• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 16:34
CEST 22:34
KST 05:34
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20259Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202577RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18
Community News
EWC 2025 - Replay Pack0Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced25BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19
StarCraft 2
General
EWC 2025 - Replay Pack #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 2025 Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 I offer completely free coaching services
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event Esports World Cup 2025 $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025 WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Dewalt's Show Matches in China BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
UK Politics Mega-thread US Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 736 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3877

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 3875 3876 3877 3878 3879 10093 Next
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.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-05-24 19:54:46
May 24 2016 19:52 GMT
#77521
Seem slike there should be more categories in that Krugman list.
lik esomething for the anti-free trade that are in it due to lost jobs and such.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15686 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-05-24 19:54:43
May 24 2016 19:52 GMT
#77522
Krugman nails it again. Point #4 has been the most embarrassing as a democrat. People start foaming at the mouth as soon as they see an unrealistic socialist and thus end up eating up every GOP attack there is.

On May 25 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:
Seem slike there should be more categories in that Krugman list.


Yeah, I think there needs to be a "fuck the system" category, as we have seen here on TL. People who have never really spent much time understanding political dynamics but know moooore than enough to say "enough already!" (sound familiar?) and just throw their support behind who is most rude towards money and power.
kwizach
Profile Joined June 2011
3658 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-05-24 20:25:57
May 24 2016 20:25 GMT
#77523
On May 25 2016 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 25 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:
We already took issue with that article. It use of money laundering is incorrect. It also complains about things that have been true about the parties forever. States without competitive senate/house races get less money. Just like you don’t sink money into a losing fight. None of this stuff is new.

And the idea that the DNC is going to keep that money is dumb. They are holding it because the election spending spree starts after the convention. They are not going to distribute funds now, the fight has not started. They are going to put money into the races that need the money, and they won't have the all that information until after the primary season is over.


The idea that it goes to the state parties is what's dumb. How much gets spent on what is still a convoluted mess where often money ends up in information black holes.

What do you mean, that's not what you read at all? We already have a sig bet for the general election, for which you suggested that the loser adopt the following signature: "I have no idea what I'm talking about, if you want useful information, you should stick to reading _____'s posts."

I'm simply suggesting that we make another bet over the presidential results of Washington state in the GE, since you've repeatedly declared that you're absolutely sure that Clinton will not win the state. So let's transfer our sig bet to Washington state and put a six month period on the resulting sig, and let's make the stakes of our GE bet a six month period during which we're not allowed to post on TL.net. Of course, if one of us loses both bets, he'll have to start by not posting on TL.net during six months, and then have the new sig during the following six months.

I agree that your odds are terrible, but you're the one who's asserting that Clinton has zero chance of winning Washington, and that she's very likely to lose the GE against Trump. If that's what you truly believe, you should be happy to take the bets. So, we agree, then?

Your wording/use of quotes was confusing. She isn't going to win Washington, so yeah she's likely to lose in my estimation (counter to current predictions). Essentially I should be getting some odds on this if you want to make it a fair bet. Either we should keep it for bragging rights or it the winning/risk should reflect the odds.

Either you think Hillary's going to lose Washington and the general election or you don't. If you think that's what's going to happen, why are you walking back on the bets? You should be looking forward to winning like you expect to. In any case, if it helps, I'm fine with having a non-posting period (GE result bet) and a sig period (Washington result bet) of nine months each if I lose, to your six months each if you lose.

On May 25 2016 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
Frankly I don't think it matters much because there will be bigger problems with either of them claiming victory. Provided Hillary somehow wins, the majority of the country will believe she did so by cheating/manipulating the rules. Whether it's true or not won't matter much as we saw with a Republican party and Obama.

The idea that the majority of the country will believe Hillary will have won "by cheating/manipulating the rules" is obviously not backed by anything. It's a pure invention from your part.

On May 25 2016 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
With neither Trump or Hillary likely to get anywhere near 50% favorable before November, Bernie is the only person with even a chance of most of the country actually wanting him to be president (even if primary voting Democrats [~2.9% of voters, 4.9% if you include leaners] prefer Hillary)

That you have a similar story on the Republican side gives a glimpse into why the leading nominees are the least liked/trusted leaders in modern polling history. Pulling from that anything other than America will be very disappointed in either of them winning. strikes me as especially naive.

