I know. There were several when he came to St. Louis.
I know. There were several when he came to St. Louis.
Will be interesting to see which, if any, of Bernie's policies Hillary adopts now things seem to have softened a bit following yesterday's talks. He seems to be ready to step aside if not openly endorse her, and you'd imagine he'd have wanted some guarantees on certain things. Warren as VP and her getting on board with say, the $15 minimum wage, would probably see her grab a good chunk of his support in the general.
Except national elections are won in the centre, so winning over Bernie Sanders' army of new-found socialists - the vast majority of whom will end up voting for the Democratic candidate anyway - isn't a strategy which will win her the general.
If she has any sense, she'll pay lip service to Bernie, talk about his great work, and then ignore him.
I know it won't happen but maybe he should man up and take the VP?
She would never even offer it to him, would she?
She won't bother, if she has any sense. Again, she's just shoring up a vote she's going to win anyway (youth and liberal) and he's from fucking Vermont so it's not like he wins a state that matters.
How much do you want to bet that there will be 0 injuries in riots if Clinton gets elected, and more than 0 injuries in riots if Trump gets elected?Originally Posted by Spoonsky
Warren would be an absolute disaster as a national politician. She is a complete and utter fraud.
Bernie in as VP could win somewhere like Utah, with its dueling Mormon values of morality and socialism.
There's not really a heap of evidence that picking a factional or regional candidate actually helps shore up support in a candidate's appeal, so she's probably best picking whoever actually will be the best President if she carks it.
I find it unlikely any latent sexists out there are going to hold their noses and vote for Clinton, but balk at the idea of a female VP too, so if she thinks Warren's the best choice, that shouldn't be an issue.
She's been dragged left already, and his following is too big and currently too utterly against her for her not to give a shit. I'm not saying she's going to take her whole campaign in that direction, but she needs to recognise the current direction of the party and do something to appease younger people. Warren as VP is a move in that direction, but we might see some policy positions change as well.
I pray she is retarded enough to pick Warren, every single independent would come running to Trump and Hillary would lose in a landslide.
I hope Mark Cuban is Trumps running mate.
What's your beef?
Also, while you're here: https://trumpsingles.com/
Get on it.
Mark Cuban as in the owner of the Dallas Mavericks?
That doesn't ring true based on polling: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...exclusive-poll
Not that I understand how 7% of Sanders' supporters defect to 'the Donald', but there you are. She's winning Sanders' converts by 6-1 against Trump when supposedly 'peripheral' candidates are considered, and less than one in seven says they'll stay home. She's going to do well, as you expect the break to her instead of Trump will only increase as election day nears and Sanders supporters are confronted with the non-abstract choice of Hillary Clinton, Democrat, or Donald Trump, Republican.
There's also this, which suggests that Sanders supporters favour Clinton over Trump by 86-10.
Recognising the 'current direction of the party' is also not what she should be doing. 28.5M people voted in the Democratic primary - Sanders took 42.7% of that vote or 12.4M. There are c. 226m voters for the general election - Sanders only has 5.5% of that, and they're breaking in a plurality (which will soon become a majority) for Clinton anyway. Party members are always more 'extreme' (relatively, not absolutely) than the electorate at large. She doesn't, therefore, need to recognise the direction of the party and appease younger people. Falling back on the views of the membership is a sure-fire way to lose, as they're simply not representative of the centre ground one needs to capture to win.
There's also precedent here. A lot of Clinton supporters - 54% - said they wouldn't vote for Obama in 2008. Nine in ten Democrats ended up voting for Obama anyway.
Sanders has had a good run but it's over now, and any sane Democrat will a) support Clinton and b) support her positions which ensure a Democratic President and a Democratic congress. That's what advances your agenda, not baying at the moon from the margins with the politics of protest and faux revolution.
In the future people will divide world history into pre and post-'Bernie' phases.
Whose agenda? People uniting behind Sanders have done so because they're tired of the gradualism that is promoted by centrist Democrats and that has been implemented by Obama. It's about decisive change and there's a real feeling that Trump, bad as he would be in the short term, would bring that kind of change quicker than four/eight years of Mrs Establishment negotiating from the centre and doing the bidding of her donors.
That argument is compelling in most instances, but not when the alternative is Trump. The guy's a maniac and no-one should be doing anything that might help him into office. Fuck me, it's hard to envisage the sort of fuckwittery that would be unleashed should he get in.
'Your' agenda being the Democratic and / or American liberal agenda in this context.Whose agenda? People uniting behind Sanders have done so because they're tired of the gradualism that is promoted by centrist Democrats and that has been implemented by Obama. It's about decisive change and there's a real feeling that Trump, bad as he would be in the short term, would bring that kind of change quicker than four/eight years of Mrs Establishment negotiating from the centre and doing the bidding of her donors.
