Democratic Election Thread

[BigRedBuster]

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8961463/private-prisons-mass-incarceration

 

Interesting.

[Danny Bateman]

 

I wonder how many of those 6 coin toss caucus were wt a 2 headed coin -wt Hillary's head on it. Provided by DWS of the DNC.

What are you calling a coin toss caucus?

 

 

We should just put this rumor to bed.

 

 

No, Hillary Clinton did not win Iowa because of a coin flip

Of the seven coin flips/games of chance that were held in precincts using the Microsoft app, six of those were flips to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Clinton or Sanders. Of those six Clinton-vs.-Sanders coin flips, Sanders won five and Clinton one. The seventh coin flip was used to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Sanders or Martin O'Malley. Sanders won that coin flip as well. So in the seven coin flips that the Iowa Democratic Party has a record of, Sanders won six of them.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders/index.html?sr=twCNN020316hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders0319AMVODtopLink&linkId=20919049

[Danny Bateman]

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8961463/private-prisons-mass-incarceration

 

Interesting.

 

Hmmm. As a liberal who's followed nearly every minute of the primary for our party, mass incarceration has barely come up at all. I didn't even know that Bernie had a plan to abolish privatized prisons. Nor Hillary, for that matter.

 

What has been a huge talking point is the need for systemic criminal justice reform, given the amount that race inequality is hugely important for Dems. I'm also personally very much in favor of shifting from an incarceration model to a rehabilitation model for non-violent, first-time drug offenders, specifically with marijuana. I think it's ridiculous that anybody goes to prison for having a small amount of weed on them.

[Danny Bateman]

Did anyone catch the debate? It was the first 1 on 1... interesting dynamics shift.

I may be biased, but I thought that Hillary murdered Bernie tonight. She came out swinging, hard, and he is woefully inept in foreign policy.

 

There were a couple really cool moments of agreement and mutual respect between the two of them. Proud to be a liberal.

[Landlord]

Hilary accusing him of a smear job from some imaginary moral high ground was probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard her claim.

[Danny Bateman]

Hilary accusing him of a smear job from some imaginary moral high ground was probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard her claim.

Respectfully disagree. I had reached the same conclusion earlier today before Hillary had a chance to relay it nearly word for word on stage.

 

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.

 

I personally do not think it's out of the ordinary for a former FL, SoS, and Senator to be invited to give a private address. Nor is it her fault that the speech circuit is so outrageously overpaid, or that there is so much power and wealth concentrated in Wall Street. She does appear very serious with her proposal to regulate it, though.

 

Further-- again, just my opinion-- she obliterated him when she addressed him on the subject of progressivism, or rather Sanders' criteria for such. Seems rather hypocritical of him to act as a bastion of progressivism with his extensive pro-gun voting history.

 

Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals. Obviously Bernie is just trying to differentiate himself ala Cruz, but it's all predisposed upon the notion that establishment carries a negative connotation because they're just puppets for the controlling hand of big money in politics. I just don't believe that, but even if it were true, at least I feel that the hand has the correct interests at heart, as opposed to the Koch brothers.

 

She's got a legitimate beef, though. No one is questioning Bernie's integrity, and he hasn't run a,negative ad. But when you consistently use various forms of media to espouse criticisms of Clinton, it's just the same in my book. She keeps her criticism of him to his policy. He insinuates there are flaws in her character. I don't like that.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Hilary accusing him of a smear job from some imaginary moral high ground was probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard her claim.

Respectfully disagree. I had reached the same conclusion earlier today before Hillary had a chance to relay it nearly word for word on stage.

 

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.

 

I personally do not think it's out of the ordinary for a former FL, SoS, and Senator to be invited to give a private address. Nor is it her fault that the speech circuit is so outrageously overpaid, or that there is so much power and wealth concentrated in Wall Street. She does appear very serious with her proposal to regulate it, though.

 

Further-- again, just my opinion-- she obliterated him when she addressed him on the subject of progressivism, or rather Sanders' criteria for such. Seems rather hypocritical of him to act as a bastion of progressivism with his extensive pro-gun voting history.

 

Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals. Obviously Bernie is just trying to differentiate himself ala Cruz, but it's all predisposed upon the notion that establishment carries a negative connotation because they're just puppets for the controlling hand of big money in politics. I just don't believe that, but even if it were true, at least I feel that the hand has the correct interests at heart, as opposed to the Koch brothers.

 

She's got a legitimate beef, though. No one is questioning Bernie's integrity, and he hasn't run a,negative ad. But when you consistently use various forms of media to espouse criticisms of Clinton, it's just the same in my book. She keeps her criticism of him to his policy. He insinuates there are flaws in her character. I don't like that.

