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.Originally Posted by leedsrevolution
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.
you might want to change your fb prof pic to reflect that
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.
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.
Arizona has probably finally killed it for Bernie. He needed all 10 of these fuckers.
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.
Bernie live currently on TYT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uVpG3frhJ8
Bernie got 75% in Utah. Mormons love socialism.
I didn't get to vote as I was out of the country, unfortunately.
There's a Bloomberg poll that has him up over Clinton nationally for the first time, and has him donning Trump 58-34.
Bernie's won in Washington and the satellite states. Also, he gave a speech at my fucking high school and I was in Montreal.
The state of them chips.
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."
Post number 9 /11 is about George Bush. Coincidence?
Trump's campaign manager has been arrested.
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.
Trump supporter of the week:
*hail to the chief*
'It's good to see you again, President Cruz.'
Nah.
I can't see any Republican beating Clinton from here.
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.
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.
Bernie has won six in a row. There is no stopping him now.
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.
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.
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.
Rand's comeback.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Probably a good time to bring this one back:
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.
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). Ĺge 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.
I don't think I said that, but Clinton does have those delegates in her pocket.
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.
What do you actually think of her? You seem like more of a party loyalist than a 'Hillary' fan.
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.
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.
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'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 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.
I agree that it's done better than expected but when the nomination is decided what else are you suggesting could happen?
Superdelegates.
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.
Just realized it was Vim who shared that shit.
@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.
@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.
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.
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/sto...ats-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.
How did someone respond to a tweet with a Facebook post?
Reply With Quote
