U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Sponsored by Betty Croker's Hamburger Helper)

[Yaysus]

Shit survey time:

http://www.isidewith.com/

http://comfy.moe/wmuhlu.png

[Toby]

Did Trump’s Campaign Photoshop a White Model To Have Brown Skin To Sell Shirts? (http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/trump-photoshop-accusation?bffbmain&utm_term=.bt0az44gEp#.pyB5yQQ3wY)

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-03/3/11/enhanced/webdr14/grid-cell-16981-1457023137-8.jpghttps://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-03/3/11/enhanced/webdr14/grid-cell-16981-1457023139-13.jpg

:D

[Lewis]

I don't suppose he wants to run the risk of being a three-time loser, but (theoretically) could Mitt Romney come in late and gobble up all the other delegates as a UNITY candidate?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Theoretically he could, but it would be utterly barmy. I don't think anyone has ever tried gatecrashing the convention since Ted Kennedy tried it in, erm, at some point.

[phonics]

Talking of tertiary candidates, that Bloomberg piece on nymag.com is hilarious.

[elth]

Bloomberg isn't going to run if Clinton's the Democratic nominee anyway. It's just the media getting bored with the current narrative of inevitability around the two leading candidates.

[Pepe]

Penis size talk, the in only thing the republican debates were missing.

[elth]

While 'Big coal' and 'Big oil' and big whatever are definitely a nasty bunch (not sure why we thing Big wind and big solar will be any better though) and I would be happy if we could all live off solar panels in an emissions free world, the technical challenges of that are pretty darn big, so it is not so much about whether we want to burn fossil fuels or not and more about how much must we burn. Even your article admits it:

I would also add: Lets not allow clean-energy myths to divert us from pursuing technologies that will allow us to reduce emissions in the short term. If we focus entirely on wind and solar and batteries it will be decades (lots of them) before we reduce emissions in any considerable way.

I would also strongly agree with this part:

Unfortunately that's the hardest sell because it actually requires 'the common folk' to do something.

Big coal and big oil probably won't be any worse than big green from an economic point of view, but at least they won't be buying influence for a product that is actively harming the future of humanity, you know?

It's not so much that everything has to be solar - sustainable energy absolutely needs a mix of sources - more than the investment in making coal "clean" is so great and requires so much time and planning that it's basically more economically effective to just start on renewables now, especially after the price collapse in solar PV since that article was written. There's just no reason to keep investing capital in fossil fuel energy generation, even on an economic basis.

Also, the evidence shows that pricing carbon emissions is actually a really good way to get "the common folk" to prioritise conservation. So it just takes the political willpower to do it.

I haven't read Epstein's book, but the problem with most of the moral arguments for fossil fuel use, which tend to boil down to it being immoral and hypocritical for the industrialised world to deny the developing world access to the transformative nature of cheap energy, is that it lacks imagination for what could be, rather than just seeking to repeat what has been. Just because the West developed through fossil fuel use, doesn't mean the developed world has to. If they can jump straight to locally generated, low loss, high efficiency green energy it will likely be much more economically efficient and equally transformative as the centralised, fossil fuel driven energy generation model that the West followed. We don't expect them to build telegraph and then copper and then fibre telecommunications networks before they get access to mobile telephony; it seems silly to expect them to go through the energy development cycle rather than just jumping straight to best practice now. Of course, that will require continued research and cost reductions for renewable energy, but that's happening anyway.

[Pepe]

It's not so much that everything has to be solar - sustainable energy absolutely needs a mix of sources - more than the investment in making coal "clean" is so great and requires so much time and planning that it's basically more economically effective to just start on renewables now, especially after the price collapse in solar PV since that article was written. There's just no reason to keep investing capital in fossil fuel energy generation, even on an economic basis.

I agree with that, except that to 'just start on renewables now' has already been done. The idea that the only reason we don't use renewables is cost is false, there are huge technological issues, the main one being intermittency of course. Until that one is solved (it won't) you'll need to have a backup. Better batteries would obviously help and while we will definitely get better batteries, there are physical limits as to how good they will be. So, until we get dramatic improvements in solar/wind generation and batteries (how long have all of those been reaearched? 70, 80 years?) we will need combustion-based power plants to serve as backup (could be biofuels tbf, but those bring other issues beyond cost on themselves.) Now, since you cannot just turn on power plant on a moments notice, those things will always have to be running. So we'll have to be burning something regardless, might as well work on ways to do it in a carbon neutral way.

I am all for a strong mix of sources and I really hope the use of renewables dramatically increases and that it does so quickly. I just don't think the issue is the research being underfunded and I think that research on methods for carbon neutral or carbon negative fossil-fuel based energy generation is a worthwhile investment.


Also, the evidence shows that pricing carbon emissions is actually a really good way to get "the common folk" to prioritise conservation. So it just takes the political willpower to do it.

Yup, I strongly support the pricing of carbon emissions.


I haven't read Epstein's book, but the problem with most of the moral arguments for fossil fuel use, which tend to boil down to it being immoral and hypocritical for the industrialised world to deny the developing world access to the transformative nature of cheap energy, is that it lacks imagination for what could be, rather than just seeking to repeat what has been. Just because the West developed through fossil fuel use, doesn't mean the developed world has to. If they can jump straight to locally generated, low loss, high efficiency green energy it will likely be much more economically efficient and equally transformative as the centralised, fossil fuel driven energy generation model that the West followed.

I agree that just because that's the way it happened before, doesn't mean that's the way they have to follow. But right now it is the only way. If they could 'jump straight to locally generated, low loss, high efficiency green energy' they should. But such thing does not exist. Should they wait until such thing exists to think of progress? Should they rather limited resources go to renewable energy research instead of going to getting electricity to their people?


We don't expect them to build telegraph and then copper and then fibre telecommunications networks before they get access to mobile telephony; it seems silly to expect them to go through the energy development cycle rather than just jumping straight to best practice now. Of course, that will require continued research and cost reductions for renewable energy, but that's happening anyway.

That's all nice, but what is best practice now? To suggest that the use of renewables is 'much more economically efficient and equally transformative' today would be wrong. Might be some day, but what should they do until it is? Keep starving to death? As you say, research is already on its way and once 'green energy' is cheap and reliable and safe and all the fantastic things it will be you can be certain that the developing world will embrace it rather than wait fifty years just to follow our same path. But to go to climate summits and ask developing countries to pledge to curb their CO2 emissions while we've been living it large for centuries is just fucked up. What 'the West' should do is lead the way and once we figure this shit out they will quickly follow. Until then, I say we let them burn away (which they could do in a carbon neutral way if we invested some in that.)

[elth]

The one advantage of fossil fuels is that they, essentially, can be turned on and off at a moment's notice (not literally, but in the context of how energy generation and transmission actually works). That's the whole idea of peaking generation, and it's how energy trading systems actually work in real life - the more expensive power comes into the grid when necessary as the market demands, while essentially "free" power (in a marginal cost context) like solar and wind acts as baseload. Utilities don't like running their grids that way because it means they don't make as much money, but it's not a technical problem, it's one that comes back to profit. Hydro, geothermal and biomass can also fill that role, but long term it will be filled by battery technology. Again, we're not talking 70 or 80 years - we're talking next decade. The investments made in battery technology in the last 5 years will be game changers once they hit commercial scale. Put it this way - Telsa are commercially viable now and they're using (highly refined) 25 year old tech. The technologies that are hitting commercialisation now are already better than that, they just don't have scale yet.

Best practice now is localised solar except in high density or high use communities (ie. cities and industry). You can build solar for much, much cheaper than you can build centralised fossil fuel generation and a huge distribution network, especially in poorer communities where daylight electricity is vastly, vastly more important than 24 hour electricity.

We're not talking about a 50 year time scale for renewable energy. Solar PV is cost competitive *now*. So is greenfield wind, waste biomass, geothermal and hydro, albeit that you need the right environmental/fuel conditions. The only thing that's stopping clean energy from being dominant is storage for consistency, but that's almost entirely a concern that only affects developed countries - rolling out clean intermittent energy in the developing world for a similar or lower cost to fossil fuel is an absolute quality of life game changer, and then building the storage for consistency of supply when battery technology is ready in a decade gets them to the same point we are at now, cheaper and much faster. It's a far better option than going to the large cost of building obsolete fossil fuel generation and tying that to an inefficient distribution network, even ignoring the environmental damage of that option. Building all those plants and a big distribution network will probably actually be slower than just going straight to localised generation.

And I'm sorry, but the science and economics for "carbon neutral" fossil fuel just doesn't stack up. The cost of building it into new power generation absolutely destroys the one advantage of fossil fuels - they're supposed to be cheap. Even if the infrastructure could exist in developing countries to handle immense quantities of concentrated carbon waste, which it doesn't and never will, the cost of doing it would make fossil fuels uncompetitive even for a high density centralised distribution model of energy.

[Pepe]

The one advantage of fossil fuels is that they, essentially, can be turned on and off at a moment's notice (not literally, but in the context of how energy generation and transmission actually works).

