Some people I knew in high school keep saying (and by saying I mean repeating from The Comical Conservative) that if people could get degrees for free, it would make them lose their value. But the value of a degree isn't (or at least shouldn't) be in the cost, it should be in the time spent taking classes and studying and learning to get the degree. Degrees aren't rich people trophies, they're meant to represent an educational accomplishment and allow someone to continue to even higher education or get a career in the field that the degree is for. I don't understand how someone can be so stupid that they think the fact that people spend money to go to college is what makes degrees important. What if instead of making degrees free or affordable the argument was to take out the education and have people just buy degrees? Would they be in favor of that?
Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
-
-
@Galaxy:
Trump starts his town hall by calling the Pope hypocritical for being against the border wall while having the medieval Vatican City wall. Of course he went there.
Incidentally, that wall is also to keep Mexicans out
-
G8trH8tr.
Just making it public, I am putting you on my ignore list for a variety of reasons, none of which are polite to say. I am trying very hard to not just thread ban you again. It was warranted last time, it's warranted now, due to the ammount of anger you are stirring up in here, but I don't want there to be the impression that it is "because you have a different opinion."
You are allowed to have a different opinion from everyone else. Not everyone in here is straight up liberal democrat, and they're perfectly civil. But you're being very rude about it, and confrontational, which is leading to others getting angry and confrontational with you in return, myself included.
I officially, but not personally, apologize for being rude to you in response to the things you are saying. Officially because as a mod I shouldn't be aggressive towards others. But not a personal apology, for reasons that should be obvious.
Please don't quote or talk to me any more. I have you on ignore. If I have to listen to your nonsense again, or see a notification from you, or any other reasonable complaints, I'm just going to ban you.
-
@Purple:
Incidentally, that wall is also to keep Mexicans out
Leo IV was known for his papal bulls warning good Catholics about "them illegal drug dealers selling heroin to small children".
-
So, to redistribute wealth from the rich is both impossible and not hard enough work for the results to be earned. Got it.
it's not that it's impossible, we just can't allow it because when the government tries to do anything to the rich, THAT'S when we know for sure that our liberties have died. Anything before then is completely justified government intervention.
-
Are we sure this isn't the ghost of Ayn Rand talking? It feels like it.
-
G8trH8tr.
Just making it public, I am putting you on my ignore list for a variety of reasons, none of which are polite to say. I am trying very hard to not just thread ban you again. Please don't quote or talk to me any more. I have you on ignore. If I have to listen to your nonsense again, or see a notification from you, or any other reasonable complaints, I'm just going to ban you.
And thus, Robby's H8 for G8trH8tr became even Gr8tr. :ninja:
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Just saw the whole Trump v. Pope debacle on the news.
What the Pope said about Trump: "A man who would rather build walls between people, and not bridges, is not a good Christain."
The Donald's actual response: How DARE he question my faith! Ya'know, when the Vatican is under attack by ISIS, because it totally will, he's gonna wish-No, he's gonna PRAY that he had ME in his corner!!
Me: Bitch pls
-
@Rogues':
Just saw the whole Trump v. Pope debacle on the news.
What the Pope said about Trump: "A man who would rather build walls between people, and not bridges, is not a good Christain."
The Donald's actual response: How DARE he question my faith! Ya'know, when the Vatican is under attack by ISIS, because it totally will, he's gonna wish-No, he's gonna PRAY that he had ME in his corner!!