More nonsense. If you think Sanders' favorability rating would not be influenced by six months of campaigning during which the GOP would pounce on his personal glaring weaknesses, the "socialist" label, and the fact that his plans would increase taxes on many people, I have a bridge to sell you. In any case, he won't be the nominee and he won't run as an independent, so whatever.
"Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions." -- Stephen Colbert
Velr
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Switzerland10700 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-05-24 20:53:41
May 24 2016 20:52 GMT
#77524
Problem is.... NO ONE really wants Hillary... and she is Damn bad at selling herself.

So.. pick trump or the scarecrow....
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
May 24 2016 20:53 GMT
#77525
New Mexico sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an agency contractor and two mining companies on Monday over the 2015 breach of an abandoned Colorado gold mine that spilled some 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into three states.

The Gold King Mine rupture, which was accidentally triggered by an EPA inspection team called there to inspect seepage, unleashed a torrent of yellow sludge that contained high concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury and lead. New Mexico, Colorado and Utah were affected.

New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said in a statement issued with the 51-page lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court that the discharge caused widespread environmental damage and substantial economic harm to residents, farmers and local businesses for which the state has not been compensated.

"The release of hazardous substances into waters that are the lifeblood of our economy and culture in New Mexico has had a devastating impact on our historical rural, agricultural and tribal communities," Balderas said.

The lawsuit, which names the EPA, its contractor Environmental Restoration, the Kinross Gold Corp and Sunnyside Gold Corp, seeks reimbursement for cleanup costs as well as damages and a court order requiring that the defendants take steps to prevent future such spills.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Paljas
Profile Joined October 2011
Germany6926 Posts
May 24 2016 21:18 GMT
#77526
On May 25 2016 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Krugman nails it again. Point #4 has been the most embarrassing as a democrat. People start foaming at the mouth as soon as they see an unrealistic socialist and thus end up eating up every GOP attack there is.

Show nested quote +
On May 25 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:
Seem slike there should be more categories in that Krugman list.


Yeah, I think there needs to be a "fuck the system" category, as we have seen here on TL. People who have never really spent much time understanding political dynamics but know moooore than enough to say "enough already!" (sound familiar?) and just throw their support behind who is most rude towards money and power.

I don't intend to defend the mix of naive and irrational nonsense that is the prevalent in the Bernie Sanders faction ( even though we probably mean naive and irrational in different ways), but one doesnt't need to listen to GOP attacks to dislike Hillary Clinton. Reading Wikipeida and her campagin page is more than enough.
TL+ Member
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
May 24 2016 21:30 GMT
#77527
On May 25 2016 06:18 Paljas wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 25 2016 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Krugman nails it again. Point #4 has been the most embarrassing as a democrat. People start foaming at the mouth as soon as they see an unrealistic socialist and thus end up eating up every GOP attack there is.

On May 25 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:
Seem slike there should be more categories in that Krugman list.


Yeah, I think there needs to be a "fuck the system" category, as we have seen here on TL. People who have never really spent much time understanding political dynamics but know moooore than enough to say "enough already!" (sound familiar?) and just throw their support behind who is most rude towards money and power.

I don't intend to defend the mix of naive and irrational nonsense that is the prevalent in the Bernie Sanders faction ( even though we probably mean naive and irrational in different ways), but one doesnt't need to listen to GOP attacks to dislike Hillary Clinton. Reading Wikipeida and her campagin page is more than enough.

Since the Wikipeida has been influenced by the GOPs constant investigation of the not a big deal, the Bush administration did the same thing, email non-sense, I don't that that is a good thing to cite. Members of the GOP have straight up said they know their attacks were effective at discrediting her and it was their goal. Before all the email and Benghazi BS, she had a favorable rating with the public.

Its the old attack method of saying an untrue thing long enough that people start to believe it.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
CorsairHero
Profile Joined December 2008
Canada9491 Posts
May 24 2016 22:37 GMT
#77528
On May 25 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 25 2016 06:18 Paljas wrote:
On May 25 2016 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Krugman nails it again. Point #4 has been the most embarrassing as a democrat. People start foaming at the mouth as soon as they see an unrealistic socialist and thus end up eating up every GOP attack there is.

On May 25 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:
Seem slike there should be more categories in that Krugman list.


Yeah, I think there needs to be a "fuck the system" category, as we have seen here on TL. People who have never really spent much time understanding political dynamics but know moooore than enough to say "enough already!" (sound familiar?) and just throw their support behind who is most rude towards money and power.