I would call it more ramp it up and down, but sure. Doesn't change the fact that you'll need to burn them as a 'backup' unless:


Hydro, geothermal and biomass can also fill that role, but long term it will be filled by battery technology.

Hydro is a great thing, if you were lucky enough to have the proper terrain nearby (we use it extensively in Mexico.) Guess the same could be said about geothermal. Biomass is fine if you have plenty of wood waste lying around, otherwise you're just replacing a high energy density fuel for a low density one. As for batteries:


Again, we're not talking 70 or 80 years - we're talking next decade. The investments made in battery technology in the last 5 years will be game changers once they hit commercial scale. Put it this way - Telsa are commercially viable now and they're using (highly refined) 25 year old tech. The technologies that are hitting commercialisation now are already better than that, they just don't have scale yet.

I really, really hope you're right and the people that sit next to me everyday who do battery materials research are wrong, because the stuff they're working on, which two of the three top materials manufacturers in the world have come to check out in the past few years, is an improvement but hardly a 'game changer.' Still, I hope it takes ten years (heck, lets make it two) but even when the technology is there, the scale needed will prove to be an absolute nightmare and I have a hard time believing things will move particularly quickly, although I certainly hope they do.


Best practice now is localised solar except in high density or high use communities (ie. cities and industry). You can build solar for much, much cheaper than you can build centralised fossil fuel generation and a huge distribution network, especially in poorer communities where daylight electricity is vastly, vastly more important than 24 hour electricity.

We're not talking about a 50 year time scale for renewable energy. Solar PV is cost competitive *now*. So is greenfield wind, waste biomass, geothermal and hydro, albeit that you need the right environmental/fuel conditions. The only thing that's stopping clean energy from being dominant is storage for consistency, but that's almost entirely a concern that only affects developed countries - rolling out clean intermittent energy in the developing world for a similar or lower cost to fossil fuel is an absolute quality of life game changer, and then building the storage for consistency of supply when battery technology is ready in a decade gets them to the same point we are at now, cheaper and much faster. It's a far better option than going to the large cost of building obsolete fossil fuel generation and tying that to an inefficient distribution network, even ignoring the environmental damage of that option. Building all those plants and a big distribution network will probably actually be slower than just going straight to localised generation.

And I'm sorry, but the science and economics for "carbon neutral" fossil fuel just doesn't stack up. The cost of building it into new power generation absolutely destroys the one advantage of fossil fuels - they're supposed to be cheap. Even if the infrastructure could exist in developing countries to handle immense quantities of concentrated carbon waste, which it doesn't and never will, the cost of doing it would make fossil fuels uncompetitive even for a high density centralised distribution model of energy.

Notice that I never mention cost. If there was a better way I would fully support it even if it costs more (nuclear anyone?) I agree with you with the localized solar, and I hope it becomes common practice both in the developing and developed world, but progress without industrialization is not that much progress. You seem to have a lot of faith than in ten years we will be able to store massive amounts of energy in batteries, and that we will be able to charge them and recharge them at extremely fast rates. I hope you're right but I am not as hopeful because thermodynamics are a bitch. We've been 'ten years away' for about forty years now.

You're right about the economics of CCS. It will bring the cost up. That's a good thing. Eventually when/if renewables turn into a viable alternative (only ten years to go!) then there will be no reason not to move towards them. To suggest that the one advantage of fossil fuels is cost though, that is just scientific ignorance.


Look, I am not some sort of global warming denialist or a 'big oil' shill. I really want us to minimize our fossil fuel energy consumption and I even think cost should be damned, we should do it even if it is more expensive. All I want is for there to be an in-between solution so that we're not pumping up all that CO2 in the time (10 years!) it takes for us to fully embrace alternatives. I would like for current fossil fuel plants to have very stringent CO2 emission requirements, which they'll only be able to meet updating their rather antiquated technology and adopting new methods, CCS being one. Will that make energy expensive? Sure, but I'm cool with that. Will only promote conservation and make the transition easier/faster. If in the end we can go full renewable then that would be great, but I believe fossil fuels will still be part of our energy generation for a very long time (and that is ok,) so might as well use them in a 'cleaner' way.

As for what the developing world should or shouldn't do, I say let them do as they please. If it is true that wind/solar is as cheap/cheaper today then I don't know what we worry about.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Trump looks set to lose tonight's slate of states, albeit to the probably even worse Ted Cruz. Will that make any difference?

[elth]

Only if it encourages Kasich or Rubio to drop out, which it won't.

[Pepe]

Rubio's fall from grace. :drool:

[Spoonsky]

Rubio's done in terms of delegates, he's 250 behind Trump. Realistically the only one who can catch Trump for the nomination outright is Cruz. Ironically, the prospect of a brokered convention is what's keeping Kasich and Rubio in it, but it's because they're still in it that Trump's winning so much and a brokered convention would even be necessary in the first place.

[ItalAussie]

Rubio needs to hang in and keep winning what he can, particularly in proportional states. If he lets Cruz and Trump split it, there's no chance of a brokered convention. Given that he's the establishment darling, it's what he has to be aiming for.

Kasich will rise and fall on Ohio. Would be amazing if he stayed in all the way to a brokered convention though.

[Spoonsky]

This is an interesting take on it: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/05/ted_cruz_s_wins_in_maine_and_kansas_are_great_news _for_donald_trump.html

[Jimmy Floyd]

I was minding my own business watching the golf - Sky's own coverage no less, not borrowed from America - and who should rock up and start spouting off next to the 'Sky cart' in a MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN hat.

He also sounds very shrewd about golf, which is a bit of a shame.

[Byron]

Rubio needs to hang in and keep winning what he can, particularly in proportional states. If he lets Cruz and Trump split it, there's no chance of a brokered convention. Given that he's the establishment darling, it's what he has to be aiming for.

Kasich will rise and fall on Ohio. Would be amazing if he stayed in all the way to a brokered convention though.

From what I understand, that's his game plan. Win Ohio and then work on being everyone's second choice and being someone who could oppose Clinton without having too many weaknesses that she can take advantage of.

Interestingly I've also read that Clinton is scared of facing Trump, and with good reason. Whether or not it's true (and let it not be said that Trump supporters have ever let truth get in the way) Trump gives off the impression of being a winner. In addition, how do you combat someone who has no establishment ties and basically doesn't know what he's going to say on a day to day basis?

[GS]

To be fair to Clinton, she does have the 'credentials' to be President - she's a two-term senator (granted she resigned during the second term) and Secretary of State. You're not doing much better than that outside governorship of one of the 'big' states (e.g. California).

You question how much the e-mail scandal might harm her, particularly given the continued threat of indictment which the Republicans will, no doubt, continue to raise to try damaging her credibility.

[Lewis]

Nobody really has the credentials to run a country. Governors, senators... What do they know that qualifies them to be Commander-in-Chief? Four years as the crappest Secretary of State in recent history isn't worth anything.

'Well he's an actor really, but he's run California for eight years, so...'

[GS]

Well, it's as good as you're going to get unless you're a Grover Cleveland or Teddy Roosevelt trying to win an additional, non-concurrent term.

[Lewis]

I think it's all irrelevant. I suppose if you know your way around Washington it could help you get things done, but nobody can ever really know what they're doing at that level, so the best you can hope for is that they know what they don't know, surround themselves with the right people, and act with some sort of self-awareness.

[GS]

Well, if you have experience in the legislative branch you'll have a solid understanding of what the current 'feeling' is on certain topics in the Senate, who the key players are on specific bills or issues, what the drivers are for decisions in the various committees and the best way to achieve the things you actually care about. It would also, no doubt, be important for assessing likelihood of your appointments being confirmed.

Similarly, if she has been Secretary of State (shit or not) she'll at least have some understanding of current foreign policy, who decides what, how the Pentagon interacts with the White House, with the Cabinet, how the CIA etc. link in and so on and so on.

Plus she'll have plenty of contacts and understand the personalities involved when she needs to bring people into the fold to get things done.

You can denigrate it all you want, but it's clearly as good a grounding as you're going to get. Plus as First Lady she's probably get some idea of how the White House works beyond watching the West Wing.

[Lewis]

Donald Trump knows how to make deals, and he knows how political processes work (he openly admits to have lobbied politicians). You can't buy that sort of experience.

[GS]

Trump v Clinton is going to be a right laugh, particularly when the feminist vote inevitably derides anyone voting for Trump as 'misogynists' and 'haters of women'.

[Lewis]

If he calls Bill Clinton 'one of the great women abusers of all time' in the debate (like he did in January) it will be the greatest moment in American politics since the Truman Doctrine went live.

[Yevrah]

Trump's as short as 9/4 now. :eyemouth:

[Spoonsky]

I'd say there are a lot of parallels between Trump and Leicester City.

Bernie won Maine, which is good. The debate tonight has been pretty good as well.

[Pepe]

I think that was the best debate so far. Stark contrast from last Thursday's lolfest.

