I'm no hater, she did a solid job as Secretary of State possibly even better than Kerry. I'm just not sure if her foreign policy will hold up as president. We'll see.
What do you expect her to do exactly? I still don't really understand your worry.
I'm no hater, she did a solid job as Secretary of State possibly even better than Kerry. I'm just not sure if her foreign policy will hold up as president. We'll see.
What do you expect her to do exactly? I still don't really understand your worry.
@Monkey:
What do you expect her to do exactly? I still don't really understand your worry.
Maybe my worrying is much ado about nothing and just a gut feeling but I'm just not sure. On paper and in the media it would seem she has the best foreign policy out of the democrats. She has way more credentials than Bernie Sanders for example. I just feel like she'd just possibly make a mistake, maybe Congress/Right Wing media has warped my brain with whole Benghazi thing into thinking she's vulnerable and a bit insincere.
It's elected office. Everyone is insecure.
Maybe my worrying is much ado about nothing and just a gut feeling but I'm just not sure. On paper and in the media it would seem she has the best foreign policy out of the democrats. She has way more credentials than Bernie Sanders for example. I just feel like she'd just possibly make a mistake, maybe Congress/Right Wing media has warped my brain with whole Benghazi thing into thinking she's vulnerable and a bit insincere.
Benghazi was pretty much a completely 100% manufactured controversy so yeah, they got ya.
Nothing says controversy like an 11 hour hearing that went absolutely nowhere
@Purple:
Nothing says controversy like an 11 hour hearing that went absolutely nowhere
What about multiple hearings?
Yeah, Rand is out as well; presumably because he wasn't expecting a serious challenge for his Senate seat and wants to focus on that instead.
A lot of people expecting him to stay through the Kentucky Caucus (which only even exists in the first place so that he could run for both; Kentucky used to forbid running for both) but no longer.
Rand drops out.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-presidential-race/index.html
Whoa, bit of a surprise. And yet not really at the same time though.
This is good for Rubio maybe?
@Monkey:
Whoa, bit of a surprise. And yet not really at the same time though.
This is good for Rubio maybe?
Media observers keep bringing up Marco Rubio as faring well in debates and what-not but I don't recall anything the guy ever says.
At this point, I'm fairly well convinced that they have such low expectations of Rubio because of his SoTU response that he "wins" for them by not failing spectacularly.
Media observers keep bringing up Marco Rubio as faring well in debates and what-not but I don't recall anything the guy ever says.
At this point, I'm fairly well convinced that they have such low expectations of Rubio because of his SoTU response that he "wins" for them by not failing spectacularly.
The only thing I recall of substance with debate Rubio was that he was the only one who actually seemed to have done his homework on Syria and ISIS (not that his stances were all that improved by this).
Otherwise I agree, but I think what they're talking about is more his Romneyish quality of essentially looking presentable and not being insane. Which has thus far not mattered a ton, but if at last the Trump zeppelin has started to leak air? That will count for a lot.
@Monkey:
The only thing I recall of substance with debate Rubio was that he was the only one who actually seemed to have done his homework on Syria and ISIS (not that his stances were all that improved by this).
Looking like you did your homework isn't hard when you share a stage with Donald "Homework is for losers!" Trump and Ben "My dog ate it." Carson.
Plus Rand Paul, who totally had a parent's note that he was excused from the class on religious grounds.
Otherwise I agree, but I think what they're talking about is more his Romneyish quality of essentially looking presentable and not being insane. Which has thus far not mattered a ton, but if at last the Trump zeppelin has started to leak air? That will count for a lot.
Trump is starting to flail around in response to the loss.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-tweet-cruz-stole-iowa
Like I've said for a while now, his whole schtick is based around being a winner and any cracks in that facade are going to damage him a lot more than other people in the same position.
Can't wait for Trump to reignite those birther comments against Cruz
Trump is starting to flail around in response to the loss.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-tweet-cruz-stole-iowa
Like I've said for a while now, his whole schtick is based around being a winner and any cracks in that facade are going to damage him a lot more than other people in the same position.
I automatically misread that as "being a whiner", I corrected myself on what it really read, then click the link.
Welp…. I was corrected first off,
Trump's gimmick is being a whiner.
.... and to think that there are some people that want him in the White House. Idiots.
He'll probably really double-down on that but that could easily backfire on him in Nevada.
On an unrelated note, feel the Jebmentum.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-please-clap
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I automatically misread that as "being a whiner", I corrected myself on what it really read, then click the link.
