|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 March 14 2016 09:05 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 08:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 08:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 01:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2016 22:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Just waiting for her to actually go full SNL skit. Her attacks have gotten increasingly desperate and poorly researched. Apparently the irony went whizzing past people's heads, though at this point in the game it's unsurprising. Let me lay it out to you: Hillary Clinton led the charge for healthcare reform back in '93, and Bernie Sanders was barely involved (this could be said for many things he professes to care about). This picture could be taken as further proof Bernie doesn't remember or that he is ignoring the fact that Hillary was doing healthcare things, or more symbolically that he was a follower or some sort of potted plant when it came to the issue. Even if we grant you that version, which we don't, as it is bull, that version still has your candidate very openly lying on the stage in order to discredit her opponent. Does that bother you somewhat? Earlier you said it was disgusting that Bernie was so dishonest because he was pushing for things that you don't think he can actually do, now you have Hillary being dishonest because she's saying things that she knows are false, which is the actual definition of dishonesty. And you stand with that. How is it bull? Are you unaware that during the Clinton administration Hillary led the charge on healthcare reform? It isn't dishonesty, it's simply your ability to detect the underlying subtext to the question "where was Bernie" is wholly lacking. Kwizach posted the link earlier. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082Let me stress once again that even if your version was true, it would still be dishonest, cause it's portraying a lack of support for an effort toward healthcare because it's not good enough as a lack of support for healthcare in general. It is in the same vein as the auto bail-out comment, in which the intent is to pretend the vote against wall street bailout, a widely popular position, is actually a vote against the auto bail-out, a perception that is certainly not bound to help you in Michigan. No it's not. Bernie has a record of minimal impact on issues he professes to care about. He talks the talk, but rarely has he walked the walk. Sure he gets a certificate of participation for healthcare, but that's about it. They both supported the initial version of the auto bailout, which failed. Later, a combined bill that provided funding for both the banks and the auto industry came around, and Bernie voted against it. That's pretty clear cut. Bernie chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan.
See that's not what she said. She didn't say he chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. She said he voted against the auto bailout. The notion that presenting a vote against the Wall Street bailout as a vote against the auto bailout isn't dishonest is just awesomely shameless. Ask people if they would support Bernie as much if he had voted for the Wall Street bailout.
|
On March 14 2016 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 09:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 08:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 08:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 01:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2016 22:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Just waiting for her to actually go full SNL skit. Her attacks have gotten increasingly desperate and poorly researched. Apparently the irony went whizzing past people's heads, though at this point in the game it's unsurprising. Let me lay it out to you: Hillary Clinton led the charge for healthcare reform back in '93, and Bernie Sanders was barely involved (this could be said for many things he professes to care about). This picture could be taken as further proof Bernie doesn't remember or that he is ignoring the fact that Hillary was doing healthcare things, or more symbolically that he was a follower or some sort of potted plant when it came to the issue. Even if we grant you that version, which we don't, as it is bull, that version still has your candidate very openly lying on the stage in order to discredit her opponent. Does that bother you somewhat? Earlier you said it was disgusting that Bernie was so dishonest because he was pushing for things that you don't think he can actually do, now you have Hillary being dishonest because she's saying things that she knows are false, which is the actual definition of dishonesty. And you stand with that. How is it bull? Are you unaware that during the Clinton administration Hillary led the charge on healthcare reform? It isn't dishonesty, it's simply your ability to detect the underlying subtext to the question "where was Bernie" is wholly lacking. Kwizach posted the link earlier. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082Let me stress once again that even if your version was true, it would still be dishonest, cause it's portraying a lack of support for an effort toward healthcare because it's not good enough as a lack of support for healthcare in general. It is in the same vein as the auto bail-out comment, in which the intent is to pretend the vote against wall street bailout, a widely popular position, is actually a vote against the auto bail-out, a perception that is certainly not bound to help you in Michigan. No it's not. Bernie has a record of minimal impact on issues he professes to care about. He talks the talk, but rarely has he walked the walk. Sure he gets a certificate of participation for healthcare, but that's about it. They both supported the initial version of the auto bailout, which failed. Later, a combined bill that provided funding for both the banks and the auto industry came around, and Bernie voted against it. That's pretty clear cut. Bernie chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. See that's not what she said. She didn't say he chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. She said he voted against the auto bailout. The notion that presenting a vote against the Wall Street bailout as a vote against the auto bailout isn't dishonest is just awesomely shameless. Ask people if they would support Bernie as much if he had voted for the Wall Street bailout.
