In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 24 2016 09:01 oneofthem wrote: don't even know where to begin with that one.
Likewise.
I think the irony here is that India would probably benefit from a Deng Xiaoping-shaped communist party for a while because they have a younger and growing population that could take advantage of some state-directed Keynesian economics until the underlying fundamentals gave way. As it is, India, with its caste system and wealth inequality, is ripe to be plundered for some cheap gains until the bubble bursts.
It just doesn't make sense to say that cheaper labor in India is going to help when we are already sitting on so much unused productive capacity. Capacity and labor prices are not the issue here.
On January 24 2016 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Bloomberg floating a possible run indicates Hillary is in even worse shape than the establishment wants to let on. Too bad Bloomberg wouldn't stand a chance.
Washington (CNN)Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering a possible independent presidential run and is looking at making a decision sometime in March, two sources familiar with Bloomberg's thinking told CNN on Saturday.
One source said aides to the three-term mayor are looking at ballot access issues, but the source refused to speak specifically about what Bloomberg, 73, asked to be done.
The source added that Bloomberg sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg's views. But Bloomberg, who has flirted with Oval Office aspirations in the past, is serious about a possible candidacy, the source insisted.
A decision will have to be made by the first week of March, likely before it's clear who the Democratic and Republican nominees are, because of the process to get on ballots for the November election.
On January 24 2016 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Bloomberg floating a possible run indicates Hillary is in even worse shape than the establishment wants to let on. Too bad Bloomberg wouldn't stand a chance.
Washington (CNN)Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering a possible independent presidential run and is looking at making a decision sometime in March, two sources familiar with Bloomberg's thinking told CNN on Saturday.
One source said aides to the three-term mayor are looking at ballot access issues, but the source refused to speak specifically about what Bloomberg, 73, asked to be done.
The source added that Bloomberg sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg's views. But Bloomberg, who has flirted with Oval Office aspirations in the past, is serious about a possible candidacy, the source insisted.
A decision will have to be made by the first week of March, likely before it's clear who the Democratic and Republican nominees are, because of the process to get on ballots for the November election.
Serious question: who do you think the Republicans would rather be running against? Clinton or Sanders? I'd say the answer is clearly Sanders.
I agree. It's a lot easier to sell "don't vote for the communist/socialist" and "he wants to give everybody FREE things with YOUR TAX DOLLARS!" That will basically allow Republicans to spend pennies on the dollar for advertisement since all their die-hard Facebook forces will do the rest with really crappy memes.
With Clinton, I'm convinced they'll be stuck on stuff like emails and Benghazi, and the general population just won't give a damn.
On January 24 2016 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Bloomberg floating a possible run indicates Hillary is in even worse shape than the establishment wants to let on. Too bad Bloomberg wouldn't stand a chance.
Washington (CNN)Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering a possible independent presidential run and is looking at making a decision sometime in March, two sources familiar with Bloomberg's thinking told CNN on Saturday.
One source said aides to the three-term mayor are looking at ballot access issues, but the source refused to speak specifically about what Bloomberg, 73, asked to be done.
The source added that Bloomberg sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg's views. But Bloomberg, who has flirted with Oval Office aspirations in the past, is serious about a possible candidacy, the source insisted.
A decision will have to be made by the first week of March, likely before it's clear who the Democratic and Republican nominees are, because of the process to get on ballots for the November election.
Serious question: who do you think the Republicans would rather be running against? Clinton or Sanders? I'd say the answer is clearly Sanders.
Hillary hands down.
They have decades of opposition research and Trump willing to say any and everything, they have nothing on Bernie and even the Republicans who disagree with everything he stands for, all universally say he is one of, if not the most honest person on the hill.
Besides that, Bernie is already building a nationwide network with hundreds of thousands of volunteers, and making millions of calls to Iowa and other early states already.
Especially if they're going to run Trump or Cruz, Bernie is certainly what they want to run against. Trump and Cruz are as unelectable outside of the core Republican base as it gets. People talked about that for ages, yes Trump might not be all that far right on a pure politics pov (aside from immigration) but he's still HATED by the left and the undecided for what he's saying. iirc someone linked an article stating that Putin is seen more positively by Americans than Trump.
Only way to even have a chance at the elections is to make the democrat running equally unelectable and that's easier with Bernie and calling him a communist.
