponsoring bill to make BDS (not BDSM) illegal on: July 20, 2017, 03:20:12 pm
Gillibrand is a living catastrophe. Why must every Democrat politician be so horrible? Are there no people around these gremlins to tell them not to do despicable things?
80  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Anyone here wish they'd experienced 1967? on: July 20, 2017, 02:36:55 pm
In 1967 at least things were getting better. Now things are getting worse every day.
81  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Democrats to roll out major legislative policy agenda titled ďA Better DealĒ on: July 20, 2017, 02:19:00 pm
Moderate trash. This means nothing as long as they refuse to seriously tackle, at the very, very least, the issue of money in politics. If the same leadership that repealed the DNC provision regarding corporate donations is leading this program, it will be completely meaningless.

The issue of money in politics is blocked off by Supreme Court rulings on free speech. Tackling that would have involved getting Merrick Garland on the Court--but Middle America rejected that.
82  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris Meets With Clinton Donors on: July 20, 2017, 02:14:16 pm
Quote
Quote
@Beet
I am not trying to make you dislike anyone, it was a joke. Smiley
I can't say I agree that one meeting with clintons circle means she is firmly in the Clinton wing or that they will definitely back her. It means she's expanding her network.
She definitely has strong connections to the Obama wing, as a personal friend and as co chair on obamas 2008 election campaign, and as one of the first democrats to endorse Obama, when Pelosi, Brown, Boxer,Feinstein, Newsomeand all other California democrats endorsed Hillary.
She also helped Warren on her election campaign back in 2012.
She's not a Clinton surrogate like Booker who publicly called for Sanders to concede. Harris, when asked,said, that's for Sanders to decide.
Meeting with the Clinton wing is nothing more than coalition building at this point.
Let me put it this way, if Harris, Booker and Gillibrand all run I am pretty sure the Obama wing would endorse Harris ( he's already name droppped her as one of the party's future leaders) I am not entirely sure that the Hillary wing would back Harris, they could easily go for Booker or Gillibrand.

No one except Booker and a very few called for Sanders to drop out. Even Clinton wasn't calling for Sanders to drop out. In 2008 her endorsement can't be compared to party elders because she was a no-name, whereas they had to balance competing relationships. The main divide in the party now is between the Clinton wing and the Sanders wing. The 2008 divisions are irrelevant. The Obama wing is a part of the Clinton wing now. Harris clearly endorsed Clinton, very early in the primaries. Most of her supporters were Clinton backers in the CA primary, Sanders backers favored Sanchez. Clinton's connections with Harris through staffers are more solid than to Booker or Gillibrand. Gillibrand endorsed single-payer, which Clinton said would "never happen". As for Booker, he was close to Clinton last year, but I'm not sure how he feels after she snubbed him for VP.

Look I am not saying she doesn't have some connections just that it's way premature to say she has the backing or is firmly in the Clinton wing.
The thing about staffers is sort of irrelevant there are plenty of former Clinton staffers who works for other democrats too.
Sanders didn't endorse anyone in California. Sanchez was a terrible candidate nobody in their right mind would have wanted her to win the senate seat. Gillibrand and Booker have a long history with Clinton, she's been a mentor to Gillibrand.
Yes, Harris met with the Clinton wing at this recent event but one of the first things she did as a senator was host an event with Bernie. She's also tweeted something to the effect of Bernie being an important voice.  So my reading is she's trying to stay out of that power struggle. Theres also the fact that she would probably run a fair bit to the left of the Clinton lane

That's why I think Harris would be one of the better candidates. She will get the Clinton and Sanders wing to come together. She has more charisma than Hillary.

All of them are pandering to Sanders now, but only Warren is arguably in the Sanders wing. Maybe Gillibrand due to her position on health care. Merkley would be there if he ran, as he's the only one who actually endorsed Sanders in the primary. The others are all Clinton wing. Of course the Clinton wing is being nice to Sanders now as he represents a large chunk of the party.

I don't think she's in the sanders wing because of single payer. She's basically been backed by the Clinton wing financially and otherwise since she ran for senate almost a decade ago. Harris also supports single payer. Bernie and Warren have put it firmly on the agenda again but to be fair democrats have been trying to push through single payer for decades.  It's shouldn't be credited to any wing in my opinion. 

