US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2675

On December 18 2015 06:20 Plansix wrote:
Expect that Trump doesn't have wide spread political support. He has the support of people willing to participate in polls about the Republican primary.

And all arguments that hinge on "The quality of the candidate doesn't directly impact their ability to create change" are complete garbage. That is arguing change is good, regardless of the outcome. I don't want to go full Godwin, but people have made big changes before with complete lies. It ends poorly. If that is the reason you think Trump is good for the country, expect people to point out that white supremacists are part of the group he is rallying.

On December 18 2015 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:


I don't think Trump is good for the country at all. I am just saying that the tea party was insanely effective and is basically just a mild version of Trump. I think all his changes would be bad, but if he did manage to be the nominee, I think it would have been after inspiring a ton of people who are now very energized. I just don't see what makes Trump's movement different from tea party stuff. It's all based in ignorance but ignorance can be powerful.

On December 18 2015 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:

powerful != good or useful

and energized? energized for what? to be racist bigots and the establishment of a 4e Reich?

Seriously what do you expect a Trump Presidency to accomplish other then fuck the country up more then anyone else could manage?

On December 18 2015 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:


I don't think Trump is good for the country at all. I am just saying that the tea party was insanely effective and is basically just a mild version of Trump. I think all his changes would be bad, but if he did manage to be the nominee, I think it would have been after inspiring a ton of people who are now very energized. I just don't see what makes Trump's movement different from tea party stuff. It's all based in ignorance but ignorance can be powerful.

On December 18 2015 07:18 Plansix wrote:
You seem to have a very optimistic view of the people he is mobilizing. There are several groups of minorities do not share that view and are afraid of what will happen when that group is "inspired and mobilized".

On December 18 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Meanwhile, Sanders has recently passed 2,000,000 contributions. More than any candidate ever in history and is polling better than Obama was at this point nationally.

If the DNC and DWS didn't rig the debate schedule so hard, Sanders would probably be leading before the new year. The media basically ignoring Sanders (something like 50:1 Trump coverage) doesn't help either.

On December 18 2015 07:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:


Unfortunately, with the current ways news have been trending, I think the only thing that will get Bernie in the headlines (and cement him name recognition in the demos he needs to beat Clinton) would be an Obama endorsement.

And Obama is not going to do that.

I don't think it's quite as much the fault of the debate schedule, since none of them has really helped Sanders all that much. It's just that defeating the Clinton juggernaut machine requires more for an elderly white man from Vermont than it did for Obama...and I'm not sure that the stars will align for him.

I'm still crossing my fingers for a Clinton implosion, though.

On December 18 2015 07:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:

I'm still crossing my fingers for a Clinton implosion, though.

Hillary Clinton has said she is “very sceptical” of the need to drill for oil or gas off the United States’ eastern seaboard, despite the Obama administration putting forward proposals that would open up vast tracts of the ocean for fossil fuel extraction.

Clinton’s doubts follow her public opposition to the Keystone oil pipeline, which Obama halted, and Shell’s oil exploration in the Arctic, which the president allowed only for Shell to then scrap its drilling plans.

“I am very sceptical about the need or desire for us to pursue offshore drilling off the coast of South Carolina, and frankly off the coast of other southeast states,” Clinton told South Carolina radio station WGCV-AM. The frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination said the drilling poses risks to the environment and conflicts with the need for renewable energy sources.

The department of interior has put out a draft plan that would allow five-year leases for drilling from 2017 in areas off the coast of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

The proposed leases, which cover 104m acres, would mark the first time the US has allowed drilling in the region. The department of interior said the plan, which will be open for public comment early next year, is part of Obama’s “all-of-the-above energy strategy to continue to expand safe and responsible domestic energy production”.

Mayors of several coastal towns and environmental groups have spoken out against the proposed drilling, arguing it will harm marine life (such as whales), perpetuate climate change and damage tourism and fishing in coastal communities. The oil and gas industries have claimed new drilling will generate new jobs and investment for the southeast states.