I don't intend to defend the mix of naive and irrational nonsense that is the prevalent in the Bernie Sanders faction ( even though we probably mean naive and irrational in different ways), but one doesnt't need to listen to GOP attacks to dislike Hillary Clinton. Reading Wikipeida and her campagin page is more than enough.

Since the Wikipeida has been influenced by the GOPs constant investigation of the not a big deal, the Bush administration did the same thing, email non-sense, I don't that that is a good thing to cite. Members of the GOP have straight up said they know their attacks were effective at discrediting her and it was their goal. Before all the email and Benghazi BS, she had a favorable rating with the public.

Its the old attack method of saying an untrue thing long enough that people start to believe it.

Just look up clips of Hillary saying contradictory things. It's not even an attack because shes saying it herself. Like her stance on gay marriage for example.
© Current year.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
May 24 2016 22:42 GMT
#77529
On May 25 2016 07:37 CorsairHero wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 25 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:
On May 25 2016 06:18 Paljas wrote:
On May 25 2016 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Krugman nails it again. Point #4 has been the most embarrassing as a democrat. People start foaming at the mouth as soon as they see an unrealistic socialist and thus end up eating up every GOP attack there is.

On May 25 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:
Seem slike there should be more categories in that Krugman list.


Yeah, I think there needs to be a "fuck the system" category, as we have seen here on TL. People who have never really spent much time understanding political dynamics but know moooore than enough to say "enough already!" (sound familiar?) and just throw their support behind who is most rude towards money and power.

I don't intend to defend the mix of naive and irrational nonsense that is the prevalent in the Bernie Sanders faction ( even though we probably mean naive and irrational in different ways), but one doesnt't need to listen to GOP attacks to dislike Hillary Clinton. Reading Wikipeida and her campagin page is more than enough.

Since the Wikipeida has been influenced by the GOPs constant investigation of the not a big deal, the Bush administration did the same thing, email non-sense, I don't that that is a good thing to cite. Members of the GOP have straight up said they know their attacks were effective at discrediting her and it was their goal. Before all the email and Benghazi BS, she had a favorable rating with the public.

Its the old attack method of saying an untrue thing long enough that people start to believe it.

Just look up clips of Hillary saying contradictory things. It's not even an attack because shes saying it herself. Like her stance on gay marriage for example.

You mean the ones separated by decades? Or the stance most of the DNC had until the winds changed? You have just cited the the stance that a ton of people, including Obama, shifted on during the last 8 years. My father changed his views on the subject, I don't think he is some dishonest guy. This shit gets so old.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
RenSC2
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States1057 Posts
May 24 2016 22:42 GMT
#77530
On May 25 2016 07:37 CorsairHero wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 25 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:
On May 25 2016 06:18 Paljas wrote:
On May 25 2016 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Krugman nails it again. Point #4 has been the most embarrassing as a democrat. People start foaming at the mouth as soon as they see an unrealistic socialist and thus end up eating up every GOP attack there is.

On May 25 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:
Seem slike there should be more categories in that Krugman list.


Yeah, I think there needs to be a "fuck the system" category, as we have seen here on TL. People who have never really spent much time understanding political dynamics but know moooore than enough to say "enough already!" (sound familiar?) and just throw their support behind who is most rude towards money and power.

I don't intend to defend the mix of naive and irrational nonsense that is the prevalent in the Bernie Sanders faction ( even though we probably mean naive and irrational in different ways), but one doesnt't need to listen to GOP attacks to dislike Hillary Clinton. Reading Wikipeida and her campagin page is more than enough.

Since the Wikipeida has been influenced by the GOPs constant investigation of the not a big deal, the Bush administration did the same thing, email non-sense, I don't that that is a good thing to cite. Members of the GOP have straight up said they know their attacks were effective at discrediting her and it was their goal. Before all the email and Benghazi BS, she had a favorable rating with the public.

Its the old attack method of saying an untrue thing long enough that people start to believe it.

Just look up clips of Hillary saying contradictory things. It's not even an attack because shes saying it herself. Like her stance on gay marriage for example.