That argument is compelling in most instances, but not when the alternative is Trump. The guy's a maniac and no-one should be doing anything that might help him into office. Fuck me, it's hard to envisage the sort of fuckwittery that would be unleashed should he get in.
It takes a rare set of circumstances for decisive change to be implemented. Incrementalism may not be revolutionary, it may not excite people, but it ensures that progress is made and the general trend towards a certain end game continues. In the absence of a significant consensus on an issue, it's the only way to realistically proceed. This is particularly prevalent in the American system where the checks and balances are so cumbersome that it can bring the legislative process to a halt. Take Obama's healthcare package. He just about got it through congress, and that was only by making significant concessions to conservative Democrats and Nancy Pelosi engaging in some quite clever congressional procedural tricks. He had a slim majority in the HOR and a bigger one in the Senate, but it scraped through. He was criticised for not going as far as he should have, but how is he supposed to if he doesn't have the votes in congress? He simply couldn't - that's the way the American system works.
Even if Sanders somehow won the nomination and then the White House, he could only do so much without congressional support and there are plenty of conservative Democrats who simply wouldn't stand for some of his policies. Even if he won, the 'decisive change' he wants to implement is not an agenda he could proceed with. He could try limited executive action, but then congress (whose members have their own democratic mandates and which the vast majority of members will, first and foremost, want to protect) would procedurally pound him for his entire presidency and stop him doing any number of things he wants to do.
People need to move on from the idea that Sanders is going to leave some sort of profound legacy. The Democrats need to win back a congressional majority, and they're only going to do that if they go after the Republicans hard. Sanders needs to stop baying at the moon and throw the full weight of his support (and encourage his supporters to do the same) behind the Democratic candidates in their districts / states.
Ugh. He's promoted the notion that people don't have to accept politics within the confines of what the establishment lays out; there's nothing to be gained from his attempting to reinforce that system at this point, in fact it was be farcical. See some of the flak Warren is getting for endorsing and potentially running with Hillary. His campaign seems to be more focused on making sure the movement continues to grow; it's built around principles rather than personalities and there's every reason to suggest it can continue to grow.
Also, the idea that Hillary and the DNC would in any way 'go after the Republicans hard' is laughable. DWS is busy at the moment getting in bed with them in an attempt to de-regulate the payday loan sector for fuck sake. Economically she's just a different shade of grey; a lot of money that previously flowed to Rubio and Bush has now funneled into her campaign.
Genuinely feel sorry for the choice that the yanks are going to be presented with.
I've always been confused by people who want 'immediate, radical change'; don't you think that if the wisdom of a certain approach was overwhelmingly obvious, that the vast majority of people wouldn't be opposed to its implementation?
Slavery.
That isn't really the best example of 'immediate, radical change'.
As much as people might be uncomfortable with this response, ending slavery without the necessary underlying shift in economic organization would have probably resulted in a complete social collapse to the detriment of all parties.
And putting that aside, the vast majority of people, if we were to count slaves, were probably still against slavery. You're talking about an era without basic civil rights and full participation in the political process for adults, which in turn enabled the exploitation of groups without representation; that's just not the case today.
In a free democratic society like those found in the modern West, belief in the necessity of radical change in any direction is simply stupid / naive / delusionally arrogant. You just don't know better than everybody else. I think our democratic system with its checks and balances and legislative gridlock in the absence of consensus is alright (minus recent epidemic of executive overreach, Congress needs to get its act together).
Alright Mert.
https://m.facebook.com/GodEmperorTrump/
Tell that to the Asian Americans sent to internment camps during WW2 Lol
Yes because American during war time 70 years ago is comparable to American society today.
More importantly LOL at Phonics, US government recused an Iranian judge from hearing Iranian-American immigration cases because she was Iranian...but Trump's the racist right?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/th...form=hootsuite
Bit different from the Trump situation.
She's sueing them for discrimination so if she wins, yes?
It also states in the piece that it's totally out of the ordinary for such a thing to happen.
IRA KURZBAN: It's quite odd.
GONZALES: Attorney Ira Kurzban teaches at the University of Miami. He literally wrote the book on immigration laws, and he says he's surprised by the scope of the Justice Department's action.
KURZBAN: I have never heard of a case of a recusal of a judge on this basis, across the board.
GONZALES: Kurzban says by the same logic, the Justice Department would have to order African-American judges not to hear cases involving people from Africa or the Caribbean. Or a Jewish judge would be barred from hearing cases involving Israelis. Ali Mojdehi is Judge Tabaddor's attorney.
Justice Department recuses a judge from hearing a case because of her nationality due to associated bias. Not racist. Never makes the news.
Trump says that a judge should be recused form hearing a case because of his nationality due to associated bias. OUTRAGE!! 24/7 WALL-TO-WALL COVERAGE OF RACIST BIGOT
Okay.
