|
Vox Nihili posted:I really doubt that Hillary would make any sort of attempt in that avenue. She's got more support from huge donors than almost anyone else, and it's definitely not part of her core platform. I'd be willing to bet Hillary Clinton hates Citizens United more than just about anyone, the whole thing started because that organization wanted to advertise a film that was basically a hit piece on her, on tv.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
It's hard reading that and not think that people who hand over their money to a place called Trump University deserve to lose it. Joementum posted:Scott Walker is pre-announcing the unveiling of the logo of the campaign that he won't announce for another two weeks. What is that thing in the upper right corner?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
richardfun posted:It's hard reading that and not think that people who hand over their money to a place called Trump University deserve to lose it. Part of a light fixture, stage infrastructure, and... a gold-fringed flag. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Yes the AFL-CIO certainly does have a lot of sway in today's Democratic Party as seen by all their huge victories together! Maria Elena Durazo, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO is Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
One of the SA Bernie photoshops makes it in to Bloomberg.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:One of the SA Bernie photoshops makes it in to Bloomberg. Man that was the one I least expected them to pick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
richardfun posted:It's hard reading that and not think that people who hand over their money to a place called Trump University deserve to lose it. A chandelier
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
genuinely mad and jealous they didnt go with mine. i could have been something
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Man that was the one I least expected them to pick. thats because it was the first recorded instance of it on twitter. yknow, if you read the article
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
E: never mind saw the answer
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
It could have easily sprung up independently but we were saying it earlier than anyone I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
im 100% sure i came up with "bern them down" even if no one else has actually said that. you can quote me bloomberg, or washpo, or new york times
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
I think it was bern the rich first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
I know Berns is a pipe dream, but God dammit I want to believe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
POLITICO provides some quality fact-checking:quote:President Barack Obama had a little fun on Thursday talking about the GOP presidential contenders, comparing the seemingly ever-growing field to a certain book and movie series. Well done, POLITICO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just listing total bills doesn't do that at all. Besides, comparing Senate to House isn't an equal comparison either. A long history that includes evidence of successfully working with republicans vs. a shorter history of less successfully working with republicans? As for progressive ideas getting pushed through congress, I don't see the relevance. Both candidates would be looking at an uphill battle; whoever has the most public support will carry it further (and also get the party nomination), so it's not worth handwringing over at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:POLITICO provides some quality fact-checking: Next week on POLITICO: Do white people really drive like this? And do black people really drive like this? Read our 50 page in depth report to find out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Cephalocidal posted:A long history that includes evidence of successfully working with republicans vs. a shorter history of less successfully working with republicans? As for progressive ideas getting pushed through congress, I don't see the relevance. Both candidates would be looking at an uphill battle; whoever has the most public support will carry it further (and also get the party nomination), so it's not worth handwringing over at this point. I'm saying the measure of "bills cosponsored by republicans that passed" is a poor measure of if someone is actually working with Republicans on meaningful topics. Also, you're comparing two different legislative houses and two different time spans which makes it even more meaningless. What was a major compromise Sanders brokered with Republicans? Or maybe a controversial issue he got passed with bipartisan support? I'm honestly curious because I'm drawing a blank. If both candidates would be hamstrung and limited entirely by popular support, what's the point of arguing he has mad Republican skills and could get progressive things passed because of those skills? If we can't even come up with some progressive policies he'd be more likely to get passed a Republican congress as president (with all that supposed experience working with Republicans), then the premise that he'd get more progressive things done or work with Republicans seems kinda hollow. I really don't get how people are arguing that Sanders is both an uncompromising socialist and also better able to compromise with Republicans than Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
The whole argument about who could more effectively enact an agenda is somewhat beside the point, especially if you believe the limit of political feasibility falls to the right of both Sanders and Clinton. Working from that assumption, I would much rather see Sanders as President than Clinton because I would love to see 4-8 years of him using the bully pulpit to just castigate the poo poo out of the wealthy and powerful, as opposed to the usual focus-tested poll-driven pablum we could count on from Clinton. That being said, I don't actually buy the premise - I would rather have Sanders making appointments, writing executive orders, and setting priorities for cabinet departments. I think he would use the power of the executive branch to more consistently push for progressive goals than Clinton would.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm saying the measure of "bills cosponsored by republicans that passed" is a poor measure of if someone is actually working with Republicans on meaningful topics. Also, you're comparing two different legislative houses and two different time spans which makes it even more meaningless. This VA reform bill Sanders hashed out in a compromise with John McCain is generally the go-to example of his ability to work across the aisle. Here's a HuffPo article about the subject, too. A couple of quotes: quote:"I'm a pragmatist," Sanders said in an interview with The Huffington Post. "If I was a writer or paid to go around giving speeches, then that is something I could do. But I was elected by the people of Vermont to be their elected representative in Washington. And that requires me to shape and pass legislation.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Tangent: Where did you get that gangtag? Is there a larger version of it? It appeared on me one day with the rising of the sun. I think it's a GBS thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:What exactly is your definition of "the establishment" other than being a nominee for something? The opposite of a populist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Whoa... We're all super-excited about Jim Webb, but let's tone down the glowingly enthusiastic announcement emails, DNC: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
* list needs three points.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
funtax posted:Whoa... We're all super-excited about Jim Webb, but let's tone down the glowingly enthusiastic announcement emails, DNC: President of what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:President of what? America
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
I'm honestly surprised to see Webb jumping in. I live in Virginia, and it seems like for most who live here he's just a name that appears on the ballot every other year. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
* has red hair, and when was the last time we had a red-haired candidate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
I honestly have no idea what to make of Trump's campaign. I took it for granted that he'd run for the publicity, then drop out in time for The Apprentice. But the fact that he's cut ties with NBC (among others) rather than back off his positions suggests he's... serious isn't the right word. Committed, I guess? He's getting slammed from all sides and he isn't apologizing. Unless he's literally arrested, it doesn't matter who disassociates themselves or what scandals emerge - if he can survive another week of this kind of punishment, he'll survive through to the debate. I'm trying to figure out how far Trump is going to take this, and I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts, because as long as he stays in the spotlight he's going to do lasting damage to the Republican campaign, and that potentially makes him a factor in the outcome of the election. (I'm a Democrat, so obviously I'm hoping he stays as long as possible. That's part of the reason I'm asking people's opinions: I'm not sure I trust my own observations because they're probably tempered by wishful thinking.) Anyway, here are some thoughts about Trump: - Trump has a distinct, memorable personality, and that matters a lot in a primary full of nonentities. Ask someone to explain how Jeb is different from Perry, or Walker from Santorum, and then ask them to describe Trump. Trump is iconic, he has a well-known public persona, and every horrible thing he says increases his visibility in a field of twenty mealy-mouthed and creepily religious white guys. In some ways, I think he's comparable to pre-meltdown Christie: he's sleazy, but he makes that sleaziness an integral part of his pitch, because it's what will supposedly allow him to wheel and deal in Washington. - Trump is impervious to scandal, and he doesn't seem be hurt by gaffes. He's said repulsive things, even by Republican standards, and reporters have made it very clear his supposed fortune is mostly bullshit - but every single time he's gets called out, he refuses to back off, and instead doubles down on his position in the most pompous and insincere way possible. And then he gets away with it. Bush got smacked from the left and the conservative faithful for his moronic, indecisive statements on Iraq because there's no correct way to answer that question - the war was a fiasco and Bush is inextricably associated with it, but he's not allowed to ever admit the Republican party was ever wrong about anything. Trump can just brag about he would have dropped nukes on all of 'em plus North Korea, but you can't call him on that, allowing him to completely sidestep a contentious issue that's doing major damage to the other candidates. You can point out that Trump's fortune is mostly nonexistent, and he'll just start screaming about the hugest most luxurious hotels and casinos until people just accept his claims. You could find out he was running a dog-fighting ring, and he'd say he was forced to by market conditions and anyway he was only meeting the public's demand. - It's not quite accurate to call Trump the Id of the Republican party, because he's totally disconnected from burn-the-witches Evangelical dogma. But he has a knack for coming up with outrageous, brutal, decisive-sounding solutions - solutions which of course, fall apart if you spend any more than half a second examining the issue. But there are plenty of people who don't take that half a second, whose response is "why hasn't anyone tried that? That's so crazy it might work!" It goes beyond "let's build a wall," because "let's build a wall" is his answer to everything: do something no one else would propose because it's inhumane, or unfeasible, or because it's total nonsense. Trump isn't just the Id of the Republican party, he's the Id of the entire American electorate. He isn't just insubstantial - simply by entering the discussion, he makes substance totally irrelevant, because he can always pull out a simpler, angrier solution without anyone expecting him to defend it. - Trump is going up against the the big donors and the establishment, but they only go so far. Look how far big money got Romney. Jeb! is supposedly their best shot and he's got a toxic surname, zero charisma and RINO positions on immigration. Jeb! is the election's version of "fetch!" in Mean Girls. ...Guys, I'm totally confounded by Trump. I don't trust myself to be objective on his chances, because I would very much like him to drag the Republican party into oblivion. Plus his unfavorables are huge. But he stands out, he's got potential to appeal to a low-information conservative voters, and he's made it clear they'll have to drag him kicking and screaming from the race. Realistically: how far is he going to go? How much havoc is he going to wreck? Indie Rocktopus fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:America He should clarify that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Just pray that Trump makes it to the debates so we can watch the establishment candidates grimace as he receives massive applause for his toxic opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Indie Rocktopus posted:Realistically: how far is he going to go? How much havoc is he going to wreck? Isn't the popular opinion that he'll drop out right before he would otherwise be forced to reveal his financial information?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:America Are you sure it's not of his Home Owners' Association? The other thing doesn't make any sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Oh god if Trump makes it to at least one of the televised debates...
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
The appropriate response is "what America?" I was trying to quote the fairly decent Christ Rock movie "Head of State" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:Isn't the popular opinion that he'll drop out right before he would otherwise be forced to reveal his financial information? Maybe, but Trump's mind is unexplored territory. The longer he keeps this up, the more likely this presidential bid is all he has left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
I found a pretty good summary of Trump's background here for anyone who doesn't remember the 90s:Brian Miller and Mike Lapham posted:Trump eventually found himself in serious financial trouble. In 1990, due to excessive leveraging, The Trump Organization revealed that it was $5 billion in debt ($8.8 billion by some estimates), with $1 billion personally guaranteed by Trump himself. The survival of the company was made possible only by a bailout pact agreed upon in August of that same year by some 70 banks, allowing Trump to defer on nearly $1 billion in debt, as well as to take out second and third mortgages on almost all of his properties. If it were not for the collective effort of all banks and parties involved in that 1990 deal, Trump’s business would have gone bankrupt and failed. edit: anyone have this old playboy from 1990 lying around? Plexiwatt fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
He might be the Republicans Id, but I think he's in to feed his own ego. The guy's a clown with no chance, but he's a clown that really, sincerely, wants to be president.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Tangent: Where did you get that gangtag? Is there a larger version of it? It was created by someone in the shitposts for socialism thread in GBS, but I can't remember who and that thread is getting huge.  e: it was made by forums user Gene Hackman Fan taqueso fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:07
|
|