On gay marriage, her opinion mirrored the electorate. When the electorate was mostly against gay marriage, so was she. Now that the electorate is mostly for gay marriage, so is she. I can't give her credit for being brave and standing up for the issue, but it's not contradictory in a dishonest way. It was an opinion that evolved over decades and I'd expect her to defend gay marriage in today's environment.
Playing better than standard requires deviation. This divergence usually results in sub-standard play.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15686 Posts
May 24 2016 22:49 GMT
#77531
It's almost like Clinton has been involved in politics for a very, very long time. We're mostly in our 20s and 30s here. I think it is difficult for us to understand developments of these sorts of things for people who are much older. Our society has gone through some pretty gigantic changes over the past 40 years.
SolaR-
Profile Blog Joined February 2004
United States2685 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-05-24 23:00:22
May 24 2016 22:51 GMT
#77532
On May 25 2016 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 25 2016 07:37 CorsairHero wrote:
On May 25 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:
On May 25 2016 06:18 Paljas wrote:
On May 25 2016 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Krugman nails it again. Point #4 has been the most embarrassing as a democrat. People start foaming at the mouth as soon as they see an unrealistic socialist and thus end up eating up every GOP attack there is.

On May 25 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:
Seem slike there should be more categories in that Krugman list.


Yeah, I think there needs to be a "fuck the system" category, as we have seen here on TL. People who have never really spent much time understanding political dynamics but know moooore than enough to say "enough already!" (sound familiar?) and just throw their support behind who is most rude towards money and power.

I don't intend to defend the mix of naive and irrational nonsense that is the prevalent in the Bernie Sanders faction ( even though we probably mean naive and irrational in different ways), but one doesnt't need to listen to GOP attacks to dislike Hillary Clinton. Reading Wikipeida and her campagin page is more than enough.

Since the Wikipeida has been influenced by the GOPs constant investigation of the not a big deal, the Bush administration did the same thing, email non-sense, I don't that that is a good thing to cite. Members of the GOP have straight up said they know their attacks were effective at discrediting her and it was their goal. Before all the email and Benghazi BS, she had a favorable rating with the public.

Its the old attack method of saying an untrue thing long enough that people start to believe it.

Just look up clips of Hillary saying contradictory things. It's not even an attack because shes saying it herself. Like her stance on gay marriage for example.

On gay marriage, her opinion mirrored the electorate. When the electorate was mostly against gay marriage, so was she. Now that the electorate is mostly for gay marriage, so is she. I can't give her credit for being brave and standing up for the issue, but it's not contradictory in a dishonest way. It was an opinion that evolved over decades and I'd expect her to defend gay marriage in today's environment.


Saying that it was an opinion that evolved over decades is just a nice way of saying that she changes her opinion with the modern consensus. People have been supportive of gay marriage for decades, and she CHOSE the popular path. I was a huge advocate for it 15 years ago and on. She cannot claim that she genuinely cares about gay marriage. She just can't.

Can you honestly say she would support gay marriage if not for the wave of massive public support in recent years? If the opposite happened and gay rights were denied by the majority, you can be damn sure she would be against it.

EDIT: looks like I kind of misread your post the first time. Seems like we are in agreement. Never mind!
CorsairHero
Profile Joined December 2008
Canada9491 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-05-24 22:54:30
May 24 2016 22:53 GMT
#77533
On May 25 2016 07:42 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 25 2016 07:37 CorsairHero wrote:
On May 25 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:
On May 25 2016 06:18 Paljas wrote:
On May 25 2016 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Krugman nails it again. Point #4 has been the most embarrassing as a democrat. People start foaming at the mouth as soon as they see an unrealistic socialist and thus end up eating up every GOP attack there is.

On May 25 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:
Seem slike there should be more categories in that Krugman list.


Yeah, I think there needs to be a "fuck the system" category, as we have seen here on TL. People who have never really spent much time understanding political dynamics but know moooore than enough to say "enough already!" (sound familiar?) and just throw their support behind who is most rude towards money and power.

I don't intend to defend the mix of naive and irrational nonsense that is the prevalent in the Bernie Sanders faction ( even though we probably mean naive and irrational in different ways), but one doesnt't need to listen to GOP attacks to dislike Hillary Clinton. Reading Wikipeida and her campagin page is more than enough.

Since the Wikipeida has been influenced by the GOPs constant investigation of the not a big deal, the Bush administration did the same thing, email non-sense, I don't that that is a good thing to cite. Members of the GOP have straight up said they know their attacks were effective at discrediting her and it was their goal. Before all the email and Benghazi BS, she had a favorable rating with the public.