Me: Bitch pls
If you're interested in Donald Trump's actual response I just watched his entire press conference and decided to type out his actual response:
! So I guess this is a little bit for the press, so I just wrote this out very quickly about the pope, do you want to hear it? Should I read it for you? Ok. He actually said that maybe I'm not a very good Christian or something it's unbelievable. It's really not a nice thing to say. This is a response from Donald Trump it says: if and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, you know ISIS their primary trophy very few people know this I read this about two months ago, nobody even believed it, their primary thing you've seen what they've done all over the middle east, their primary goal is to get to the Vatican. That would be their ultimate trophy. They want to do what they did to all these magnificent artifacts, all of the beautiful museums that they've totally destroyed all over the middle east, right? They're-and I didn't know this, I read this like four or five months ago-I made mention of it two months ago everyone said what are you talking about? They thought like I'm kidding. It's true. And now there are stories about it. Not big stories. But there is stories about it. And I was checked by one of the reporters that said, "They don't want to talk about the-" and he called up and apologized. Big thing there, they want to get to the Vatican. So if and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS which is as everyone knows ISIS' ultimate trophy I can promise you the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president. Because (looks up acknowledges crowd saying it's true twice) Because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk no action politicians. That's what's happening now. -Donald Trump
Trump says something different than what you were claiming. He says (the short non-Trumpy version) "So if and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS which is as everyone knows ISIS' ultimate trophy I can promise you the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president."
So what Donald then goes on to say is that the Mexican government made a shameful albeit smart move by using the pope to make him look bad. He claims that the pope was fed only one side of the story. He believes that for the pope to question his faith is disgraceful. For anyone for that matter.
"They're using the pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves-that's the Mexican government. They should be ashamed of themselves for doing so especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant and so dangerous and so bad for the United States. Period, that's it. Period" -Donald Trump
Trump's later arguments are based on the fact that he's going to do things better for cheaper for the United States. One thing he claims is that he's going to talk to the military to give them the equipment that they want. Not the equipment that lobbyists offer.
He talks about the World Trade Center being a 4 billion dollar project when his 92 story Trump tower costed a fraction of the price, about 300 million. Claiming the differences if he had renovated the World Trade Center are simple that he would have marble floors instead of tezzaro. That he would be able to renovate without having to relocate the offices. His estimate for the project was $500 million.
Trump seems like he's not at all interested in playing with lobbyists. His claim is an interest in making America great. He wants business deals that benefit the US, claiming our relations with Japan and China are one sided. Questioning what we get out of the deal while Japan hands over tons of cars? If Japan gets into a conflict we have to support them but this isn't true the other way around.
-
Looking at that verbatim mess of words, and comparing it to what Rogues said… it's really kind of the same thing actually. Yup, same idea that for some reason this dude thinks that he can protect the world from ISIS if elected and save the pope. Lol.
Rogues's summary also had the benefit of being a far more enjoyable read. Mostly due to being a lot more coherent, but note that I don't blame you, I'm aware Trump speak is really that incoherent when typed out.
-
Looking at that verbatim mess of words, and comparing it to what Rogues said… it's really kind of the same thing actually. Yup, same idea that for some reason this dude thinks that he can protect the world from ISIS if elected and save the pope. Lol.
Rogues's summary also had the benefit of being a far more enjoyable read. Mostly due to being a lot more coherent, but note that I don't blame you, I'm aware Trump speak is really that incoherent when typed out.
So what do you think about the rest of the response? Namely Trump's claims that the Mexican government was using the pope as a pawn?
! (I know you're not a big reader though)
-
So what do you think about the rest of the response?
If I don't respond to it that's all the answer you need about what I think of it.
! (I know you're not a big reader though)
Bingo.
-
So what Donald then goes on to say is that the Mexican government made a shameful albeit smart move by using the pope to make him look bad. He claims that the pope was fed only one side of the story. He believes that for the pope to question his faith is disgraceful. For anyone for that matter.
Trump is really obviously not actually religious but that's not either here nor there.
lol at the Mexican government using the pope somehow, like they made him say something.
Also the Pope isn't questioning his faith, that's a real southern Protestant way of looking at what he said.
The pope is (get this) Catholic? Catholics tend to obsess on the whole good works thing, same with some other Protestant groups? This isn't about having enough faith or whatever, he's saying Trump isn't acting charitable. Not being Christ like.
Trump being from NY knows damn well about this though I would wager.He talks about the World Trade Center being a 4 billion dollar project when his 92 story Trump tower costed a fraction of the price, about 300 million. Claiming the differences if he had renovated the World Trade Center are simple that he would have marble floors instead of tezzaro. That he would be able to renovate without having to relocate the offices. His estimate for the project was $500 million.