[Pepe]

What do we think of this?:

http://www.thenation.com/article/democrats-and-republicans-are-quietly-planning-a-corporate-giveaway-to-the-tune-of-400-billion/

[phonics]

It's better than Activision over spending on Candy Crush using offshore cash instead of just keeping it there I guess.

[Lewis]

Why not just remove the 'loophole'? Tax Apple on the profits they make everywhe... What? They've moved to Holland?

[Pepe]

Good riddance.

[Lewis]

Alright, getting all ethical on your keyboard soaked in Palestinian blood.

[Pepe]

I have a free trade keyboard made of locally sourced redwood mate.

[phonics]

Why not just remove the 'loophole'? Tax Apple on the profits they make everywhe... What? They've moved to Holland?

To be fair this is exactly what they do to their citizens. An American in the UK has to pay income tax to the UK and the U.S.

[Pepe]

How the fuck does Washington work, exactly? That article mentions 1,500 lobbyists. Where the hell do they put them all?

[Lewis]

I know (phonics), and it's mental.

[mikem]

Not so much according to my experience living in London in the early 2000's. I did not have to pay US taxes at all if I made less than $75,000 at the time. You only had to pay taxes on the income over that amount. May have changed. But I agree, companies should only have to pay taxes where they make the profits, who cares where the head office is.

[Pepe]

Except that a big chunk of that profit is made in the US, and much of the profit made elsewhere is not paid in those countries either (wasn't the UK chimping out about Starbucks recently?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


Apple’s domestic tax bill has piqued particular curiosity among corporate tax experts because although the company is based in the United States, its profits — on paper, at least — are largely foreign. While Apple contracts out much of the manufacturing and assembly of its products to other companies overseas, the majority of Apple’s executives, product designers, marketers, employees, research and development, and retail stores are in the United States. Tax experts say it is therefore reasonable to expect that most of Apple’s profits would be American as well. The nation’s tax code is based on the concept that a company “earns” income where value is created, rather than where products are sold.

However, Apple’s accountants have found legal ways to allocate about 70 percent of its profits overseas, where tax rates are often much lower, according to corporate filings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html


General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

[mikem]

I'm not saying it is not shit. It is, but what happens when they then just incorporate offshore? Unless every country plays along they will still find a way. I'd prefer losing most of Apple's tax revenue than losing Sillicon Valley to Ireland. The jobs matter more to me than the revenue. It is better to live in the Bay Area where most big companies avoid taxes than Toadsuck Arkansas where every company can't.

[Pepe]

The jobs wouldn't go anywhere. As you say, it is nicer to live in San Francisco, so the idea that they would just grab their stuff and move elsewhere is nothing but an empty threat. But of course that's what they'll have you believe, the tax cuts are for the good of the people! We'll create jobs!

[Pepe]

If they do move to Ireland then I would be happy for Boydy and his newfound wealth.

[phonics]

Not so much according to my experience living in London in the early 2000's. I did not have to pay US taxes at all if I made less than $75,000 at the time. You only had to pay taxes on the income over that amount. May have changed. But I agree, companies should only have to pay taxes where they make the profits, who cares where the head office is.

I'm not sure what the rates are but as someone who knew many people educated in the U.S. and then coming over to here (Switzerland) and hitting these caps and struggling to pay their student fees + rent + living. It's absolutely mental.

To the point where I knew people who would barely jaywalk for fear of being caught by the police who were sending 9990 CHF home (to pay student loans and stuff)at a time as that wouldn't get flagged by the companies looking for that sort of tax fraud.

[mikem]

Obviously, they are not moving overnight. They will eventually incorporate and put up a token office. Slowly some jobs will go. You likely still won't get much more revenue over time because too many other countries will offer a better deal. Even if you do, it really is not enough money to care about. 5 billion in profit sounds like a lot but compare it to the national debt. I get and concede your point but it just seems like too much work for too little gain. The value of the companies is in the jobs not the taxes.

I work in VC / private equity and you will never hear the inane job creation line from me. None of us create jobs because none of us run non-profits. Paying consumers create every single job so I'd rather spend time and capital on income inequality.

[mikem]

Phonics, my clearly poorly expressed point was meant to be that it is a stupid practice. We should not do it for either. People will get screwed and companies will just find another way to avoid it.

[phonics]

Phonics, my clearly poorly expressed point was meant to be that it is a stupid practice. We should not do it for either. People will get screwed and companies will just find another way to avoid it.

And as you can see above I think it would be perfectly fine if those companies were paying the correct tax for either the US or whichever country it establishes as a home base (I don't like offshore companies bought for relocating or tax avoidance) but it seems they claim the U.S. as a shareholder base for maximum stock return while not paying tax in the UK/France/Germany etc. because they're based in the U.S. meanwhile it all ends up as 'offshore cash'. Meanwhile everyday U.S. citizens have hundreds of millions (at least) of dollars spent on chasing them down to find that they have a hundred thou in a Swiss bank.

Do it the same for citizens as you do corporations if Citizens United is fair game.

[Spoonsky]

Bernie's won Michigan, where Nate Silver (http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/michigan-mississippi-idaho-hawaii-primaries-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-16305501) had him with a less than 1% chance of winning and down by 21% in the polls. Another guy on FiveThirtyEight called it "one of the greatest shockers in presidential primary history."

Fuck yeah. It'll still be pretty difficult to catch up with the delegates but it means that the race isn't over like people thought it was a week ago.

[elth]

Sanders still won less delegates than Clinton on the night, amusingly.

But if he keeps outperforming his polls by that sort of margin, it's definitely game on.

[Henry]

If they do move to Ireland then I would be happy for Boydy and his newfound wealth.

Some of them already do. And personally I'd prefer that our government stopped catering to them and focused on local industry instead.

Also, the Michigan result. :drool:

[Pepe]

Hilary's LIES about the auto bailout must have backfired.

[Lewis]

This (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/?utm_source=SFTwitter) article on the 'Obama Doctrine' is pretty mega.


Obama generally believes that the Washington foreign-policy establishment, which he secretly disdains, makes a fetish of “credibility”—particularly the sort of credibility purchased with force. The preservation of credibility, he says, led to Vietnam. Within the White House, Obama would argue that “dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force.”

:cool:

[phonics]

This (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/?utm_source=SFTwitter) article on the 'Obama Doctrine' is pretty mega.



:cool:

His thoughts on the DC Think Tanks are pretty boss too.

[mikem]

That is good. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal today (sorry paper not Internet) that looked at exit polling in the Michigan Democratic primary. It argued Sanders won every group but two: African Americans and Democrats. We are such a stupid political party.

[Pepe]

After learning yesterday that Bernie is both a communist and a republican I don't know what to think anynore.

[mikem]

He can conceivably be the de facto leader of a party he still refuses to join. Voted there by people who have also not joined that party. With all the "the establishment have rigged the process" talk on both sides, this is an amusing election.

[elth]

To be fair, the Democratic establishment *have* literally rigged their process specifically to stop a candidate like Sanders getting past someone more..."reasonable". Ahem.

It is rather silly that so many states allow "independents" to have big says in their primaries, though.

[GS]

This (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/?utm_source=SFTwitter) article on the 'Obama Doctrine' is pretty mega.



:cool:

I don't know enough about Obama's presidency - I need to read much more around this, I think. It'll probably be a while before there's a worthwhile 'authoritative' account of his two terms.

[Pepe]

The Donald is in St. Louis. The rally was at noon and there were already too many people at 8am. :cool:

Then this lot showed up:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlGAt_P3ZY

:harold:

[Spoonsky]

To be fair, the Democratic establishment *have* literally rigged their process specifically to stop a candidate like Sanders getting past someone more..."reasonable". Ahem.

It is rather silly that so many states allow "independents" to have big says in their primaries, though.

Yup. It's funny, Republicans are actually probably better at democracy than Democrats are. In Utah Republicans can caucus through an online process now, while Democrats have to be in town (which sucks for me and all of the other kids going on spring break).

It's because Republicans need to maximize their voter turnout in order to have a chance at winning elections.

[Pepe]

Wanted to force my mother to go vote for Bernie but missed the one month deadline. :face:

[Lewis]

That's the sort of fecklessness that President Trump will chuck you all out for.

[Shindig]

Okay, Trump winning would result in a civil war. Pass the popcorn.

[Lewis]

708776725644189697

Fucking hell.

[Pepe]

That's absolutely brilliant. :D

That she will win truly enrages me.

[Boydy]

I saw that earlier. :D

It is fucking infuriating that she's going to win. I'm so sick of seeing people supporting her and then throwing the 'old white man' jibe at Sanders.

[Magic]

Surely she's better than the alternative?

[Boydy]

I'm talking about the Democratic nomination, although presumably she will win the whole thing in the end. Surely America isn't crazy enough to elect Trump?

[Boydy]

707374030647599106

:D

l

[Davgooner]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJOF13eD9bg

:chief:

[GS]

How the fuck does Clinton get away with that?

I hope they indict her, and either Sanders or Biden gets the nomination in a brokered convention. She's fucking awful.

[Jimmy Floyd]

If it is a Clinton/Trump election, I'm going to be buying a job lot of Donald wigs and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN hats. She must lose.