Or no-one reported on the story because it wasn't of national interest (literally where would you put that in your newspaper? Page 12, below the fold just about maybe?) because it wasn't one of the two people set to be the next Commander-in-Chief. You're literally doing the equivalent of 'WHY DOESN'T ANYONE CARE ABOUT TERRORISTS IN YEMEN' when France was under attack.
Priorities shift when they broach our interest.
edit: By the way, Christ that Daily Caller website is terrible. It's like putting the Enquirer online.
...ya probably true tbh but I'm being provacative
You do a really shitty job of it because I just have to click on the article you cite and read that you're wrong. It's satisfying to have my beliefs confirmed by someone who thinks the opposite more than anything.
Can you get any judge recused by publicly smearing their demographic and then claiming that makes them unable to be impartial?
At any rate, race generally can't be taken alone as a reason to recuse:
The lawyers got absolutely slammed in the sanction decision, too.In 1998, lawyers in a case concerning a commercial breach of contract attempted to force federal Judge Denny Chin, who is of Asian descent, to recuse himself because some of the people in the case were Asian-American, and the defendants had been portrayed in the press as anti-Asian. The lawyers also argued that because Chin had been appointed by President Bill Clinton, he was biased since the case touched on conduct by the Democratic National Committee. An appeals court later upheld sanctions against one of the lawyers in the case.
Chin said to Klayman, "You asked questions of the Court, at least in part, because of my race?"
"In part," Klayman responded. "I, for instance, would not sit as a Jewish American on a case that involved a Palestinian."
Chin said the question was "offensive." He ordered Klayman and Orfanedes never to appear before him again, and to notify any other judges they appeared before that they had been sanctioned.
An appeals court upheld the punishment in 1998, saying, "A suggestion that a judge cannot administer the law fairly because of the judge's racial and ethnic heritage is extremely serious, and should not be made without a factual foundation going well beyond the judge's membership in a particular racial or ethnic group."
Trump has just gone up to eleven. It's mental.
And now he's revoked credentials of the Washington Post for negative coverage
The man is a coward of the highest order.
Seems unlikely. If you could get a judge to recuse themselves just by being inflammatory toward them or their ethnicity, the legal system would grind to a halt.
It would be a novel defense strategy though - make your defendant publicly attack every judge appointed to the case, then demand they recuse themselves because they now might appear to be biased against the defendant.
Yeah, the question was really aimed at how stupid the idea is.
Would be fun to see it catch on though. And possibly even get vindictively personal:
"We'd just like to say on the record that the judge is ugly, and his mother is a whore. Let's see him try and judge us impartially now."
Tbf they are spreading blatant lies and propaganda.And now he's revoked credentials of the Washington Post for negative coverage
The man is a coward of the highest order.
Yes because unchecked immigration from Muslim countries has worked out so well, right? Why would the West continue to do it, there is literally no reason...
1) I can't believe I have to point this out. You're a muslim immigrant
2) What kind of unchecked immigration do you think is going on in the States? There's barely a country on earth that has stricter border and immigration control.
That's Donalds job. These ethnics... No wonder he's so mad about it.
American-born, isn't he? Send his parents back, though.
Mert is an anchor baby?
1) I'm not. My mother immigrated as a Christian with an H1B1 visa, my father (who for what it's worth told me he was atheist after my grandfather's funeral) only got his green card through marriage. Both were highly educated and secular. I was born to two American citizens on American soil. Regardless, 1982 is not 2016; the threats posed to American security is vastly different today.
2) 100k Muslim immigrants are admitted to the US every year. Who are these people? The San Bernadino terrorists got through this system, the Orlando shooter's dad (who is an open supporter of the Taliban) also got through this system. I'm not saying don't allow immigrants, especially those which would add value to society through their education / skills, but our current approach has clearly failed, both in the US and Europe.
3) I am not beholden to identity politics. I don't understand why you would let in people from this background, and I'm allowed to be afraid of Islamic terrorism too. I'm probably first in line in all honesty because of my various betrayals of Islamic law.
The reality is that the majority of Muslims I know refuse to integrate, view integration as betrayal of a medieval utterly intolerant value system, harbor deep seated resentment/bitterness towards Western culture, and hate America. I've seen it first hand. It genuinely is painful to confront this reality, but you can't pretend it's not there.
For all my half joking misogyny, disapproval of sex positivism / feminism, the homosexual lifestyle, etc, I recognize the existence of basic human values common to all. I don't know if it's a problem inherent to Islam or if it can be reformed, but there is absolutely a problem / intractable ideological conflict with a large group of its adherents and liberal Western norms; they cannot co-exist peacefully.
Hillary Clinton hasn't had a press conference in over a year. Obama's Administration has given the least access and been the least transparent to the media in modern US history.
But Trump is the coward...
All three are cowards. Obama has been absolutely shameful on this.
He's not a coward, just an absolute fucking retard. Why are we even having a discussion about immigration in the wake of this attack?
Reply With Quote
