Edit: On that note, it's time for bed. Good night folks.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2828
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. | ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Edit: On that note, it's time for bed. Good night folks. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 02 2016 13:59 ticklishmusic wrote: You're being facetious and wrong dude. Ted + Heidi pulled in at least a million combined per year, and from the relatively low amount of assets they lived that million dollar lifestyle as well. Obama was not pulling down a million a year before being elected to the senate, that is for sure. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 02 2016 14:03 Plansix wrote: Obama was not pulling down a million a year before being elected to the senate, that is for sure. lest we forget he was a community organizer with no experience | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22720 Posts
| ||
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
| ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
![]() | ||
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
| ||
ampson
United States2355 Posts
On February 02 2016 13:59 Ghanburighan wrote: Four candidates have given victory speeches tonight, the media has fully covered three of them. (Hint, the fourth was Cruz) Yet, Cruz was the only one to unambiguously win the state, but is least likely of the three to become the nominee based on today's results. Edit: On that note, it's time for bed. Good night folks. That's because his speech was like half an hour long dude. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22720 Posts
On February 02 2016 14:09 ticklishmusic wrote: nitpicking: it's a little disingenuous for sanders to say they went from zero to 50%. it's the same as iCarly (i bet ya'll almost forgot about her, this is some good publicist she's getting ![]() Well I guess he started at 3% which is usually what he says. 0% if you count the early polls that didn't even include him. I never bothered to learn Carly's story so I'm not sure how reasonable the comparison is. hahahaha | ||
darthfoley
United States8001 Posts
On February 02 2016 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote: You all ready for insane fundraising numbers for Sanders after this? 99.9% of his donors aren't maxed out 58% of Hillary's supporters are already maxed out. where'd you get the 58% clinton stat from? If true that could become a big deal the longer this goes on. Her burn rate is intense | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 02 2016 14:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Well I guess he started at 3% which is usually what he says. 0% if you count the early polls that didn't even include him. I never bothered to learn Carly's story so I'm not sure how reasonable the comparison is. i think in the case of politics where a "fair" start point is (like when he's got his campaign set up) is largely up to debate, though saying you went from nothing to ultra mega competitive, to me, seems like a feel good story a la carly. she worked as a secretary, yeah, but her dad was an AG and she went to stanford. it's like saying i started off as a random thought in my parents head and now i'm a functioning adult if you take it to extremes you know? anyways, it's my drunk practicality streak talking. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22720 Posts
On February 02 2016 14:21 darthfoley wrote: where'd you get the 58% clinton stat from? If true that could become a big deal the longer this goes on. Her burn rate is intense http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-donors-218569 Correction on my part apparently 2% of Sanders money has come from maxed out donors and 58% of Clinton's are from maxed out donors, The number of donors (under $200) can only be estimated unless released by the campaigns (who you would just have to take their word for it). | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
up to 96% boys (and girls) | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22720 Posts
On February 02 2016 14:33 ticklishmusic wrote: i wouldnt consider that a concern honestly, hillary's got a superpac, a ton of big unions and other groups to campaign for her and she can find more people who can make 2.7K donations Yeah... pretty sure that plays right into what Bernie says is wrong with establishment politics. At least 3 coin flips for delegates all three went to Hillary which had they gone the other way would of had Bernie leading. http://i.imgur.com/Q1Pxzaq.gifv ![]() Record turnout for Republicans btw. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
but re: people maxing out, do you really think they're all going to be people who want clinton to keep the status quo with regards to taxes and so forth? there are a lot of people who have been successful or born into money (either way they're rich) who want to make the US and the world a better place and see clinton as the vehicle to do so. either way, great exercise in democracy tonight. hopefully this sets a precedent for future elections, though the caucus system is kind of a confusing shitshow. | ||
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
On February 02 2016 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah... pretty sure that plays right into what Bernie says is wrong with establishment politics. At least 3 coin flips for delegates all three went to Hillary which had they gone the other way would of had Bernie leading. http://i.imgur.com/Q1Pxzaq.gifv ![]() Record turnout for Republicans btw. Lol. Yup https://www.yahoo.com/politics/coin-flip-iowa-caucuses-044156528.html | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22720 Posts
On February 02 2016 14:43 ticklishmusic wrote: i chuckled a bit at the gif. but re: people maxing out, do you really think they're all going to be people who want clinton to keep the status quo with regards to taxes and so forth? there are a lot of people who have been successful or born into money (either way they're rich) who want to make the US and the world a better place and see clinton as the vehicle to do so. No, but for instance she left Iowa to go raise money at a private event for a multi billion dollar group with heavy investments in O&G and a paid Bon Jovi performance. There's a reason she cancelled the following two similar fundraisers in NY (in addition to probably seeing she might lose Iowa, she had already pulled her NH team there. Kind of exactly the opposite of how Bernie raises money and if she can't go to those she can't keep up. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 02 2016 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote: No, but for instance she left Iowa to go raise money at a private event for a multi billion dollar group with heavy investments in O&G and a paid Bon Jovi performance. There's a reason she cancelled the following two similar fundraisers in NY (in addition to probably seeing she might lose Iowa, she had already pulled her NH team there. Kind of exactly the opposite of how Bernie raises money and if she can't go to those she can't keep up. if you want to raise money from millionaires, you gotta cater to millionaires. bernie and hillary have different approaches to fundraising. sander's strategy is laudable and a cohesive part of his campaign theme and strategy, but i don't think it matters ultimately with regards to $$$ raised or ethics particularly. also look at the flip side, a lot of bernie supporters (lets be real) hear these things and think "im gonna get a fuckload if he wins" like healthcare, college, tax cuts, etc. it's kind of the same as the clintons. yes there is a yuuuuuge (as trump would say) problem with income inequality (trump would not say this) but MY view (as you ofc know ![]() what i really hope to see, above all else, from the next democratic admin is a public option for insurance. higher taxes on the top % of earners goes along with that, but further increases to pay for other social programs is second. (rambling a bit because a bottle of wine) | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22720 Posts
On February 02 2016 14:55 ticklishmusic wrote: if you want to raise money from millionaires, you gotta cater to millionaires. bernie and hillary have different approaches to fundraising. sander's strategy is laudable and a cohesive part of his campaign theme and strategy, but i don't think it matters ultimately with regards to $$$ raised or ethics particularly. also look at the flip side, a lot of bernie supporters (lets be real) hear these things and think "im gonna get a fuckload if he wins" like healthcare, college, tax cuts, etc. it's kind of the same as the clintons. yes there is a yuuuuuge (as trump would say) problem with income inequality (trump would not say this) but MY view (as you ofc know ![]() what i really hope to see, above all else, from the next democratic admin is a public option for insurance. higher taxes on the top % of earners goes along with that, but further increases to pay for other social programs is second. (rambling a bit because a bottle of wine) I just find it hard to believe that she is going to take their money for her campaign and then work against their interests (re-redistributing the wealth they extracted over the last ~40 years). | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 02 2016 03:10 ticklishmusic wrote: Alright, let's poll it up: Democrats: + Show Spoiler + Republicans: + Show Spoiler + just to bump this up: looks like we were wrong on the trump (who was unexpectedly stumped) still dont know about hillary v bernie, i think hillary will win by 0.2- 0.5 in the end, but it doesnt matter really | ||
| ||