 

I about choked with laughter when I read the bolded part. Big money is OK as long as you agree with where it is going right?

 

As to the last paragraph.

 

So, Bernie isn't allowed to criticize her at all? Hmmmm......I find it pretty interesting that someone running a campaign can't criticize their competitor.

[cornographic]

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8961463/private-prisons-mass-incarceration

 

Interesting.

 

Hmmm. As a liberal who's followed nearly every minute of the primary for our party, mass incarceration has barely come up at all. I didn't even know that Bernie had a plan to abolish privatized prisons. Nor Hillary, for that matter.

 

What has been a huge talking point is the need for systemic criminal justice reform, given the amount that race inequality is hugely important for Dems. I'm also personally very much in favor of shifting from an incarceration model to a rehabilitation model for non-violent, first-time drug offenders, specifically with marijuana. I think it's ridiculous that anybody goes to prison for having a small amount of weed on them.

 

They've touched on it in every Dem debate, but haven't spent tons of time on it. The matter is in all their policy platforms, though.

[cornographic]

 

Hilary accusing him of a smear job from some imaginary moral high ground was probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard her claim.

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, Mein Trumpf, or Jeb and the Bush Family O' Fascists.

 

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

Hilary accusing him of a smear job from some imaginary moral high ground was probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard her claim.

Respectfully disagree. I had reached the same conclusion earlier today before Hillary had a chance to relay it nearly word for word on stage.

 

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.

 

I personally do not think it's out of the ordinary for a former FL, SoS, and Senator to be invited to give a private address. Nor is it her fault that the speech circuit is so outrageously overpaid, or that there is so much power and wealth concentrated in Wall Street. She does appear very serious with her proposal to regulate it, though.

 

Further-- again, just my opinion-- she obliterated him when she addressed him on the subject of progressivism, or rather Sanders' criteria for such. Seems rather hypocritical of him to act as a bastion of progressivism with his extensive pro-gun voting history.

 

Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals. Obviously Bernie is just trying to differentiate himself ala Cruz, but it's all predisposed upon the notion that establishment carries a negative connotation because they're just puppets for the controlling hand of big money in politics. I just don't believe that, but even if it were true, at least I feel that the hand has the correct interests at heart, as opposed to the Koch brothers.

 

She's got a legitimate beef, though. No one is questioning Bernie's integrity, and he hasn't run a,negative ad. But when you consistently use various forms of media to espouse criticisms of Clinton, it's just the same in my book. She keeps her criticism of him to his policy. He insinuates there are flaws in her character. I don't like that.

 

I about choked with laughter when I read the bolded part. Big money is OK as long as you agree with where it is going right?

 

As to the last paragraph.

 

So, Bernie isn't allowed to criticize her at all? Hmmmm......I find it pretty interesting that someone running a campaign can't criticize their competitor.

 

 

No, but when he consistently pooh-poohs negative ads, it's far to call him out when he starts questioning Clinton's character using other outlets.

 

And no, I also don't like money in politics, but hell yes I'd rather have Soros funding my side than the Koch brothers. Unapologetically.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

Hilary accusing him of a smear job from some imaginary moral high ground was probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard her claim.

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 not. 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...

[cornographic]

 

 

 

Hilary accusing him of a smear job from some imaginary moral high ground was probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard her claim.

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/

[TGHusker]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/05/iowa-margin-between-clinton-sanders-shifts-errors/79877898/

 

The 2 Iowa winners have some explaining to do. Cruz regarding the Ben Carson issue and Clinton regarding the final vote.

[Danny Bateman]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/05/iowa-margin-between-clinton-sanders-shifts-errors/79877898/

 

The 2 Iowa winners have some explaining to do. Cruz regarding the Ben Carson issue and Clinton regarding the final vote.

 

Clinton has nothing to do with that. Iowa caucuses are just a joke and logistically a trainwreck to report. They need to get a firm, universal (to every precinct) protocol in place and FOLLOW it, or ditch the caucuses.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

 

Hilary accusing him of a smear job from some imaginary moral high ground was probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard her claim.

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.

 

 

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (2008–2011)

 

WorldNetDaily has repeatedly publicized conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship status, writing that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and is thus not eligible to serve as president.^[21][22][23] After the 2008 presidential campaign, WND began an online petition to have Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate released to the public. The website also unsuccessfully urged Supreme Court justices to hear several lawsuits aiming to release Obama's birth certificate.^[24] The White House released copies of the president's original long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011.^[25] After the long-form birth certificate was released, WND published an article questioning its authenticity.^[26]

 

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.