[Vim]

What I'm wondering is, if/when Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, who will the Bernie supporters vote for? She's everything they stand against. Trump's "revolutionist" style is far closer to the one Sanders pushes than anything Clinton wants.

[elth]

The Democrats will vote for Hillary. The independents will probably split 3 ways - some will vote for Clinton, some for the Republican nomination, especially if it's Trump, and some won't vote.

[Lewis]

mikem (I think) once suggested that 'Hillary' gets away with it because the mentals spent so long throwing shit at her over relatively trivial things that legitimate criticism just looks like more of the same. So that's another thing they've fucked themselves over with.

[Pepe]

She 'gets away with it' just like every other politician does (except the quite excellent Bernie of course.) Everyone is so used to eating the bullshit that they can't even smell it anymore.

[Spoonsky]

mikem (I think) once suggested that 'Hillary' gets away with it because the mentals spent so long throwing shit at her over relatively trivial things that legitimate criticism just looks like more of the same. So that's another thing they've fucked themselves over with.

That's quite true. You can dismiss any attack on her or her character as a Republican move and be done with it. The GOP is a big, fat mess.

[GS]

Yes, I've often thought the same in British politics. Generally speaking, Labour are too busy throwing shit at every Tory policy that when certain ones do deserve massive ire, it's just written off as more whinging.

[Pepe]

In a similar vein, since everyone is focusing on Trump being a MASSIVE RACIST, Cruz and Rubio are getting away with all kinds of shit.

[Lewis]

You need to get over this Marco Rubio thing lad.

[Pepe]

Lol at him claiming he doesn't use contraception.

[elth]

Kasich 2016.

Internet getting het up about Cruz appearing at a conference for killing all the gays.

[mikem]

Hillary gets away with Benghazi because of the constant yelling. The effect just wears off after a while. We are numb to it. That is why I believe why will beat any Republican.

The other is just American politics, Bernie does it just as much. The entire "super predator" issue is one that he knows is just as false (Carol Moseley Braun was behind that part of the Crime Bill.) She doesn't get away with it; it cost her Michigan and she was winning / close to Obama before she pulled the most racist ad in recent memory.

I'm obviously old because she is a scumbag but I just can't see the appeal of President Corbyn.

[Bernanke]

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7abkti7UphSopcl2/giphy.gif

:D

[Boydy]

That's great. :D

[Pepe]

Literally loling. :D

[Magic]

Fucking hell. :D

[GS]

That's quite superb. :D

[Davgooner]

Strong start by Bernie there, I reckon.

Edit: Couple of times that twat looked generally miffed at his responses.

[ItalAussie]

I love the idea of Bernie Sanders as President.

I dread the idea of him losing to Trump in the general election, whereas you'd think that Clinton would be a lock against Trump if they both win the nomination.

[Max Power]

Sanders and Trump are the only two with charisma so I hope that's the general for entertainment purposes.

[Pepe]

I dread the idea of him losing to Trump in the general election, whereas you'd think that Clinton would be a lock against Trump if they both win the nomination.

Still don't get where this nonsense comes from.

[Pepe]

One would assume that Democrats would vote for either of them. Independents seem more into Bernie than into Hillary. Bernie's anti-trade stuff could also potentially sway some of the Trump supporters. Then there are the polls (:sick:) which show him beating Trump by more than she does. So, unless Clinton's voters are saying they won't vote for Bernie, then I don't see how she is any more 'electable' (:sick:) than he is.

[Pepe]

This one is for Lewis:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/rise-and-stall-the-political-trajectory-of-marco-rubio/2268968

[phonics]

Rubios little face :D

708657520374452224

[Spoonsky]

He looks and sounds like a broken man.

I can think of few things worse than running an unsuccessful presidential campaign. Especially this year. Devote all of your time, thought and energy into something for more than a year and then lose to the guy with the dick jokes.

[mikem]

I have a hard time believing Trump wins against any warm, breathing, vaguely homosapien body in the general. Bernie does well in polls for the general because of likability, but I don't know how well that holds up when he has to face someone who can call him an anti-American communist without insulting their base. Cruz and Kaisich are the real threats. I'm a card carrying member of the DNC; I'll vote for whoever we send. I just fear Sanders cripples us for a decade like Carter did.

[Bernanke]

I'm actually fairly certain Sanders would do better against Trump than Hillary would. Both would beat him comfortably though.

Trump needs something like 70% of the white vote to win, and 64% of the white female vote. No republican, not even Reagan or Bush, have reached those numbers. I guess the other possibility is him getting cozy with minorities. :baz:

[Bernanke]

709849502023356416

You what?

[Raoul Duke]

That is an amazing name.

[ItalAussie]

I'm actually fairly certain Sanders would do better against Trump than Hillary would. Both would beat him comfortably though.

I seriously hope so. I'm giving up on conventional wisdom at this point. I was sure Trump would wipe out at the nomination stage, so I'm clearly not reading the situation even remotely well.

[Spoonsky]

That's the incredible thing about this race, genuinely nobody can predict it.

It looks like Trump has won Florida, and I think Rubio agreed to drop out if that happened, so it might be lights out for Little Marco. When I saw him at the first debate I really thought he was the nominee, and quite possibly the next president. Missed opportunity imo.

[GS]

He'll probably need to leave it a couple of cycles before trying again, I'd say. Probably run for the governorship (if there's a vacancy) to try and build EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE.

[elth]

Governors have a *terrible* record at the moment, though. None of Clinton, Sanders, Cruz or Trump have any experience like that and of all the serving governors to run in the primaries, Kasich is the only one to win even a single state. I don't think anyone cares about that any more. Rubio's better off spending 4-8 years figuring out what, precisely, it is that he stands for and actually practicing articulating that.



Here’s my gut takeaway from tonight’s primaries: It’s more difficult to see how Trump DOESN’T get to 1,237 delegates from here. He’s beating Cruz in red states, and he’s likely to beat Kasich in future blue states. Most of the delegates at stake from here on out will come from winner-take-all states. Whether #NeverTrump forces realize it or not, they are losing.


From 538. With Clinton destroying Sanders tonight as well, it looks like the race is basically over for both parties.

[Spoonsky]

Who do Rubio's delegates go to? Or do they just float in the netherworld from now on?

[elth]

I think each state sets its own rules on how delegates bound to a candidate who has withdrawn from the race should vote.

[Byron]

I remember reading that Rubio voters generally move 3:1 to Kasich so his plan is to stop Trump from winning an outright nomination and then hope the establishment backs him at the convention.

Fucking Hillary though. I would vote Trump over her, she is quite possibly the most dishonest, untrustworthy woman out there. Doesn't help that she has a face that looks like the Wicked Witch of the West got briefly sprayed with a sprinkler.

[Bernanke]

This Merrick Garland nomination for SCOTUS is Obama going full House of Cards. :drool:

[John Arne]

One of Harold's favourite newsites, Brietbart, is falling apart after one of their staff was apparently man-handled by Trump's staff - and the senior brass backed Trump rather than their own journo.

709967486779834369

[mikem]

Once Rubio's team selects their delegates and that is who is able to attend the convention. Most delegates selected through primaries and caucuses are only bound to vote for him on the first vote. Super delegates can always vote for who they want to. I don't get why that seems so controversial - Farage can't just run as a Tory because he thinks it gives him the best chance to win.

Candidates can release their delegates but I'm not entirely certain how that works. Clinton delegates here in Arizona were asked by the Clinton camp to stay home and let Obama send his people for the sake of party unity. I don't know if Obama's people used their vote or if the votes just came out as unanimous because only Obama delegates were in attendance to vote.

[Disco]

It seems a bit mad that you vote for people to go and vote for your candidate, there would appear to be a superflous layer of dicking about in there.

[mikem]

It really is because it generates a default level of misunderstanding and lack of transparency that either will be abused or will lead to the appearance of abuse.

How exactly does a party leader get selected in the UK? Does everyone in the party get to vote or only a few party elders?

[Pepe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgoypDIHKAQ

[Disco]

It really is because it generates a default level of misunderstanding and lack of transparency that either will be abused or will lead to the appearance of abuse.

How exactly does a party leader get selected in the UK? Does everyone in the party get to vote or only a few party elders?

It varies, the Tories restrict it to the parliamentary party but anyone can vote for the Labour leader if they join the party, hence how they got lumbered with a clot like Corbyn.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The Tory MPs get it down to the final 2 and then all the members vote on them.

[Lewis]

One (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/death-of-a-mannequin-marco-rubios-last-day-20160318) for Pepe:


It (his quitting speech) was a masterpiece of bullshit, combining the Rubio experience's two true and constant outcomes: a text any follower could have reasonably assembled from the greatest hits, and one whose philosophical aspirations were invalidated by the person voicing them.

Oof.

[GS]

They don't seem to like him very much.

[Pepe]

Farewell little Marco.

:wanker:

[elth]

The Gawker piece on his candidacy back when it was announced is brutal, too. It's linked in that article but if you didn't read it, it's amazing (http://gawker.com/get-to-know-marco-rubio-the-biggest-idiot-running-for-1697567638).

[Davgooner]

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/files/2013/02/Screen-Shot-2013-02-07-at-4.49.19-PM.png

[Lewis]

His hairline has bothered me for a while, and I've just realised why. It's a fucking combover isn't it?

[Bartholomert]

Remember when I said Trump would win the nomination and ultimately the general.

I'm smarter than pundits / understand America better :cool:

[Bartholomert]

One of Harold's favourite newsites, Brietbart, is falling apart after one of their staff was apparently man-handled by Trump's staff - and the senior brass backed Trump rather than their own journo.

709967486779834369

She's Honduran and anti-Trump, video evidence largely debunked her claims.

[bruhnaldo]

Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are going to be the next President of my country lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lolololololololololololololololo

[Magic]

Trump wants to pull the US out of NATO and Asia.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Bloomberg should really launch a campaign. He'd be way better than either of these twats.

[GS]

He would, but he won't win and you have to wonder if it's really worth his while.

[Lewis]

Barack Hussein Obama in Cuba is interesting, if only for an insight into the deranged, paranoid mindset that the critics of the visit are burdened with. It's fucking Cuba.

[mikem]

American exceptionalism doesn't get as far as it used to, does it? If Cuba is going to take us down.

[GS]

Is American exceptionalism still a thing beyond campaign rhetoric?

[mikem]

Yes, it is just silly forced home team nonsense. I have heard some extremely weird versions here in the west. At one business meeting between one of our entrepreneurs and their suppliers they ended it with "and remember, we live in America." I don't know what that means.

[GS]

Outstanding.

[mikem]

But I would never respond to the question "Where are you from?" with America so I'm not the best person to ask.

[ItalAussie]

Out of curiosity, where are you from?

[mikem]

New Orleans

[Bartholomert]

Yes, it is just silly forced home team nonsense. I have heard some extremely weird versions here in the west. At one business meeting between one of our entrepreneurs and their suppliers they ended it with "and remember, we live in America." I don't know what that means.

This was common barely-ironic fare in our fraternity; 'Lol at those poverty countries without freedom', 'Thank God we live in America the greatest freest nation on Earth and don't have to deal with that bullshit', 'This is America, we invented freedom/democracy/liberty/capitalism/etc, that pussy limpwristed European socialist shit can gtfo'.

I own this shirt and will wear it at least once a week to the gym in France this summer:

http://drunkco.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Back-To-Back-World-War-Champs-Shirt.jpg

[ItalAussie]

Strictly speaking, so are France.

[Byron]

As well as Canada, Australia and pretty much every other Commonwealth country.

[ItalAussie]

As well as China and Russia. Heck, even Japan and Italy went one for two.

EDIT: Turkey stayed neutral in WW2 until February 1945, when they came out on the Allied side. Good work there, guys.

[niko_cee]

Shame they couldn't roll with 'Undefeated in the 20th Century' on that gimpy vest.

[John Arne]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw

[GS]

Strictly speaking, so are France.

Not really, given they surrendered like wankers in June 1940 and left us to it.

I'll give you World War One, where our navy and their blood sacrifice won the war.

[Lewis]

I bet France still fought for longer than the Americans if you add the two together. The Commonwealth wins, followed by the Serbian people. Everyone else is rubbish.

[GS]

I bet France still fought for longer than the Americans if you add the two together. The Commonwealth wins, followed by the Serbian people. Everyone else is rubbish.

Indeed.

We (the great and bountiful British Empire) were fully involved for all of the combined ten years of both wars. Where one looks at the respective 'records' of other nations therein. We kept going back for more against Napoleon until we got the bastard as well.

We're probably the single greatest contributor over two centuries to smashing totalitarianism in mainland Europe.

[Lewis]

More like four centuries, lest we forget the Spaniards. I think we only really dropped the ball in the Thirty Years War, pissing about giving money to Ernst von Mansfeld when Gustavus Adolphus would have actually won battles with it, but even that worked out.

[Jimmy Floyd]

France are back to back World War champions in the same way that Hilario has won everything there is to win in the club game.

[leedsrevolution]

This was common barely-ironic fare in our fraternity; 'Lol at those poverty countries without freedom', 'Thank God we live in America the greatest freest nation on Earth and don't have to deal with that bullshit', 'This is America, we invented freedom/democracy/liberty/capitalism/etc, that pussy limpwristed European socialist shit can gtfo'.

I own this shirt and will wear it at least once a week to the gym in France this summer:

http://drunkco.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Back-To-Back-World-War-Champs-Shirt.jpg

It won't look as good when a 20 stone fat as fuck Turkish boy is wearing it. Will it?

Edit: You in the gym. Fuck off.

[Boydy]

I didn't realise GS had been in the trenches.

[GS]

I don't see the issue with referring to your country as 'we'.

[Bartholomert]

It won't look as good when a 20 stone fat as fuck Turkish boy is wearing it. Will it?

Edit: You in the gym. Fuck off.

Bitch I'm down 28 pounds since graduation, probably 3-4 months away from posting shirtless pics that will make you cry with jealousy / inferiority.

[mugbull]

you might want to change your fb prof pic to reflect that

[ItalAussie]

Not really, given they surrendered like wankers in June 1940 and left us to it.

I'll give you World War One, where our navy and their blood sacrifice won the war.

Still on the winning side at the end of the game. There's no country in the world would've been able to hold out in their position, having a land border connecting to aggressive invading forces. Nobody gives Poland or the Netherlands a hard time, despite the fact that they both got rolled almost instantly.

In the end, having a water barrier makes all the difference. The English Channel was the most important part of the war for Britain, just like the Atlantic Ocean was for America.

[Lewis]

Facts are great and everything, but the question is whether the French can lol at the Germans as we (colonies included) can. I would expect them to struggle.

[Davgooner]

Arizona has probably finally killed it for Bernie. He needed all 10 of these fuckers.

[GS]

Still on the winning side at the end of the game. There's no country in the world would've been able to hold out in their position, having a land border connecting to aggressive invading forces. Nobody gives Poland or the Netherlands a hard time, despite the fact that they both got rolled almost instantly.

In the end, having a water barrier makes all the difference. The English Channel was the most important part of the war for Britain, just like the Atlantic Ocean was for America.

They could have placed less reliance on the Maginot line, put far more focus into armoured warfare for defence and not shit themselves completely when the Germans broke through the Ardennes by mounting effective counterattacks on stretched communication lines. As it was, they didn't have the stomach. We'd probably been rolled over without the Channel, but then our navy was great.

If you were to say "well, you were on the winning side" at the end after four-odd years of collaboration then Turkey are one for one in world wars and the Italians also 'won' WWII. I think not.

The only reason this matters is because the French are desperate to pretend Vichy and the Anglo-American liberation of France didn't happen. Liberated themselves indeed.

[Davgooner]

Bernie live currently on TYT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uVpG3frhJ8

:cool:

[Spoonsky]

Bernie got 75% in Utah. Mormons love socialism. :cool:

I didn't get to vote as I was out of the country, unfortunately.

[Davgooner]

There's a Bloomberg poll that has him up over Clinton nationally for the first time, and has him donning Trump 58-34. :D

[Spoonsky]

Bernie's won in Washington and the satellite states. Also, he gave a speech at my fucking high school and I was in Montreal. :face:

https://media.giphy.com/media/l2R08tkITPBAI7IDm/giphy.gif

[Shindig]

The state of them chips.

[mikem]

It has been 12 years since Bush won in part by pushing the homophobia button. I find it interesting that companies (particularly Salesforce) have been leading the charge against the raft of "religious liberty" bills. Now if we could just get them to say "oh, and by the way stop shooting my employees as well, thanks."

[Spikey M]

Post number 9 /11 is about George Bush. Coincidence?

[Davgooner]

Trump's campaign manager has been arrested.

[Davgooner]

Wisconsin went Cruz and Sanders, then.

Also worth mentioning that Nevada, which previously was down as a Clinton win, actually ended up going to Bernie. :cool:

Trump supporter of the week:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za_R_VYWVDM

[Jimmy Floyd]

*hail to the chief*

'It's good to see you again, President Cruz.'

Nah.

[GS]

I can't see any Republican beating Clinton from here.

[Lewis]

Ted Cruz would lose like John McCain did, but only an unusually low turnout (because everybody considers it a foregone conclusion) would stop 'The Donald' from getting something like a record tonking.

[GS]

It seems he has catastrophic levels of unpopularity with women, young voters and latinos. What I don't understand about people advocating a Trump vote is that, surely, they can see he's not going to win, so all you're doing is pushing the moderate centre towards the other guys. Then again, if you're voting for Trump then you're probably not thinking such issues through.

Kasich might do okay. If he could take Ohio, and get in someone to help him win another swing state like Pennsylvania or Florida then he might be 'competitive', although it's still very difficult to see a route to victory. Ted Cruz is a wanker.

[Pepe]

Bernie has won six in a row. There is no stopping him now.

