Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 28, 2016, 01:58:40 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 99
1  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Who will control the Senate after 2018? on: August 27, 2016, 01:14:37 am
Republicans will.  But we will get it back in 2020.
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should Hillary renominate Garland on: August 26, 2016, 10:26:34 pm
Only if Republicans still control the Senate, which I doubt.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kaine "Trump represents KKK Values" on: August 26, 2016, 09:53:53 pm
Tim Kaine spent his career as a lawyer trying to protect us from people like Donald Trump.  If I was alive in the early 1970s I doubt I would have been able to rent an apartment that was under Trump Management.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why did Hillary picked Tim Kaine instead of Mark Warner? on: August 26, 2016, 07:12:35 pm
1.  Warner's selection would have been more troublesome with the base.  His big business background and promotion of raising the age for Social Security benefits would not have played well.  Kaine's background as a civil rights attorney plays better.

2.  Kaine was the preferred choice of the White House and many party operatives due to his time heading the DNC.

3.. Kaine speaks Spanish, Warner doesn't.

4.  Kaine is a natural No. 2, having served as Lieutenant Governor to Warner himself.  I've read that some think that Warner would chafe as a No. 2.

5.  There are low-grade rumors about Warner's private life during his time working in the private sector in the 1990s.  We don't know if there is any truth to it, but Kaine doesn't seem to have those problems.

6.  The argument that Warner had much stronger political standing in VA collapsed in his very close 2014 reelection.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump responds to Clinton Alt-Right Speech Megathread on: August 26, 2016, 01:16:26 am
Trump said a judge born in Indiana cannot do his job because he is Mexican.

Trump was sued by the Justice Department for refusing to rent apartments to black people.

Trump was a leader of the birther movement.

Trump said Mexico sends us their rapists and murderers.

Trump retweets anti-Semitic images created by white supremacists.

But now in the middle of the general election Trump says that he doesn't want the votes of white supremacists.

You'd have to be awfully stupid to be fooled by this.  This nonwhite voter certainly isn't fooled and based on the polls, the large majority of black, Asian and Latino voters aren't fooled either.  Do we scare you, Trump supporters?
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump: "Hillary Clinton is a bigot" on: August 24, 2016, 09:35:43 pm
Why is this any less outrageous than the constant democratic assertion that conservatives are racist?

This double standard is atrocious on this board, but it should surprise NO ONE, considering 90% of you guys that post here are non-white graduate students in urban areas.

GET IT TOGETHER

ahahahahaha

i'm not sure you know the demographics of this board.

He thinks most of us arent white, that's funny.

The board is pretty much 99% white male middle to upper middle class, that's hilarious.

This board is 99% cuckolded

Actually, Hillary Clinton is turning Trump into a political cuckold.

https://www.facebook.com/republicanwomenforhillary/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/02/politics/republican-women-organize-to-support-clinton/
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump: "Hillary Clinton is a bigot" on: August 24, 2016, 09:03:35 pm
Trump:  Hillary Clinton is beating my a$$ like a rug!

WHIP IT GOOD!
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How large of a Clinton win is needed to "send a message?" on: August 24, 2016, 07:16:44 pm
The only mandate I will see is if Democrats win back everything, in which case the filibuster should be changed so we can actually do something for a change.

For most executive branch and judicial nominations the filibuster change has happened already.  So long as we control the U.S. Senate, President Clinton should be able to put her team in place.  The federal agencies can craft rules and regulations which will help move the policy ball for us.  It obviously would be better if we controlled both the Senate and House so we could act legislatively, but that's unlikely.  I think a lot will have to be attempted through federal agency rules and Presidential executive order.

And it goes without saying that control of the judiciary is critical.  The filibuster is still allowed for Supreme Court nominations (but not the lower courts).  There is a fair chance Senate GOP filibuster abuse will force Senate Democrats to change this as well in the near future.

9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is it really honesty you want? on: August 24, 2016, 01:52:56 am
Bill Clinton's honest and trustworthy polling numbers in 1992 were poor and Bush I called him "Slick Willie" which is a lot like "Crooked Hillary."  He still won.

At any rate, Polifact has rated Clinton a far, far more truthful candidate than Donald Trump:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How large of a Clinton win is needed to "send a message?" on: August 23, 2016, 12:51:50 am
No message and no size of message will matter if the Republicans still control the House.

Incorrect.  The House has no say over appointments to the judiciary or the federal agencies.
Well good luck getting to 60 Democrats in the Senate to stop the Republicans in their advise and consent role then.

Go ahead.  Remember what happened when the Senate GOP would not stop filibustering Obama's three nominees to the D.C. Circuit?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senates-filibuster-decision-could-reshape-influential-dc-federal-appeals-court/2013/11/21/3b3fd76a-52de-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html
Yes. I remember the stories being written about the doom and gloom of the Republicans. I am sure if I were on Atlas at the time, I would have read thread after thread about how the GOP was finished.  Then 2014 happened... How did that go again? Oh yeah... The Democrats lost the House and the Republicans in the Senate had a little bit of a fillibuster-proof margin there. Doom and gloom, as always, averted.

Well, it was a big victory to get Wilkins, Pillard and Millett onto the D.C. Circuit.  Surely you understand the importance.  Perhaps one of them will be considered for a Supreme Court vacancy someday ...
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How large of a Clinton win is needed to "send a message?" on: August 23, 2016, 12:43:02 am
No message and no size of message will matter if the Republicans still control the House.

Incorrect.  The House has no say over appointments to the judiciary or the federal agencies.
Well good luck getting to 60 Democrats in the Senate to stop the Republicans in their advise and consent role then.

Go ahead.  Remember what happened when the Senate GOP would not stop filibustering Obama's three nominees to the D.C. Circuit?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senates-filibuster-decision-could-reshape-influential-dc-federal-appeals-court/2013/11/21/3b3fd76a-52de-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How large of a Clinton win is needed to "send a message?" on: August 23, 2016, 12:25:40 am
No message and no size of message will matter if the Republicans still control the House.

Incorrect.  The House has no say over appointments to the judiciary or the federal agencies.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / How large of a Clinton win is needed to "send a message?" on: August 23, 2016, 12:21:17 am
Some have been saying that because Trump is so uniquely horrendous and bigoted for a general election candidate, it is important for Clinton to not only win but win by a significant margin, to "send a message" that a Trump style campaign is completely antithetical to American values.  In your opinion, how large of a popular vote win would be needed to do this?
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should Trump go after Pennsylvania or Michigan? on: August 23, 2016, 12:06:56 am

I think this would have been the Kasich (and maybe Rubio) vs. Clinton map this year:



Kasich 279
Clinton 259

It should be their target map in 2020, give or take CO.

The problem is that for Kasich to have won the Republican Primary, he would have had to take stances which would have hugely damaged his general election appeal.  He largely refused to do so and lost the primary.  This is the Catch-22 the Republican Party finds itself in.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How worried are you about Trump turning it around? on: August 22, 2016, 11:57:39 pm
Not worried at all.  He has already baked his own self-destruct cake.  His only hope is for a Hillary nuclear meltdown or a black swan event.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Hillary loses, will she claim sexism as a reason for it? on: August 22, 2016, 12:59:03 am
And could Trump get there, if he forgave his mighty wife who, while being President, were receiving cunnilingus from some young boy, just because Trump wants so badly to get into power? No, he would be dismissed as DUMB P*SSY LOSER.

Heh, a female president who did that would never have survived the scandal.  She would be forced out of office as the NASTY SLUT I mentioned earlier.  Surely you are not so blind as to this double standard.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Hillary loses, will she claim sexism as a reason for it? on: August 20, 2016, 05:12:17 pm
Clinton has been aided by her sex far more than hindered by it.

How do you figure she's been aided by her gender? I think you are deluding yourself.

Uh... No one would give two flying farts about Clinton if she were a man. Her sex is her entire selling point.

No one would give "two flying farts" about a presidential candidate who had been a U.S. Senator for 8 years and U.S. Secretary of State for 4 years?  Her male opponent has managed to get the nomination despite a complete lack of such credentials.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Hillary loses, will she claim sexism as a reason for it? on: August 20, 2016, 04:33:30 pm
If Donald Trump was a woman, he would not have been able to get away with 20% of the ridiculously offensive things he has said.  He would have been dismissed as a CRAZY B*TCH, a la Michele Bachmann and gotten nowhere.

If a female candidate had Donald Trump's marital history, she would be called a NASTY SLUT and deemed unfit for higher office.

If Donald Trump was a female candidate who refused to study the issues and said we could default on our national debt obligations, she would be dismissed as DUMB B*TCH and banished to Palin Island, especially after she touted her high IQ.

Yet in spite having no political experience, refusing to study the issues and wallowing in ignorance, Trump has gotten a major party nomination.  The first woman to get a major party nomination had to serve 8 years as a U.S. Senator and 4 years as a U.S. Secretary of State before she had that honor.

SOMEONE is hugely benefiting from their gender in this race and it isn't Clinton.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The era of 'The Bit*h' is coming on: August 20, 2016, 05:09:32 am
We've already had that in the primary. Remember when there were female Bernie supporters who proclaimed that any woman voting for Hillary was just voting with her vagina?

Or when Gloria Friggin' Steinem proclaimed that young women supporting Bernie were only there for the boys?

Or when Madeleine Albright said that there's a special place in hell for women who don't support Clinton.

What Albright actually said was "There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”  This has been a saying of hers for 25+ years.


You are right, that's what she said. Still, I don't like it. Much too negative and threatening sounding. There are much better ways to communicate a desire for people to vote for Hillary.

 

Hillary Clinton came of age around 1970, just as the women's movement was starting to take off.  Both Steinem and Albright came of age about a decade earlier.  It goes without saying the 1950s-60s were not a pleasant period for women:  banks could refuse to issue credit cards to women, you could be fired from your job for being pregnant (and of course you couldn't legally get an abortion either), women could not attend Ivy League Schools and the dream of a woman president must have seemed impossible.  Young women today mostly cannot relate to such antiquated feminism, but I get where their perspective comes from.

