Danny Bateman

The gay one is the major one I've heard and it annoys me but offhand I don't know of the others. Trump seems a lot worse in this regard. It's hard to to consider Trump a flip-flopper when the man won't adopt a firm stance on anything until he realizes who's in the room in front of him. Frankly, I just don't believe a word the guy says from the get-go, and Politifact backs this up.They rate his statements 93% Half-False or worse. I'm not making excuses for Hillary, but she came from a conservative household in Chicago and thus I could see her having traditional marriage views from the outset. It does make me cringe when I see clips of her vehemently defending traditional marriage from past years, but I also don't like the fact that somehow because politicians jobs involve their various ideologies, they're somehow chiseled into stone and it is somehow inappropriate for politicians to change their personal opinions on such matters like any other person. If Joe Schmo can go from being faithless to practicing a religion, being racist to renouncing their ways, or adapting from liberal ideologies as a young'un to more conservative ones as they age, I don't see why it's such a revelation for Hillary Clinton to accept the LGBT mantle at some point after having opposed it in the past. My views on the candidates are more akin to zoogs'. I will vote for Hillary because she is the most qualified candidate to be the next president, she most closely matches the ideologies I view as important, is the most pragmatic person I see running, and I cannot force myself to care about any kind of attack narrative that the right-wing machine or anyone else seems to conjure up against her. Sanders is a very interesting candidate ideologically, and he tugs on the heartstrings of many working class Americans. He brings up some very important issues that I think otherwise would go unmentioned in a typical election cycle. However, I feel that while he excels at firing up his base (largely white, liberal, young males with a good dash of young females sprinkled in), most of America's more aged population largely either distrusts his policies' feasibility, or in some cases, gets a bit itchy when they hear any variant of the term "socialist" being bandied about. His naivete regarding foreign policy is also a dealbreaker for me. Thus far (one state, but getting crushed in SC polls), he cannot attract the African American vote at all, and the Democratic nod runs through that. As for the GOP... well! Cruz is a madman, deriving his power mainly from evangelical energy and children's tears. He'll never be able to drum up the amount of support needed from moderates to be competitive. Thank goodness. The guy is a new level of greasy. Rubio is probably the most palatable of the serious candidates. I actually feel that Carson is very intelligent, but he struggles to express himself on the big stage and some of his ideologies are nuts. The longer Kasich and Carson stay in the race, the worse it is for Rubio and the better it is for Trump. Personally, I hope that they hang around for a good long while so Trump can somehow force his way to the nod. I'd love nothing more than to see Hillary and the Dems smack Trump down with the righteous hand of God during the general.

It's pretty obvious that you all have missed the most important underlying detail in all of this... The Pope is obviously a Jeb! guy.

A thread like this needs it's own poster.

This is the first time I can remember a Sanders supporter openly shooting themselves in the foot in this manner. You're right when you say that if it had been from the man himself, it would've been much more open for criticism.

I don't see it as sexist. Just really crass. Testicles don't qualify a person to be president either. *shrug* Also, it's kinda hard to see what he's getting at. That people shouldn't vote for Hillary just because she's female? I guess? Any time either side tries to politicize the gender thing either way, it seems to blow up in their face. It seems to be a sticky issue for people.

Shick was on his weekly segment with Bahe on 1620 and said this kid was supposed to announce live on ESPN the school of his choice and then 30-60 minutes before he was to come on this announcement video dropped, so ESPN dropped him from the segment. Man, if you thought a pre-campus sense of entitlement was bad before... Bleacher Report is singlehandedly turning that up to 11 and breaking off the knob.

Most people I know seem to think a four party system would work best. I tend to agree. If you think about it in terms of this years election: Far left: Sanders Middle left: Clinton Middle right: Trump, probably the governators Far right: Cruz It'd be very intersting if it was all four of these duking it out instead of the left and the right trying to whack all but one of their own. I would redefine this chart. 1. Socialist-Sanders 2. Far Left-Hillary 3. Center-left-Trump (I don't believe he's truly a Republican) 4. Center-Kasich, Bush 5. Center right-Rubio 6. Far Right-Cruz (and maybe Carson) There's no way to consider Trump left of center if one of his central tenants is to deport 11+ million illegal aliens and build a wall. I don't believe he really is a Republican either, though. His political views are really best described as a hodgepodge. I'd probably slide him into the Center category along with Bush and Kasich, ideologically. I just put him Center-right since he's running as a GOP. I agree with most of that, though. I'd argue that Clinton is more a Center-left candidate who's been pushed farther left as the election has worn on by Sanders. For the majority of her time in politics, she's had some strong centrist views on things. But she also veers to the far left on others. It could go either way to me, I guess.

Abstaining from the vote, because I'm too young to know anything of Scalia's legacy, but regardless, in for some education. Very interested to learn what people think of him.