Did he talk about how ass ugly the building he made in Stamford was? Yeah I can see the lower cost to the dollar going in there lol. It's also weirdly far from downtown, sitting on it's lonesome a little ways away existing sort of randomly.
Trump seems like he's not at all interested in playing with lobbyists. His claim is an interest in making America great. He wants business deals that benefit the US, claiming our relations with Japan and China are one sided. Questioning what we get out of the deal while Japan hands over tons of cars? If Japan gets into a conflict we have to support them but this isn't true the other way around.
So what happened to the free market a few posts ago?
Also do you honestly think Trump is remotely familiar with anything going on in Syria/Iraq? It's one of the biggest clusterfucks in living memory of most people and getting worse by the day. lol at Trump having the touch on that sort of thing.
-
Donald Trump was invited to address a major gathering of the
American Indian Nation two weeks ago in upstate New York.
He spoke for almost an hour about his plans for increasing every
Native American's present standard of living. He referred to how he had supported every Native American issue that came to the news media.
Although Mr. Trump was vague about the details of his plans, he
seemed most enthusiastic and spoke eloquently about his ideas for helping his "red sisters and brothers."At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented him with a
plaque inscribed with his new Indian name, "Walking Eagle."
The proud Mr. Trump accepted the plaque and then departed in his motorcade to a fundraiser, waving to the crowds.
A news reporter later asked the group of chiefs how they came to
select the new name they had given to the Donald.
They explained that "Walking Eagle" is the name given to a bird so
full of shit it can no longer fly -
@Monkey:
Trump is really obviously not actually religious but that's not either here nor there.
lol at the Mexican government using the pope somehow, like they made him say something.
Also the Pope isn't questioning his faith, that's a real southern Protestant way of looking at what he said.
The pope is (get this) Catholic? Catholics tend to obsess on the whole good works thing, same with some other Protestant groups? This isn't about having enough faith or whatever, he's saying Trump isn't acting charitable. Not being Christ like.
Trump being from NY knows damn well about this though I would wager.Let's look at this again:
lol at the Mexican government using the pope somehow, like they made him say something.
^^ Wtf are you trying to say here? ^^
Did he talk about how ass ugly the building he made in Stamford was? Yeah I can see the lower cost to the dollar going in there lol. It's also weirdly far from downtown, sitting on it's lonesome a little ways away existing sort of randomly.
Has nothing to do with what he stated about doing the job for the UN better and billions under budget. You're grasping at straws here. Want to check out some of Trump's buildings? Tell me they're not consistently good quality. Anything else is a delusion.
http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/
Apparently even though it's good enough for some of the richest people in the world, it don't impress you much. But I guess that's part of your lame undervaluing style of arguing.
So what happened to the free market a few posts ago?
Also do you honestly think Trump is remotely familiar with anything going on in Syria/Iraq? It's one of the biggest clusterfucks in living memory of most people and getting worse by the day. lol at Trump having the touch on that sort of thing.
Do you honestly think Trump isn't capable of finding reliable people he trusts to fill him in on things he's not a mega-expert on? Who in the world has enough information to satisfy your tastes? Trump doesn't flaunt being an expert on political geography or whatever it is that you study. Trump knows his strengths as a builder and a businessman.
What do you think about the national debt? Do you think about the national debt?
-
Trump knows his strengths as a builder and a businessman.
Fun fact!
If Trump had simply invested the money his father originally gave him in the S&P, or DOW, or what have you, and never touched it again, he would be considerably richer right now than he currently is.
-
If I don't respond to it that's all the answer you need about what I think of it.
!
My hopes were too high on this one. My mistake. Even though you know, you throw an entire page of text with no formatting at me. A lot of take and no give. I bet that's a theme for you.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Panda:
Fun fact!