Bernie says he didn't vote against the auto bailout, he voted against the Wall street bailout. The problem is, those two are the same thing. You can frame it as an unwanted/ unexpected consequence of blocking the Wall Street bailout was blocking the auto bailout, but the fact is the two are tied together.
Both sides spin. Bernie is gonna say that he voted against Wall Street, Hillary will bring up the flip side to that.
|
That's the stupid thing of Piggy-back all those laws together. We in the US are one of the few countries were we have that kind of corruption, because that is what it is. Apparently, laws need to be earmarked to get them passed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that line of attack vs sanders didnt work though. mi and other anti-trade states will go for sanders message. hillary could articulate a positive spin on trade and economic issues around inequality but given hillary's past ties to nafta and all the misleading propaganda vs those deals it is a bit hard.
|
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Sunday that he has instructed his team to look into paying the legal fees of the man who sucker punched a black protester.
Trump said he doesn't condone violence.
"But I want to see. The man got carried away, he was 78 years old, he obviously loves his country, and maybe he doesn't like seeing what's happening to the country," Trump said.
NBC "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd asked him to clarify if that meant he would pay for the legal fees.
"Well, I'm going to look at it. I'm going to see, you know, what was behind this because it was a strange event," Trump said. "I've actually instructed my people to look into it, yes."
John McGraw, 78, was arrested and charged last week with assault and battery and disorderly conduct after allegedly punching a protester in the face at a rally in North Carolina as the protester was being escorted out of the building.
Source
I no way enables the violence at his rallies. In no way. He is completely clueless where it comes from, even though everyone is shouting from the rooftops. And this is after he said he was going to send his supporters to Sander's rallies and is threatening to silence any protesters. The man is a joke and I cant wait until the Republican parties implodes before they nominate him.
|
On March 14 2016 04:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 18:11 kwizach wrote:On March 13 2016 17:53 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 17:17 kwizach wrote:On March 13 2016 16:58 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 16:46 kwizach wrote:On March 13 2016 16:17 oBlade wrote:This is the post of mine that you responded to: On March 13 2016 09:30 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 09:02 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:52 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
There's 4 candidates still in the running... do you have any kind of historical precedent or something to show there's something wrong with his performance as frontrunner? Like the 2012 election or something? There is this. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/People do not like him. Like at all. It is one of the threats in the primary system and why the parties used to focus on "electability". It used to be a huge factor, could the candidate sway independent voters. That is not a popular subject now, but the parties are not really what they used to be either. Especially the Republicans. Please focus. You were talking about the Republican primary and then responded with the general election, which is a separate question. + Show Spoiler +Here's a PPP poll from early Feb 2016 (most recent I found) showing Trump leading slightly in a GOP field of four. He is farther ahead now - this is just about the lowest poll performance he's had in the past two months (FYI), and he was still ahead on it. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_20416.pdfTrump’s favorability has dropped a net 17 points, from a previous +24
standing at 58/34 to now just +7 at 48/41.Trump is particularly starting to struggle on the
right- he’s dropped to 3rd place with ‘very conservative’ voters at 19% with Cruz at 34%
and Rubio at 22% outpacing him with that group. He does still lead with moderates and
‘somewhat conservative’ voters to give him the overall advantage. Now here's a PPP poll from mid-March 2012 showing Romney (he went on to secure the nomination) leading slightly in a field of four. For reference, in the mid-March primaries Romney was getting about 35% of actual voters. This was the poll's results: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_032112.pdfRomney’s favorability spread is up 18 points from almost even at 44% favorable and
43% unfavorable to 54-35 in the last month, while Santorum’s is down 13 points from
64-22 to 59-30. Corresponding with that, Romney now leads the national primary
preference with 34% to Santorum’s 31%, Newt Gingrich’s 20%, and Ron Paul’s 9%. If you don't know how to interpret this data, I can help. Trump is polling in the same range as Romney was under similar circumstances at a similar time in the primaries. He's really not the black sheep you want to paint him as. which was taking up this unambiguous statement by Plansix: He isn't even dominating the primary process. He picks up 35-40% of Republicans that vote in the primaries. You are taking that sentence out of context. No. I was solely addressing the doubts about his primary performance (and the implicit expectation that he ought to be further ahead), which you've yet to realize four pages later.  