Time for Hillary Clinton to Concede to Bernie Sanders

[hanger4]

"With Bernie Sanders now slightly ahead of Clinton nationally in the latest Bloomberg poll, it’s time to reevaluate the meaning of pragmatism. Hillary Clinton might be ahead of Bernie Sanders in delegates, but Vermont’s Senator has a monopoly on political momentum. Sadly, his opponent has a monopoly on controversy, and will face FBI interviews in the near future."

"Yes, federal prosecutors will interview Hillary Clinton, in addition to her close associates."

"At what point will establishment Democrats admit this fiasco is horrible for a general election?"

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/its-time-for-hillary-clin_b_9555422.html

From Huffington Post no less.

[Kurmugeon]

History has shown, Hillary is not done until her opponents are dead.

-

[hanger4]

Some more from the link;

"Furthermore, former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey believes A Criminal Charge is Justified. Former Obama intelligence official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn says that “If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail.” Former NSA director Michael Hayden called Clinton’s email setup “stupid and dangerous.” Even Edward Snowden, the antithesis of America’s intelligence community in many ways, says it’s “ridiculous” to think Clinton’s emails were secure."

[domer76]

"With Bernie Sanders now slightly ahead of Clinton nationally in the latest Bloomberg poll, it’s time to reevaluate the meaning of pragmatism. Hillary Clinton might be ahead of Bernie Sanders in delegates, but Vermont’s Senator has a monopoly on political momentum. Sadly, his opponent has a monopoly on controversy, and will face FBI interviews in the near future."

"Yes, federal prosecutors will interview Hillary Clinton, in addition to her close associates."

"At what point will establishment Democrats admit this fiasco is horrible for a general election?"

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/its-time-for-hillary-clin_b_9555422.html

From Huffington Post no less.

Better get used to "President Clinton" once again.

[hanger4]

Better get used to "President Clinton" once again.

Do you ever speak to the topic ??

[jimmyz]

I wouldn't be surprised if any indictment forthcoming would come down after the General Election. Can a POTUS pardon themselves?

[Beevee]

I wouldn't be surprised if any indictment forthcoming would come down after the General Election. Can a POTUS pardon themselves?

Well, if it's Trump, he would have to do it at least 10 times before he reached GO!

[Green Arrow]

It would be awesome if she did, but I don't see it happening. Hillary is too egotistical and too ambitious to give up now when, being honest, she's winning.

It doesn't bode well for the future of the Democratic Party, however, that they've thrown everything behind Hillary when it's pretty clear that even the base barely wants her.

[Cigar]

"With Bernie Sanders now slightly ahead of Clinton nationally in the latest Bloomberg poll, it’s time to reevaluate the meaning of pragmatism. Hillary Clinton might be ahead of Bernie Sanders in delegates, but Vermont’s Senator has a monopoly on political momentum. Sadly, his opponent has a monopoly on controversy, and will face FBI interviews in the near future."

"Yes, federal prosecutors will interview Hillary Clinton, in addition to her close associates."

"At what point will establishment Democrats admit this fiasco is horrible for a general election?"

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/its-time-for-hillary-clin_b_9555422.html

From Huffington Post no less.

What ... ? :huh:

Is this that Conservative Math they keep talking about? :laugh:

Have you taken a gander at the Delegate Totals, the remaining number of states and lack of remaining caucuses? :laugh:

[Cigar]

It would be awesome if she did, but I don't see it happening. Hillary is too egotistical and too ambitious to give up now when, being honest, she's winning.

It doesn't bode well for the future of the Democratic Party, however, that they've thrown everything behind Hillary when it's pretty clear that even the base barely wants her.

I agree ... Bernie would take down Trump .... HUGE!

[hanger4]

What ... ? :huh:

Is this that Conservative Math they keep talking about? :laugh:

Have you taken a gander at the Delegate Totals, the remaining number of states and lack of remaining caucuses? :laugh:

Sorry Cigar, left leaning author and a left leaning publication. You really should read the links before you make a comment.

[domer76]

Do you ever speak to the topic ??

Yeah. The topic is should Clinton concede. Not only should she not concede, she will be the next President. Any questions?

[Cigar]

Sorry Cigar, left leaning author and a left leaning publication. You really should read the links before you make a comment.