Harris didn't support it in her home state when the chips were down. She could have used her clout to help get it passed but didn't. A bigger tell for Harris as a Clintonite politician may be that her message is complex. While she can be prodded into endorsing Medicare for All as a long term solution, it sounds like she gets dragged into it rather than something she really believes in; she is much more comfortable talking about expanding coverage and protecting Obamacare. That is quite the contrast from Sanders/Warren type politicians. I don't see how a Harris primary win in 2020 could be seen as anything but a vindication for Clinton-style politics, and Clinton-style politicians, after all the sturm and drang of 2016/17 with Sanders.

Quote
Gillibrand is the uber-feminist SJW.  (Though she has recently spent more time trying to tie this feminism into bread and butter economic issues.)

True, which is one of Gillibrand's biggest problems.
83  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Outside of Sanders and (possibly) Biden, do we have a weak 2020 lineup? on: July 20, 2017, 01:21:24 pm
I think the general idea is that people like Trump because he's not a politician, he's an outsider, and he's authentic. None of the 2020 Democratic contenders meet that bar. For one, they are all politicians. Only the most horrible ones (Gabbard, who gives off an anti-establishment vibe) or Zuckerberg (who isn't a politician) break that mold. But no one actually good does. And not a single one of them is authentic. It seems pessimism continues to be justified.
84  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris Meets With Clinton Donors on: July 20, 2017, 01:16:45 pm
Quote
Quote
@Beet
I am not trying to make you dislike anyone, it was a joke. Smiley
I can't say I agree that one meeting with clintons circle means she is firmly in the Clinton wing or that they will definitely back her. It means she's expanding her network.
She definitely has strong connections to the Obama wing, as a personal friend and as co chair on obamas 2008 election campaign, and as one of the first democrats to endorse Obama, when Pelosi, Brown, Boxer,Feinstein, Newsomeand all other California democrats endorsed Hillary.
She also helped Warren on her election campaign back in 2012.
She's not a Clinton surrogate like Booker who publicly called for Sanders to concede. Harris, when asked,said, that's for Sanders to decide.
Meeting with the Clinton wing is nothing more than coalition building at this point.
Let me put it this way, if Harris, Booker and Gillibrand all run I am pretty sure the Obama wing would endorse Harris ( he's already name droppped her as one of the party's future leaders) I am not entirely sure that the Hillary wing would back Harris, they could easily go for Booker or Gillibrand.

No one except Booker and a very few called for Sanders to drop out. Even Clinton wasn't calling for Sanders to drop out. In 2008 her endorsement can't be compared to party elders because she was a no-name, whereas they had to balance competing relationships. The main divide in the party now is between the Clinton wing and the Sanders wing. The 2008 divisions are irrelevant. The Obama wing is a part of the Clinton wing now. Harris clearly endorsed Clinton, very early in the primaries. Most of her supporters were Clinton backers in the CA primary, Sanders backers favored Sanchez. Clinton's connections with Harris through staffers are more solid than to Booker or Gillibrand. Gillibrand endorsed single-payer, which Clinton said would "never happen". As for Booker, he was close to Clinton last year, but I'm not sure how he feels after she snubbed him for VP.

Look I am not saying she doesn't have some connections just that it's way premature to say she has the backing or is firmly in the Clinton wing.
The thing about staffers is sort of irrelevant there are plenty of former Clinton staffers who works for other democrats too.
Sanders didn't endorse anyone in California. Sanchez was a terrible candidate nobody in their right mind would have wanted her to win the senate seat. Gillibrand and Booker have a long history with Clinton, she's been a mentor to Gillibrand.
Yes, Harris met with the Clinton wing at this recent event but one of the first things she did as a senator was host an event with Bernie. She's also tweeted something to the effect of Bernie being an important voice.  So my reading is she's trying to stay out of that power struggle. Theres also the fact that she would probably run a fair bit to the left of the Clinton lane

That's why I think Harris would be one of the better candidates. She will get the Clinton and Sanders wing to come together. She has more charisma than Hillary.

All of them are pandering to Sanders now, but only Warren is arguably in the Sanders wing. Maybe Gillibrand due to her position on health care. Merkley would be there if he ran, as he's the only one who actually endorsed Sanders in the primary. The others are all Clinton wing. Of course the Clinton wing is being nice to Sanders now as he represents a large chunk of the party.
85  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Outside of Sanders and (possibly) Biden, do we have a weak 2020 lineup? on: July 20, 2017, 12:46:42 pm
2016 was a weak GOP line-up, look what happened.