[Lewis]

American parties surely aren't centralised enough to shit the bed like ours do, so the Republican reaction to any defeat should be interesting. They will probably ignore their fundamental problems (demographics), blame it all on 'The Donald', and walk into another battering next time round peddling the same shite.

[Spikey M]

One thing you've gotta give Trump is atleast he's taken the Republicans away from the 'who's the most Christiany Christian' competition that they've been playing since Bush.

[mikem]

A chimp could beat Trump in the general. Cruz would be dangerous to both because the race has completely changed his narrative. Among Trump's many crimes is somehow making Cruz respectable. I hope Republicans don't figure out that Kaisich is terrifying.

I have no idea how true it is but I was told yesterday that the most likely outcome of past brokered conventions was someone not in the race at all. It was the only compromise that did not leave turnout too low in the general.

[Pepe]

Rand's comeback. :drool:

[mikem]

That would be wonderful. In the total shambles that is Arizona I just got my provisional ballot for the Democratic primary last week - the election was on March 22nd.

[Lewis]

Without wanting to think I'm just projecting my own preferences onto it, Rand Paul-like positions are surely their best hope in the future, since there is still enough gun-toting and paranoia (without going full gold standard crazy) in there alongside things that women and brown people might be more receptive to.

[Henry]

Bernie has won six in a row. There is no stopping him now.

When he loses, and lose he will, it will expose Clinton's rigging of the convention with the super PAC's. That's the best that can be hoped for, I fear.

[Pepe]

Without wanting to think I'm just projecting my own preferences onto it, Rand Paul-like positions are surely their best hope in the future, since there is still enough gun-toting and paranoia (without going full gold standard crazy) in there alongside things that women and brown people might be more receptive to.

Agreed. It is (or should be) the only way forward for the party. The only thing he (or someone like him) will probably have to drop is the whole anti-war agenda. Republicans just love their bombings too much.

[Davgooner]

Ted Cruz is a bigger nutter than Trump. If anyone hasn't read his story about how God told him to run, do so. Mental.

The Bernie-voting Yanks on here: would you vote Clinton if she's the nominee?

[Henry]

This is what his old man said. Is this the one?


My son Ted and his family spent six months in prayer seeking God's will for this decision. But the day the final green light came on, the whole family was together. It was a Sunday. We were all at his church, First Baptist Church in Houston, including his senior staff. After the church service, we all gathered at the pastor's office. We were on our knees for two hours seeking God's will. At the end of that time, a word came through his wife, Heidi. And the word came, just saying, "Seek God's face, not God's hand." And I'll tell you, it was as if there was a cloud of the holy spirit filling that place. Some of us were weeping, and Ted just looked up and said, "Lord, here am I, use me. I surrender to you, whatever you want." And he felt that was a green light to move forward.

[Pepe]

Probably a good time to bring this one back:

http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/jesus.jpg

:D

[GS]

Re: Sanders and Clinton, it would be interesting if the former managed to take more delegates (less the 'party elders') into the convention, as one imagines it may be difficult for the party to ignore the democratic will of the voters. If Clinton goes in with a majority of the delegates from the campaign, then I don't think anybody can realistically complain.

For the Republicans, surely the extreme positions advocated by Trump and Cruz is the equivalent of sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. They've spent the entire Obama presidency screaming blue murder and attempting to stop everything the Democrats do. They've pandered to the Tea Party, and every candidate is expected to pass the litmus test of abortion - even though a majority support it. I mean, one assumes they're not thick so at what point do you just call it quits and say they're the right-wing equivalent of, for example, Corbyn's Labour. A vote of protest, a party of contrarians, but ultimately not one which appeals to the moderates or the centre, where almost every election this side of Venezuela is going to be won.

[mikem]

Oh fuck off Henry. I've been a Democrat my whole life and the simple undeniable truth is that we currently have our weakest lineup ever. Bernie would have been laughed off the stage against Obama.

You get maybe 100 people in a decade who are legitimate Presidential candidates. We've lost a big group to their cocks (Hart, Spitzer, Weiner, and Edwards). No national candidates have come out of California for two decades because it has been ungovernable mess that swallowed all talent on both sides. The Obama administration has made casualties of a host of others (Daley, Napoletano, Reno, Geitner, and Biden). Åge did off the tail end of our talent (Richardson, Bradley, Gore, Kerry).

There is a lot of good new talent, but it is too early for most. The mayors of LA, Knoxville, Louisville, and Houston (a three time openly lesbian winner in the 2nd biggest city in the South) all have a legitimate chance when they become governors. Governor Moonbeam has made California governable again. Otherwise it is one term senators in Warren and Booker, O'Malley, or cabinet members who have never held elected office.

The all good candidates are blocked nonsense is crap.

[Henry]

I don't think I said that, but Clinton does have those delegates in her pocket.

[mikem]

The argument always seems to go "the establishment has stopped other candidates from running and rigged it for Clinton." Nonsense, there are no other candidates.

Then it goes "Bernie's winning now so they rigged it back then." No, super-pacs have been largely worthless this cycle. Two of the top four candidates have ignored them.

People ignore that Clinton and Bernie campaign differently. In the South, the Clintons go to the same churches they have been going to for thirty years. They listen to people's problems and their machine fixes little stuff like the minister telling them their trash is not collected. It is not name recognition, they become family and you can excuse family all kinds of shit. Bernie flies in and speaks at a college auditorium. Then he flies out. That does not play in the South. Super-pacs won't change any of that.

And last, Bernie only signed up as a Democrat last year. He has been a free rider that has.not built coalitions or a power base. He shows no interest in the party other than to slam it, and he offers no help to down ticket elections other than to say all Democrats stop good things but him. What political party is welcoming that?

We have had Bernie's before. And it had been utterly catastrophic. People would not support Humphrey because he was "like a Republican." We ended up with Nixon. Mondale? Nope, welcome to outsider Carter - and 12 years of Reagan. Of course, there is no difference between Gore and Bush either, so let's vote for Nader. I fucking hate independents.

[Lewis]

What do you actually think of her? You seem like more of a party loyalist than a 'Hillary' fan.

[mikem]

Horrible horrible candidate. Competent enough admin. I'm from a Kennedy like southern family and have only ever worked in the army, investment banking and venture capital so she is left enough for me. Policy lines prior to elections are crap so I like that she can and does get actual things done. Even if Bernie were a Democrat I would not want him.

[ItalAussie]

This abortion thing is the first time that something negative has actually gained traction for Trump, and the reasons shouldn't come as a great surprise.

Anti-abortion activists don't like to talk about it, because they're completely aware that if they are to maintain consistency in their position, they have to consider the "murder" of a human being to be a crime, and that the woman taking part is complicit in that. So they double-talk in a very specific code, which is:

(a) We don't want to punish the women, and
(b) We'd let the states decide on individual punishments.

This is the standard item of double-talk, because (a) is a bald-faced lie, but (b) allows them to foist responsibility down the table. It's one of those pieces of code that is totally clear to the evangelical subculture, but sufficiently concealed from average voters who find the idea of punishing women to be unacceptable. This is why responses to Trump's comments have been so varied even among Republicans (which is the last thing you want when you're running in the primaries), and he's tried to backtrack without actually backtracking.

The best thing about Trump though, is he isn't actually from the subculture he's courting. So he doesn't know the codes, and just says the things out loud that you're not supposed to say. That exposes the fault lines, and is all very entertaining. By making the coded subtext into text, he's made a decent number of the non-evangelical Republican base somewhat more wary.

[Spoonsky]

When he loses, and lose he will, it will expose Clinton's rigging of the convention with the super PAC's. That's the best that can be hoped for, I fear.

I'm afraid that's just not true. She's won more proper delegates than he has as well. Bernie's campaign has, from the perspective of about a year ago, been a stunning success, but from the perspective of mid-January been somewhat of a failure (though less so in recent weeks).


Oh fuck off Henry. I've been a Democrat my whole life and the simple undeniable truth is that we currently have our weakest lineup ever. Bernie would have been laughed off the stage against Obama.

I'm not sure Obama is a fair counterexample to use, he seems like a pretty once-in-a-lifetime politician. But I agree in general, although I don't think you can discount the level of passion that Bernie has generated. I heard someone on a podcast say that Bernie is sort of a vessel into which people have poured all their dissatisfaction and anger at establishment politics. My hope is that in twenty years a much younger and more agile politician (and also black and lesbian) will ride along on Bernie's platform and bring it to fruition.

I liked this (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-young-people-are-right-about-hillary-clinton-20160325?page=3) article. "And they're voting for Sanders because his idea of an entirely voter-funded electoral "revolution" that bars corporate money is, no matter what its objective chances of success, the only practical road left to break what they perceive to be an inexorable pattern of corruption." That's pretty much it.

[Davgooner]

This is what his old man said. Is this the one?

:nodd:

[Henry]

I'm afraid that's just not true. She's won more proper delegates than he has as well. Bernie's campaign has, from the perspective of about a year ago, been a stunning success, but from the perspective of mid-January been somewhat of a failure (though less so in recent weeks).