Nope, the head-line said enough. The fact that anyone would suggest that saved me the time.

[Cigar]

Yeah. The topic is should Clinton concede. Not only should she not concede, she will be the next President. Any questions?

He'll just come back with an insult. :laugh:

[hanger4]

Nope, the head-line said enough. The fact that anyone would suggest that saved me the time.

Good point, nobody ever accused you of being informed.

[Kurmugeon]

I'd bet that Obama would get a real kick out of seeing Hillary elected, while she sits in the prison cell that A.G. Lynch placed her in at Obama's order.

She can then beg Obama for clemency and a pardon.

I think that would appeal to Obama's Ego in ways too tempting to turn down.

And it would anger Hillary to levels which would make her a very dangerous person to have any sort of Authority.

On the flip side, I'd dearly love to watch an sworn into office President Trump turn to Hillary.... "You're Fired!" :laugh:
-

[Peter1469]

That is a good point. Obama hates the Clintons. If he thinks that she would screw up his legacy, that increases the chances of an indictment. He is balancing the hit his reputation will take for having his Sec of State jailed with the hit it will take if she is a pitiful president as anticipated.

If the Obama regime does not charge her at least we know that he can control his hate.

[FindersKeepers]

I agree ... Bernie would take down Trump .... HUGE!

Bernie would likely have a better shot against Trump than Hillary would. There's still no guarantee Trump will make it that far, though.

[Quicksilver]

I love watching the fantasy world that so many Conservatives inhabit..

[FindersKeepers]

That is a good point. Obama hates the Clintons. If he thinks that she would screw up his legacy, that increases the chances of an indictment. He is balancing the hit his reputation will take for having his Sec of State jailed with the hit it will take if she is a pitiful president as anticipated.

If the Obama regime does not charge her at least we know that he can control his hate.



The Obamas DO hate the Clintons -- and vice-versa, but that won't stop Obama from granting her immunity from prosecution should she ever be charged. She'll never see the inside of a cell.

That's what they do -- Presidents grant clemency and immunity for those in similar positions in the government. There's a long history of that. Should Obama do something for which he could later be prosecuted, he can safely assume the sitting President will pardon him -- just as Ford pardoned Nixon, Carter pardoned all draft dodgers and Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederate States, although he was dead), Reagan pardoned Watergate and Iran-Contra participants, B Clinton pardoned hundreds, including his own brother and a bevy of shysters. GWB pardoned Libby.

That's just the way it goes.

You can be above the law.

Just get into politics.

[FindersKeepers]

I love watching the fantasy world that so many Conservatives inhabit..

Right back at'cha. :grin:

[hanger4]

I love watching the fantasy world that so many Conservatives inhabit..

^^ Eyes Wide Shut ^^

[Quicksilver]

:roflmao::roflmao: You fools just won't give up the ghost will you..? I guess hope springs eternal after all..

[Ethereal]

:roflmao::roflmao: You fools just won't give up the ghost will you..? I guess hope springs eternal after all..

Clinton supporters have already decided nothing improper happened, so that must mean it's true. No bias there!

[Quicksilver]

Your are correct sir... No bias at all.. Just common sense.

[Ethereal]

Your are correct sir... No bias at all.. Just common sense.

The fact that you think you don't have bias is proof that you're thinking is distorted. Everyone has bias. The trick is learning to identify your bias and to mitigate it accordingly.

[del]

libby wasn't pardoned

[hanger4]

libby wasn't pardoned

And Plame was outed by Armitage.

[del]

And Plame was outed by Armitage.

sure

[hanger4]

sure

Then I guess the FBI lied to S-P Fitzgerald.

[Tahuyaman]

Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee, but she is being exposed by Bernie Sanders.

She has had to shift further and further to the left as this campaign has gone on. Sanders is locking up the younger liberal voting bloc and Mrs Clinton needs their support.

She has demonstrated that she has no core principles that she stands firm on. She will say whatever she has to say in order to coax support away from Sanders. She has taken several positions on a variety of issues. No one really knows where she stands on many things. I don't even know if she knows. If she does, she's not honest enough to tell us. All she wants to do is win and she doesn't care what she has to say in order to do that.

