|
tsa posted:The dems are much more in bed with finance and wall street than the republicans, this happened during Clinton. Republicans rely more heavily on defense and energy sectors. Nah, finance backs both sides almost equally. They'd prefer Republicans but they're happy enough to back Democrats.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Nah, finance backs both sides almost equally. They'd prefer Republicans but they're happy enough to back Democrats. They're basically of the view that its good to have friends in high places, regardless of affiliation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:However, during her tenure I don't believe it was required by regulation that she use State servers. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/03/05/state-department-cable-june-28-2011/ quote:Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts. Her name is on a memo to her own people in 2011 telling them not to do this. But according to her circa yesterday it was completely on the up-and-up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't think you really get what I am saying here. And if you think it's okay for the media to just print whatever, regardless of truth or newsworthiness, we're really not going to find any common ground for agreement. You're right, we really should put very strong limits on journalism. They should not be free to do whatever they want. Maybe some sort of state media that only tells truths?? A Ministry of Truth if you will. quote:I don't really get warm fuzzies about Bernie. You should because he is great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Sanders can not win the presidency. Hillary can, Biden can maybe even O'Malley or Webb but, Sanders can not win the election. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Howso? Because he's a dirty socialist? Do you even know who he's running against?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Sanders can not win the presidency. Hillary can, Biden can maybe even O'Malley or Webb but, Sanders can not win the election. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Do you have an actual argument as to why people getting less than 2% in every poll have an actual chance of winning and Sanders does not? At this point the mantra that he can't win regardless of anything is getting a bit absurd, and I had pretty much believed that when he announced.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:yeah, not happening Third parties took that much in 2000, and way more in 1992 under the last Clinton/Bush match-up. I'm saying there's a potential media narrative there and an audience to hear it. You really think 3% is too high a bar for all non-R/D candidates?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:I don't know what else to call it. I don't want to turn this into a debate about semantics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Not sure where you got that from my post... but to be fair, I'd bet those really dumb positions are their authentic beliefs, whereas who really knows what Hillarys are. I know people are brushing off Hillary's lack of support for gay marriage up until just a year or so ago, but Bernie Sanders was supporting it in the loving 70s when it probably had single digit % support. It's hard not to see Hillary as a bit slimy when her main competition is about as saintly as any politician ever. By the time I realized I was projecting things onto your post I had already typed my hilarious list, so I just said "gently caress it, post." My apologies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Do you have an actual argument as to why people getting less than 2% in every poll have an actual chance of winning and Sanders does not? My own personal take is that Sanders would be a field day for the Right and doesn't connect with minority voters strongly enough. Where as O'Malley and Webb are boring white dudes who aren't going to be called SOCIALIST every three words. Stereotype posted:You're right, we really should put very strong limits on journalism. They should not be free to do whatever they want. Maybe some sort of state media that only tells truths?? A Ministry of Truth if you will. Holding fellow journalists accountable for their reporting is totally that. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:And this is less a straight lie than self-delusion: "Well, people should and do trust me..." You can literally fact-check this. Depending on the poll, it looks like her honest/trustworthy Yes responses strongly tend to outnumber the No, and frequently come out either in the majority, or within MoE of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Third parties took that much in 2000, and way more in 1992 under the last Clinton/Bush match-up. I'm saying there's a potential media narrative there and an audience to hear it. You really think 3% is too high a bar for all non-R/D candidates? In this election? Yes. You basically took the two biggest independent/third-party candidacies in living memory and are using them as a standard rather than an outlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Howso? Because he's a dirty socialist? Do you even know who he's running against? Forget I said anything though because I don't want to be responsible for a derail that accomplishes nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Forget I said anything though because I don't want to be responsible for a derail that accomplishes nothing. You're also wrong, but that wasn't the issue. Biden 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Where as O'Malley and Webb are boring white dudes who aren't going to be called SOCIALIST every three words. Have you been listening to GOP rhetoric for the past 8 years? They most certainly will.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Kor posted:In this election? Yes. You basically took the two biggest independent/third-party candidacies in living memory and are using them as a standard rather than an outlier. All I'm saying is that a Clinton/Bush match-up increases the chance of third-party participation. Do you think if it were Clinton/Walker or Clinton/Rubio we would see more or less third-party turnout?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
If Sanders miraculously fell in line he would get all the support from the Democratic base. In no way is anyone going to cross to line over him being a socialist. JT Jag posted:If something is unconfirmed, then call it what it is: an allegation or rumor. Don't jump in and present without scrutiny like stories that have actually been vetted. And if they do this they get backlash like Rolling Stone did after the frat rape scandal. How do you even think journalists hold themselves accountable? Hold internal reviews and sift out poo poo they think people won't like? People hold them accountable. The media is correct when attacking a candidate who is openly hostile to them, all of them, for simply being what they are. A candidate who likes to do everything behind closed doors, for whatever reason, should get called out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Forget I said anything though because I don't want to be responsible for a derail that accomplishes nothing. I am actually sort of curious why you think he is unelectable but Jeb! "Americans are Lazy" Bush is super electable
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:My own personal take is that Sanders would be a field day for the Right and doesn't connect with minority voters strongly enough. Where as O'Malley and Webb are boring white dudes who aren't going to be called SOCIALIST every three words.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Have you been listening to GOP rhetoric for the past 8 years? They most certainly will. O'Malley, prolly. I don't think they'd call Jim Webb that, because he's not really a Democrat and could prolly win a Reagan off with any of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Kor posted:In this election? Yes. You basically took the two biggest independent/third-party candidacies in living memory and are using them as a standard rather than an outlier. If the candidates are Bush and Clinton I could see an unusually strong year for the third parties akin to 2000 or so. Both have strong detractors in the far wings of their party and are particularly uninspiring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:The media is correct when attacking a candidate who is openly hostile to them, all of them, for simply being what they are. A candidate who likes to do everything behind closed doors, for whatever reason, should get called out. I don't think I quite understand this. The media is poo poo, therefore Hillary should be castigated for treating them like poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:On the other hand, Republicans have been calling any politician or policy they don't like socialist for years now. Maybe that avenue of attack he has been neutered by their own actions. Because, I mean, Obama was a "socialist" and he wasn't that bad, so how much worse could this Bernie guy be. Maybe? I don't know. I haven't completely made my own decision about who I'll vote for -- I usually don't until I get in booth -- but I am for now a Hillary supporter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:By "a bad candidate" do you mean in terms of ideological purity or ability to campaign for president? She hasn't campaigned in six years and the last time she did she lost, she (justly) doesn't care for the media, and she has to deal with the Clinton hate machine. These aren't crippling things for her campaign but she's not the perfectly formed candidate sprung from the head of God.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I don't think I quite understand this. The media is poo poo, therefore Hillary should be castigated for treating them like poo poo? If you don't want to get harassed by them then don't run for office on a hundred million dollar budget. People will start asking questions real quick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:If you don't want to get harassed by them then don't run for office on a hundred million dollar budget. People will start asking questions real quick. Like DID YOU KILL VINCE FOSTER?????? DOES HILLARY REALLY LIKE CHIPOLTE? HILLARY SWITCHED TO LIGHTY SULTRY BLONDE OVER OLD SULTRY BLONDE BECAUSE OF FOCUS GROUPS?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/247383-trump-leads-gop-presidential-field-in-new-national-pollquote:Trump was the preferred GOP nominee for president for 15 percent of respondents — 4 points ahead of former Gov. Jeb Bush (Fla.) and Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), who were tied for second place. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:O'Malley, prolly. I don't think they'd call Jim Webb that, because he's not really a Democrat and could prolly win a Reagan off with any of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Like DID YOU KILL VINCE FOSTER?????? Strawman cometh
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
actualyl let me re-calibrate: DID HILLARY GO TO CHIPOLTE BECAUSE THEY DONATED TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION??? HAIRCARE MOGUL DONATES TO CLINTON FOUNDATION, HILLARY TALKS UP HAIR DYE. COINCIDENCE?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:If any living democract became the President of the United States, all the chain emails would switch Obama's name out to say that they are the antichrist, and you are being naive to think otherwise. ftfy
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Strawman cometh it's literally the poo poo they report on. also see my last.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
The Clinton-Lazio debate from 2000 is on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMJZo4UeTYQ Lazio self-destructed in hilarious fashion, so I wouldn't exactly call that a Clinton win
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Strawman cometh
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/247383-trump-leads-gop-presidential-field-in-new-national-poll OPEN THE BLOOD GATES
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:DID HILLARY GO TO CHIPOLTE BECAUSE THEY DONATED TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION??? Huh I don't remember adding Drudge to my RSS feed wait a minute.....
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/247383-trump-leads-gop-presidential-field-in-new-national-poll lol what the gently caress are the republicans going to do about this. he is a terrible beast who feeds on scandals that would normally crush any candidate. im not sure its possible for him to flame out
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
This brings up a good point: How's the endorsement race going on both sides?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:The Clinton-Lazio debate from 2000 is on YouTube: Do we think anyone other than Jeb! wouldn't do the same? JT Jag posted:If Jim Webb became the President of the United States, all the chain emails would switch Obama's name out to say that Webb is the antichrist, and you are being naive to think otherwise. well, yeah. but he's literally a Reaganite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
A small part of me is vaguely suspicious that the entire Trump campaign is a false flag orchestrated by the Democratic Party to gently caress over the Republicans. It's just too perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:43
|
|