If Trump had simply invested the money his father originally gave him in the S&P, or DOW, or what have you, and never touched it again, he would be considerably richer right now than he currently is.
That simple? Want to start doing the if game? It's a waste of time and doesn't prove anything. But we could go for hours, I'm ready.
If Donald Trump were a dinosaur he could never have gotten started in his company at all, he couldn't even hold a pencil! Fun fact.
-
Is it safe to come out now? Has the conservative caricature talking out his ass finally been quited?
-
To be clear, he wasn't banned for talking out of his ass. That's not a bannable offense. But consistently BEING an ass, to everyone, is.
-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-accuses-clinton-obama-pandering
Bernie, what are you doing?
-
That implied bit of sexism at the end there couldn't have helped.
The air is cleaner for his absence.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-accuses-clinton-obama-pandering
Bernie, what are you doing?
Seems like there's been some long-running resentment towards Hillary about how much favor she has with black voters, since realistically they've done about the same amount to help African Americans. If anything, Bernie has done more, so he's probably frustrated that he hasn't been able to get much support.
-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-accuses-clinton-obama-pandering
Bernie, what are you doing?
Feeling some type of way :V
-
^^ Wtf are you trying to say here? ^^
The idea that the Pope would be beholden to the Mexican government is ridiculous. The idea that he would be objecting to a border wall based on his own beliefs is apparently unthinkable to you, I dunno what to tell you because it's really not. I mean he's already been urging people to care for refugees in Europe, even took a few into the Vatican I think. Why there needs to be some conspiracy involving the Mexican government I have no idea.
Has nothing to do with what he stated about doing the job for the UN better and billions under budget. You're grasping at straws here. Want to check out some of Trump's buildings? Tell me they're not consistently good quality. Anything else is a delusion.
Well see that's kind of the issue with running things like a business that are not meant to be profits driven though. Anyway no they're absolutely not consistent, Stamford and White Plains are practically the same city and the ones he built in White Plains look very nice. The one in Stamford looks dumb and no that's not just my opinion. I'd love to see Stamford build a more imposing skyline then the short one it has, but yeah not that building.
Though generally the thing I'd associate with Donald is the adjective….let's say "tacky".Apparently even though it's good enough for some of the richest people in the world, it don't impress you much. But I guess that's part of your lame undervaluing style of arguing.
Rich people can be some of the absolutely most tasteless people imaginable. Especially the insecure ones. Also I really doubt rich people are using the Stamford building lol.
Actually looking at your link, you realize those are real estate? Right? That's not saying he built those, just that he's owned or owns them. In fact I really hope you didn't think that given that the Empire State Building is there.
Not that there's really anything too impressive in there, the vast majority of those are generic looking modern skyscrapers. You talk as if you've never seen one before.Do you honestly think Trump isn't capable of finding reliable people he trusts to fill him in on things he's not a mega-expert on?
He's been keeping absolutely horrible fucking company on the campaign trail. Namely bullet necklace woman.
Not to mention yeah um, if his own judgement seems bad on FP why the hell would I trust him to have good judgement on picking someone good.Who in the world has enough information to satisfy your tastes? Trump doesn't flaunt being an expert on political geography or whatever it is that you study. Trump knows his strengths as a builder and a businessman.
Then why the fuck is he running for president of the United States of America lol. Also Trump doesn't build. He buys and sells real estate, and sometimes commisions that things be built. That doesn't make him a fucking architect.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
lol at Republicans pointing out the historical landmark walls of the Vatican as somehow being proof of hypocrisy
The Vatican is practically a tourist trap, my parents went to St Peter's Basilica when they were in Rome and hadn't even realized they had technically visited another country until I told them. -
It's okay, Zeph. He's gone. No more anger.
-
Seems like there's been some long-running resentment towards Hillary about how much favor she has with black voters, since realistically they've done about the same amount to help African Americans. If anything, Bernie has done more, so he's probably frustrated that he hasn't been able to get much support.
