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 April 06 2016 10:20 travis wrote: Are you guys fucking kidding me with that Sanders interview? The interviewer was an asshole. What, is Bernie Sanders supposed to literally fucking know everything? Do you think any of the other candidates could continually give answers to those questions? There is no way they could, because you have to be an absolute expert on these topics. Which is why the president HIRES A STAFF OF EXPERTS. I mean, it's not like he's busy or anything. But sure, he should know policy and law inside out regarding every major change he proposes. Why would he do that? Seriously, can someone explain why he should spend all of his time (that he doesn't have) studying the details of these laws so that he can recite them in interviews?
The reality is, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who won't bullshit and will just say "I don't know" or "I don't know that yet". Just because he isn't able to recite the details of every major change he proposes doesn't mean they aren't possible. WTF, honestly. That's infuriating.
The interview was utterly embarrassing. He was incapable of explaining how he plans on doing what he wants to do for one of the core pillars of his campaign, he completely failed to answer several pretty basic questions, and he again displayed his utter lack of knowledge on one of the core executive responsibilities (foreign policy). This is a man who is running to become president of the United States, one of the five people left running for the highest office in the most powerful country on Earth, and he has no fucking clue about his own policy proposals and clearly has not been briefed enough on foreign policy. When Trump makes a fool of himself, we call him out for it. When Sanders does as well, there's no reason not to point out his answers were embarrassingly devoid of substance. This is probably the first time he gets actual follow-up questions about his policy ideas, and actually has to explain them beyond his standard lines in his stump speech, and he failed miserably. I've always considered him weak on the details of his plans and on foreign policy, but this was even worse than I thought. We're more than half-way through the primary. There is no excuse for this level of ignorance at this point.
Personally, looking at the election map I'd have to say that Trump's best bet is the 130 or so uncommitted delegates that are still around. Maybe he can get Kasich kicked out and get some of his delegates as well.
There are so many bizarrely complex and circuitous varying-by-state GOP delegate rules about what happens to Rubio's delegates; I think Kasich is guaranteed to stay in until the convention. Then there's the smattering that adds up to like 16 delegates of other drop-out candidates that also have to follow wacky rules. It's really a black box unless you have spent years studying the process like Cruz's camp has (and maybe some other available hired guns).
Anyway, I don't think even Trump will ignore the delegate hunting in favor of the media circus forever, but I am not sure his deal-cutting prowess will work on people that generally loathe him.
On April 06 2016 10:20 travis wrote: Are you guys fucking kidding me with that Sanders interview? The interviewer was an asshole. What, is Bernie Sanders supposed to literally fucking know everything? Do you think any of the other candidates could continually give answers to those questions? There is no way they could, because you have to be an absolute expert on these topics. Which is why the president HIRES A STAFF OF EXPERTS. I mean, it's not like he's busy or anything. But sure, he should know policy and law inside out regarding every major change he proposes. Why would he do that? Seriously, can someone explain why he should spend all of his time (that he doesn't have) studying the details of these laws so that he can recite them in interviews?
The reality is, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who won't bullshit and will just say "I don't know" or "I don't know that yet". Just because he isn't able to recite the details of every major change he proposes doesn't mean they aren't possible. WTF, honestly. That's infuriating.
The interview was utterly embarrassing. He was incapable of explaining how he plans on doing what he wants to do for one of the core pillars of his campaign, he completely failed to answer several pretty basic questions, and he again displayed his utter lack of knowledge on one of the core executive responsibilities (foreign policy). This is a man who is running to become president of the United States, one of the five people left running for the highest office in the most powerful country on Earth, and he has no fucking clue about his own policy proposals and clearly has not been briefed enough on foreign policy. When Trump makes a fool of himself, we call him out for it. When Sanders does as well, there's no reason not to point out his answers were embarrassingly devoid of substance. This is probably the first time he gets actual follow-up questions about his policy ideas, and actually has to explain them beyond his standard lines in his stump speech, and he failed miserably. I've always considered him weak on the details of his plans and on foreign policy, but this was even worse than I thought. We're more than half-way through the primary. There is no excuse for this level of ignorance at this point.
If you were running for president, how would you answer the questions asked? Please enlighten us and answer the questions asked.
On April 06 2016 11:30 ShoCkeyy wrote: ... If you were running for president, how would you answer the questions asked? Please enlighten us and answer the questions asked.
You are aware kwisach is in fact not running for president and is not obliged to have answers to those questions, yes?
Are you guys fucking kidding me with that Sanders interview? The interviewer was an asshole. What, is Bernie Sanders supposed to literally fucking know everything? Do you think any of the other candidates could continually give answers to those questions? There is no way they could, because you have to be an absolute expert on these topics. Which is why the president HIRES A STAFF OF EXPERTS. I mean, it's not like he's busy or anything. But sure, he should know policy and law inside out regarding every major change he proposes. Why would he do that? Seriously, can someone explain why he should spend all of his time (that he doesn't have) studying the details of these laws so that he can recite them in interviews?
The reality is, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who won't bullshit and will just say "I don't know" or "I don't know that yet". Just because he isn't able to recite the details of every major change he proposes doesn't mean they aren't possible. WTF, honestly. That's infuriating.
What is with this "we need to know exactly how he's going to do everything he says he wants to do" shit? What is the point of it? What if it's not even possible *at this moment*? Does that change his campaign? No, that doesn't change his campaign at all, because something not being possible right now does not mean it won't be possible in the future.
Like, I understand if you don't agree with his policies or whatever. But critically think rather than being purposely shitty. He doesn't need to be able to recite the details of how everything is possible right now, even if that was feasible. He is proposing huge changes. But people know that, and they attack it because they are trying to be shitty and tear him down.
Travis, your response would make sense in a lot of areas. If the interviewer had asked Sanders about the Panama FTA or embargoes on North Korea, I'd give him a pass with some very generic answers. Those aren't his area of expertise and I don't expect him to be able to dive deep.
However, questions on banking regulations are supposed to be the soft pitch that Sanders can knock out of the park. His platform has been about banking reform and regulations. He's talked about breaking up the big banks as one of the main columns holding up the Sanders temple. Then when asked about it, we find out that column is hollow. That's really disheartening. If he's going to repeatedly rail on a subject, I'd expect him to be somewhat fluent in that subject. I'd expect him to be able to dive deep and really show an interviewer that he knows what he's talking about and isn't just a bunch of broad ideas with no possibility of implementation. What was supposed to be a softball question turned out to be a major curve for Sanders.
That's weak. Even Trump has finally laid out a basic plan for how he's going to make Mexico pay for the wall. Up until recently, he too seemed to be completely full of shit. Now Trump has actually pulled a tangible plan out of some advisor's ass on one of his most ridiculous claims. I'd like for Sanders to be able to do at least as much on a topic he cares so much about.
Would I still vote Sanders over the Republican clown car? Yeah. However, I'd lean much heavier towards Clinton now. She actually knows what she's talking about on a whole lot of subjects.
On April 06 2016 10:20 travis wrote: Are you guys fucking kidding me with that Sanders interview? The interviewer was an asshole. What, is Bernie Sanders supposed to literally fucking know everything? Do you think any of the other candidates could continually give answers to those questions? There is no way they could, because you have to be an absolute expert on these topics. Which is why the president HIRES A STAFF OF EXPERTS. I mean, it's not like he's busy or anything. But sure, he should know policy and law inside out regarding every major change he proposes. Why would he do that? Seriously, can someone explain why he should spend all of his time (that he doesn't have) studying the details of these laws so that he can recite them in interviews?
The reality is, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who won't bullshit and will just say "I don't know" or "I don't know that yet". Just because he isn't able to recite the details of every major change he proposes doesn't mean they aren't possible. WTF, honestly. That's infuriating.
The interview was utterly embarrassing. He was incapable of explaining how he plans on doing what he wants to do for one of the core pillars of his campaign, he completely failed to answer several pretty basic questions, and he again displayed his utter lack of knowledge on one of the core executive responsibilities (foreign policy). This is a man who is running to become president of the United States, one of the five people left running for the highest office in the most powerful country on Earth, and he has no fucking clue about his own policy proposals and clearly has not been briefed enough on foreign policy. When Trump makes a fool of himself, we call him out for it. When Sanders does as well, there's no reason not to point out his answers were embarrassingly devoid of substance. This is probably the first time he gets actual follow-up questions about his policy ideas, and actually has to explain them beyond his standard lines in his stump speech, and he failed miserably. I've always considered him weak on the details of his plans and on foreign policy, but this was even worse than I thought. We're more than half-way through the primary. There is no excuse for this level of ignorance at this point.
If you were running for president, how would you answer the questions asked? Please enlighten us and answer the questions asked.
If you have a plan: Tell us the plan. If you don't have a plan: Tell us that you will hire experts to make one
Its really that simple. Obama handled it smoothly when asked about his lack of foreign policy experience--he said he would put together a team of experts to advise him on the best course of action and that until he's done that he would not commit to anything apart from the fact that he desires to bring the troops from Iraq home as soon as it is safe to do so.
Sanders could have literally just said "I do not have a specific plan as of yet, but once I am president, I will build a team to specifically tackle this issue, and move forward from there."
Its easy as fuck to answer those types of question. The only reason they asked him that was because its literally his answer to every other question posed to him. "Blah blah, break up the banks, punish wallstreet, we need equality, break up banks" so some liberal journalists asked him how would someone go about breaking up banks and how would he decide which banks to break up. And he had nothing--not even an easy "we'll figure it out later, I don't know yet" response.
As much as the Bernie interview had stacks of blunders, I think his answer on how he would get his Tax Increase and Spending Increase agenda through congress really sticks out. His answer was delusional nonsense about making Republicans pay a political price for opposing Democratic Tax Increases and Spending Increases. He also thinks Republicans only vote against his kind of stuff due to monied interests, as opposed to sincere political conviction.
"Daily News: Senator, I wanted to ask you. Because you've got this enormous support from young people, as President Obama did in 2008 and 2012. And you're promising a political revolution. But, if nothing changes in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, how are you going to be able to get anything done? I mean the real issue to me seems to be, what happens in the Senate? And what happens in the House of Representatives?
...
But more importantly, if I win, it will mean that millions of people now want to be involved in the political process in a way that has not previously existed. Every item that I am talking about on my agenda is, I believe, supported by the majority of the people in this country. My major job is to mobilize the American people to demand that Congress listen to them and their needs rather than just the big money interests. That's how you make change take place. For example, as you know, I've talked about the need to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. Do I believe we can deliver on that? Absolutely, because I believe that millions of young people and their parents understand that that's what we should be doing right now. And I think if Republicans or some Democrats want to vote against it, they will pay a very heavy political price."
On April 06 2016 12:29 JW_DTLA wrote: As much as the Bernie interview had stacks of blunders, I think his answer on how he would get his Tax Increase and Spending Increase agenda through congress really sticks out. His answer was delusional nonsense about making Republicans pay a political price for opposing Democratic Tax Increases and Spending Increases. He also thinks Republicans only vote against his kind of stuff due to monied interests, as opposed to sincere political conviction.
"Daily News: Senator, I wanted to ask you. Because you've got this enormous support from young people, as President Obama did in 2008 and 2012. And you're promising a political revolution. But, if nothing changes in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, how are you going to be able to get anything done? I mean the real issue to me seems to be, what happens in the Senate? And what happens in the House of Representatives?
...