Welp…. I was corrected first off,
Trump's gimmick is being a whiner..... and to think that there are some people that want him in the White House. Idiots.
Complaining like that is probably going to hurt Trump more than it helps since it's pretty much the kind of behavior that he's been attributing to his critics.
On an unrelated note, feel the Jebmentum.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-please-clap
The former Florida governor, who has languished in national polls and finished a distant sixth in the Iowa caucus, resorted to asking a group of unmoved voters in New Hampshire to applaud his stump speech, according to a Wednesday New York Times report.
Bush was met with complete silence after giving what the Times described as a “fiery” speech at the Hanover Inn, where he vowed to prioritize national security as President.
“Please clap,” he pleaded as the audience remained quiet.
That is just embarrassingly pitiful. Like, cringe-inducing.
Jeb should have a seat on the park bench next to the Sad Keanu meme.
Jeb went from looking like a contender to looking like Rocky Balboa from the 6th Rocky movie.
Jeb went from looking like a contender to looking like Rocky Balboa from the 6th Rocky movie.
…Rocky did good in the 6th Rocky movie. We went toe to toe with a contender half his age and ended in a tie. That was a good outing for him.
Now Rocky 5...
[Trump among nominees for Nobel Peace Prize
](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-reportedly-nominated-nobel-peace-prize?cid=sm_fb_msnbc)
Santorun is supposedly dropping out later today.
I hope Gilmore makes it at least to New Hampshire.
Jeb just wanted all those votes out of pity. Even that failed…
Trump among nominees for Nobel Peace Prize http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png
It's not necessarily a wrong decision. Since when have people been so united against open bigotry?
I hope Gilmore makes it at least to New Hampshire.
Gilmore is in a weird situation where I can see him dropping out tomorrow or lasting forever. He has no real base or funding but has gotten along so far without them.
"Mike Huckabee has decided to end his campaign, but I think he should be forced to carry it to full term."
So I just heard on the radio there's a Democratic debate tonight. Surprise, surprise! These things keep sneaking up on me and at least once have snuck past me.
This will be the first one without Martin O' Malley.
I wonder if they'll split up the time he'd normally get or just shorten the debate. They definitely did that after the first one when Webb and Chafee dropped out.
Clinton - 31:05
Sanders - 28:05
O'Malley - 17:56
Webb - 15:35
Chafee - 9:11
Clinton - 38:33
Sanders - 24:17
O'Malley - 21:28
Clinton - 38:14
Sanders - 30:20
O'Malley - 24:20
Clinton - 27:31
Sanders - 30:12
O'Malley - 14:29
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
The subject came up the other day about whether or not Republicans were any more likely to maintain or expand programs like domestic surveillance than Hillary. Back in December, Pew Research did a poll about how people perceived the job the Federal Government was doing on terrorism.
Here's some of the results.
It's what their base wants.
So I just heard on the radio there's a Democratic debate tonight. Surprise, surprise! These things keep sneaking up on me and at least once have snuck past me.
This will be the first one without Martin O' Malley.
Let's hope Hillary does better than
[Trump among nominees for Nobel Peace Prize
[qimg]http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png[/qimg]](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-reportedly-nominated-nobel-peace-prize?cid=sm_fb_msnbc)
He was just nominated, he hasn't won yet, and it's apparently REALLY easy to get nommed. All that has to happen is someone not even on the Nobel committee whom the committee respects needs to nominate you, and that can apparently be anyone who has won in the past as well as certain government agencies and bodies.
When you realize that, it's not surprising to also find out that, according to the article you posted, "In the past, several less-than-illustrious figures have been put forward as nominees. Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin, Josef Stalin and Rush Limbaugh are just a few of the individuals who have received consideration over the years. Even Adolf Hitler once received a nomination, although it was allegedly done as a symbolic act of protest against the appeasement tactics embraced by British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain in 1939."
So either A: He's an ironic nomination like Hitler was, or B: Some former Nobel winner ACTUALLY thinks Trump deserves this.
It's not time to be decrying the stupidity of humanity just yet…. that time will come if he wins...
I wonder if they'll split up the time he'd normally get or just shorten the debate. They definitely did that after the first one when Webb and Chafee dropped out.