Yes you are, since Plansix' points was not only about Trump's weakness with respect to the Republican electorate participating in the primary, and you did not specify otherwise in the question you asked him (which is why he replied to you in relation to his main point about the general electorate). Regardless, and like I've repeatedly pointed out, I still addressed your point on this particular topic, as distinct from Trump's weakness with respect to the general electorate, by presenting you with data and an analysis of that data which show that Trump is in a weaker position than Romney among the Republican electorate with regards to who they would be happy with as their nominee. The answer to your question is therefore that yes, there is a historical precedent that shows there is something wrong with Trump's performance with regards to the Republican primary, namely how he is viewed among the Republicans who did not vote for him in the primary. The Republicans who did not vote in the primary for the frontrunner were more likely to be ready to support the frontrunner in 2012 than they are in 2016. This is a fact. It directly answers your question. After four pages of discussion, either you have a serious cognitive problem preventing you from acknowledging this fact (and acknowledging it as relevant to what we're discussing), or you're deliberately (and dishonestly) ignoring it. What, in your own words, do you believe my point was? I answered that in the post you just quoted. If you have nothing to reply to the evidence I presented you with to show Trump's specific weakness among the Republican primary electorate compared to the previous frontrunner (Romney), stop deflecting and stop replying altogether. You should be able to paraphrase the ideas of someone you're responding to even if you think you don't agree. That's one of the tests that a discussion's being held in good faith. That you can't (and ignore when I spell them out for you) is confirming my suspicion either 1) you don't know what I'm saying 2) you do know but can't let go of the line you've taken.
You've been dishonestly dodging the data I've presented you with as well as the points I've been raising since the beginning of this discussion. Every single one of my posts quoted yours entirely and responded to each of your points. You, on the other hand, have consistently cut off parts of my posts (or bypassed them entirely), ignored data and arguments, and you're now trying to avoid having to deal with the facts that I've put forward which show that Trump is in a weaker position than Romney among the Republican electorate with regards to who they would be happy with as their nominee. Like I said -- stop deflecting, stop ignoring the evidence when it doesn't support your point, and stop replying if you have nothing of substance to add except fake protests about being misunderstood.
|
On March 14 2016 09:21 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 09:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 08:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 08:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 01:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2016 22:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Just waiting for her to actually go full SNL skit. Her attacks have gotten increasingly desperate and poorly researched. Apparently the irony went whizzing past people's heads, though at this point in the game it's unsurprising. Let me lay it out to you: Hillary Clinton led the charge for healthcare reform back in '93, and Bernie Sanders was barely involved (this could be said for many things he professes to care about). This picture could be taken as further proof Bernie doesn't remember or that he is ignoring the fact that Hillary was doing healthcare things, or more symbolically that he was a follower or some sort of potted plant when it came to the issue. Even if we grant you that version, which we don't, as it is bull, that version still has your candidate very openly lying on the stage in order to discredit her opponent. Does that bother you somewhat? Earlier you said it was disgusting that Bernie was so dishonest because he was pushing for things that you don't think he can actually do, now you have Hillary being dishonest because she's saying things that she knows are false, which is the actual definition of dishonesty. And you stand with that. How is it bull? Are you unaware that during the Clinton administration Hillary led the charge on healthcare reform? It isn't dishonesty, it's simply your ability to detect the underlying subtext to the question "where was Bernie" is wholly lacking. Kwizach posted the link earlier. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082Let me stress once again that even if your version was true, it would still be dishonest, cause it's portraying a lack of support for an effort toward healthcare because it's not good enough as a lack of support for healthcare in general. It is in the same vein as the auto bail-out comment, in which the intent is to pretend the vote against wall street bailout, a widely popular position, is actually a vote against the auto bail-out, a perception that is certainly not bound to help you in Michigan. No it's not. Bernie has a record of minimal impact on issues he professes to care about. He talks the talk, but rarely has he walked the walk. Sure he gets a certificate of participation for healthcare, but that's about it. They both supported the initial version of the auto bailout, which failed. Later, a combined bill that provided funding for both the banks and the auto industry came around, and Bernie voted against it. That's pretty clear cut. Bernie chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. See that's not what she said. She didn't say he chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. She said he voted against the auto bailout. The notion that presenting a vote against the Wall Street bailout as a vote against the auto bailout isn't dishonest is just awesomely shameless. Ask people if they would support Bernie as much if he had voted for the Wall Street bailout. Bernie says he didn't vote against the auto bailout, he voted against the Wall street bailout. The problem is, those two are the same thing. You can frame it as an unwanted/ unexpected consequence of blocking the Wall Street bailout was blocking the auto bailout, but the fact is the two are tied together. Both sides spin. Bernie is gonna say that he voted against Wall Street, Hillary will bring up the flip side to that.