I agree that it's done better than expected but when the nomination is decided what else are you suggesting could happen?

[Henry]

The argument always seems to go "the establishment has stopped other candidates from running and rigged it for Clinton." Nonsense, there are no other candidates.

Then it goes "Bernie's winning now so they rigged it back then." No, super-pacs have been largely worthless this cycle. Two of the top four candidates have ignored them.

Superdelegates.

[Pepe]

Saying that two of the top four candidates have ignored super pacs is false. They have actively campaigned against their very existence. That is far from ignoring them.

[Pepe]

https://i.imgur.com/l9aDPnR.jpg

[Pepe]

Just realized it was Vim who shared that shit.

[mikem]

Henry Obama managed to beat Hillary handily in both delegates and super delegates. The difference is Obama did not ignore them and the first thing he did was put together a plan to win them. He also did not just ignore parts of the country.

Is it possible that it is not a fix and instead is a vote for someone who has raised money for them, introduced legislation, worked hard for down ticket candidates even after they have lost the presidential primary, and who does more than comment on legislation other people create? Or should they naturally be inclined to vote for someone who can't introduce and get legislation passed, who has no track record of helping other people get elected or ....

Spoonsky is right. Your lack or unwillingness to compete in all aspects of the race is your fault. For both candidates. If she loses he deserves to win.

[mikem]

Pepe Yes and my point was that it has not left them behind by 30 points. They have not had a major effect in shutting down either race in favor of the party establishment. Which was the claim that the races are rigged by the 1%'s super packs.

[Spoonsky]

See, I do believe that superdelegates serve to RIG THE SYSTEM and make the race less democratic. (That probably reflects my skepticism of the two-party system in general; I don't think the party as an institution should get to decide its candidate beyond the votes of the people. With that said, the great irony of this election is that the Republicans are really wishing they had superdelegates right about now.) The thing that people don't realize is that they're not locked in at all, and that they often switch to whoever ultimately wins the normal delegates. Clinton had more than Obama in 2008 until he started winning everywhere. If Sanders was beating Clinton in a legitimate way and by a wide margin I think it's fair to assume that a lot of them would switch, but he's not, he's actually losing. The only potential scenario where they really influence things is if it ends up a very tight race and they tip it in her favor, which I guess is still plausible.

[mikem]

If it is not clear, Bernie lost the race for Democratic superdelagates back in 1991. From an article in Politico that details his relationship with Democrats:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181?o=1

“I am extremely proud to be an independent,” he told the Associated Press seven months into his congressional career. “The fact that I am not a Democrat gives me the freedom to speak out on the floor of the House, to vote against both the Democratic and Republican proposals.”

The flip side at first was this: “He screams and hollers,” Rep. Joe Moakley (D-Mass.) said to the AP at the time, “but he is all alone.” Rep. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) called Sanders “a homeless waif.” Said Rep. Barney Frank, in ’91: “Bernie alienates his natural allies. His holier-than-thou attitude—saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else—really undercuts his effectiveness.”

John Lewis says that in twenty years of knowing Bernie Sanders he has never had a single conversation with him, but he has been lectured at.

What people ignore is that this confrontational attitude, dismissal, and how he always ends up in the same place "everyone not as pure as me is a corporate shill" rubs people the wrong way. It does not have to be a corporate conspiracy; a simpler answer is that he does not play well with others.

[phonics]

https://i.imgur.com/l9aDPnR.jpg

How did someone respond to a tweet with a Facebook post?

[John]

Much the same way you've just responded to a tweet and a Facebook post with a TTH post, I'd imagine.

[Henry]

Henry Obama managed to beat Hillary handily in both delegates and super delegates. The difference is Obama did not ignore them and the first thing he did was put together a plan to win them. He also did not just ignore parts of the country.

Is it possible that it is not a fix and instead is a vote for someone who has raised money for them, introduced legislation, worked hard for down ticket candidates even after they have lost the presidential primary, and who does more than comment on legislation other people create? Or should they naturally be inclined to vote for someone who can't introduce and get legislation passed, who has no track record of helping other people get elected or ....

Spoonsky is right. Your lack or unwillingness to compete in all aspects of the race is your fault. For both candidates. If she loses he deserves to win.

My highlighting. That's rigging in my view. She's bought them.
I'm not sure what "parts of the country" you're suggesting that the superdelegates represent. There are primaries in each state for that.

[Davgooner]

HenryIs it possible that it is not a fix and instead is a vote for someone who has raised money for them, introduced legislation, worked hard for down ticket candidates even after they have lost the presidential primary, and who does more than comment on legislation other people create? Or should they naturally be inclined to vote for someone who can't introduce and get legislation passed, who has no track record of helping other people get elected or ....


...isn't part of the establishment. Sorry, but the fact that Hilary as been at the heart of a shit system for three decades counts against her not for her. Endorsements for her should be seen for what they really are. She would 'get things done' in the same way Obama has, by starting negotiations from the centre and ultimately allowing the Republicans to dictate terms. It would a hint towards change but nothing more, and economically it would be absolutely 100% the same shite that has failed for four decades.

Also worth noting when dismissing Bernie's ideas as impractical that he's managed to get more amendments to Republican bills than any other senator.

[Lewis]

'Bernie' wouldn't even have to negotiate with the Republicans. Did you see how many people went to his last campaign rally?

[Davgooner]

Yeah yeah. What about the fact he HATES ISRAEL?

[Vim]

Just realized it was Vim who shared that shit.

Hello.

[Pepe]

'Bernie' wouldn't even have to negotiate with the Republicans. Did you see how many people went to his last campaign rally?

Exactly. Once we the people (well, them the people) rise then whatever the Republican senators think becomes irrelevant.

[mikem]

My highlighting. That's rigging in my view. She's bought them.
I'm not sure what "parts of the country" you're suggesting that the superdelegates represent. There are primaries in each state for that.

Sorry, I meant that his campaign decided they were losing the South so they did not really campaign there and lost big, which is the margin now. And by your narrow definition Obama rigged the election as well because he raised money for the whole party and Bernie has too if he has ever attended a fundraiser for Elizabeth Warren.

[Henry]

Sorry, I meant that his campaign decided they were losing the South so they did not really campaign there and lost big, which is the margin now. And by your narrow definition Obama rigged the election as well because he raised money for the whole party and Bernie has too if he has ever attended a fundraiser for Elizabeth Warren.

I doubt Obama had the same decisive superdelegate support that Clinton has.

[mikem]

...isn't part of the establishment. Sorry, but the fact that Hilary as been at the heart of a shit system for three decades counts against her not for her. Endorsements for her should be seen for what they really are. She would 'get things done' in the same way Obama has, by starting negotiations from the centre and ultimately allowing the Republicans to dictate terms. It would a hint towards change but nothing more, and economically it would be absolutely 100% the same shite that has failed for four decades.

Also worth noting when dismissing Bernie's ideas as impractical that he's managed to get more amendments to Republican bills than any other senator.

You mean like increasing the tax rate on millionaires by 3% to bring the budget into surplus, have new money for the first major infrastructure project in 40 years, reinvest in schools for the first time in a generation, and start a serious discussion and move toward resource sustainability? Jerry Brown has done all of that in California by changing the democratic establishment and even working with companies when he has to. If he were running, I would vote for him. I am not interested in Bernie because he does not understand how to play well with others and no amount of saying cool shit on tv changes that. Oh, and nice jab with the Jew - Isreal bit. Ain't it shit when us ethnics are uppity.

[Davgooner]

'Play well with others'. :sick:

I suppose this is almost a referendum on Obama's tenure: continued small-scale change within the context of corporate politics, or a real fundamental change across the board. It's depressing that some people seem to have been convinced the former is the only viable option.

[Lewis]

There is another bloke promising big changes that you could vote for.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's America. 'Corporate politics' is why it exists.

[ItalAussie]

I don't have any problem with the parties picking their leaders non-democratically, and don't actually see why they should be obliged to do otherwise.

The general election is the only part that is obligated to be democratic, surely. The rest is internal party matters. Heck, in Australia and the UK, we don't get a say at all in who the party picks.

[GS]

My highlighting. That's rigging in my view. She's bought them.
I'm not sure what "parts of the country" you're suggesting that the superdelegates represent. There are primaries in each state for that.

She hasn't bought them. Clinton has been actively involved in Democratic party politics for decades. She has put in 'hard yards' campaigning for its candidates, and has represented the party in the Senate. Compare that to Sanders, who has openly and repeatedly rejected the label of "Democrat", and openly stated that he's proud of being an independent. He only signed up last year, and that was clearly to facilitate this run under the Democratic banner. A cynic would suggest that, if the personalities were reversed, Clinton would be accused of 'piggy-backing' on the Democratic party to make a run for the White House.

So I suppose the question is: what do you expect the Democratic Party's super delegates to do, exactly? She hasn't bought them. I don't like Clinton at all, but she hasn't bought them, nor rigged anything. Sanders is merely facing the consequences for decades of asserting his independence. That's absolutely fine when you're the independent Senator for Vermont, but it's a bit off when you want to become the Democratic representative for the presidential election.

