![]() |
Quote:
But if Clinton wins more delegates, more votes and more states -including the top 10 that look more like the overall electorate of the party-, then Sanders has basically 0% legitimacy to claim they should override the will of the voters and give him the nomination anyway. Like... I donated money to Sanders. I would vote for him if I lived there. But you need to know when you have to fold, you know? I know it sucks, but... she's not winning by 0.1% or exclusively because she won a landslide in Mississippi. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
That is just painful to look at, but it speaks greatly to the power of fear mongering as a political tool. I doubt that such a law would ever actually go through though since it directly violates the US constitution.
|
yo that's kinda fucked up
|
Quote:
And you are mixing up what I said. The "bathroom ban" has actually been signed into law in North Carolina, which is unbelievable, and similar laws have easily passed through several other state legislatures- that one Governor vetoed it doesn't deny the fact that tens of R representatives and senators voted it up to his desk first. The SC blockade doesn't mean "South Carolina" but "Supreme Court", in which the Republicans are, for the first time in history, refusing to hold a confirmation vote for a candidate they have nothing against other than "we hope to win the presidency and nominate someone who is as staunchly right-wing as Scalia". In doing so, they'll keep the SC essentially unable to function for an entire year, which sounds like your textbook definition of "reasonable government". Finally, Puerto Rico has a long story of issues (starting with a racist SC ruling that decided that hispanics were mentally inferior to anglo-saxons and didn't deserve full constitutional protections nor statehood), but the truth is: the (half) state is about to collapse because of several legislative quirks that are banning them from being able to renegotiate their debt like any other bankrup state/city/corporation/whatever other entity not called "Puerto Rico", and instead of passing some sort of emergency stopgap measure to avoid the absolute collapse of the territory's administration (including schools, hospitals and police), they are just fighting and letting the bill draft die in some desk- and the deadline was on May 2nd. They had months to do something about it- but they were too busy not doing anything. That IS their fault. |
Quote:
My understanding of the NOMINATE statistics system that they used to construct this: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Multimedia/Interactives/2013/stats_images/housenew.png focuses on the similarity or the dissimilarity of voting records. So Republicans have a high "conservative score", because they vote alike, and they vote alike more often than Democrats do in the opposite direction. But that's not to say that the right and the left in Congress are very distant ideologically from one another - all that data shows is that the two parties tend to gravitate around the poles (Republicans more so) regardless of any information about how ideologically distant the poles are. I acknowledge that there's a high degree of polarization in Congress and the voting patterns of Republicans are responsible for that, but I hesitate to call the Republicans radical or extreme if the distance between the right pole and the left pole isn't extreme to begin with. |
It depends, I think it is more accurate to say that Congress has become more parliamentary in that the parties whip members into party line votes. There is also the 2010 redistricting that further entrenched incumbents into districts that result in a 90%+ re-election rate. Further pressures from a more ideologically purist primary system where the electoral turnout is in the midling 20% encourages a more ideologically pure vote.
Anyway it seems an intra-party civil war has broken out again for the GOP 3 days after Trump's call for unity. |
So Trump says he's okay with having the US go bankrupt so that he could "get a better deal" after. Like, I dunno what to say about that. Who would ever trust the US dollar after that? Who'd do business with the US?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
So I went to a Bernie Sanders rally on Wednesday. It was mostly the same speech he gives at each rally. I've seen a few recordings of them. But I suppose if you're not like me and don't follow that sort of thing it could be pretty new sounding. The crowd certainly was all enthused by it. The crowd was large. I don't know if how many, but it was easily 5000 from where I was standing, and might be more. Quite a diverse crowd, too. One of the candidates for California's Senate seat was there, Steve Stokes, who described himself as a Berniecrat. I do wish him well and I'll be voting for him. Even if Bernie doesn't win the nomination I can still hope that others will win seats in the House and Senate.
|
I used to live right around that area too o-o
|
Trump's catched up to Hillary since wrapping up the nomination. I wonder if Clinton wrapping her nomination up will see her get a bounce back.