1972 was a strong line-up, look what happened.

1988 was a strong line-up too (besides Dukakis and Jackson anyway), look what happened.

In short: Wait and see. And if Trump manages to stay where he is, then it'd take some kind of anti Hail-Mary for the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory even with someone like Kerry or Dukakis or 2000-era Gore anyway.

I'm a cynic. I see Trump as a nigh-unstoppable force. I have relatives who are hardcore Trumpists, and Trump can literally do no wrong. These aren't outwardly racist Klan type people, mind you. But Trump to them is how FDR was to a lot of people in the 1930s - viewed as akin to a savior. I've seen (non-ironic) comments saying Trump is the best President we've ever had.

The fact that a lesbian married couple I know in PA are hardcore Trumpists doesn't really help my faith any. Even people who would be out of step with GOP values - like a 26 year old former Heroin addict I know who is into partying hard with hard drugs even now - loves Trump. These aren't the kind of people you'd have seen rallying around GW Bush.

Why do these people love Trump so much?
86  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Was George W Bush in 2004 the most hated figure by the opposing party to win on: July 20, 2017, 12:38:39 pm
Oh yes. George W. Bush was detested by Democrats, Trump isn't even comparable. A lot of Democrats can find points of commonality with Trump like the Syria thing. With Bush? No way. Don't forget Bush launched the Iraq war which has been the defining issue for Democrats for a decade and a half. The war is what made Bush so hated. Recently I've been thinking the Iraq war was even worse than I'd imagined; it may have been the death knell of Western civilization, which I didn't even consider at the time. Heck, I know it doesn't seem this way now, but if Trump doesn't start a major war, words won't be able to express my gratitude.


Even on immigration I believe most Dems opposed him ,because they opposed H1B visas at the time as nothing but visas that benefit corporations.

People also forget Bush also tried to partially privatize social security which I believe was the moment his presidency started to unwind .

Exactly. Plus Bush was too close to Christian conservatives. It's ironic because Trump may deliver more for Christian conservatives than Bush ever did, but because he's not politically close to them formally the Democrats don't hate him as much.

Bush got partial abortions banned federally, and at the time seemed to have effectively banned gay marriage(with all those propositions banning gay marriage) . The country is way more socially liberal now for Trump to deliver more for Christian conservatives than Bush did .

Trump could get a conservative majority on the Court, which would not only jeopardize Roe, but would impact everything from the death penalty to queer rights to free speech to drug reform to separation of church and state to assisted suicide... pretty much every social issue will shift hard right. It doesn't matter what the country's public opinion is because there is no popular vote, and a hard right Court majority endures for generations.
87  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Was George W Bush in 2004 the most hated figure by the opposing party to win on: July 20, 2017, 12:07:51 pm
Oh yes. George W. Bush was detested by Democrats, Trump isn't even comparable. A lot of Democrats can find points of commonality with Trump like the Syria thing. With Bush? No way. Don't forget Bush launched the Iraq war which has been the defining issue for Democrats for a decade and a half. The war is what made Bush so hated. Recently I've been thinking the Iraq war was even worse than I'd imagined; it may have been the death knell of Western civilization, which I didn't even consider at the time. Heck, I know it doesn't seem this way now, but if Trump doesn't start a major war, words won't be able to express my gratitude.


Even on immigration I believe most Dems opposed him ,because they opposed H1B visas at the time as nothing but visas that benefit corporations.

People also forget Bush also tried to partially privatize social security which I believe was the moment his presidency started to unwind .