[Davgooner]

By their nature they're establishment figures whose existence is meant to act as a roadblock to a more liberal candidate like Sanders, though it's worth remembering that most of them also pledged for her in 2008 only to switch later once Obama rolled her. The media keep showing the delegate count with them included which is fucking infuriating.

She hasn't bought them in a literal sense, but the draw of the Clintons is not about rewarding their 'hard yards'. They've taken more than a billion dollars between them in their career and at this point are powerful in Washington beyond belief; they have the power to make or break people and there's been some great articles detailing how that process is working in this campaign and in general. For a lot of people it's about ending up on the right side of them going forward, be that politicians or media figures.

On the race, it's really all on New York now.

[Pepe]

California is also a big deal isn't it?

[ItalAussie]

California is a huge deal for the Republicans. If Trump loses it, then they're probably going to the convention.

[John Arne]

I don't have any problem with the parties picking their leaders non-democratically, and don't actually see why they should be obliged to do otherwise.

The general election is the only part that is obligated to be democratic, surely. The rest is internal party matters. Heck, in Australia and the UK, we don't get a say at all in who the party picks.

The Labour Party opened its voting to all members during the previous leadership contest. Not strictly "the general public", but still somewhat democratic.

[Davgooner]

If it ends in a contested convention on the Republican side then that is going to be some primetime shit. Paul Ryan keeps denying he has any interest in being the candidate, though simultaneously released a campaign ad.

[GS]

By their nature they're establishment figures whose existence is meant to act as a roadblock to a more liberal candidate like Sanders, though it's worth remembering that most of them also pledged for her in 2008 only to switch later once Obama rolled her. The media keep showing the delegate count with them included which is fucking infuriating.

She hasn't bought them in a literal sense, but the draw of the Clintons is not about rewarding their 'hard yards'. They've taken more than a billion dollars between them in their career and at this point are powerful in Washington beyond belief; they have the power to make or break people and there's been some great articles detailing how that process is working in this campaign and in general. For a lot of people it's about ending up on the right side of them going forward, be that politicians or media figures.

On the race, it's really all on New York now.

The super delegates switching to Obama demonstrates that many wouldn't be prepared to go against the voters. Obama took a majority during the campaign, and they recognised this and switched. That's how it should work where you have two sensible and electable candidates. As you say, they can be deployed to swing a nomination one way or the other. The American nomination process allows independents or non-registered citizens to vote in some states, and they therefore do need to make sure that there is a control in place to prevent some lunatic getting the nomination. Ultimately the party's goal is to nominate an electable candidate and win the White House, and if they see a clearly unelectable candidate then I don't think it's unreasonable for them to 'step in'. I would say the Republicans probably wished they had super delegates right now, whilst a British example is the Labour membership electing Corbyn (let's not get into that here) despite significant opposition from the PLP.

[GS]

If it ends in a contested convention on the Republican side then that is going to be some primetime shit. Paul Ryan keeps denying he has any interest in being the candidate, though simultaneously released a campaign ad.

He'd probably be a decent compromise candidate. Trump gets hammered in November, whilst Cruz probably loses respectably. Ryan/Kasich might be competitive as a ticket, albeit it's still difficult to see past a Clinton win.

I'm a big fan of Kasich of the idea of getting Kasich on the ticket. If you assume the standard breaks in the election, it's probably going to come down to three or four swing states - Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Kasich at least wins you one off the bat.

[Davgooner]

The super delegates switching to Obama demonstrates that many wouldn't be prepared to go against the voters. Obama took a majority during the campaign, and they recognised this and switched. That's how it should work where you have two sensible and electable candidates. As you say, they can be deployed to swing a nomination one way or the other. The American nomination process allows independents or non-registered citizens to vote in some states, and they therefore do need to make sure that there is a control in place to prevent some lunatic getting the nomination. Ultimately the party's goal is to nominate an electable candidate and win the White House, and if they see a clearly unelectable candidate then I don't think it's unreasonable for them to 'step in'. I would say the Republicans probably wished they had super delegates right now, whilst a British example is the Labour membership electing Corbyn (let's not get into that here) despite significant opposition from the PLP.

I agree on all of that, and if Bernie topples the popular vote, then I'd imagine they'd switch. Hence why counting them when the race is still alive is bumf. Also, on the electable angle, the polling suggests he's much more electable than she is as has been for months now.

[Yevrah]

How are we diddling with this?

Are we getting closer to a Great Wall of Meccico?

[Davgooner]

No. He's lost a bit of ground and the Party is getting ready to do him over at the convention.

Scenes, Yev. Scenes.

[Yevrah]

There's going to be one hell of a seethe from him if that's the case. :drool:

[Davgooner]

If it happened and there wasn't significant violence at the convention then I'd be disappointed. If they manage to get guns in...

[Lee]

He'll just stand as an independent and completely fuck their chances of winning the presidency, won't he?

[Davgooner]

Aye, he's dropped his pledge to support the nominee.

[elth]

I agree on all of that, and if Bernie topples the popular vote, then I'd imagine they'd switch. Hence why counting them when the race is still alive is bumf. Also, on the electable angle, the polling suggests he's much more electable than she is as has been for months now.

That polling is a nonsense given Clinton has spent 30 years being publicly attacked, whereas the Republicans haven't even bothered lacing the gloves against Bernie. His numbers may hold up should he win and they start attacking his *very* lefty record, of course, but they may also very much not.

If Bernie takes a significant delegate lead, there's no question that the superdelegates will have to consider switching, but that scenario remains a remote possibility at present. Even if he can fight to even - unlikely, but possible - I suspect Clinton's work for the party over the last three decades will see her over the line, as well as the entirely legitimate concerns that Sanders' record won't stand up to strong attacks in the election itself.

[ItalAussie]

The Labour Party opened its voting to all members during the previous leadership contest. Not strictly "the general public", but still somewhat democratic.

Which is a fair way to pick a leader, but I don't see any particularly necessary reason for parties to choose their leaders in a democratic fashion. Parties aren't democracies, I figure.

[Pepe]

Kasich is shit, only made look ok by the fact that he is surrounded by full-on nutters. Paul Ryan doesn't have much going for him either, he would get crushed.

I think Cruz would done Clinton senseless during the debates. She chimps out everyone calls her out on, well, anything.

[phonics]

Paul Ryan is a creepy weirdo he's the new Eric Cantor, the moment he appears on screen you can tell he's an awful bastard.

[Henry]

Which is a fair way to pick a leader, but I don't see any particularly necessary reason for parties to choose their leaders in a democratic fashion. Parties aren't democracies, I figure.

No, but given the two-party system in the US and how apologists for how third-parties are so poorly treated claim that the two main parties are "big tents" which are more diverse than European parties, the primaries are in practice a major part of national politics. So it's unfortunate.

[Bernanke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGeyhgp2N8A

2.25 onward. Pretty good rant.

[John Arne]

It's just horrid screeching and shouting over each other. Also when did Fox so overtly start referring to Republicans as 'we'?

[phonics]

It's just horrid screeching and shouting over each other. Also when did Fox so overtly start referring to Republicans as 'we'?

1) It's MSNBC
2) It states her job title, she was the Director of Communications for George Dubya.
3) Morning Joe sucks

[John Arne]

Why I did I think it was Fox? Did that lady presenter used to present Fox? Either way, it's all trash.

[phonics]

She looks a teeny tiny bit like Megyn Kelly I guess?

[John Arne]

Megan Kelly's grandmother, perhaps.

[elth]

Bernaldo getting thwacked in New York means he's basically down to needing a miracle.

Trump's doing as well as expected, which still isn't quite good enough to get a majority, and Cruz is whipping him at delegate organisation so Trump's support will likely evaporate after the first convention vote.

Smart money would currently be for a Cruz - Clinton contest.

[Bartholomert]

Bernaldo getting thwacked in New York means he's basically down to needing a miracle.

Trump's doing as well as expected, which still isn't quite good enough to get a majority, and Cruz is whipping him at delegate organisation so Trump's support will likely evaporate after the first convention vote.

Smart money would currently be for a Cruz - Clinton contest.

You are retarded.

[elth]

That's the sort of insightful political analysis you just can't get anywhere else, people.

[phonics]

Cruz managed to get beaten by a guy who's not even running in multiple districts :D

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgdNttTWsAAP8IO.jpg

[Jimmy Floyd]

I can get 14/1 on Cruz and his world-beatingly awful face stepping into Air Force One come January. Is that value?

[Henry]

I can get 14/1 on Cruz and his world-beatingly awful face stepping into Air Force One come January. Is that value?

I'd say so.

[Davgooner]

Bit of a mauling that, sadly.

What happened to Deez Nuts? There's a fallback candidate right there.

[bruhnaldo]

So which one of you is going to adopt me when PRESIDENT TrUMP! is running my country.

I make a mean peanut butter and jelly and am fairly neat.

[Kikó]

It's jam you idiot.

[Jimmy Floyd]

If he makes jelly he's in, tbh.