Clinton - 31:05
Sanders - 28:05
O'Malley - 17:56
Webb - 15:35
Chafee - 9:11Clinton - 38:33
Sanders - 24:17
O'Malley - 21:28Clinton - 38:14
Sanders - 30:20
O'Malley - 24:20Clinton - 27:31
Sanders - 30:12
O'Malley - 14:29
An hour and a half sounds good to me. I'm guessing Hillary Clinton is going to take better advantage of Martin dropping out and take more time in the debate. No matter how even the moderators will try to make it someone's going to get an extra few minutes. I'm just glad Martin is not there to waste everyone's time anymore. It's like the real debate had to go on pause every time he interjected or it was his time to speak.
The subject came up the other day about whether or not Republicans were any more likely to maintain or expand programs like domestic surveillance than Hillary. Back in December, Pew Research did a poll about how people perceived the job the Federal Government was doing on terrorism.
Here's some of the results.
http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/12/P13-11.png
http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/12/P13-21.png
http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/12/Extremism_10.png
http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/12/Scrutiny_1.pngIt's what their base wants.
That's some scary stuff.
Let's hope Hillary does better than
Oh, she said she's going to break them up [the banks]. She's not going to break them up. At this point I don't think they'll ever be broken up short of another financial disaster or change of politics and public attention.
Side note: If those kind of questions went down on the Republican debate there'd be a lot of whining from the candidates about how 'unfair' and 'aggressive' the questions are. Not all the candidates of course but the likes of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson.
So either A: He's an ironic nomination like Hitler was, or B: Some former Nobel winner ACTUALLY thinks Trump deserves this.
It's not time to be decrying the stupidity of humanity just yet…. that time will come if he wins...
It's all according to the master plan.
In all seriousness, wouldn't this just inflate his ego some more…..?
"Mike Huckabee has decided to end his campaign, but I think he should be forced to carry it to full term."
He should've let his son David hang it from a tree and shoot it.
He was just nominated, he hasn't won yet, and it's apparently REALLY easy to get nommed. All that has to happen is someone not even on the Nobel committee whom the committee respects needs to nominate you, and that can apparently be anyone who has won in the past as well as certain government agencies and bodies.
When you realize that, it's not surprising to also find out that, according to the article you posted, "In the past, several less-than-illustrious figures have been put forward as nominees. Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin, Josef Stalin and Rush Limbaugh are just a few of the individuals who have received consideration over the years. Even Adolf Hitler once received a nomination, although it was allegedly done as a symbolic act of protest against the appeasement tactics embraced by British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain in 1939."
So either A: He's an ironic nomination like Hitler was, or B: Some former Nobel winner ACTUALLY thinks Trump deserves this.
It's not time to be decrying the stupidity of humanity just yet…. that time will come if he wins...
Yeah, yeah, I know. I think there were 273 nominees? Still, it's depressing that anyone well-respected could think that Trump has done anything remotely promoting peace.
@Monkey:
Never post that again…
Uh…my bad.....?
Uh…my bad.....?
I forgive you as you know not what you do.
It's vile symbol of Narutofan, akin to the swastica in my mind.
@Monkey:
I forgive you as you know not what you do.
It's vile symbol of Narutofan, akin to the swastica in my mind.
Oh, okay. Lemme just-
It's all according to the master plan. :swanson:
In all seriousness, wouldn't this just inflate his ego some more…..?
clears throat
Meanwhile, at the O'Malley-less debate going on right now, Sanders and Clinton have been having a debate over progressiveness and the viability of their candidacies in the general election, all without throwing a single jab at any of the Republican nominees.
clears throat
Meanwhile, at the O'Malley-less debate going on right now, Sanders and Clinton have been having a debate over progressiveness and the viability of their candidacies in the general election, all without throwing a single jab at any of the Republican nominees.
I guess for one night they wanna pretend they don't know those damn clowns.
I respect Bernie Sanders and his policies, but his supporters terrify me.
Not because of their zeal and (to be frank) being generally naive.
But that if Sanders doesn't get the nod, then they will all sit at home and give the election to the Republicans.
Sanders and Clinton virtually tied according to new national poll.
But can he win the coin tosses?!
He won 5 out of 11 coin tosses, which a lot of people failed to mention as it didn't serve their narrative.
I'm generally pretty apathetic to voting for politicans. I think it's important not to vote as it is to vote. It means I'm dissatisfied with the political candidates.
With that the notion that if I don't vote a republican president will win simply isn't true but whatever. I'd vote for Bernie because he has the right ideas progressively and socially but it's one thing to support that and another to implement. Especially with a congress that doesn't really budge. I shouldn't have to tell you this country is bought out by the rich corporations who have the politicians in their pockets. The president doesn't have as much power as people think.