Exactly. Plus Bush was too close to Christian conservatives. It's ironic because Trump may deliver more for Christian conservatives than Bush ever did, but because he's not politically close to them formally the Democrats don't hate him as much.
88  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris Meets With Clinton Donors on: July 20, 2017, 12:05:20 pm
@Beet
I am not trying to make you dislike anyone, it was a joke. Smiley
I can't say I agree that one meeting with clintons circle means she is firmly in the Clinton wing or that they will definitely back her. It means she's expanding her network.
She definitely has strong connections to the Obama wing, as a personal friend and as co chair on obamas 2008 election campaign, and as one of the first democrats to endorse Obama, when Pelosi, Brown, Boxer,Feinstein, Newsomeand all other California democrats endorsed Hillary.
She also helped Warren on her election campaign back in 2012.
She's not a Clinton surrogate like Booker who publicly called for Sanders to concede. Harris, when asked,said, that's for Sanders to decide.
Meeting with the Clinton wing is nothing more than coalition building at this point.
Let me put it this way, if Harris, Booker and Gillibrand all run I am pretty sure the Obama wing would endorse Harris ( he's already name droppped her as one of the party's future leaders) I am not entirely sure that the Hillary wing would back Harris, they could easily go for Booker or Gillibrand.

No one except Booker and a very few called for Sanders to drop out. Even Clinton wasn't calling for Sanders to drop out. In 2008 her endorsement can't be compared to party elders because she was a no-name, whereas they had to balance competing relationships. The main divide in the party now is between the Clinton wing and the Sanders wing. The 2008 divisions are irrelevant. The Obama wing is a part of the Clinton wing now. Harris clearly endorsed Clinton, very early in the primaries. Most of her supporters were Clinton backers in the CA primary, Sanders backers favored Sanchez. Clinton's connections with Harris through staffers are more solid than to Booker or Gillibrand. Gillibrand endorsed single-payer, which Clinton said would "never happen". As for Booker, he was close to Clinton last year, but I'm not sure how he feels after she snubbed him for VP.
89  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Was George W Bush in 2004 the most hated figure by the opposing party to win on: July 20, 2017, 11:40:08 am
Oh yes. George W. Bush was detested by Democrats, Trump isn't even comparable. A lot of Democrats can find points of commonality with Trump like the Syria thing. With Bush? No way. Don't forget Bush launched the Iraq war which has been the defining issue for Democrats for a decade and a half. The war is what made Bush so hated. Recently I've been thinking the Iraq war was even worse than I'd imagined; it may have been the death knell of Western civilization, which I didn't even consider at the time. Heck, I know it doesn't seem this way now, but if Trump doesn't start a major war, words won't be able to express my gratitude.
90  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: TDB: Trumpís Campaign Conceded in a Memo That Comey Was Having Major Impact on: July 20, 2017, 10:13:09 am
Comey cost Clinton the election and she would have won 307 electoral votes without him. Those who argue otherwise are ignorant or wilfully blind to the data both at the time and afterwards that proves this. Comey had a major measurable effect in decreasing Clinton's lead and flipping undecideds to Trump.
Yeah but if you get rid of the Comey letter you have to get rid of the Access Hollywood tape - you think Trump expected that?

If you get rid of the Access Hollywood tape you have to get rid of wikileaks. I think about any October surprises Hillary would have won too.
91  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Trump ending CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels on: July 20, 2017, 10:00:46 am
Assad is terrible, but wouldn't taking him out now just cause more chaos? It's too late, I fear. The whole thing is fait accompli.

That being said, Assad is a war criminal and no one has the right to complain about the CIA, Henry Kissinger, other dictators, etc. if they've spent all their time shilling for Assad and never say anything about him except as a precursor to an argument about how we should take some action in his interest. People arguing foreign policy need to be consistent and have principles, or else they'll never have any credibility.
92  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is a desire to reduce immigration racist? Hillary voters think so. on: July 20, 2017, 09:55:31 am
I have a desire to reduce immigration... to Europe. Europe is ancestrally European ethnicity and I think that's something worth preserving. Europeans deserve their own countries with their own ethnicity as the majority and culture, just like every other region of the Old World.

The Americas and Australia, are of course, different, since the natives of these lands have no hope of reconstituting a majority. They are melting pots. And America was founded on ideas, not ethnicity. The ironic thing is, Trump's election has dampened immigration to the US while the backlash in Europe will increase immigration to there... the worst possible outcome. Bigotry wins in America, whereas Europe still loses its identity. The worst possible things always happen in this world.
93  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Is wrong that I don't consider myself "White"? on: July 20, 2017, 09:48:29 am
Your standards for "whiteness" make no sense. Are poor WASPs not white? Does a convert from Catholicism to Protestantism become white? Does someone cease to be white if they convert to Protestantism? Would you seriously not consider German/Nordic people like myself white? My ancestry stretches back about as far in US history as yours after all.