///Edit @GH: Come on, even the Republicans know how fucked they are if nothing big happens. Pretty much no matter what the Democrats run. They know that the only chance is some really crazy shit and that's not going to happen as long as Democrats take a moderate to run. Bernie at least gives them a chance to win the election.
On January 24 2016 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Bloomberg floating a possible run indicates Hillary is in even worse shape than the establishment wants to let on. Too bad Bloomberg wouldn't stand a chance.
Washington (CNN)Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering a possible independent presidential run and is looking at making a decision sometime in March, two sources familiar with Bloomberg's thinking told CNN on Saturday.
One source said aides to the three-term mayor are looking at ballot access issues, but the source refused to speak specifically about what Bloomberg, 73, asked to be done.
The source added that Bloomberg sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg's views. But Bloomberg, who has flirted with Oval Office aspirations in the past, is serious about a possible candidacy, the source insisted.
A decision will have to be made by the first week of March, likely before it's clear who the Democratic and Republican nominees are, because of the process to get on ballots for the November election.
Serious question: who do you think the Republicans would rather be running against? Clinton or Sanders? I'd say the answer is clearly Sanders.
Hillary hands down.
They have decades of opposition research and Trump willing to say any and everything, they have nothing on Bernie and even the Republicans who disagree with everything he stands for, all universally say he is one of, if not the most honest person on the hill.
Besides that, Bernie is already building a nationwide network with hundreds of thousands of volunteers, and making millions of calls to Iowa and other early states already.
I know you're on the campaign and all, but no campaign analyst believes this - even Bernie's.
The GOP has more ammunition for Hillary, yes, but the ammunition isn't particularly effective on the national stage. Bernie will have to work a lot harder to win moderates, especially with so much anti-Wall St. rhetoric that doesn't appeal to a middle class that's largely invested in it.
There's an enormous swath of voters who like social programs, but also like capitalism.
On January 24 2016 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Bloomberg floating a possible run indicates Hillary is in even worse shape than the establishment wants to let on. Too bad Bloomberg wouldn't stand a chance.
Washington (CNN)Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering a possible independent presidential run and is looking at making a decision sometime in March, two sources familiar with Bloomberg's thinking told CNN on Saturday.
One source said aides to the three-term mayor are looking at ballot access issues, but the source refused to speak specifically about what Bloomberg, 73, asked to be done.
The source added that Bloomberg sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg's views. But Bloomberg, who has flirted with Oval Office aspirations in the past, is serious about a possible candidacy, the source insisted.
A decision will have to be made by the first week of March, likely before it's clear who the Democratic and Republican nominees are, because of the process to get on ballots for the November election.
Serious question: who do you think the Republicans would rather be running against? Clinton or Sanders? I'd say the answer is clearly Sanders.
Hillary hands down.
They have decades of opposition research and Trump willing to say any and everything, they have nothing on Bernie and even the Republicans who disagree with everything he stands for, all universally say he is one of, if not the most honest person on the hill.
Besides that, Bernie is already building a nationwide network with hundreds of thousands of volunteers, and making millions of calls to Iowa and other early states already.
I know you're on the campaign and all, but no campaign analyst believes this - even Bernie's.
The GOP has more ammunition for Hillary, yes, but the ammunition isn't particularly effective on the national stage. Bernie will have to work a lot harder to win moderates, especially with so much anti-Wall St. rhetoric that doesn't appeal to a middle class that's largely invested in it.
There's an enormous swath of voters who like social programs, but also like capitalism.
How many people invest/know anything about the workings of wall street though? Probably not too high of a percentage.
The point of the attacks on Hillary is to depress democratic turnout and stoke the flames on the republican side to prod the anti-Clinton vote.
I have to disagree that the attacks on Hillary aren't effective, I think her trustworthy numbers are prime evidence of that. They haven't even opened up the floodgates either.
If they wanted to run against Bernie you would have seen his successes against Hillary trotted out daily (and more prominently) on right wing outlets.
who they're targeting is probably more reflective of who they THINK will end up being their opponent rather than who they WANT to be their opponent. If anything, the Replublican party probably has an interest in helping out a little and making the one they perceive to be the easiest opponent the one that gets nominated (by focusing their attacks on the other ones, but no idea if that's a thing).
On January 24 2016 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Bloomberg floating a possible run indicates Hillary is in even worse shape than the establishment wants to let on. Too bad Bloomberg wouldn't stand a chance.