So Hillary brings up an issue in a dishonest fashion (at least you're not disputing that anymore), Bernie defends himself using the truth (he voted for it when it was the main goal of the bill, and against it when the main goal of the bill was the Wall Street bailout, which he gets a yuge amount of support for having opposed), and your conclusion is that both sides spin. Glad we talked.
|
On March 14 2016 09:05 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 08:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 08:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 01:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2016 22:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Just waiting for her to actually go full SNL skit. Her attacks have gotten increasingly desperate and poorly researched. Apparently the irony went whizzing past people's heads, though at this point in the game it's unsurprising. Let me lay it out to you: Hillary Clinton led the charge for healthcare reform back in '93, and Bernie Sanders was barely involved (this could be said for many things he professes to care about). This picture could be taken as further proof Bernie doesn't remember or that he is ignoring the fact that Hillary was doing healthcare things, or more symbolically that he was a follower or some sort of potted plant when it came to the issue. Even if we grant you that version, which we don't, as it is bull, that version still has your candidate very openly lying on the stage in order to discredit her opponent. Does that bother you somewhat? Earlier you said it was disgusting that Bernie was so dishonest because he was pushing for things that you don't think he can actually do, now you have Hillary being dishonest because she's saying things that she knows are false, which is the actual definition of dishonesty. And you stand with that. How is it bull? Are you unaware that during the Clinton administration Hillary led the charge on healthcare reform? It isn't dishonesty, it's simply your ability to detect the underlying subtext to the question "where was Bernie" is wholly lacking. Kwizach posted the link earlier. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082Let me stress once again that even if your version was true, it would still be dishonest, cause it's portraying a lack of support for an effort toward healthcare because it's not good enough as a lack of support for healthcare in general. It is in the same vein as the auto bail-out comment, in which the intent is to pretend the vote against wall street bailout, a widely popular position, is actually a vote against the auto bail-out, a perception that is certainly not bound to help you in Michigan. No it's not. Bernie has a record of minimal impact on issues he professes to care about. He talks the talk, but rarely has he walked the walk. Sure he gets a certificate of participation for healthcare, but that's about it. They both supported the initial version of the auto bailout, which failed. Later, a combined bill that provided funding for both the banks and the auto industry came around, and Bernie voted against it. That's pretty clear cut. Bernie chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan.
Isn't that what legislators have to do in their business? You can't achieve everything you set out to do. It's not like his convictions changed.
Edit: Please answer my question or just move on, kwizach.
|
On March 14 2016 09:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 09:21 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 09:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 08:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 08:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 01:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2016 22:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Just waiting for her to actually go full SNL skit. Her attacks have gotten increasingly desperate and poorly researched. Apparently the irony went whizzing past people's heads, though at this point in the game it's unsurprising. Let me lay it out to you: Hillary Clinton led the charge for healthcare reform back in '93, and Bernie Sanders was barely involved (this could be said for many things he professes to care about). This picture could be taken as further proof Bernie doesn't remember or that he is ignoring the fact that Hillary was doing healthcare things, or more symbolically that he was a follower or some sort of potted plant when it came to the issue. Even if we grant you that version, which we don't, as it is bull, that version still has your candidate very openly lying on the stage in order to discredit her opponent. Does that bother you somewhat? Earlier you said it was disgusting that Bernie was so dishonest because he was pushing for things that you don't think he can actually do, now you have Hillary being dishonest because she's saying things that she knows are false, which is the actual definition of dishonesty. And you stand with that. How is it bull? Are you unaware that during the Clinton administration Hillary led the charge on healthcare reform? It isn't dishonesty, it's simply your ability to detect the underlying subtext to the question "where was Bernie" is wholly lacking. Kwizach posted the link earlier. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082Let me stress once again that even if your version was true, it would still be dishonest, cause it's portraying a lack of support for an effort toward healthcare because it's not good enough as a lack of support for healthcare in general. It is in the same vein as the auto bail-out comment, in which the intent is to pretend the vote against wall street bailout, a widely popular position, is actually a vote against the auto bail-out, a perception that is certainly not bound to help you in Michigan. No it's not. Bernie has a record of minimal impact on issues he professes to care about. He talks the talk, but rarely has he walked the walk. Sure he gets a certificate of participation for healthcare, but that's about it. They both supported the initial version of the auto bailout, which failed. Later, a combined bill that provided funding for both the banks and the auto industry came around, and Bernie voted against it. That's pretty clear cut. Bernie chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. See that's not what she said. She didn't say he chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. She said he voted against the auto bailout. The notion that presenting a vote against the Wall Street bailout as a vote against the auto bailout isn't dishonest is just awesomely shameless. Ask people if they would support Bernie as much if he had voted for the Wall Street bailout. Bernie says he didn't vote against the auto bailout, he voted against the Wall street bailout. The problem is, those two are the same thing. You can frame it as an unwanted/ unexpected consequence of blocking the Wall Street bailout was blocking the auto bailout, but the fact is the two are tied together. Both sides spin. Bernie is gonna say that he voted against Wall Street, Hillary will bring up the flip side to that. So Hillary brings up an issue in a dishonest fashion (at least you're not disputing that anymore), Bernie defends himself using the truth (he voted for it when it was the main goal of the bill, and against it when the main goal of the bill was the Wall Street bailout, which he gets a yuge amount of support for having opposed), and your conclusion is that both sides spin. Glad we talked.
Both are spin. Neither are dishonest, though they portray what happened in an angle less flattering to Bernie. Do you expect this to be a hugfest where both say "well he did this, but it was in the context of this?"
|
On March 14 2016 09:36 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 09:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 08:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 08:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 01:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2016 22:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Just waiting for her to actually go full SNL skit. Her attacks have gotten increasingly desperate and poorly researched. Apparently the irony went whizzing past people's heads, though at this point in the game it's unsurprising. Let me lay it out to you: Hillary Clinton led the charge for healthcare reform back in '93, and Bernie Sanders was barely involved (this could be said for many things he professes to care about). This picture could be taken as further proof Bernie doesn't remember or that he is ignoring the fact that Hillary was doing healthcare things, or more symbolically that he was a follower or some sort of potted plant when it came to the issue. Even if we grant you that version, which we don't, as it is bull, that version still has your candidate very openly lying on the stage in order to discredit her opponent. Does that bother you somewhat? Earlier you said it was disgusting that Bernie was so dishonest because he was pushing for things that you don't think he can actually do, now you have Hillary being dishonest because she's saying things that she knows are false, which is the actual definition of dishonesty. And you stand with that. How is it bull? Are you unaware that during the Clinton administration Hillary led the charge on healthcare reform? It isn't dishonesty, it's simply your ability to detect the underlying subtext to the question "where was Bernie" is wholly lacking. Kwizach posted the link earlier. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082Let me stress once again that even if your version was true, it would still be dishonest, cause it's portraying a lack of support for an effort toward healthcare because it's not good enough as a lack of support for healthcare in general. It is in the same vein as the auto bail-out comment, in which the intent is to pretend the vote against wall street bailout, a widely popular position, is actually a vote against the auto bail-out, a perception that is certainly not bound to help you in Michigan. No it's not. Bernie has a record of minimal impact on issues he professes to care about. He talks the talk, but rarely has he walked the walk. Sure he gets a certificate of participation for healthcare, but that's about it. They both supported the initial version of the auto bailout, which failed. Later, a combined bill that provided funding for both the banks and the auto industry came around, and Bernie voted against it. That's pretty clear cut. Bernie chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. Edit: Please answer my question or just move on, kwizach.
Please answer the arguments and data I've repeatedly presented you with to address your point about Trump not being a weaker primary candidate than previous frontrunners or just move on, oBlade.
|
Both Bernie and Hillary looking exhausted in this town hall
|
When Bernie Sanders won the primary in Michigan last week, it shook up the narrative of the Democratic race.
Sanders did so with the help of white men. If he's able to pull off a victory in Ohio, the same demographic will likely be key.
Take Jim, who describes himself, only half jokingly, as an angry white man.
"We're pissed off," Jim said. (Jim's asked that his last name be withheld because his union, AFSCME, has endorsed Hillary Clinton, and he supports Sanders. He can't be quoted publicly going against his union.) "We haven't gotten raises. Our pensions have been cut. Our healthcare's increased."
And, Jim added, Sanders speaks to that. "Bernie, he speaks from the trenches," Jim said. "We feel that he's fighting for us."
In Michigan, Sanders won with the support of 62 percent of white men, who were one-in-three voters, according to exit polls. In 2008, in the Democratic primary in Ohio, white men turned out in strikingly similar proportions to this year's Michigan contest.
At the same time, black voters could make up a smaller proportion of the electorate and likely won't be enough to put Clinton over the top. In Michigan, Clinton won more than two-thirds of black voters and they were 21 percent of the electorate. In 2008, Barack Obama won nearly 90 percent of black voters in Ohio; they were just 18 percent of the electorate; and Clinton won the state, ironically, with the support of white voters, including white men.
Ryan, a member of a building trades union in Cleveland, who also asked NPR not to use his last name because his union has endorsed Clinton, feels the same way as Jim.
Source
|
On March 14 2016 09:53 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 09:36 oBlade wrote:On March 14 2016 09:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 08:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 08:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 01:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2016 22:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Just waiting for her to actually go full SNL skit. Her attacks have gotten increasingly desperate and poorly researched. Apparently the irony went whizzing past people's heads, though at this point in the game it's unsurprising. Let me lay it out to you: Hillary Clinton led the charge for healthcare reform back in '93, and Bernie Sanders was barely involved (this could be said for many things he professes to care about). This picture could be taken as further proof Bernie doesn't remember or that he is ignoring the fact that Hillary was doing healthcare things, or more symbolically that he was a follower or some sort of potted plant when it came to the issue. Even if we grant you that version, which we don't, as it is bull, that version still has your candidate very openly lying on the stage in order to discredit her opponent. Does that bother you somewhat? Earlier you said it was disgusting that Bernie was so dishonest because he was pushing for things that you don't think he can actually do, now you have Hillary being dishonest because she's saying things that she knows are false, which is the actual definition of dishonesty. And you stand with that. How is it bull? Are you unaware that during the Clinton administration Hillary led the charge on healthcare reform? It isn't dishonesty, it's simply your ability to detect the underlying subtext to the question "where was Bernie" is wholly lacking. Kwizach posted the link earlier. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082Let me stress once again that even if your version was true, it would still be dishonest, cause it's portraying a lack of support for an effort toward healthcare because it's not good enough as a lack of support for healthcare in general. It is in the same vein as the auto bail-out comment, in which the intent is to pretend the vote against wall street bailout, a widely popular position, is actually a vote against the auto bail-out, a perception that is certainly not bound to help you in Michigan. No it's not. Bernie has a record of minimal impact on issues he professes to care about. He talks the talk, but rarely has he walked the walk. Sure he gets a certificate of participation for healthcare, but that's about it. They both supported the initial version of the auto bailout, which failed. Later, a combined bill that provided funding for both the banks and the auto industry came around, and Bernie voted against it. That's pretty clear cut. Bernie chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. Edit: Please answer my question or just move on, kwizach. Please answer the arguments and data I've repeatedly presented you with to address your point about Trump not being a weaker primary candidate than previous frontrunners or just move on, oBlade.
That sounds a lot like what I just said to you. 
My only argument has been that his popular vote numbers thus far are normal under the circumstances and therefore they're not evidence or a measure of the strength of his candidacy. If I was as liberal with underlining as you, maybe you'd have seen this earlier.
|
On March 14 2016 09:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 09:27 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 09:21 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 09:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 08:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 08:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 01:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2016 22:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Just waiting for her to actually go full SNL skit.