It's obvious that there is no universal trust and confidence in her as the partisan Democrats would have you believe.

As unlikely as it seemed when the campaign season started, Sanders may just be a stronger candidate than Hillary Clinton. At least he doesn't need to explain all the different positions he's held on the issues. Whether you agree or disagree with him, one must agree that he's been remarkably consistent.

It's easier to be convincing when you are honestly communicating your views.

[Tahuyaman]

The fact that you think you don't have bias is proof that you're thinking is distorted. Everyone has bias. The trick is learning to identify your bias and to mitigate it accordingly.

Yes. Everyone has a bias. Some people are able to set it aside and judge a candidate objectively. Others are buried in partisanship.

[MisterVeritis]

And Plame was outed by Armitage.
And SecState Powell knew it. He lost his integrity along the way.

[Tahuyaman]

Plame's husband is the one who "outed" her. He used her position as a pick-up line while carousing out on the town. Besides, she wasn't an operative. She was a low level employee.

[MisterVeritis]

Plame's husband is the one who "outed" her. He used her position as a pick-up line while carousing out on the town. Besides, she wasn't an operative. She was a low level employee.
I see we have a variety of different stories. It was Armitage.

[Tahuyaman]

I see we have a variety of different stories. It was Armitage.

that's certainly the partisan motivated version.

[Tahuyaman]

I see we have a variety of different stories. It was Armitage.

A month before Bob Novak published Valerie Plame’s name and disclosed that she worked at the CIA in a department that monitored weapons of mass destruction, the gossipy Richard Armitage at the State Department already knew all about her.
When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them. And by "everybody" Mr. Armitage certainly meant reporters.
With that in mind it is an easy step to suppose that it was Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV himself who first "outed" his wife as a CIA officer.
And, as Mr. Armitage also suggested, Wilson did so because he didn’t want to be dismissed as some "low-level guy." He wanted to buttress his wildly outrageous (and we now know fallacious) claims against a then popular President at the height of a then popular war.

[MisterVeritis]

A month before Bob Novak published Valerie Plame’s name and disclosed that she worked at the CIA in a department that monitored weapons of mass destruction, the gossipy Richard Armitage at the State Department already knew all about her.
When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them. And by "everybody" Mr. Armitage certainly meant reporters.
With that in mind it is an easy step to suppose that it was Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV himself who first "outed" his wife as a CIA officer.
And, as Mr. Armitage also suggested, Wilson did so because he didn’t want to be dismissed as some "low-level guy." He wanted to buttress his wildly outrageous (and we now know fallacious) claims against a then popular President at the height of a then popular war.
You clearly see that Armitage was the one who told Novak. That was what was being investigated. Wilson may, or may not have told "everybody" as Armitage claimed. But it was clear that Armitage was the source of Novak's information. And from later admissions, Powell knew it was Armitage and did not step forth to stop the harassing investigation. Powell is a scum bag.

[MisterVeritis]

that's certainly the partisan motivated version.
Sniping again? Shame on you. In your next post you will conclusively prove that I am right and you are a troll. :-)

[Tahuyaman]

You clearly see that Armitage was the one who told Novak. That was what was being investigated. Wilson may, or may not have told "everybody" as Armitage claimed. But it was clear that Armitage was the source of Novak's information. And from later admissions, Powell knew it was Armitage and did not step forth to stop the harassing investigation. Powell is a scum bag.

Plane's husband told everyone. He used his wife's position to bolster his credibility. Besides, Novak testified that he had heard of it before Armitage passed it on. Navak said it was no secret as Wilson was always bragging about his wie's occupation.

The prosecution of Armitage was a perfect example of a political witch-hunt.

[AZ Jim]

"With Bernie Sanders now slightly ahead of Clinton nationally in the latest Bloomberg poll, it’s time to reevaluate the meaning of pragmatism. Hillary Clinton might be ahead of Bernie Sanders in delegates, but Vermont’s Senator has a monopoly on political momentum. Sadly, his opponent has a monopoly on controversy, and will face FBI interviews in the near future."

"Yes, federal prosecutors will interview Hillary Clinton, in addition to her close associates."

"At what point will establishment Democrats admit this fiasco is horrible for a general election?"