It doesn't help that Hilary's been firing shots at Bernie consistently to try and secure the black vote, like trying to downplay his role in civil rights actions and blowing up his criticisms of Obama. If anything, all Bernie's doing is pointing out the latter.
-
-
It doesn't help that Hilary's been firing shots at Bernie consistently to try and secure the black vote, like trying to downplay his role in civil rights actions and blowing up his criticisms of Obama. If anything, all Bernie's doing is pointing out the latter.
I mean it's not a great comment from him, but yeah Hillary is absolutely not innocent whatsoever on that front.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I will drop most of my strategic reservations of Sanders if Cruz wins the republican nomination btw. Because lol he will bomb so bad in the general. The dems could run a Dukakis/Mondale ticket and win big even.
Trump scares me too much though. I still think Hillary would be required to bring him down.Not sure about Rubio. Why I'm not sure I don't know. Because he sucks.
-
It doesn't help that Hilary's been firing shots at Bernie consistently to try and secure the black vote, like trying to downplay his role in civil rights actions and blowing up his criticisms of Obama. If anything, all Bernie's doing is pointing out the latter.
I hate it when either side of the Bernie vs. Hillary fight tries to imply that one or the other will be extremely weak/ineffective on Social equality issues. Like, I've seen it stated or implied that one or the other (usually Hillary) will be effectively the "same" on these issues as a Republican.
It applies all over, but I'm seeing it in LGBT circles the most, but it's really irritating me.
Newsflash: No. I definitely see the merit in comparing the two since they ARE Running against one another in the primaries, but to assume for example, that Hillary is gonna throw one of these groups to the wolves as soon as she gets elected is ridiculous.
There is a CLEAR difference between what Hillary and the Republicans think of Social Equality issues, just as there's the same level of difference between Bernie and the Repubs.
Again, I'm working off LGBT issues because that's what I've been seeing the most, but you could make the same observations about most other groups.
The general argument is: "It took Hillary longer to officially endorse Marriage Equality, therefore she doesn't REALLY support it and will get rid of it as soon as she can just like the Republicans!" or "Bernie is a Man, and Clinton is a woman, so Bernie doesn't support Women AT ALL! It's flat out SEXIST To vote for Bernie!!" or any level of the argument over Bernie's role in the Civil Rights movement in the 60s.
I mean, if you want to make an argument as to why one is better than the other, fine, but this "Just as bad as the republicans!" or "Doesn't care AT ALL about this group!" Hyperbole needs to stop.
-
If there's genuinely people voting for Hillary JUST because she's a woman, they need to have some reason slapped into their sexist face.
-
It doesn't help that Hilary's been firing shots at Bernie consistently to try and secure the black vote, like trying to downplay his role in civil rights actions and blowing up his criticisms of Obama. If anything, all Bernie's doing is pointing out the latter.
@Monkey:
I mean it's not a great comment from him, but yeah Hillary is absolutely not innocent whatsoever on that front.
I don't see how talking about it, especially in this manner, really helps him in any way since it just keeps the topic out front. For one thing, there's the fact that Hillary can easily argue that the idea of her cozying up to him lately doesn't really jibe with her being his Secretary of State; sure, she leveled a lot of criticisms against him during the 2008 election but she's not doing that now while he is. Plus it doesn't help to be saying that at a time when she's getting endorsed by people like Jim Clyburn and a few months after that ugliness with the Black Lives Matter protesters.
@Monkey:
Not sure about Rubio. Why I'm not sure I don't know. Because he sucks.
I just don't understand why so many media people seems to locked in on Rubio as being the most viable option to Trump and Rubio; except when he's dying onstage, the guy is just there in most of the debates. He's not particularly likable, his positions aren't particularly different from Cruz's, there are sizable portions of the GOP base that aren't going to happy with a Hispanic nominee, and he has a tendency to melt down under pressure. And yet I keep seeing people insist that he's the most viable candidate in the GOP field and that's off a third place and fifth place finish in the two events held so far.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Also, for a party that's always talking about voter fraud, they sure do embrace the idea if it could beneficial to them.