Nothing like some good old fashion confirmation bias to brighten up your day. Ignorance is bliss, my friend. Being enlightened takes too much work.

Most people I know seem to think a four party system would work best. I tend to agree. If you think about it in terms of this years election: Far left: Sanders Middle left: Clinton Middle right: Trump, probably the governators Far right: Cruz It'd be very intersting if it was all four of these duking it out instead of the left and the right trying to whack all but one of their own.

Are we talking NES only? If not the scope of this thread could get pretty wide. I'd say if it's NES only my shortlist is: SMB1 SMB3 Battletoads (pure sadism) Galaga (fond memories of playing this with my old man) Legend of Zelda

This has been a very hot topic with the people I've been talking to this cycle. Unfortunately, it's going to take a MASSIVE effort because the two existing parties will fight tooth and nail to not let it happen.

That is probably more of a temporary thorn in Rubio's side than anything. It's rather obvious the establishment still wants to coalesce behind Marco. Bush and Carson are clinging to life... Jeb has oodles of money but would have an easier time falling out of a boat and missing water than gaining traction. Personally I'm hoping Trump wins the nomination and gets waxed by the Dems in the GE.

I dad-ified it for y'all.

ITT:

Someone in your town is suspected of being a terrorist. How many people in your town are you OK with having tortured to find out who the terrorist is? Are you OK with your mom being tortured? Your dad? Sister? Brother? Wife? Son? Daughter? Best friend? Neighbor? Even if they're all innocent, but eventually we get to the bad guy, is it OK that we tortured all your loved ones? This is the epitome of putting a face on the faceless.

No, it's just that instead of debating the issues, both sides try to paint the other as using some issues as "fear mongering". Like....OMFG.....that is just horrible what those people are saying trying to create fear to get votes..when....if they would just look in the mirror, they probably did it two sentences ago. Plz provide an example of the Left utilizing fear mongering as a standard political tactic. Take all the time you need. I mean, I'd say the left goes about it in a different way. They just have a kinder, more "I'm concerned about you, we need you to do this" narrative. Ex.: Hillary: "We can't afford to let the Republicans rip away the White House and destroy all the progress we've made." Bernie: "This is a rigged economy that only works for the top one-tenth of one percent. Big money controls politics." Both make an emotional appeal to people that incentivizes them to get behind them. It's less direct fearmongering, but both call people to action by promoting a worldview that is unfair or detrimental to them.

Didn't get to watch any of the debate last night. But from the highlights I've seen this morning, it looks like Christie embarrassed and flustered Rubio up there. And Jeb finally snapped back at Donald in a noteworthy way.

lol nice word play there. Not just DBs, but it's on Langsdorf to get him matched up with OLBs who won't be able to keep up with him crossing the middle. Reminds me of our LBs who can't keep up with the speedier backs on other teams. It's also how McDaniels/Brady nickel and dimed the Seahawks LBs across the middle all game long in last year's super bowl. Run the DBs off and create space underneath to let them run wild in the open field. Can confirm. Do this in Madden all day long.