Her attacks have gotten increasingly desperate and poorly researched. Apparently the irony went whizzing past people's heads, though at this point in the game it's unsurprising. Let me lay it out to you: Hillary Clinton led the charge for healthcare reform back in '93, and Bernie Sanders was barely involved (this could be said for many things he professes to care about). This picture could be taken as further proof Bernie doesn't remember or that he is ignoring the fact that Hillary was doing healthcare things, or more symbolically that he was a follower or some sort of potted plant when it came to the issue. Even if we grant you that version, which we don't, as it is bull, that version still has your candidate very openly lying on the stage in order to discredit her opponent. Does that bother you somewhat? Earlier you said it was disgusting that Bernie was so dishonest because he was pushing for things that you don't think he can actually do, now you have Hillary being dishonest because she's saying things that she knows are false, which is the actual definition of dishonesty. And you stand with that. How is it bull? Are you unaware that during the Clinton administration Hillary led the charge on healthcare reform? It isn't dishonesty, it's simply your ability to detect the underlying subtext to the question "where was Bernie" is wholly lacking. Kwizach posted the link earlier. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082Let me stress once again that even if your version was true, it would still be dishonest, cause it's portraying a lack of support for an effort toward healthcare because it's not good enough as a lack of support for healthcare in general. It is in the same vein as the auto bail-out comment, in which the intent is to pretend the vote against wall street bailout, a widely popular position, is actually a vote against the auto bail-out, a perception that is certainly not bound to help you in Michigan. No it's not. Bernie has a record of minimal impact on issues he professes to care about. He talks the talk, but rarely has he walked the walk. Sure he gets a certificate of participation for healthcare, but that's about it. They both supported the initial version of the auto bailout, which failed. Later, a combined bill that provided funding for both the banks and the auto industry came around, and Bernie voted against it. That's pretty clear cut. Bernie chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. See that's not what she said. She didn't say he chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. She said he voted against the auto bailout. The notion that presenting a vote against the Wall Street bailout as a vote against the auto bailout isn't dishonest is just awesomely shameless. Ask people if they would support Bernie as much if he had voted for the Wall Street bailout. Bernie says he didn't vote against the auto bailout, he voted against the Wall street bailout. The problem is, those two are the same thing. You can frame it as an unwanted/ unexpected consequence of blocking the Wall Street bailout was blocking the auto bailout, but the fact is the two are tied together. Both sides spin. Bernie is gonna say that he voted against Wall Street, Hillary will bring up the flip side to that. So Hillary brings up an issue in a dishonest fashion (at least you're not disputing that anymore), Bernie defends himself using the truth (he voted for it when it was the main goal of the bill, and against it when the main goal of the bill was the Wall Street bailout, which he gets a yuge amount of support for having opposed), and your conclusion is that both sides spin. Glad we talked. Both are spin. Neither are dishonest, though they portray what happened in an angle less flattering to Bernie. Do you expect this to be a hugfest where both say "well he did this, but it was in the context of this?"
No, I don't expect that. It doesn't surprise me at all that Clinton dishonestly attacks Sanders on his record, given that she doesn't have too many honest attacks she can make (and she has made them too). The fact that it isn't surprising isn't a reason to call it something else than what it is, or to call a perfectly valid defense of a dishonest attack a "spin". Your sense of dishonesty seems remarkably flexible when it comes to your candidate, and it's in contradiction with the claim that you don't expect a hugfest. You're saying at the same time that Clinton wasn't dishonest and that I'd have to be naive to expect that she would be sticking to the truth.
|
On March 14 2016 10:10 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Both Bernie and Hillary looking exhausted in this town hall
One of these a week on top of actually campaigning is really a lot.
|
Hillary just said that democratic candidates should not get money from private prisons and that they should get closed. Guess who is getting money from them.
|
Wow Hillary just tried the "more votes" line when they don't even release numbers in several states?
|
On March 14 2016 08:40 JW_DTLA wrote:
I am so done with these arguments over who was more liberal back in the 90s. A bunch of angels dancing on the head of a pin nonsense. What are you going to do now? How will it work? Who will you get to vote and/or pay for this crap? The Democratic debate is devolved into this idiotic purity contest about things that didn't quite happen 20 years ago while Trump is leading the right wing of this country straight into a vulgar fascism-lite. Trump's calls to violence and revenge are far more consequential than the liberal on liberal fights about who was the liberalist back in the day. I want to hear how Bernie/Hillary will address the rising tide of Trump hatred and violence. What are they going to do to address the illegitimate white feelings of loss**.