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/its-time-for-hillary-clin_b_9555422.html

From Huffington Post no less.How bout you worry about your GOP clowns and quit worrying about anything else? Deal?

[Quicksilver]

How bout you worry about your GOP clowns and quit worrying about anything else? Deal?

That's for sure.... Plenty of fodder there!

[Green Arrow]

How bout you worry about your GOP clowns and quit worrying about anything else? Deal?

The content of his post was from the Huffington Post, which is not affiliated with the GOP in any way.

[Quicksilver]

I agree ... Bernie would take down Trump .... HUGE!


No..... YOOOGE

[Peter1469]

Plame's husband is the one who "outed" her. He used her position as a pick-up line while carousing out on the town. Besides, she wasn't an operative. She was a low level employee.

She was a NOC at one time. A desk jockey at Langley well before she was outed. She was on the cover of Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/01/plame200401).

http://media.vanityfair.com/photos/54cbfb09fde9250a6c40a0f4/master/w_900,c_limit/image.jpg

[AZ Jim]

The content of his post was from the Huffington Post, which is not affiliated with the GOP in any way.I was referring to his re-posting what he read, touting it's cause. There is more to worry about on the GOP ticket for him and others to worry about.

[Tahuyaman]

How bout you worry about your GOP clowns and quit worrying about anything else? Deal?


The content of his post was from the Huffington Post, which is not affiliated with the GOP in any way.

Speaking for myself I'm not a party loyalist on any side, so I'll opine on the topics of my choice. The partisan hacks can kiss my ass.

[maineman]

Clinton leads Bernie nationally in the Real Clear Politics poll of polls. She leads him in delegates to date. She leads him by double digits in the polls in the big three remaining states: CA, NY, and PA.

I can't WAIT to see the feminist, pro-choice, anti-gun SCOTUS nominee she picks to replace Scalia. With her loooooong coattails, 51 democrats in the senate in 2017 is certainly not a stretch, especially if the GOP succeeds in stepping on their collective dicks with track shoes by nominating the Donald.

Good times.... good times.

Drudge already had an article yesterday where the GOP has written 2016 off and is grooming Ryan for 2020 ALREADY!

[MisterVeritis]

Plane's husband told everyone. He used his wife's position to bolster his credibility. Besides, Novak testified that he had heard of it before Armitage passed it on. Navak said it was no secret as Wilson was always bragging about his wie's occupation.

The prosecution of Armitage was a perfect example of a political witch-hunt.

Armitage was never prosecuted.
From Wiki:

On November 15, 2005, journalist Bob Woodward (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward) of The Washington Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post) revealed that "a government official with no axe to grind" leaked to him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame) in mid-June 2003. According to an April 2006 Vanity Fair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_Fair_(magazine)) article (published March 14, 2006), former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bradlee) said in an interview "that Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption", though Bradlee later told the Post that he "[did] not recall making that precise statement" in the interview.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-wp-BradleeKnows-12)


On March 2, 2006, bloggers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog) discovered that "Richard Armitage" fit the spacing on a redacted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitization_(classified_information)) court document, suggesting he was a source for the Plame leak.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-TypePad-hurrah-13)


On August 21, 2006, the Associated Press (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press) published a story that revealed Armitage met with Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003. The information came from official State Department (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_State) calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act).[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-msnbc-calendars-14)


In the September 4, 2006 issue of Newsweek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek) magazine, in an article titled "The Man Who Said Too Much", journalist Michael Isikoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Isikoff), quoting a "source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities", reported that Armitage was the "primary" source for Robert Novak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Novak)'s piece outing Plame. Armitage allegedly mentioned Wilson's CIA role to Novak in a July 8, 2003 interview after learning about her status from a State Department memo which made no reference to her undercover status.[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-newsweek-ManWhoSaid-15) Isikoff also reported that Armitage had also told Bob Woodward of Plame's identity in June 2003, and that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald) investigated Armitage's role "aggressively", but did not charge Armitage with a crime because he "found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward".