Despite her remarks over drilling, Clinton has been challenged by environmental groups over donations from fossil fuel companies. Questioned over the issue by climate activist group 350.org, Clinton said she will “take a look” at claims her campaign has received money from a former ExxonMobil executive and a former lobbyist of TransCanada.

On December 18 2015 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:


I think Clinton could just not say a single word between now and the primary. She'd likely win 55%+ in almost all states. I won't be surprised if Sanders wins a couple states, though. Honestly, I don't think it's so bad. I think Sanders will be the VP. Clinton is just going to pimp out Sanders so all his meme fans show up to vote.

On December 18 2015 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:


I think Clinton could just not say a single word between now and the primary. She'd likely win 55%+ in almost all states. I won't be surprised if Sanders wins a couple states, though. Honestly, I don't think it's so bad. I think Sanders will be the VP. Clinton is just going to pimp out Sanders so all his meme fans show up to vote.

On December 18 2015 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:

I think there is a decent chance Sanders would say no to a token VP ticket and run 3e party instead which could hurt the Democrats.

As the battle rages over whether Sen. Ted Cruz has flip-flopped on immigration, key figures involved in the 2013 reform movement -- including a Republican senator -- expressed skepticism of the account Cruz is giving now.

"It's total bullshit," Frank Sharry, the executive director of the immigrant-rights group America's Voice, said of Cruz's current version of events.

The Rubio-Cruz tussle over immigration has been ongoing throughout the GOP primary campaign but flared up during Tuesday's GOP debate on CNN. Rubio is politically vulnerable among conservatives because he supported comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country. Cruz has long dismissed that as "amnesty". The Rubio counter-strategy -- which he used again during the debate -- has been to try to turn the tables by suggesting that Cruz was much closer to his own position than Cruz is willing to admit, including having sponsored an amendment in 2013 to let undocumented immigrants receive legal status but not citizenship.

Over the ensuing 48 hours, Cruz has largely been on the defensive. He claims the amendment Rubio is chiding him for was a "poison pill" meant to smoke out Democrats and kill the overall bill.

In interviews with TPM Thursday, Sharry and other reformers said they did not believe Cruz's amendment to the so-called Gang of Eight bill was the "poison pill" Cruz is making it out to be now. They suggested that, at the time, it seemed Cruz was seeking to position himself as a conservative still open to reform and has since moved to the right in order to court the anti-immigrant vote.

"He was getting to the right of Rubio and trying to set himself as a reformer to the right of the others," Sharry said, rejecting the notion that Cruz was aligned with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and other hardliners whose opposition to immigration Cruz is embracing now.

"Cruz got to Rubio's right but didn't want to be in the rejectionist camp," Sharry said. He pointed to Cruz's vote against an amendment offered by Sessions at the time that would restrict legal immigration, an approach Cruz favors now.

"Ted Cruz voted against the vision of immigration reform that he now embraces," Sharry said.

Key to making sense of Cruz's political calculus is to remember the landscape of immigration reform at the time. Republicans had taken a shellacking in the 2012 election, where their unpopularity with Hispanics was a major factor. Immigration reform was viewed as inevitable and crucial to the GOP's future electoral viability. The major question for the party was how conservative that reform effort was going to be.

On December 18 2015 08:22 Deathstar wrote:
Democrats, a long time ago, already made up their mind. Women. Men. Minorities. All made up their mind that their person is Hillary. A lapdop of corporations like Obama except more hawkish.

Of all the shit talking that's given to Republicans as "ignorant" and "bigoted," democrats are voting for Hillary purely for her gender and her party and DGAF about her policies.

On December 18 2015 08:30 Introvert wrote:
Many, including Rubio, are purposely twisting Cruz's words and amendments. They were meant to smoke out the amnesty part of the Gang of 8 bill. This is well known now, and it was well known at the time. In the end, Cruz voted against the bill, Rubio for it. This spin he is putting out is ridiculous. Jeff Sessions just said today that Cruz was on his side in the debate.

So yes, at the time he was "lying" but he knew those amendments would never pass, as they removed amnesty but kept everything else.