Bernie's claim that he has never run a negative attack ad is true, from what I gather. But his propensity to take veiled shots at Clinton and suggest that she is in Wall Street's pocket because she was paid to give a speech is quite finally a lazy assumption. An assumption that a lot of people make, and obviously Bernie supporters believe, but none of them can actually verify. Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals. Bernie has the Billary campaign shaking in it's shoes--very expensive shoes--is my take. Berniementum is on the up and up is what I'm seeing. For one thing, he has ~80% approval rating among the youth < 30 yrs of age. That's yooge. He has legions of young women screaming and swooning, "I love you Bernie", like they're at a Beatles concert from back in the day. And he's 74 yrs old! Bernie is a rock star! The deal with Bernie's "attacks" @ Billary is that they are TRUE. If Wall St. or the Koch Bros wants to give you $650K--which, BTW, is ~1/3 more than Bernie's personal net worth--for a 45 minute chat, guess what, you can decline the $. That would be called "integrity". Of course, The Bern, being the true progressive, would basically tell Wall St. and the Koch Bros to go f#*k themselves. There are also all kinds of problems w the Billary Foundation in terms of conflicts of interest. So, yes, Billary is the Establishment Dem. That being said, if she gets the nomination, I will vote for her because she is light years ahead of El Guapo, Cruz Missile, and Mein Trumpf. Here's the thing. Bernie Is a very unique guy with very unique principles. Most people wouldn't turn down that type of cash down if a bank threw it at them. I know I would. I performed a task, and they want to pay me. It' not her fault they pay the ridiculous sums they do. I don't consider it dishonest or lacking integrity to be paid for rendering a service. That's actually just the basis for any economy, ever. Further, just saying that his attacks are true doesn't actually make them true. I've yet to see a shred of evidence that that money either went toward nefarious means or that it indebted her to them. Perhaps she gave it to the Clinton Foundation so it could, you know, help people? Lastly, Bernie can get under 30's riled up and young women's panties wet all he wants, but their demographic still votes the least. Those numbers did come from Iowa, only his third most demographically favorable state... There's something called, "appropriate payment for appropriate services rendered." Sorry, paying beaucoup bucks for a 45 minute chat is bribery, no other way to slice it. Goldman Sachs, etc, doesn't give up that kind of cash unless they are getting something in return, period. Personally, Id'give Slick Willy and couple bucks and cup of coffee not to speak. The deal with the Billary and foundations in general is that the big $ donor gives the foundation alotta cash for some sort of charitable deal in Haiti or Africa or something, get a tax writeoff, and the Billary's through their corporate connections and/or gov't's in said countries, hook the donor up with sweet $ deals with said gov'ts. corporations. That's how the game works. Of course, there are ridiculous admin costs for foundations. Chelsea Clinton draws like $400K per for her role in daddy and mommy's foundation. Pretty sweet gig for a 20-30 year old something. Billary Foundation had some shady crapola in their "relief" of Haiti, a few years back, well publicized. Just one small e.g. http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/clinton-foundation-fraud-began-with-exploiting-earthquake/ Again, I don't know what Hillary is supposed to do about the fact that the insane amounts these wealthy private institutions pay out. Imagine if you will a parallel with cybersecurity-- public vs. private sector. Private companies can almost always afford to pay more than public/governmental ones. I may seem naive. (yes) Just caught wind this a.m. that Billary sets the $ for their speaking engagements. So, I guess there is some negotiation that goes on. Obviously, they could speak for a much more modest price so as to avoid public outrage--how about $7.25/hr? What information is being conveyed in one hour that constitutes 100s of 1000s of $ in bribe money? Sorry, Wall St. owns Billary. As to cybersecurity, well, if you have been following the FBI Director's senate hearings on the subject, he says that they are employing the best cyber freaks from Silicon Valley to help out. But, unfortunately, the gangstas are always 1-2 steps ahead. I guess the best cyber freaks are gangstas. As to your other point, wrong: http://freebeacon.com/issues/study-government-workers-make-78-percent-more-than-private-sector/ Corn, you pull all your sources from right-wing nut job sites? Once again, the Washington Free Beacon is a heavyweight on the conservative media circuit: Clearly, they've got an agenda. But wait, it gets better! The study you mentioned was courtesy of the Cato Institute. Sounds official, but what's the Cato Institute, you ask? Let me provide you with a little bit of context: Ok, now I know I don't have to take it seriously. Here are a couple articles that contradict that. Bloomberg, in 2014, seemed to take issue with the government's pay. Another article by Nextgov suggests that it's not pay differential but rather red tape that makes government jobs undesirable. It's fairly obvious I'm not going to change your mind on the Clintons, Corn, as you're obviously not a fan. Just food for thought for everyone else, and how I see things from where I stand.

I'd much rather just see if she gets elected and let her actions speak for themselves.

Any KOTH gif is always going to get a +1 from this guy.

"Gosh golly gee, Hank, I gotta let you go. Out that door right there. But we're still on for Froyo Night later. I'll see you there."