White feelings of loss = Barack Obama crushed the illusion of white supremacy in this country. Two times he was elected without the majority consent of whites in this country and put black people in charge of justice. Though illegitimate, that is a real feeling of loss for the aged and under-educated Trump supporters who had so little left to lose.
Nonsense.White people are better off now than when Obama was elected.Blacks are worse off.It's fact.
|
Wait....so anyone still gets surprised that Hillary can be dishonest and spins what she says, what she stands for based on what suits her best right now? You are wasting your breath, even Hillary supporters know she's doing that but still will vote for her, especially if the alternative will be cruz/rubio/sanders.
|
On March 14 2016 10:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 09:53 kwizach wrote:On March 14 2016 09:36 oBlade wrote:On March 14 2016 09:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 08:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 08:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2016 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2016 01:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 13 2016 22:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Just waiting for her to actually go full SNL skit. Her attacks have gotten increasingly desperate and poorly researched. Apparently the irony went whizzing past people's heads, though at this point in the game it's unsurprising. Let me lay it out to you: Hillary Clinton led the charge for healthcare reform back in '93, and Bernie Sanders was barely involved (this could be said for many things he professes to care about). This picture could be taken as further proof Bernie doesn't remember or that he is ignoring the fact that Hillary was doing healthcare things, or more symbolically that he was a follower or some sort of potted plant when it came to the issue. Even if we grant you that version, which we don't, as it is bull, that version still has your candidate very openly lying on the stage in order to discredit her opponent. Does that bother you somewhat? Earlier you said it was disgusting that Bernie was so dishonest because he was pushing for things that you don't think he can actually do, now you have Hillary being dishonest because she's saying things that she knows are false, which is the actual definition of dishonesty. And you stand with that. How is it bull? Are you unaware that during the Clinton administration Hillary led the charge on healthcare reform? It isn't dishonesty, it's simply your ability to detect the underlying subtext to the question "where was Bernie" is wholly lacking. Kwizach posted the link earlier. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082Let me stress once again that even if your version was true, it would still be dishonest, cause it's portraying a lack of support for an effort toward healthcare because it's not good enough as a lack of support for healthcare in general. It is in the same vein as the auto bail-out comment, in which the intent is to pretend the vote against wall street bailout, a widely popular position, is actually a vote against the auto bail-out, a perception that is certainly not bound to help you in Michigan. No it's not. Bernie has a record of minimal impact on issues he professes to care about. He talks the talk, but rarely has he walked the walk. Sure he gets a certificate of participation for healthcare, but that's about it. They both supported the initial version of the auto bailout, which failed. Later, a combined bill that provided funding for both the banks and the auto industry came around, and Bernie voted against it. That's pretty clear cut. Bernie chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. Edit: Please answer my question or just move on, kwizach. Please answer the arguments and data I've repeatedly presented you with to address your point about Trump not being a weaker primary candidate than previous frontrunners or just move on, oBlade. That sounds a lot like what I just said to you. My only argument has been that his popular vote numbers thus far are normal under the circumstances and therefore they're not evidence or a measure of the strength of his candidacy. If I was as liberal with underlining as you, maybe you'd have seen this earlier.
I know that's what you've been saying, which is why I have responded extensively to that argument by pointing out that there are other measures of the strength of his candidacy than only his popular vote numbers. One such measure is how happy with him as the nominee would Republican voters who did not vote for him in the primary would be, and how likely they (Republican voters still, not the non-Republican general electorate) would be to support him in a general election. In this respect, he fares considerably worse than Romney did in 2012. The facts therefore tell us that despite Trump's numbers in the popular vote, he has weaknesses that Romney did not have. It is mind-blowing that at this point in the discussion you are still not processing this simple information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