Its the old attack method of saying an untrue thing long enough that people start to believe it.

Just look up clips of Hillary saying contradictory things. It's not even an attack because shes saying it herself. Like her stance on gay marriage for example.

You mean the ones separated by decades? Or the stance most of the DNC had until the winds changed? You have just cited the the stance that a ton of people, including Obama, shifted on during the last 8 years. My father changed his views on the subject, I don't think he is some dishonest guy. This shit gets so old.

Looks like you're right. She didn't change her stance until 2013, 10 months after Obama supported it.

However in 2014 she said "I have a strong record. I have great commitment to this issue"
© Current year.
CannonsNCarriers
Profile Joined April 2010
United States638 Posts
May 24 2016 23:12 GMT
#77534
On May 25 2016 07:51 SolaR- wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 25 2016 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:
On May 25 2016 07:37 CorsairHero wrote:
On May 25 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:
On May 25 2016 06:18 Paljas wrote:
On May 25 2016 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Krugman nails it again. Point #4 has been the most embarrassing as a democrat. People start foaming at the mouth as soon as they see an unrealistic socialist and thus end up eating up every GOP attack there is.

On May 25 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:
Seem slike there should be more categories in that Krugman list.


Yeah, I think there needs to be a "fuck the system" category, as we have seen here on TL. People who have never really spent much time understanding political dynamics but know moooore than enough to say "enough already!" (sound familiar?) and just throw their support behind who is most rude towards money and power.

I don't intend to defend the mix of naive and irrational nonsense that is the prevalent in the Bernie Sanders faction ( even though we probably mean naive and irrational in different ways), but one doesnt't need to listen to GOP attacks to dislike Hillary Clinton. Reading Wikipeida and her campagin page is more than enough.

Since the Wikipeida has been influenced by the GOPs constant investigation of the not a big deal, the Bush administration did the same thing, email non-sense, I don't that that is a good thing to cite. Members of the GOP have straight up said they know their attacks were effective at discrediting her and it was their goal. Before all the email and Benghazi BS, she had a favorable rating with the public.

Its the old attack method of saying an untrue thing long enough that people start to believe it.

Just look up clips of Hillary saying contradictory things. It's not even an attack because shes saying it herself. Like her stance on gay marriage for example.

On gay marriage, her opinion mirrored the electorate. When the electorate was mostly against gay marriage, so was she. Now that the electorate is mostly for gay marriage, so is she. I can't give her credit for being brave and standing up for the issue, but it's not contradictory in a dishonest way. It was an opinion that evolved over decades and I'd expect her to defend gay marriage in today's environment.


Saying that it was an opinion that evolved over decades is just a nice way of saying that she changes her opinion with the modern consensus. People have been supportive of gay marriage for decades, and she CHOSE the popular path. I was a huge advocate for it 15 years ago and on. She cannot claim that she genuinely cares about gay marriage. She just can't.

Can you honestly say she would support gay marriage if not for the wave of massive public support in recent years? If the opposite happened and gay rights were denied by the majority, you can be damn sure she would be against it.

EDIT: looks like I kind of misread your post the first time. Seems like we are in agreement. Never mind!


I like that mainstream Democrats move to represent the will of the mainstream Democratic electorate. Remember we are electing Representatives here.

Moreover, Mainstream Democrats (Obama, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi) are going to have the most hodge-podge contradictory policy stances imaginable if they want to represent the Democratic electorate as it stands now. The modern Democratic party electorate is the most diverse political coalition on the planet**. That diversity is going to require some nuance. Compare the American two party system to all the multi-party systems. In multi-party systems, the Democratic party would be something like 3 or 4 different sub-parties.

**Contrast this with the Trump coalition of white suburbanites. The Trump coalition is literally white, suburban males and their wives. The Democratic/Obama coalition is everyone else.
Dun tuch my cheezbrgr
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
May 24 2016 23:36 GMT
#77535
WASHINGTON — Leaders of the Republican Party have begun internal deliberations over what would be fundamental changes to the way its presidential nominees are chosen, a recognition that the chaotic process that played out this year is seriously flawed and helped exacerbate tensions within the party.

In a significant shift, Republican officials said it now seemed unlikely that the four states to vote first would all retain their cherished place on the electoral calendar, with Nevada as the most probable casualty.

Party leaders are even going so far as to consider diluting the traditional status of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as gatekeepers to the presidency. Under one proposal, those states would be paired with others that vote on the same day as a way to give more voters a meaningful role much sooner.

But in a move that would sharply limit who can participate in presidential primaries, many party activists are also pushing to close Republican contests to independent voters, arguing that open primaries in some states allowed Donald J. Trump, whose conservative convictions they deeply mistrust, to become the presumptive nominee.

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are sure to mount fierce resistance when the changes are debated in July at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where party officials are planning to consider a variety of procedural and rule revisions. Normally overlooked and largely irrelevant in recent presidential elections, party rules have gained considerable scrutiny this year as, until recently, Republicans faced the prospect of their first contested convention in 40 years.

Anxieties about the system’s fairness, stoked by Mr. Trump when he believed he could lose the nomination, mirror the bitter debate unfolding in the Democratic Party. Democrats will face a similar reckoning before their convention, in Philadelphia, over how to address the perceived inequities in their nominating process, which Senator Bernie Sanders has denounced as unfair and corrupt.

Given the dissatisfaction with the rules in both parties, officials say, some combination of changes for 2020 is almost certain.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15686 Posts
May 24 2016 23:46 GMT
#77536
On May 25 2016 08:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Show nested quote +
WASHINGTON — Leaders of the Republican Party have begun internal deliberations over what would be fundamental changes to the way its presidential nominees are chosen, a recognition that the chaotic process that played out this year is seriously flawed and helped exacerbate tensions within the party.

In a significant shift, Republican officials said it now seemed unlikely that the four states to vote first would all retain their cherished place on the electoral calendar, with Nevada as the most probable casualty.

Party leaders are even going so far as to consider diluting the traditional status of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as gatekeepers to the presidency. Under one proposal, those states would be paired with others that vote on the same day as a way to give more voters a meaningful role much sooner.

But in a move that would sharply limit who can participate in presidential primaries, many party activists are also pushing to close Republican contests to independent voters, arguing that open primaries in some states allowed Donald J. Trump, whose conservative convictions they deeply mistrust, to become the presumptive nominee.

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are sure to mount fierce resistance when the changes are debated in July at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where party officials are planning to consider a variety of procedural and rule revisions. Normally overlooked and largely irrelevant in recent presidential elections, party rules have gained considerable scrutiny this year as, until recently, Republicans faced the prospect of their first contested convention in 40 years.

Anxieties about the system’s fairness, stoked by Mr. Trump when he believed he could lose the nomination, mirror the bitter debate unfolding in the Democratic Party. Democrats will face a similar reckoning before their convention, in Philadelphia, over how to address the perceived inequities in their nominating process, which Senator Bernie Sanders has denounced as unfair and corrupt.

Given the dissatisfaction with the rules in both parties, officials say, some combination of changes for 2020 is almost certain.


Source


So if I was the dude running a party, I would want early states to heavily favor the opposite side of my spectrum. In the end, centrists candidates always end up being who perform the best. I'd imagine the correct thing to do for the GOP is stack it with liberal states with enough red states to make it look less sketchy.
CannonsNCarriers
Profile Joined April 2010
United States638 Posts
May 24 2016 23:49 GMT
#77537
On May 25 2016 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 25 2016 08:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WASHINGTON — Leaders of the Republican Party have begun internal deliberations over what would be fundamental changes to the way its presidential nominees are chosen, a recognition that the chaotic process that played out this year is seriously flawed and helped exacerbate tensions within the party.

In a significant shift, Republican officials said it now seemed unlikely that the four states to vote first would all retain their cherished place on the electoral calendar, with Nevada as the most probable casualty.

Party leaders are even going so far as to consider diluting the traditional status of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as gatekeepers to the presidency. Under one proposal, those states would be paired with others that vote on the same day as a way to give more voters a meaningful role much sooner.

But in a move that would sharply limit who can participate in presidential primaries, many party activists are also pushing to close Republican contests to independent voters, arguing that open primaries in some states allowed Donald J. Trump, whose conservative convictions they deeply mistrust, to become the presumptive nominee.

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are sure to mount fierce resistance when the changes are debated in July at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where party officials are planning to consider a variety of procedural and rule revisions. Normally overlooked and largely irrelevant in recent presidential elections, party rules have gained considerable scrutiny this year as, until recently, Republicans faced the prospect of their first contested convention in 40 years.

Anxieties about the system’s fairness, stoked by Mr. Trump when he believed he could lose the nomination, mirror the bitter debate unfolding in the Democratic Party. Democrats will face a similar reckoning before their convention, in Philadelphia, over how to address the perceived inequities in their nominating process, which Senator Bernie Sanders has denounced as unfair and corrupt.

Given the dissatisfaction with the rules in both parties, officials say, some combination of changes for 2020 is almost certain.


Source


So if I was the dude running a party, I would want early states to heavily favor the opposite side of my spectrum. In the end, centrists candidates always end up being who perform the best. I'd imagine the correct thing to do for the GOP is stack it with liberal states with enough red states to make it look less sketchy.


Why not dispense with the irrelevant states? Have the first vote be: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado.
Dun tuch my cheezbrgr
TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-05-24 23:55:11
May 24 2016 23:51 GMT
#77538
Republicans just need to have proportional delegate allocation instead of a clusterfuck of delegate rules. That alone would have caused a contested convention this cycle-Trump wouldn't have come near cracking 1237. But nope, they need to let every state be their own special snowflake and allocate delegates however they want.

Federalizing a national political party's method of selecting a nominee to ensure it represents national opinion =/= saying you want the government federalized, Republican leaders. Just do it.

Edit: This would also fix a lot of the bizarre "my vote is worth more than your vote because I live in county X" that goes on-where a Republican in NYC's vote is worth 100x (I think) a Republican living in western New York in terms of delegates.
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4748 Posts
May 24 2016 23:53 GMT
#77539
Something needs to be done about the blue states that no GOP candidate will win being worth so much. Either lower their delegate hauls or split up their primary dates. They are meant to push liberal Republicans over the edge. the SEC states are all on that day because they have relatively low delegate numbers individually, so that's fine. But the fact that NY is 95 delegates is absurd. And CA's 172 is ridiculous too, although it rarely matters.

idk, there are so many ideas. Ultimately, the states can decide how to allocate delegates, but it makes sense that the party can change their numbers or influence dates.
"It is therefore only at the birth of a society that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young." -Alexis de Tocqueville
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21668 Posts
May 24 2016 23:57 GMT
#77540
On May 25 2016 08:53 Introvert wrote:
Something needs to be done about the blue states that no GOP candidate will win being worth so much. Either lower their delegate hauls or split up their primary dates. They are meant to push liberal Republicans over the edge. the SEC states are all on that day because they have relatively low delegate numbers individually, so that's fine. But the fact that NY is 95 delegates is absurd. And CA's 172 is ridiculous too, although it rarely matters.

idk, there are so many ideas. Ultimately, the states can decide how to allocate delegates, but it makes sense that the party can change their numbers or influence dates.

Why should it be up to the states? Imo the national party should decide on how their primary is run, not at the state level.

Away with different states and different rules. clarity with 1 set of guidelines for every state.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Prev 1 3875 3876 3877 3878 3879 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
18:00
RO8 Round Robin Group - Day 4
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
ZZZero.O240
LiquipediaDiscussion
FEL
09:00
Cracow 2025
Clem vs LamboLIVE!
Reynor vs TBD
RotterdaM2864
ComeBackTV 2538
IndyStarCraft 742
WardiTV468
3DClanTV 222
CranKy Ducklings180
EnkiAlexander 137
Rex67
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 2864
IndyStarCraft 742
Rex 67
StarCraft: Brood War
ZZZero.O 240
NaDa 8
Dota 2
capcasts294
LuMiX1
League of Legends
JimRising 294
febbydoto15
Counter-Strike
fl0m3371
Fnx 2264
Stewie2K597
flusha375
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox2174
Mew2King1541
AZ_Axe304
Westballz14
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu569
Khaldor409
Other Games
Grubby3173
B2W.Neo1006
KnowMe108
mouzStarbuck105
Sick32
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick3014
StarCraft 2
angryscii 22
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta29
• LUISG 19
• Adnapsc2 6
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki36
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22079
• WagamamaTV936
League of Legends
• Doublelift4549
Other Games
• imaqtpie1680
• Shiphtur524
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
14h 26m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 13h
WardiTV European League
1d 19h
Online Event
1d 20h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL 20 Team Wars
FEL Cracov 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.