EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3839
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24314 Posts
On May 18 2016 12:52 LegalLord wrote: I'm actually pretty impressed that Bernie has a base of support that's still large enough to still win states. Clinton pretty much won by now and by all means she should be winning by post-NY Trump margins, by virtue of the fact that she won the whole thing. Should be abundantly clear most of the country doesn't want either candidate (don't think either have broke 50% in a general for more months now). What they have is the most people willing to go out and vote for them in a primary. 11 of Hillary's wins come from closed primaries, where independent voters don't have any influence. Trump has a different part of the issue in that he has the support of right side independents but is missing support from the rank and file/establishment. His coalition is actually diverse as far as Republicans go, and now he's signed a party fundraising agreement like Hillary so he'll have the establishment on his tit now. So I expect Hillary to probably drop under Trump across many polls before California votes. But the result is, most Americans don't pick the nominees, so most of them don't like either one of the party representatives. Bernie, both in polls and in election results, shows he has the widest appeal and is the only candidate who get's over 50% in a general election matchup. People can say they would fall but even if that's true Hillary's aren't going up. Trump's shown he can make republicans ignore what he's said before and believe what he's saying now, that Democrats think Trump vs Hillary doesn't give him the opportunity to do it to non-primary voting democrats, is woefully mistaken imo. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Warning. Shitpost. Ignore and continue on. Bernie was just a plant all along by the DNC. Rob college kids of all their precious shekels with glorious stories of communist America handing out free college and wiping out their student debt. Then blow up his own campaign and campaign for Hillary on 'omg we can't elect a monster guys'. That's why their reddit was always, 'match me!' from wealthy sinister Hillary shills pretending to be poor Bernie bros. That's why their mods didn't allow memes.. they were in Hillary's pocket all along. They knew the power of meme magic and denied them their right to life. You've all been rused.  Join the team with the memes, where there are no brakes. After all, the crooked one is often confused. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/clinton-confused-email.jpg) | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 18 2016 12:52 LegalLord wrote: I'm actually pretty impressed that Bernie has a base of support that's still large enough to still win states. Clinton pretty much won by now and by all means she should be winning by post-NY Trump margins, by virtue of the fact that she won the whole thing. This is more of a function of the huge diversity among states. Same thing was seen in the GOP race. Compare Trump's huge wins in the Northeast with his losses to Cruz. Or Rubio's numbers between states. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24314 Posts
This is one of many reasons I don't take any of the complaints about Bernie's dirty/negative campaign seriously. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
The Clinton guy was a single nut that Clinton will condemn strenuously tomorrow when she wakes up. Going for post reality false equivalences used to be a Republican thing, not a Democrat thing. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
As an outsider, from the stuff I read imo she should be locked for high treason, so I was wondering what the average US citizens view on this is. I also don't think she will infact end up in jail because of her political ties, however. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On May 18 2016 15:39 NukeD wrote: What are the chances of Hillary going to jail? And how deserving of jail is she in your eyes? As an outsider, from the stuff I read imo she should be locked for high treason, so I was wondering what the average US citizens view on this is. I also don't think she will infact end up in jail because of her political ties, however. Uhhh I am actually curious what you read if you get high treason out of even the worst interpretation of whatever she did. I assume this is about the email thing which what she did was not even against the rules let alone the intentionally leaking of classified documents that you are basically implying happened which would be needed for treason. Its not political connections its just that no crime was committed except for maybe a crime of poor judgement (though considering her email server seems to have held up better then the government one I would even cast doubt on that) and even then I just think it seems like a very overblown story. Basically you got baited by people who want to cast an image on someone (like how they admitted they set up a Benghazi commission to tank her numbers) and are letting the people with an agenda be the people who inform you. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4444 Posts
On May 18 2016 15:39 NukeD wrote: What are the chances of Hillary going to jail? And how deserving of jail is she in your eyes? As an outsider, from the stuff I read imo she should be locked for high treason, so I was wondering what the average US citizens view on this is. I also don't think she will infact end up in jail because of her political ties, however. Zero chance but of course she should be in jail.Like Bush should be in jail for lying about WMDs, like Obama should be in jail for bombing Libya without congressional approval, like Jamie Dimon should be in jail for financial crime of the highest order.These people are CRIMINALS and they are above the law.For now. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On May 18 2016 17:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Zero chance but of course she should be in jail.Like Bush should be in jail for lying about WMDs, like Obama should be in jail for bombing Libya without congressional approval, like Jamie Dimon should be in jail for financial crime of the highest order.These people are CRIMINALS and they are above the law.For now. I dont know who Jamie Dimon is but in regards to Libya you do not need congressional approval to have a no fly zone so no approval was needed. You can say its playing cute but at its core congress does not want to authorize any military action they just want it to take place without them having to go on the record about there opinions on it because it could come back to hurt them politically later. This is one of the biggest reasons we STILL have no had an authorization for use of force against ISIS. Congressmen are afraid of going on the record with a vote so they just want the president to figure out a legal way to do it without going thru them so they find legal loopholes and use those such as the basis now being a very loose interpretation of the war authorizations in 2001 and 2003. | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
That's why Obama can kill people in a country that isn't at war with the US, based on metadata, without a trial, based on crimes they may commit in the future. By whichever definition of human rights or international law you have, the indoctrination it takes to defend that is frightening. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
I can't think of any government policy which legitimately favors white people or black people? E: the discussion was a few pages back, maybe i'm too late | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On May 18 2016 14:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Something tells me Hillary won't be coming out to condemn her supporters getting arrested for assaulting a Bernie supporter? Nor will her supporters lament how disgusted they are with her for not doing so... This is one of many reasons I don't take any of the complaints about Bernie's dirty/negative campaign seriously. This is such a dishonest false equivalency I don't think even you take it seriously. One random supporter committing an isolated act of violence at a bar is not in any way, shape or form equivalent to having campaign delegates cause the kind of chaos that happened at a state convention (which is to say while performing their duties as delegates), and then having thousands of supporters issue death threats and insult the state party president both to her face and on her voicemail. And since it appears that, exactly as the state party wrote in its letter, it's actually the Sanders campaign which encouraged its delegates to be confrontational, it makes Sanders' extremely timid condemnation of the verbal violence of his delegates and supporters even worse. To quote CNN: But new audio obtained by CNN shows a senior Sanders aide -- on the eve of the Nevada convention -- encouraging the senator's supporters try to "take over" the convention, change party rules and continue the "revolution" that Sanders has long campaigned on. "You should not leave," Joan Kato, the national delegates director, told Sanders supporters in a meeting last week at the Rumor Boutique Hotel. "I'm going to repeat that, unless you are told by someone from the campaign ... that you can leave, you should not leave." The Sanders campaign hasn't responded to a request for comment. Source edit: a thorough explanation of what's wrong with Sanders' statement. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46323 Posts
On May 18 2016 13:37 SK.Testie wrote: + Show Spoiler + Warning. Shitpost. Ignore and continue on. Bernie was just a plant all along by the DNC. Rob college kids of all their precious shekels with glorious stories of communist America handing out free college and wiping out their student debt. Then blow up his own campaign and campaign for Hillary on 'omg we can't elect a monster guys'. That's why their reddit was always, 'match me!' from wealthy sinister Hillary shills pretending to be poor Bernie bros. That's why their mods didn't allow memes.. they were in Hillary's pocket all along. They knew the power of meme magic and denied them their right to life. You've all been rused. Join the team with the memes, where there are no brakes. After all, the crooked one is often confused. + Show Spoiler + Aren't you supposed to say "Warning. Shitpost. Ignore and continue on." outside of the spoiler, and then put your absurd and conspiratorial rant inside of a spoiler? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10943 Posts
The Bernie campaign at this Point just seems to be a giant spiral of self loathing/System hating... It is hurtfull to just about anything he ever wanted to achieve. Just hope he doesn't make Trump win... | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 18 2016 22:11 Velr wrote: So, your the guy that still reads Testies posts? :D The Bernie campaign at this Point just seems to be a giant spiral of self loathing/System hating... It is hurtfull to just about anything he ever wanted to achieve. Just hope he doesn't make Trump win... It's bleeding credibility like crazy. I wouldn't worry about it. Oregon's results show how sharply the breadth of his support is shrinking. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 18 2016 20:58 Incognoto wrote: Isn't appealing to white or black voters a form of instituionalized racism, lol? I can't think of any government policy which legitimately favors white people or black people? E: the discussion was a few pages back, maybe i'm too late By appealing to black voters, is means listening to them and considering the issues they bring to the table. You should read up on the Southern Strategy and how it was in direct conflict with the civil rights movement. That tactic and courting of voters interested in state’s rights soon after the federal government forced an end to segregation was a direct attempt to appeal to anti-black voters who felt the government was no longer for them. That decision has echoed throughout the GOP of decades. Every time they lose footing in the house or senate, they go back to the well of appealing social and religious conservatives. You can see this with the Clinton era and the rise of the tea party. The reason blacks don’t vote for the GOP is because the GOP has actively courted people have repressed blacks in the past. The now common term “states rights” was created because they knew they couldn’t directly appeal to the issues of white supremacy. Rinse and repeat for 50 years and you have the reason why 90% of blacks vote democrat. The GOP isn't interested in their vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Millions more American workers will soon be eligible for overtime pay under a rule being finalized Wednesday by the Labor Department. The rule says anyone who makes less than $47,476 per year must receive time-and-a-half pay for hours worked beyond 40 hours a week. That's roughly double the current threshold of $23,660. The measure is one of the most sweeping moves the Obama administration has made so far in its efforts to boost slow-growing incomes. But it's sure to face opposition from some business owners. According to the Labor Department, the higher income threshold will make 4.2 million salaried workers newly eligible for overtime pay. The rule could also benefit millions of others who are already technically eligible but not receiving overtime. "Our whole mission here is about strengthening and growing the middle class," Labor Secretary Tom Perez told NPR. "In order to do that, we need to ensure that middle class jobs pay middle class wages." The rule change is authorized under New Deal-era legislation called the Fair Labor Standards Act. As recently as 1975, more than 60 percent of salaried workers were eligible for overtime. Inflation and regulatory changes under the George W. Bush Administration eroded that protection, and today, only about 7 percent of salaried workers receive time and a half when they work extra hours. Managers at many retail stores and fast food restaurants making as little as $24,000 have not been eligible for overtime, even when they work 60 or 70 hours a week. Source | ||
| ||