Whatever the case you are in the Census category of "White" and to me that's the only thing that matters for race.

The Census is incidentally the last racist act that our government still takes on an official status.
94  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris Meets With Clinton Donors on: July 20, 2017, 09:43:16 am
Harris is really testing me. On the one hand, I detest her personally. On the other hand, her connections to Clinton donors, endorsement of Hillary last year, support from the Democratic establishment, and closeness to the Clinton machine (her sister Maya being a top level Clinton campaign official) would be a mitigating factor if she were to win the nod. Sort of a vindication for the Clinton wing after all the "Sanders woulda won" BS.
If Harris got the nod it would be a win for the Obama wing so its probably safe to go back to detesting her.

Sorry, she was a nobody in the Obama wing. It wasn't until after she started hiring Clinton staffers (in mid-'08) that her career took off. As of today, she's firmly in the Clinton wing, as this news article shows.

Quote
She's not really close to the Clinton machine to my knowledge, her meeting with Clintons circle was described as a first.

Her spokesman and press secretaries are both Clinton former HRC '16 staffers.

Quote
I'd say she's probably closer to Warren than Clinton. Warren along with Obama was her big name endorsement for senate. I dont think Hillary even endorsed her?

Hillary officially stayed neutral in that race because her opponent, Sanchez, had House Dems supporting her who she would need if elected. But Feinstein and Boxer both endorsed Harris; it's clear Hillary wanted Harris. Sanchez didn't even endorse Clinton!

Quote
  I know her sister maya worked the clinton campaign but she isn't a long time enployee like most of the people Clinton surrounds herself with. Mayas husband was associate attorney general under Obama.

Before Maya Harris worked on the Clinton campaign, she worked at the Center for American Progress, John Podesta and Neera Tanden's shop. Anyway, it seems you have an axe to grind... trying to make me dislike Harris even more? Why? Absurd.
95  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump 7/19 NYT interview on: July 20, 2017, 09:12:58 am
Trump knows that Maryland is politically irrelevant.
96  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kris Kobach: "We may never know if Clinton won the popular vote" on: July 20, 2017, 09:11:50 am
Clinton would have won the popular vote by a much bigger margin if everyone who was an adult citizen and legally eligible to vote, had actually been able to vote. The idea that a majority, or plurality, of Americans ever wanted Trump, or even GOP control of either branch of Congress, let alone the courts, is absurd. There is not any branch of this government that ever won a popular majority.
97  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: The Hill: GOP faces growing demographic nightmare in the West on: July 20, 2017, 09:06:15 am
Hispanics are less seen as white today than at nearly any time in the past... with the anti-immigration movement under Trump, they have taken on the anti-black racism that used to be prevalent in the '70s and '80s. If anything, things are going in the reverse direction most people are predicting. At this rate, blacks will be seen as white before Hispanics.

Even so-called "white" Hispanics like Cubans, have 10-12x more non-European DNA that traditional American whites.

Overall, what's more likely is that "race" stops being seen as a hard category that people fit neatly into one box or another, and more like a gradient, as you see in countries such as Brazil.
98  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Don Jr. "miserable," wants Trump presidency to end on: July 19, 2017, 07:28:20 pm
LOL.
He is especially going to hate life, when he is sitting in jail.
Why do you have to be so mean to him? He was trying to help his father.

This has got to be a joke post.

It is, right?

If an article like this were written about Chelsea Clinton Santander would be doing backflips.
99  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris Meets With Clinton Donors on: July 19, 2017, 05:55:39 pm
Harris is really testing me. On the one hand, I detest her personally. On the other hand, her connections to Clinton donors, endorsement of Hillary last year, support from the Democratic establishment, and closeness to the Clinton machine (her sister Maya being a top level Clinton campaign official) would be a mitigating factor if she were to win the nod. Sort of a vindication for the Clinton wing after all the "Sanders woulda won" BS.
100  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will the Democrats be pro or anti-Russia in 2020? on: July 19, 2017, 05:26:41 pm
Well the Democratic Democrat party is already indicted in your eyes, so it doesn't matter which one, does it? Why are you even asking?

For others interested... it will be pro-Russia, as it always is. But it will be pro-coherence of the U.S. and adherence to U.S. law, which means opposition to any collusion by Trump. If you get the two confused, you'll trip up.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 776


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines