US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3027

On February 26 2016 01:59 GreenHorizons wrote:


That's Hillarysplainin (proper use).

Problem is all the faux outrage from Hillary supporters about sexism or claiming Bernie "doesn't care about black lives" from Brock after one of Sanders ad's and the dismissal of rational explanations or contextualizing as "Berniesplainin" means that bridge has been Berned.

People are just parroting the explanation from the Hillary camp. What they are all missing is the comment is the least relevant part of the story.

Marco Rubio is getting clobbered by Donald Trump in home state of Florida, where a Quinnipiac University poll shows the frontrunner is polling at an all-time high in the Republican race for president.

Trump's 44-28 percent lead over Rubio reflects the momentum of the New York billionaire’s string of first-place finishes in the last three early state races, and it blunts the Florida senator's argument that he's the only candidate who can defeat the frontrunner in a one-on-one race.

Also, the results give more ammunition to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich — running a distant third and fourth in the Florida survey — to say that Rubio should leave the race because they're doing better in polls of their home states than Rubio is in his.

"It’s hard to see how Senator Rubio can win his party’s nomination without winning his home state," said Peter A. Brown, director of the Quinnipiac poll.

On February 26 2016 02:21 xDaunt wrote:
This will cause some major sphincter tightening among the Republican establishment:



The rest, including some interesting internals, is here.

On February 26 2016 02:11 ticklishmusic wrote:


I have never said that Sanders doesn't care about black lives. He doe but he doesn't know how to connect with them and doesn't really seem to get that he doesn't understand them. It's like that South Park clip where Stan says "I don't get it".

Okay, so why does Sanders get to justify votes and such with context, but the Clintons don't?

The problem here is that the girl was a heckler, plain and simple. Hillary offered her a chance to ask a question, but the girl just kept on talking about superpredators and things, she was not there to engage on the issues. From my perspective, she just wanted a "gotcha" moment. Compare this to when Bernie got interrupted by BLM activists. He ended up surrendering the stage. Neither that nor kicking hecklers out are the correct response, or one that looks good. Dealing with hecklers is hard. Outside of these, both candidates have met with BLM and other groups privately to discuss the issues.

David Brock, a longtime ally of the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, blasted rival Bernie Sanders on Thursday, suggesting he doesn't care about black lives.

Brock, who heads several groups aiding Clinton's bid, offered the accusation while criticizing a new ad from Sanders that Brock said was a "significant slight to the Democratic base."

"From this ad it seems black lives don't matter much to Bernie Sanders," Brock told The Associated Press.

On February 26 2016 02:42 ticklishmusic wrote:
And Bernie surrogates have never, ever done or said anything bad? Brock is an operative. He used to be a hardcore rightwing one too (he had a couple takedowns of the Clintons actually). Even if he's become a progressive, he's not a very nice guy and I'm not a huge fan of his work. But, unlike you it seems that I'm willing to accept my candidate is not perfect (far from it) instead of whitewashing the bad parts and pointing out the problems with the other side.

I don't use Twitter, but I have no problem with my statements being trotted out in the public or elsewhere.

On February 25 2016 23:18 Deathstar wrote:
I would sympathize but monolithic voters are what they are.

Obama and Reid are currently vetting a former Republican governor who's anti-union for SCOTUS. I don't even...

On February 25 2016 23:47 Plansix wrote:

Although he fought against the local unions when he was governor, you need to look at his rulings as a judge as well. They are two very separate offices. He is also pro-solar energy as well.

But this is clearly an intentional leak by the White House and they might not even being considering him. Its just to get the news talking about the Obama’s choices, rather than the senate saying they won’t hold hearings. Its to start the press asking the senate “well what about this person” so they are painted into a corner.

On February 26 2016 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:


One could argue opting into the exchange isn't exactly a hugely progressive move. A lot of republican governors grumbled their way towards opting into the exchange. I agree with Plansix. Nominating a judge that said your hallmark legislation was unconstitutional makes my head tilt.

On February 26 2016 02:21 xDaunt wrote:
This will cause some major sphincter tightening among the Republican establishment:



The rest, including some interesting internals, is here.

On February 26 2016 02:56 ticklishmusic wrote:
Brock is an attack dog, but the leash is very much still on. In the general, he's going to tear the Donald a new one. If anything, using him is the same as the DNC taking money from lobbyists.

GH, for the general I would like you to consider this. From my understanding, you are two things, very progressive and very anti establishment. That's fine and I don't expect to change you on that even with a few hundred posts here in the next few months really. If it's Hillary vs. Donald, I think you have a choice between the two. Figure out which one actually matters to you more. Obviously not that black and white as Hillary is less progressive than you'd like and the Donald is only anti establishment in a fairly narrow sense, but it's a way to think about it.

On February 26 2016 03:12 Souma wrote:
He doesn't have to vote for Hillary in the general, and it's pretty ridiculous of you and others to pressure people into voting for her if she takes the nomination.

I did not vote for Obama in 2012 and I do not plan on voting for Hillary in 2016. Why in the world should anyone vote for someone or some party that does not represent them? The DNC is what it is today because of voters who will settle for the "less worse" instead of challenging the establishment to represent the people who vote for them.

There's currently no way the Democratic candidate, whether it's Hillary or Bernie, will lose in the general from my observations, however even if my vote was the decider and it was Hillary vs. Trump, I'd still vote Green and the DNC would have no one to blame but themselves for becoming the shithole they are now.

And for the Hillary supporters to support her and and the DNC for their actions just because "it always happens," or "Bernie isn't perfect either," or whatever the hell, leave your disgusting apathy at the door because it's further ruining the democratic process that is already a joke.

On February 26 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:
In a national election, expecting a candidate to 100% meet your approval on all fronts isn't reasonable. Its why we have 3 branches of government, senators, house reps, state and local government. The President is the president of everyone, not just the people that voted them in. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary by any metric, but I'll vote for her over the nightmare that is Trump. I know people that are terrified of him getting elected and I can see beyond my personal need to feel 100% represented by the President. That isn't apathy, but accepting the process for what it is and understanding that I am not the only person voting. That the world does not resolve around me and what I want out of a President.