I'm generally pretty apathetic to voting for politicans. I think it's important not to vote as it is to vote. It means I'm dissatisfied with the political candidates.
The appallingly low turnout in American elections every single time we have one has sure shown the system somehow!
With that the notion that if I don't vote a republican president will win simply isn't true but whatever.
As with all such issues, the issue isn't literally you yourself, it's the population of identical dudes just like you.
I'd vote for Bernie because he has the right ideas progressively and socially but it's one thing to support that and another to implement. Especially with a congress that doesn't really budge.
If only we could vote for congress. Heck I wouldn't even dare to dream that we could each vote for TWO to THREE people in congress, that would simply be too much to ask.
I shouldn't have to tell you this country is bought out by the rich corporations who have the politicians in their pockets. The president doesn't have as much power as people think.
This is the argument of people too lazy to either engage the system, and too lazy to full on embrace conspiracy theorism. It's just vague enough for plausible deniablity in all cases if pressed on having any skin in the game.
Also I'm willing to bet you were pretty excited about Bernie up until he actually started looking electable.
I'm generally pretty apathetic to voting for politicans. I think it's important not to vote as it is to vote. It means I'm dissatisfied with the political candidates.
With that the notion that if I don't vote a republican president will win simply isn't true but whatever. I'd vote for Bernie because he has the right ideas progressively and socially but it's one thing to support that and another to implement. Especially with a congress that doesn't really budge. I shouldn't have to tell you this country is bought out by the rich corporations who have the politicians in their pockets. The president doesn't have as much power as people think.
Earthquake, if you don't want to vote because you don't trust your candidates, then vote because it's your duty as a citizen of the country. You shouldn't expect any changes to the government system unless the entire country is united in one mindset to change the system. But, since majority prefer leadership, then leadership will be as it is for the foreseeable future.
Don't forget, with your vote, you at least have the right to bitch when your candidate does a 180 in their promises. Not like how the king of England can do a 180 by royal decree and expect the peasants to deal with it because he's the mother fucking king of England.
@Bobby:
But there's nothing in the rules that say a dog can't play basketball!
That's no justification. Rules and common sense have to go hand in hand.Whereas here there IS a rule!
Then start raising a movement and get it changed!
Truly voters are meaningless.
Republican party base cannibalizes establishment and throws a bunch of crazy hayseeds into office over the career politicians scarily altering the national stage toward right wing wackos
Taking a quick glance over this thread you mentioned how Bernie might lose and the rationale behind it is that he should have won favorably given its mostly white, rural, liberal state. How is this not a dumb argument? As if white people don't vote for hillary? Everyone kind of expected it to be a tie either way. You advocating for Hillary is bias at best. Anyways, that's beside the point, I just thought it was funny to point this one out.
The voter turnout is 50% (a bit above the poverty line working class), yes. My reasoning for not voting isn't that I don't think my votes can make a difference (Florida has proven this idea wrong, and with such a low voter turnout rate it would be a shame to think that way). Especially at the state and county level where it absolutely affects people the most. You haphazardly assumed that such was the case; you should be asking more questions. Although, I don't blame you entirely since I intentionally left out my motives and reasoning. I'm not saying you shouldn't vote, but you both have a superficial understanding of voting as a civic duty and as a contract. People have different arguments on either as to why they think voting/not voting is important. And I think both sides of the argument are worth hearing out. Which begs the question why do you think voting is important? I thought it would be valid to bring it up in this thread. But your pretentious attitude throughout this thread seems to be dismissive of any attitudes not fitting your opinion.
Monkey, it's not a problem of the political system. I just refuse to partake in something that perpetuates and sustains the current system of democratic republic. I'm trying to understand why people like you think the idea of voting as the equivalent of a political voice. It's simply not true. I do not think voting is an effective way effecting the status quo; it is proven on a regular basis that monetary donations will influence legislators far more easily (and significantly) than votes. Voting gets the legislator into office;money gets the legislator to work. Also, I do not have to tell you that our politicians have been bought out in the back pockets of the wealthy a long time ago. No it's not some underground organization ruling over the world. And I don't have to tell you that the huge wealth inequality gap is a sign that the the political environment has merged itself with the wealthy elite and private corporation. You already knew that I'm sure. This is only a fraction of the evidence; as well as prestige and influence (among the academic and financial institutions) that our country standards are directed by a small number of the population. It's probably not 99 percent vs 1 percent. But less than 10 percent of the population for sure. There is a reason why people marched on wall street. With that said, how exactly do you justify voting/not voting? I'm very curious.