Bernie's claim that he has never run a negative attack ad is true, from what I gather. But his propensity to take veiled shots at Clinton and suggest that she is in Wall Street's pocket because she was paid to give a speech is quite finally a lazy assumption. An assumption that a lot of people make, and obviously Bernie supporters believe, but none of them can actually verify. Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals. Bernie has the Billary campaign shaking in it's shoes--very expensive shoes--is my take. Berniementum is on the up and up is what I'm seeing. For one thing, he has ~80% approval rating among the youth < 30 yrs of age. That's yooge. He has legions of young women screaming and swooning, "I love you Bernie", like they're at a Beatles concert from back in the day. And he's 74 yrs old! Bernie is a rock star! The deal with Bernie's "attacks" @ Billary is that they are TRUE. If Wall St. or the Koch Bros wants to give you $650K--which, BTW, is ~1/3 more than Bernie's personal net worth--for a 45 minute chat, guess what, you can decline the $. That would be called "integrity". Of course, The Bern, being the true progressive, would basically tell Wall St. and the Koch Bros to go f#*k themselves. There are also all kinds of problems w the Billary Foundation in terms of conflicts of interest. So, yes, Billary is the Establishment Dem. That being said, if she gets the nomination, I will vote for her because she is light years ahead of El Guapo, Cruz Missile, and Mein Trumpf. Here's the thing. Bernie Is a very unique guy with very unique principles. Most people wouldn't turn down that type of cash down if a bank threw it at them. I know I would. I performed a task, and they want to pay me. It' not her fault they pay the ridiculous sums they do. I don't consider it dishonest or lacking integrity to be paid for rendering a service. That's actually just the basis for any economy, ever. Further, just saying that his attacks are true doesn't actually make them true. I've yet to see a shred of evidence that that money either went toward nefarious means or that it indebted her to them. Perhaps she gave it to the Clinton Foundation so it could, you know, help people? Lastly, Bernie can get under 30's riled up and young women's panties wet all he wants, but their demographic still votes the least. Those numbers did come from Iowa, only his third most demographically favorable state... There's something called, "appropriate payment for appropriate services rendered." Sorry, paying beaucoup bucks for a 45 minute chat is bribery, no other way to slice it. Goldman Sachs, etc, doesn't give up that kind of cash unless they are getting something in return, period. Personally, Id'give Slick Willy and couple bucks and cup of coffee not to speak. The deal with the Billary and foundations in general is that the big $ donor gives the foundation alotta cash for some sort of charitable deal in Haiti or Africa or something, get a tax writeoff, and the Billary's through their corporate connections and/or gov't's in said countries, hook the donor up with sweet $ deals with said gov'ts. corporations. That's how the game works. Of course, there are ridiculous admin costs for foundations. Chelsea Clinton draws like $400K per for her role in daddy and mommy's foundation. Pretty sweet gig for a 20-30 year old something. Billary Foundation had some shady crapola in their "relief" of Haiti, a few years back, well publicized. Just one small e.g. http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/clinton-foundation-fraud-began-with-exploiting-earthquake/ Again, I don't know what Hillary is supposed to do about the fact that the insane amounts these wealthy private institutions pay out. Imagine if you will a parallel with cybersecurity-- public vs. private sector. Most would agree the government is sorely lacking in competent, rock-solid IT and would do well to hire more skilled employees. However, the private sector just WAXES what the gov't is willing to pay, so the best of the best wind up working there. Private companies can almost always afford to pay more than public/governmental ones. Still, we're just operating on an ASSUMPTION here. I may seem naive. And a lot of people may believe your assumption, because it's rather easy to believe. But there's just no tangible proof of that affecting her policies. Regarding the foundation, consider the source, man. For four full years they tried to make this story work. They're a conservative news source, and seem to enjoy propagating conspiracy theories. Nuff said. The story you linked read to me like Bill just managed to pick out a crooked investor that got busted for insider trading with ANOTHER company, and ended up going to jail. Sometimes it's hard to know people are bad people. Not saying you're wrong, but that's just a horrible example.

I think they both have issues. They both come across as pandering and also arrogant. Okla's attorney general came out this morning in a radio interview that he fears a Trump presidency to be one that would trash the constitution. So non-thinking conservatives (Corn that isn't an oxymoron ) fall prey to Trumps populist nationalistic baby formula that he is feeding them. He is all wind and bluster and no substance. Cruz - I don't care how he talks - everything is a scrip - sounds too fake - regardless if you agree wt him or not. I used to hold the climate change denial solely against Trump. But Hillary put it best last night, and pretty bluntly-- that entire GOP field isn't going to acknowledge climate change because it's not in the Koch Bros best interest. They make bookoo bucks off of fossil fuels. Except for Donald, who of course brilliantly deduced it was a clever ruse propagated by the Chinese to sabotage our manufacturing and trade. Cruz is extremely smart and debates well, but obviously has no common sense and seems to have absolutely no moral compass. The tactics he used to win Iowa were repulsive. And that was a dream state for him. His victory speech was so pandering and gloaty it about made me throw up in my mouth. Also, he's universally hated by everyone who's ever worked with him. Nothing like going it alone, eh? As a Dem, I'd much rather face Donald, but I'd take an unlikely nod for Cruz as well. It's pretty clear Trump has no idea whatsoever other than to complain and be contrarian and controversial (3 C's). Cruz can't muster any type of support from non-whack jobs and obviously thinks he's God's gift to everyone. He does indeed seem immune to realizing when he's talking or acting in such a way as to make people despise him. And that is why the Rep primary is in such a mess - the 2 'angry men' lead the way. Koch Brothers were complaining a couple of weeks ago that they were having very little influence on the primary this time around. Not sure that climate change position one way or another would be a defining issue in the primary or the GE - polls have shown that it is far from the top of the issue list by all Americans (not just repubs) regardless of how important it may be to those who care greatly about the topic. Well, the Koch brothers pretty much embody the establishment of the GOP ranks, so I'd imagine they're pulling for Rubio. All of the governors seem flawed in one way or another. I'm more or less convinced that Cruz will fade greatly now that the evangelical Iowa is in the rearview. We'll see if this softened Donald sticks-- he clearly owes his allegiance to no one. I envision it coming down to him or Rubio. Annnnndddd..... Kasich just said Bernie was "floating around Pluto somewhere" when they served together in the Senate. Re: Bernie on SuperPACs "I just don't really listen to him." LOL