-
If there's genuinely people voting for Hillary JUST because she's a woman, they need to have some reason slapped into their sexist face.
There was a girl in my class who I talked with who said that's why she was voting for Hillary after she mentioned my Bernie button.
Surprisingly I didn't get irritated, just talked and went about my day. -
Hilary has been throwing minorities including the LGBT community to the wolves for years. It's not just that she only endorsed marriage equality after it became the cool thing to do, it's that she supported DOMA and DADT.
It's not hyperbole. She literally could not give a shit about gays until her rejecting them could cost her votes or money. If suddenly the social climate of the country shifted and gays became unpopular she would be right at the front putting people back in the closet. She blows with the wind.
The social climate of the country doesn't look like it might blow that way so it she probably won't but don't confuse that with her giving a shit. And don't expect her to stick up for transgender rights (they're a part of the LGBT community too you know) anytime soon.
If there's genuinely people voting for Hillary JUST because she's a woman, they need to have some reason slapped into their sexist face.
What about all the people who voted for Obama because he was black? I'm sure they would have voted Democrat anyway but trying to have serious discussion about Obama's credibility with other black people, especially older black people around 2008 was basically impossible. It was "Are you stupid? We could have a black president. A. Black. President."
Is because she's a woman any better reason than because he's black or because she's a democrat.
-
True, if we're being honest here there were definitely people who voted for Barack Obama simply on the fact that he was black and that was enough, but that was a very small percentage of people. Most people who voted for him with race being a factor in their decision, which was a looot of people, also voted for him because they felt he was qualified.
Not literally qualified but actually qualified.
Full disclosure, I'm in that latter group. It's one thing to vote for someone solely on them having the same skin color as you. It's another thing to vote for a politician you agree with on many issues and BONUS: We can get our first black president!
Extra Bonus: He's not Bush!!!
Now, anyone voting on race or gender alone make me groan a little inside. I shudder at the thought of people voting for Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina simply because of those reasons alone. Matter of fact, those 2 will definitely not be receiving the majority of votes from blacks or women (especially Carly because she's gone bye bye) so, yeah, what party they're in definitely counts for something which even further lessens the number of people who voted for Barack just because he was black. He was black and a Democrat, and a host of other factors.
Now if the problem is should race and gender and sexual orientation and etc… be factors at all? Should they be? In a perfect world, no? But will they be? Yes. Most definitely, yes.
-
Voting for skin or gender isn't that much of a thing anymore though. Sure there are those who do it but once it happened with Obama, a minority in the White House kinda lost that exclusive new feeling. Besides with guys like Carson or Fiorina, it's a bit of an eye opener that maybe you should try and vote based on policies.
-
Hilary has been throwing minorities including the LGBT community to the wolves for years. It's not just that she only endorsed marriage equality after it became the cool thing to do, it's that she supported DOMA and DADT.
It's not hyperbole. She literally could not give a shit about gays until her rejecting them could cost her votes or money. If suddenly the social climate of the country shifted and gays became unpopular she would be right at the front putting people back in the closet. She blows with the wind.
The social climate of the country doesn't look like it might blow that way so it she probably won't but don't confuse that with her giving a shit. And don't expect her to stick up for transgender rights (they're a part of the LGBT community too you know) anytime soon.
You keep obsessively hammering on Hilary's changed stances, but why are you ignoring that Bernie, as recent as 2007, was virulently anti-immigration until he wasn't anymore? Scumbag flip-flopping pandering politician to be honest.
-
@TLC:
Voting for skin or gender isn't that much of a thing anymore though. Sure there are those who do it but once it happened with Obama, a minority in the White House kinda lost that exclusive new feeling. Besides with guys like Carson or Fiorina, it's a bit of an eye opener that maybe you should try and vote based on policies.
I'm not saying it's as big as a deal as it was before. I'm saying it's still a factor. It's still a big deal even if its lost some of its flavor. It's such a big factor Hillary Clinton is blatantly running on becoming the first woman president of the United States.