But more importantly, if I win, it will mean that millions of people now want to be involved in the political process in a way that has not previously existed. Every item that I am talking about on my agenda is, I believe, supported by the majority of the people in this country. My major job is to mobilize the American people to demand that Congress listen to them and their needs rather than just the big money interests. That's how you make change take place. For example, as you know, I've talked about the need to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. Do I believe we can deliver on that? Absolutely, because I believe that millions of young people and their parents understand that that's what we should be doing right now. And I think if Republicans or some Democrats want to vote against it, they will pay a very heavy political price."
You know, the way I see it the current chances of republican nominees are:
Trump 40%, Cruz 2%, Kasich 10%, Paul Ryan 25%, someone else rest of %.
It would seem that for Cruz, it's be logical for him to endorse Trump and guarantee that he gets 50%+, and then gun for his VP position. The GOP does not like Cruz and there's no way he'd win a brokered convention. Is that legal, or in any way possible? Trump and Cruz get along really well from what I've heard (not during a contest of course).
Or is that not logical because Trump has like a 5% probability of beating Hillary?
Its not logical because Cruz (A) has a much higher % chance of winning a contested convention than that, and (B) Has more power (and ability to become President later/ on SCOTUS) as a Senator than as one of the youngest, lame duckiest VPs ever.
On April 06 2016 13:00 FiWiFaKi wrote: You know, the way I see it the current chances of republican nominees are:
Trump 40%, Cruz 2%, Kasich 10%, Paul Ryan 25%, someone else rest of %.
It would seem that for Cruz, it's be logical for him to endorse Trump and guarantee that he gets 50%+, and then gun for his VP position. The GOP does not like Cruz and there's no way he'd win a brokered convention. Is that legal, or in any way possible? Trump and Cruz get along really well from what I've heard (not during a contest of course).
Or is that not logical because Trump has like a 5% probability of beating Hillary?
Trump has been calling him Lying Ted for months now.Why make someone VP who you think is a chronic liar? I don't see it.
On April 06 2016 13:00 FiWiFaKi wrote: You know, the way I see it the current chances of republican nominees are:
Trump 40%, Cruz 2%, Kasich 10%, Paul Ryan 25%, someone else rest of %.
It would seem that for Cruz, it's be logical for him to endorse Trump and guarantee that he gets 50%+, and then gun for his VP position. The GOP does not like Cruz and there's no way he'd win a brokered convention. Is that legal, or in any way possible? Trump and Cruz get along really well from what I've heard (not during a contest of course).
Or is that not logical because Trump has like a 5% probability of beating Hillary?
Trump has been calling him Lying Ted for months now.Why make someone VP who you think is a chronic liar? I don't see it.
It's all a part of the game. In a few speeches I've watched, he even said how he wont attack Cruz because he hasn't attacked him, and how they are friends, etc. He said that it'll of course get ugly later, but because of the process. And that's why the two never attacked each other until the very end.
When I say friends I mean Trump likes more than Cruz than any of the other 16-17 guys in the race. Obviously it looks a tad different now, since he was endorsed by at least 2 of them, but I still think Trump and Cruz are on good terms and just participating in the political process.
And also do it to go from a 40% probability of being the Republican nominee, to a 99% probability.
On April 06 2016 13:05 cLutZ wrote: Its not logical because Cruz (A) has a much higher % chance of winning a contested convention than that, and (B) Has more power (and ability to become President later/ on SCOTUS) as a Senator than as one of the youngest, lame duckiest VPs ever.
It's also worth noting that such a move would potentially kill Cruz's career, considering he'll be very unlikely to actually win the vice presidency and the establishment will hate him for giving Trump the white house (even more than they already do).
On April 06 2016 17:48 Kipsate wrote: Wait what I miss, is brokered convention a thing that is becoming more likely? Seems like political suicide.
At this point it seems more likely than not. And while people wouldn't be happy about it, the hope is that it'd be better than having Trump as the Republican nominee.
EPT