Washington (CNN)Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering a possible independent presidential run and is looking at making a decision sometime in March, two sources familiar with Bloomberg's thinking told CNN on Saturday.
One source said aides to the three-term mayor are looking at ballot access issues, but the source refused to speak specifically about what Bloomberg, 73, asked to be done.
The source added that Bloomberg sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg's views. But Bloomberg, who has flirted with Oval Office aspirations in the past, is serious about a possible candidacy, the source insisted.
A decision will have to be made by the first week of March, likely before it's clear who the Democratic and Republican nominees are, because of the process to get on ballots for the November election.
Serious question: who do you think the Republicans would rather be running against? Clinton or Sanders? I'd say the answer is clearly Sanders.
Hillary hands down.
They have decades of opposition research and Trump willing to say any and everything, they have nothing on Bernie and even the Republicans who disagree with everything he stands for, all universally say he is one of, if not the most honest person on the hill.
Besides that, Bernie is already building a nationwide network with hundreds of thousands of volunteers, and making millions of calls to Iowa and other early states already.
I know you're on the campaign and all, but no campaign analyst believes this - even Bernie's.
The GOP has more ammunition for Hillary, yes, but the ammunition isn't particularly effective on the national stage. Bernie will have to work a lot harder to win moderates, especially with so much anti-Wall St. rhetoric that doesn't appeal to a middle class that's largely invested in it.
There's an enormous swath of voters who like social programs, but also like capitalism.
How many people invest/know anything about the workings of wall street though? Probably not too high of a percentage.
Everyone with a mutual fund or 401k has some skin in Wall Street, even if it's basic.
Sanders is going way too far when he says fraud is the entire basis of Wall St. and denounces capitalism so heavily.
Hillary is the easiest to attack, but she's not particularly vulnerable to them until she makes a mistake. The GOP blew their load over Benghazi and the email server prematurely, and those criticisms have been having a numbing effect with the general populace. No one wants to hear those complaints anymore.
She's not trustworthy, but that's not the main driver of electability. That may be unfortunate, but it is the reality.
Mmm I would still say that the amount of people who actually self identify as being part of the group who is involved in wall street are few. Most people would consider wall street to be mostly associated with the 1% and even then most would just think he is only going after the super rich anyway and that it wouldn't affect their stuff.
On January 24 2016 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Bloomberg floating a possible run indicates Hillary is in even worse shape than the establishment wants to let on. Too bad Bloomberg wouldn't stand a chance.
Washington (CNN)Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering a possible independent presidential run and is looking at making a decision sometime in March, two sources familiar with Bloomberg's thinking told CNN on Saturday.
One source said aides to the three-term mayor are looking at ballot access issues, but the source refused to speak specifically about what Bloomberg, 73, asked to be done.
The source added that Bloomberg sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg's views. But Bloomberg, who has flirted with Oval Office aspirations in the past, is serious about a possible candidacy, the source insisted.
A decision will have to be made by the first week of March, likely before it's clear who the Democratic and Republican nominees are, because of the process to get on ballots for the November election.
Serious question: who do you think the Republicans would rather be running against? Clinton or Sanders? I'd say the answer is clearly Sanders.
Hillary hands down.
They have decades of opposition research and Trump willing to say any and everything, they have nothing on Bernie and even the Republicans who disagree with everything he stands for, all universally say he is one of, if not the most honest person on the hill.
Besides that, Bernie is already building a nationwide network with hundreds of thousands of volunteers, and making millions of calls to Iowa and other early states already.
I know you're on the campaign and all, but no campaign analyst believes this - even Bernie's.
The GOP has more ammunition for Hillary, yes, but the ammunition isn't particularly effective on the national stage. Bernie will have to work a lot harder to win moderates, especially with so much anti-Wall St. rhetoric that doesn't appeal to a middle class that's largely invested in it.
There's an enormous swath of voters who like social programs, but also like capitalism.
How many people invest/know anything about the workings of wall street though? Probably not too high of a percentage.
Everyone with a mutual fund or 401k has some skin in Wall Street, even if it's basic.
Sanders is going way too far when he says fraud is the entire basis of Wall St. and denounces capitalism so heavily.
The middle class that saw their investments collapse are more receptive to Bernie's message than I think some here would give credit to.
Bernie wins by winning the under 45 vote in mass though, everything leans that way. From the social issues to the economic issues younger voters massively favor where Bernie stands on the issues. People also seem to be underestimating how important it is to voters this election to believe that their preference is telling the truth.
Iowa is just over a week away though after which we will know a lot more about how this race will play out.
EDIT: Expanding social security benefits will probably be pretty popular with seniors, particularly if he's running against a party that wants to cut it.
I'm actually terribly curious what happens to the Republican platform with Trump at the head, does it bend to him or him to it?
Republican officials are literally trying to help Sanders over Clinton. They would much rather face him than Clinton, because they believe he's their best shot at getting moderates to vote Republican. It's one thing for you to think they're wrong, but to deny that they'd rather face Sanders than Clinton is simply to ignore the facts. The Sanders head-to-head polls cannot take into account that the Republican machine has been relentlessly attacking Clinton while almost completely sparing Sanders. That would change in a heartbeat if he was nominated, and they've got plenty of material to paint him as a far-left extremist.
On January 24 2016 11:57 kwizach wrote: Republican officials are literally trying to help Sanders over Clinton. They would much rather face him than Clinton, because they believe he's their best shot at getting moderates to vote Republican. It's one thing for you to think they're wrong, but to deny that they'd rather face Sanders than Clinton is simply to ignore the facts. The Sanders head-to-head polls cannot take into account that the Republican machine has been relentlessly attacking Clinton while almost completely sparing Sanders. That would change in a heartbeat if he was nominated, and they've got plenty of material to paint him as a far-left extremist.
Hmm.. Romney's old manager and Karl Rove's superPAC... Pretty safe bet to say whatever they are expecting, the opposite is what will happen.
That whole moderate play comes from the prayer that there will be an establishment nominee from the Republican party for Sanders to be up against. Sanders does much, better with moderates than Trump. Hence beating him by double digits in heads up polls.
I totally feel with you GH, your enthusiasm for bernie's convictions and all the good stuff. but we are talking about the american people, socialism is literally a red flag.
attacking wall street is also attacking an institution at the heart of america, one of it's power cores and success stories, at least on the outside. everybody wants to convict the crooks, and by god there are many of those. but nobody wants to bern(!) it down.
especially if it has to be done with REGULATIONS from INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. the attack ads basically write themselves.
hillary is going to win because she will do what bill did, neoliberalism light. capitalism with a human face if you will. but nothing groundbreaking.
america had its obama moment, hope and change only can carry you so far. the remaining wave is not big enough for bernie to ride it out I fear.
On January 24 2016 11:44 xDaunt wrote: The email story is far from over. I think she is going to get indicted.
I agree that it's not yet over. it's probably the most important factor of the democratic nomination process in the nearer future lol.
jury's still out on indictment or no indictment, nobody knows.
As just a reminder, here's what we know:
1) Clinton has said that she did not send or receive classified information on her email server 2) Clinton said that she deleted personal emails on the her email sever 3) The FBI has recovered what she deleted, which includes personal and "work" emails 4) Over 1,300 emails containing classified information have been found on her server. These include emails subject to SAP, the most confidential/top secret classification 5) Many officials, including former Secretary Gates, have said that it is likely that the email server was hacked by foreign countries 6) FBI officials have expanded the inquiry to see whether Clinton used her position to unlawfully benefit the Clinton Foundation
The final load of emails is coming soon, but to say that the facts listed above constitute a legal problem for Hillary is an understatement. Aside from the charge of mishandling classified information, there's more than a whiff of corruption and obstruction of justice here. Given the above, and given what we know about the current FBI direct (Comey), I have no doubt that he's going to recommend that Hillary be indicted. If Lynch refuses to do so, I wouldn't be surprise if we some resignations from the FBI as a result. Frankly, I don't see how Lynch or Obama can let Hillary off the hook if the FBI recommends prosecution. It would be a political disaster for them.
On January 24 2016 11:45 Slaughter wrote: Mmm I would still say that the amount of people who actually self identify as being part of the group who is involved in wall street are few. Most people would consider wall street to be mostly associated with the 1% and even then most would just think he is only going after the super rich anyway and that it wouldn't affect their stuff.
They don't identify as being a part of Wall St., but they're fans of regulated capitalism. They're intimately connected to it, because they work for those companies. They don't want to see it stripped and collapsed.
Socialism isn't a bad word, but that argument has never worked on the general public. I don't think he's going to teach enough people that we're a socialist democracy.
EPT