-
You keep obsessively hammering on Hilary's changed stances, but why are you ignoring that Bernie, as recent as 2007, was virulently anti-immigration until he wasn't anymore? Scumbag flip-flopping pandering politician to be honest.
Any opposition Sanders has had to immigration reform has always come in the defense of US labor. And I believe that concern is serious and genuine. Any immigration reform he is proposing now will certainly keep US labor at the front of his mind.
There's no flip flopping. His stance hasn't changed if you look at his overall record on the subject. He hasn't bent over backwards to make immigration reform happen but he's also not asking mexicans to think of him as their abuelo.
I think if you take all the shots jokes and criticisms levied at very candidate in this thread Hilary by far has taken the least here. If you exclude my comments she's the most uncriticized candidate by a mile. Hammering everyone else is par for the course, hammering Hilary..
-
Nevada goes to Hillary.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/nevada-caucuses-2016-219537
-
Update on caucus results for Nevada.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/nevada
Primary in South Carolina will close in about forty-five minutes.
-
Yet again there's bright spots for both candidates. Hillary wins and recovers some momentum, while Bernie has a pretty quality showing in a minority-heavy state that was predicted a heavy Clinton-favorite not too long ago.
And now we pivot to the circus.
-
So far it's being characterized as a three way race between Trump, Cruz, and Rubio though Bush isn't really that far behind Rubio.
-
South Carolina voting map.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/feb/20/nevada-south-carolina-live-results-primary-caucuses
Gotta love those graphics.–- Update From New Post Merge ---
So far it's being characterized as a three way race between Trump, Cruz, and Rubio though Bush isn't really that far behind Rubio.
Really, the exit polls I've seen show Trump with 31, with Cruz and Rubio having 27 and 23, respectively. Bush meanwhile is way behind with 6 % (behind Carson and tied with Kaisch).
-
Really, the exit polls I've seen show Trump with 31, with Cruz and Rubio having 27 and 23, respectively. Bush meanwhile is way behind with 6 % (behind Carson and tied with Kaisch).
The numbers when I posted that were around a 35, 21, 16, 12 split, which quickly changed.
Cruz and Rubio have switched places back and forth a few times since as well with Cruz currently back in second place. Bush has edged back over ten percent as well.
-
South Carolina has been declared from Trump, and I've read that he's likely to get all 50 delegates. If the last part is true, then the writing is on the wall for Cruz (Bush as well, but that was obvious before the polls started).
It's going to come down to Mechanical Boy and Der Furor.
-
I've read that there's never been a Republican who won NH and SC and didn't go on to become the nominee.
-
So Hillary won Nevada and South Carolina seems to be a lock. Where does this leave Sanders? I reckon if he doesn't pick up a healthy amount of states on Super Tuesday this might be it.
-
Jeb! is out.
-
So Hillary won Nevada and South Carolina seems to be a lock. Where does this leave Sanders? I reckon if he doesn't pick up a healthy amount of states on Super Tuesday this might be it.
Are you kidding? Despite Sanders defeat, the polls came in at 52-48 despite this being a state Hillary was projected to win by a lot more. This represents a clear push by Bernie into the demographics that Hillary once had on lock.
-
Are you kidding? Despite Sanders defeat, the polls came in at 52-48 despite this being a state Hillary was projected to win by a lot more. This represents a clear push by Bernie into the demographics that Hillary once had on lock.
Possibly, but we've now left the comfortable states were Sanders played better, and entering more of Clinton's territory. Despite catching up to her, he couldn't win. If Sanders can't pick up some of the states that are more Clinton friendly, then we've might have seen him peak. Is that possible? I don't know, he could very well turn it around, but Nevada would have been a crucial and significant blow to Clinton if he had won it, now he has to deal with the one two punch of losing two states, that might get democratic leaders to tell him to hang it up.
I could be wrong, we'll have to see.
-
@Cyan:
Jeb! is out.
he couldnt fix it after all
-
@Cyan:
Jeb! is out.
Before Carson?? Wow.