Democrats are starting to split while my party comes together around Trump. |
Quote:
|
Possible Sanders and Trump debate for charity?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tells-kimmel-hed-be-willing-to-debate-sanders-for-charity/ I would watch the heck out of that. So many people have said they're so similar that I'd enjoy seeing it just to have their differences put out there for everyone to see for themselves. |
It's definitely gonna happen - at least both parties have agreed. I wager Trump will get it on a major network if he wants it on a major network. Also willing to bet many people will tune in for similar reasons. But it'll probably be much friendlier than most picture. If it's a charity-goal, both candidates will probably be on best behavior (you'd think!).
But all this does is make Hillary look WEAK. She was too afraid to debate Bernie, but Bernie's not afraid to debate Trump and Trump isn't afraid to go toe-to-toe with him. This also presents a very strong message FOR each candidate's voting pool. Anti-Clinton voters will see Trump is actually an option depending on the message he presents (or less of one), while independents and otherwise can see both candidates and their views. Bonus points that it'll be for charity. I think that will make the entire event less about knocking the other candidate out and more about policies and the issues. Trump and Sanders can certainly find common ground on some topics and the more they both bring up Hillary's absolute mess of a candidacy and her Wall Street money, the better they'll both come out. Bernie could secure states; Trump could secure the presidency. Easily the strangest event yet in, this, the strangest election yet. |
Honestly, I'd be pretty worried if a person can go from supporting the most left-wing candidate in the race to the most right-wing just because they think the middle ground is "too weak". Like yeah, if I can't have Sanders, I guess I'd rather have the NRA-endorsed guy with white supremacists in his delegate lists who wants to pack up the Supreme Court with hyper-conservative justices, says minimum wages are a "matter of the States" so won't do a thing about them and promises to "unsign " all of Obama's Executive Orders "within the first hour in office". Yup, that sounds like the closest thing to sanders you can find. ¿¿¿???
I hope he goes for the kill and shows Trump for the apolitical buffoon he is. ____________________________________________________ The whole Democratic race has shown a curious problem: Democrats love Clinton massively and are providing her with enough votes to lead the Democratic nomination easily. Left-leaning independents, on the other hand, would rather have the Democratic party elect Sanders, whom they love by far. If the US political system wasn't a winner-takes-all system, we'd probably have ended up with a Cruz - Trump - Clinton - Sanders matchup, each one with the support of a different group in the ideological scale. The dysfunction is starting to show pretty heavily, I believe. |
Clinton thinks she has it in the bag (which she probably does) so all she has to do for the next month or so is... nothing. The idea, I believe, is that if she does nothing she doesn't risk making any mistakes or getting into a spat with someone or coming out with a terrible soundbite. (Anyone remember 47%?) It's a calculated tactic, one which I don't think will go unnoticed, not the least because if she doesn't make a last minute appearance she's going to be on the receiving end of a lot of jabs from Trump, maybe some from Sanders. The only question is whether some attacks in absentia will be worse than her making some gaff in person. I don't think her making any public appearances will win her any new votes. I imagine that there aren't very many people out there who will, between now and November, decide that they actually do prefer Clinton to someone else. They might vote for her anyway, like most Sanders supporters, but not because they suddenly saw something in her that they really liked.
|
Quote:
But you're right in that she picks her words carefully and wouldn't likely get caught in a terrible gaff, but coming off as too polished isn't going to do well with people who aren't already supporting her (her "authenticity gap"). So in that sense it makes sense not to show up for her. |
This debate ain't happening:
"- MAY 27, 2016 - DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON DEBATING BERNIE SANDERS Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be." Probably a smart move on Trump's part to not actually debate Sanders directly- if he can even get a small portion of the people that would have voted for Sanders to be president, it could be yet another small step towards the presidency we thought of as being impossible. It's still Clinton's election to lose rather than Trump's to win tho. She'll probably get away with a pretty passive approach despite Trump's jabs. |
Quote:
I could see him not debating go either way as well. |
Doesn't that make Sanders look stronger? Neither of the people still in the race want to debate him. Trump is a "pussy".
|
Gary Johnson won the nomination for the Libertarian Party, and he polls fairly well against Trump and Clinton, so I am confident he can get 5%, especially because there may be a lot of disenfranchised voters looking for a 3rd party.
However, that fluke at the convention might cost them this. About Sanders, I was actually pretty excited to watch that debate, and I think it would have helped Sanders. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.