Insinuating that women who have political preferences different from yours because they want to have sex is not "antiquated feminism". It's not feminism at all. It comes from the same place as all the crass misogyny Steinem doubtless had to put up with in her youth, and thus she should be able to recognize it better than anyone. She has no excuse.

Albright's statement was wrong too, especially in context, but not quite as crass.

I would tend to agree with you about Steinem's comments.  But Albright -- I really do get where she was coming from given the era she grew up in.  She talks about the incident here:

Quote
I delivered a line I have uttered a thousand times to applause, nodding heads and laughter: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” It is a phrase I first used almost 25 years ago, when I was the United States ambassador to the United Nations and worked closely with the six other female U.N. ambassadors. But this time, to my surprise, it went viral.

I absolutely believe what I said, that women should help one another, but this was the wrong context and the wrong time to use that line. I did not mean to argue that women should support a particular candidate based solely on gender. But I understand that I came across as condemning those who disagree with my political preferences. If heaven were open only to those who agreed on politics, I imagine it would be largely unoccupied.

However, I do want to explain why I so firmly believe that, even today, women have an obligation to help one another ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/opinion/madeleine-albright-my-undiplomatic-moment.html
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The era of 'The Bit*h' is coming on: August 19, 2016, 10:54:04 pm
We've already had that in the primary. Remember when there were female Bernie supporters who proclaimed that any woman voting for Hillary was just voting with her vagina?

Or when Gloria Friggin' Steinem proclaimed that young women supporting Bernie were only there for the boys?

Or when Madeleine Albright said that there's a special place in hell for women who don't support Clinton.

What Albright actually said was "There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”  This has been a saying of hers for 25+ years.


You are right, that's what she said. Still, I don't like it. Much too negative and threatening sounding. There are much better ways to communicate a desire for people to vote for Hillary.

 

Hillary Clinton came of age around 1970, just as the women's movement was starting to take off.  Both Steinem and Albright came of age about a decade earlier.  It goes without saying the 1950s-60s were not a pleasant period for women:  banks could refuse to issue credit cards to women, you could be fired from your job for being pregnant (and of course you couldn't legally get an abortion either), women could not attend Ivy League Schools and the dream of a woman president must have seemed impossible.  Young women today mostly cannot relate to such antiquated feminism, but I get where their perspective comes from.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The era of 'The Bit*h' is coming on: August 19, 2016, 07:18:33 pm
We've already had that in the primary. Remember when there were female Bernie supporters who proclaimed that any woman voting for Hillary was just voting with her vagina?

Or when Gloria Friggin' Steinem proclaimed that young women supporting Bernie were only there for the boys?

Or when Madeleine Albright said that there's a special place in hell for women who don't support Clinton.

What Albright actually said was "There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”  This has been a saying of hers for 25+ years.

22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Trump hit Romney's numbers among white voters? on: August 19, 2016, 07:11:10 pm
No chance.  At best I thought Trump might get 56-57% of the white vote, but he clearly isn't even going to do that well.  I concur with Arbitrage1980, 52-54% is likely.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump: "I regret my comments which I have caused others personal pains." on: August 19, 2016, 06:57:36 pm
This statement comes across with all the sincerity of a down on his luck, D-list porno actor shooting a scene in a dirty, poorly lit basement for $30 so he can get his next fix.  Which is actually too generous for this limp performance.  Trump doesn't deserve more than $15.  

At any rate, actions speak louder than words and the Bannon hire shows us what is really going on.

24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The era of 'The Bit*h' is coming on: August 19, 2016, 02:24:23 am
I really hope that's not the case. Shameless misogyny isn't quite a core of Republican identity the way shameless racism is, but of course it's never too late to become.


As my West Virginian Democrat neighbor put it, for the last eight years, all he ever heard from all our idiot neighbors was "n****r this, and n****r that." For the next eight years they'll just switch to "b***h this, b****h that."

I like Michelle Cottle's suggestion at the end of the article:

Quote
Forward-thinking women might want to start working to reclaim the word “b***h” from the haters ASAP. Seriously. B*****s of the world unite! Indeed, if Hillary wins in November, I am immediately ordering a dozen hoodies emblazoned with the theme of that brilliant Saturday Night Live riff Tina Fey did about Clinton’s 2008 run: “B*****s get stuff done!” All my girlfriends should expect one for Christmas.

I don't have an opinion on the matter (obviously I can't judge how a woman chooses to deal with sexism), but it's a bit weird to say you want to reclaim a word all the while censoring it. Tongue

That was just me editing it for this forum.  Nothing is censored in Cottle's article at The Atlantic.
25  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Ayotte: I will stand up to Trump but will vote for him anyway on: August 19, 2016, 01:02:25 am
Ayotte:  I will lose anyway.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 99


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines