|
Epic High Five posted:Literally the only reason they give is that it quotes Samuel Taylor Coleridge, a poet who joined a commune and died of an opium overdose  Samuel Taylor Coleridge, another casualty of D-Money, Smoothie, and Shifty.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
joeburz posted:is she the one that ate a bunch of edibles and cried about it in an op ed Yes, yes it is!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Did you guys even read that Maureen Dowd op-ed? The whole thing is written with tongue firmly in cheek, and it's actually kind of funny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Did you guys even read that Maureen Dowd op-ed? The whole thing is written with tongue firmly in cheek, and it's actually kind of funny. You've never been way too high.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Did you guys even read that Maureen Dowd op-ed? The whole thing is written with tongue firmly in cheek, and it's actually kind of funny. No it isn't. http://www.businessinsider.com/maureen-dowd-reflects-on-her-ill-advised-weed-trip-2014-6 Yes the article is absurd, but that's because Maureen Dowd is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Did you guys even read that Maureen Dowd op-ed? The whole thing is written with tongue firmly in cheek, and it's actually kind of funny. nice self-own
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Sooo, Trump and Bernie are head to head in presidential polls. If Bernie wins the nomination you all might very well end up with president Trump, correct? How is this even possible? What
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Sooo, Trump and Bernie are head to head in presidential polls. If Bernie wins the nomination you all might very well end up with president Trump, correct? How is this even possible? What It would be possible because an unelectable uncharismatic old man was somehow elected for the Democratic candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Sooo, Trump and Bernie are head to head in presidential polls. If Bernie wins the nomination you all might very well end up with president Trump, correct? How is this even possible? What because people are more scared of the phrase socialism then fascist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Sooo, Trump and Bernie are head to head in presidential polls. If Bernie wins the nomination you all might very well end up with president Trump, correct? How is this even possible? What Well, if Bernie wins the nomination then presumably that one poll that gave him any chance whatsoever at getting the nomination was right, and that one has him beating Trump handily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Sooo, Trump and Bernie are head to head in presidential polls. If Bernie wins the nomination you all might very well end up with president Trump, correct? How is this even possible? What Bernies campaign manager is a comic book store owner
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Alright, if Bernie has no chance in hell to beat Clinton, then I'm relieved. I only worried because I saw these polls http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html and it looked like he has been steady gaining on her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Sooo, Trump and Bernie are head to head in presidential polls. If Bernie wins the nomination you all might very well end up with president Trump, correct? How is this even possible? What My understanding was Clinton and Trump were running head to head but Sanders was up about 10 points on trump. What poll are you referring to?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
NNick posted:My understanding was Clinton and Trump were running head to head but Sanders was up about 10 points on trump. What poll are you referring to? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html There are two polls that show Trump leading.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
General Election polls before even one primary votes might as well be cutting a bird open and reading its guts to say who'll be president, especially in this current setup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Alright, if Bernie has no chance in hell to beat Clinton, then I'm relieved. There was a plateau of Clinton only being 8.6% ahead, but then it's gone back to 13.2% ahead. Additionally Clinton has some serious leads in South Carolina and a whole bunch of the Super Tuesday and shortly after Super Tuesday states.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Bernies campaign manager is a comic book store owner Is that bad? It would seem like he's done a pretty good job since last April when Bernie announced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There was a plateau of Clinton only being 8.6% ahead, but then it's gone back to 13.2% ahead. Additionally Clinton has some serious leads in South Carolina and a whole bunch of the Super Tuesday and shortly after Super Tuesday states. It's worth noting that Clinton had similar leads over Obama at this point in the 2008 Democratic primary cycle as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Alright, if Bernie has no chance in hell to beat Clinton, then I'm relieved. 1) There's no such thing as polling inertia. An upwards trajectory in polling does not mean you have upwards momentum. Every point you climb past that has to come from somewhere. Clinton still has a considerable lead after Sanders has had plenty of facetime for months with a very small playing field. He'll have to fight tooth & nail for every point he wants to climb, and broadening your base at some point will have to mean rejecting the things that got him in in the first place. 2) Don't look at national polls when trying to predict primary results. You can only judge it on a state by state basis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:It's worth noting that Clinton had similar leads over Obama at this point in the 2008 Democratic primary cycle as well. Its worth noting that the bernie is no obama. Edit: also see, Kennedy machine, super delegate advantage, ability to attract minorities, and a half dozen other things you would know if you actually followed the 2008 cycle. bird cooch fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:It's worth noting that Clinton had similar leads over Obama at this point in the 2008 Democratic primary cycle as well. In other words, nothing will convince you until Bernie actually says "I'm out of the race".
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:It's worth noting that Clinton had similar leads over Obama at this point in the 2008 Democratic primary cycle as well. At this point in the 2008 primary cycle, the Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada democratic primaries/caucuses had already happened and South Carolina was 2 days away. Clinton 42, Obama 33, Edwards 14 At this point in the 2008 primary cycle, adjusted for dates, Edwards was still a viable candidate who hadn't yet lost big in multiple states. Clinton 43, Obama 26, Edwards 13 Today it's Clinton 51.2, Sanders 38, O'Malley 2.2 That's Clinton +9, Sanders +5, O'Malley -12 for the straight date to date comparison, and Clinton +9, Sanders +12, O'Malley -11 for the adjusted date because the Iowa Caucus that year was January 3 instead of February 1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Let's not forget that Clinton just straight up forgot to campaign in some states because of Mark Penn's idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Am I wrong to be more concerned by the aggression between the Hillary and Bernie camps than which of them actually wins? Whoever wins is going to need the party behind them, and I'm worried about a situation where a large number of the loser's supporters don't give a poo poo or are actively antagonistic because their candidate lost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:Its worth noting that the bernie is no obama. Yeah, at least Bernie was born in the US! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Guys, I think Ted Cruz just won my vote.A young Ted Cruz posted:'Aspirations'? Is that like sweat from my butt?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Am I wrong to be more concerned by the aggression between the Hillary and Bernie camps than which of them actually wins? Whoever wins is going to need the party behind them, and I'm worried about a situation where a large number of the loser's supporters don't give a poo poo or are actively antagonistic because their candidate lost. Reminder that a large percentage of angry Bernouts are ron paulite types who never ever vote in the first place, but boy will they talk up their candidate online.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Day in the life of an Iowan: law school friend had Senator Booker at his party last night and Senator Klobuchar gate crashed it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Am I wrong to be more concerned by the aggression between the Hillary and Bernie camps than which of them actually wins? Whoever wins is going to need the party behind them, and I'm worried about a situation where a large number of the loser's supporters don't give a poo poo or are actively antagonistic because their candidate lost. I wouldn't worry about it. Any of the Bernout crowd who wouldn't throw in for Hillary, however tepidly, after he conceded the primary wouldn't have voted Democratic anyway and don't constitute an actual schism within the party base. If you need an antecedent to feel better about it, remember how utterly forgettable the PUMA/HI44 crowd were when it came to actual voting impact (as opposed to online temper tantrum, where they were both hilarious).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Am I wrong to be more concerned by the aggression between the Hillary and Bernie camps than which of them actually wins? Whoever wins is going to need the party behind them, and I'm worried about a situation where a large number of the loser's supporters don't give a poo poo or are actively antagonistic because their candidate lost. The Bernie fanatics were either A) Not going to vote anyway (and never have voted) or B) were going to vote Dem anyway to show how not racist they are since they're opposing Trump (or whoever).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Am I wrong to be more concerned by the aggression between the Hillary and Bernie camps than which of them actually wins? Whoever wins is going to need the party behind them, and I'm worried about a situation where a large number of the loser's supporters don't give a poo poo or are actively antagonistic because their candidate lost. This has been the most hilarious part of this. I don't think Bernie stands a chance against the Clinton machine, but put a huge amount of time in this summer organizing for Bernie because a Clinton candidacy is fundamentally unacceptable to me. Not everyone is quite so polarized, but Clinton supporters have gone a long way toward creating bad blood between the camps—why the gently caress would I side with people who've been trying to alternately guilt/fearmonger/insult me into voting for their pick? Edit: And yes, I would have voted Dem otherwise. Lot less likely to now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In other words, nothing will convince you until Bernie actually says "I'm out of the race". That will just be his gambit to get Hillary to expose herself for the Republican that she is, at which point he announces his Independent run and wins
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Reminder that a large percentage of angry Bernouts are ron paulite types who never ever vote in the first place, but boy will they talk up their candidate online. The record-breaking number of small donors says otherwise. Huffpo posted:The Sanders campaign says it hit the 2.3 million contributions mark during Saturday evening's Democratic presidential debate. The major milestone breaks the record President Barack Obama set during his re-election campaign. Through Dec. 31, 2011, Obama reportedly had received about 2.2 million donations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:The record-breaking number of small donors says otherwise. That actually does absolutely nothing to contradict his point. You may as well have posted that video of the panda playing in the snow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Ron Paulites who are about to smother Hillary's chances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:This has been the most hilarious part of this. I don't think Bernie stands a chance against the Clinton machine, but put a huge amount of time in this summer organizing for Bernie because a Clinton candidacy is fundamentally unacceptable to me. It's cool of you to admit that you're an awful person, I suppose. Cugel the Clever posted:The record-breaking number of small donors says otherwise. Hey I don't know if you've noticed yet, but tossing someone 5 bucks does not actually cast a vote. I realize this can be a hard thing to figure out, but there's this thing you've got to fill out called a "ballot". In fact, you've got to fill out at least two, first in the primary, and then in the actual election! In the 2008 election, Obama won with 62 million votes, and 18 million votes in the primary. 2 million people ain't jack!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
After Bernie wins the general the first order of business should be a good old fashioned party purge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's cool of you to admit that you're an awful person, I suppose. She's ruthless and competent, but a pretty disgusting person. It's too early in the year to give up on attacking her from the left, and this is a part of that. Come on, it's not like this is your first rodeo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
As time goes on, the Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul campaigns become more and more indistinct from each other
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:As time goes on, the Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul campaigns become more and more indistinct from each other Paul opposes GMO labeling!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:22
|
|
