RedDenver

Come on, you know why I made that comparison. You're trying not to address what I'm getting at. Either admit your "good enough candidate" argument is flawed, or explain how a "good enough candidate" can overcome any rigged process. Fine, then propose another metric for establishment support of a candidate. Thanks, I didn't realize it had gone down so much. However, having more money is a giant advantage: I don't know the progressives you're talking to, but I agree that you need power to change the system. I'm only seeing people worried about what the DNC will do. The DNC broke trust last time around, so they've got to earn it back.

This is just a ridiculous argument. Take an extreme example to disprove the point: are Putin's opponents simply not good enough politicians to win against him or is that system rigged? Now obviously it's not anywhere near as rigged as that, but it shows that you're "good enough candidate" argument is not enough by itself. Whether the changes in the primary process are enough remains to be seen. Here's a timeline of Obama's campaign: https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/june/obama_candidacy/obama_timeline_04.html Note that he started out fundraising Hillary in June of 2007, half a year before the first primary. Also, Hillary was doing historically poorly in endorsements in 2007, which was again before Obama started winning: I'm wary of them doing it, but I'm not claiming the DNC has done it yet. Note that the article also did not account for the two major factors I previously noted: incumbency and money. Also: That's a good article showing that the progressives didn't directly win, but the article also points out that the progressive candidates helped with getting turnout up to help the moderates win. Yeah, it's ridiculous to be cautious of something that happened in the previous primary. I mean, why were there process changes if there was nothing to worry about? Now the question is whether those changes will result in a more impartial DNC or not.

Good article:

I find them interesting when it's a long interview with some back and forth, like the ones where the voters in the studio and get time of talk about their opinions. If it's just a quick sampling of people as the reporter walks by, then it's not worth it. And I hate listening to callers.

Do we have a schollie or does that mean someone else is gone?

Really? Donna Brazille - the chair of the DNC - even said as much: What? Is there any evidence that the establishment didn't want Obama? Obama had more establishment endorsements than Hillary did. Note that the DNC didn't interfere to try to help Clinton. And the RNC didn't try to stop Trump. Both times the parties let the voters decide. A lot more non-progressives ran than progressives, so I'd like to see the data to backup this claim that progressives aren't winning elections. Keep in mind that the two biggest factors in winning an election are incumbency and having more money, so it'd be interesting to see how progressives and non-progressives compare considering those metrics. I agree Bernie needs to rise to the top if he's the candidate to beat Trump, but I don't agree with the "either way" stance. If the process is tilted or rigged, then it's ridiculous to expect someone to always be able to overcome that. If the DNC puts their finger on the scale instead of remaining impartial and letting their voters decide, then they deserve to lose to Trump again.

Haha, "Freedom" Caucus doesn't like the 1st Amendment apparently.

I can't find a link, but didn't the Omaha police chief say they weren't going to prosecute or arrest anyone for CBD oil?

Yeah, I have that fear as well. Biden is the candidate most likely to get beat by Trump IMO. But we'll have to wait and see. No. The DNC gave up the right to the benefit of the doubt after the shenanigans in 2016. You're right that Biden is indeed the frontrunner in the polling and it's harder to force an outcome with so many candidates. Those are both different than the DNC trying to force a preferred candidate versus being an impartial arbiter. Let's see what the DNC does, but things like a gathering to discuss stopping Bernie don't give me a good feeling that they're going to let democracy play out this time either.

And all of that is after considering the human cost. I'm not sure exactly sure how you value the life of an undocumented immigrant child - putting that child in a cage, deporting them to possible horrors or even death, letting them stay in our country, etc. But I know where I stand on that issue regardless of the dollar amounts.

DNC doing what it does best: pissing off their own voters. DNC declines a debate on climate change and bans the candidates from taking part in a climate debate outside the DNC. Campaigns go public with anger at Democratic National Committee as first debate looms DNC Denies 2020 Democrats a Climate Change Debate

Why should Mexico "protect" it's own borders from migrants? If Mexico is ok with the migrants, then they don't need to "protect" from them.

That's a good point. The public scrutiny could change the consequences, which isn't right IMO. But my main point was that the consequences should be considered in light of Mo's pattern of behavior, not each issue looked at as if he's got a blank slate every time.

I mean, credit to Pelosi if that's her plan, but I don't think it is. And I keep hearing what a good politician/tactician Pelosi is, but what's she done to deserve that title? She's the House leader because she raises the most money. But she led them to historic levels of losing and has passed hardly any legislation - the only exception was the ACA where the Dems held a veto-proof super majority. That should have been an easy layup. After how badly the Dems have gotten trounced under her leadership, I'm surprised people think she's even average.

Nothing is or even should be considered in a vacuum. Context matters a lot. If Mo didn't have charges against him but instead was known for helping rape victims, then the tone and tenor of this would be completely different. And rightfully so. Whether I have kids or not, and whether this should have been publicly released or not, doesn't matter at all in what his consequences will or won't be.

It's like that in some parts of Thailand as well. I went there when I was in the Navy, and a lot of the locals thanked us for freeing Thailand from the Japanese. It was really weird as I tried to explain that we weren't even alive then so no need to thank us (in fact, I doubt many of them were alive then either), but I ended up just saying "you're welcome" because it seemed less rude.

Did you do those things while awaiting trial? And while holding a sports scholarship? Let's not pretend like this is happening in a vacuum and Mo's situation is like every other students'.

I literally just showed you evidence that's not true. I even included a picture to make it easier.

I agree if you're talking about the Biden comparison. But the Trump tracking shows Trump is losing support in states he needs in order to win. There's a long time to the election, but that's not good for Trump.

He's charged with felony possession of child porn along with the misdemeanor revenge porn. Yes, there are worse crimes, but that doesn't make his charges any less obvious or criminal. https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/06/04/already-facing-serious-felony-charge-nebraskas-maurice-washington-cited-for-drug-paraphernalia/

My mistake on the plea, but you're still wrong on your main point: this is literally a criminal matter.

Context matters.

Yeah, the pattern has been to disagree with Trump then fold and do what Trump wants.

Remember all the good qualities of your camera and less about what other people think.