Novak, in an August 27, 2006 appearance on Meet the Press (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Press), stated that although he still would not release the name of his source, he felt it was long overdue that the source reveal himself.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-mtp-aug27-16)Armitage has also reportedly been a cooperative and key witness in the investigation.[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note--17) According to The Washington Note (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Note), Armitage has testified before the grand jury three times.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-wash-note-18)


On August 29, 2006, Neil A. Lewis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_A._Lewis) of The New York Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) reported that Armitage was the "initial and primary source" for columnist Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 article, which named Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative" and which triggered the CIA leak investigation.[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-nyt-lewis-19)


On August 30, 2006, CNN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN) reported that Armitage had been confirmed "by sources" as leaking Wilson's CIA role in a "casual conversation" with Robert Novak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Novak).[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-cnn-jking-20) The New York Times, quoting people "familiar with his actions", reported that Armitage was unaware of Wilson's undercover status when he spoke to Novak.[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-nyt-leakreveals-21)


The Times claims that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales) was informed that Armitage was involved on October 2, 2003, but asked not to be told details. Patrick Fitzgerald began his grand jury investigation three months later knowing Armitage was a leaker (as did Attorney General John Ashcroft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft) before turning over the investigation).


On March 6, 2007, a jury convicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby), Chief of Staff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_Staff_to_the_Vice_President_of_the_United _States) to Vice President (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States) Dick Cheney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney), of "obstruction of justice, giving false statements to the FBI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) and perjuring himself, charges embodied in four of the five counts of the indictment".[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-nyt-libbyguilty-22)


On July 2, 2007, President Bush issued a Grant of Executive Clemency that commuted the prison terms imposed on Lewis Libby.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-wp-GrantClemency-23)


On September 7, 2006, Armitage admitted to being the source in the CIA leak. Armitage claims that Fitzgerald had originally asked him not to discuss publicly his role in the matter, but that on September 5 Armitage asked Fitzgerald if he could reveal his role to the public, and Fitzgerald consented.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-wp-ArmitageSays-1)


In a review of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Corn), which hit bookstores in early September 2006, Novak wrote: "I don't know precisely how Isikoff flushed out Armitage [as Novak's original source], but Hubris clearly points to two sources: Washington lobbyist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_lobbyist) Kenneth Duberstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Duberstein), Armitage's political adviser, and William Taft IV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft_IV), who was the State Department legal adviser when Armitage was deputy secretary".[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#cite_note-rnovak-24)
It was Armitage. And Powell is a scum bag.

[donttread]

"With Bernie Sanders now slightly ahead of Clinton nationally in the latest Bloomberg poll, it’s time to reevaluate the meaning of pragmatism. Hillary Clinton might be ahead of Bernie Sanders in delegates, but Vermont’s Senator has a monopoly on political momentum. Sadly, his opponent has a monopoly on controversy, and will face FBI interviews in the near future."

"Yes, federal prosecutors will interview Hillary Clinton, in addition to her close associates."

"At what point will establishment Democrats admit this fiasco is horrible for a general election?"

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/its-time-for-hillary-clin_b_9555422.html

From Huffington Post no less.

What the nation's democrats want does not matter to the DNC. They have anointed Hilary and they will have super delegates ignore the people's will as often as they have to get her nominated

[Tahuyaman]

Clinton leads Bernie nationally in the Real Clear Politics poll of polls. She leads him in delegates to date. She leads him by double digits in the polls in the big three remaining states: CA, NY, and PA.

I can't WAIT to see the feminist, pro-choice, anti-gun SCOTUS nominee she picks to replace Scalia. With her loooooong coattails, 51 democrats in the senate in 2017 is certainly not a stretch, especially if the GOP succeeds in stepping on their collective dicks with track shoes by nominating the Donald.

Good times.... good times.

Drudge already had an article yesterday where the GOP has written 2016 off and is grooming Ryan for 2020 ALREADY!

Long coat tails..... Lol.

[hanger4]

How bout you worry about your GOP clowns and quit worrying about anything else? Deal?

Seriously ??

A couple of comments, (1) Mark III ain't a gonna like worryin bout just the DNC clowns. You'll take away his very reason to exist. (2) I didn't write the OP a left of center talking head did on a left of center blog, so it ain't me a worryin bout it, it's some leftist.

[Tahuyaman]

This idea that Hillary Clinton will have "long coat tails" is interesting. Let's assume she gets elected. Let's assume that she doesn't get indicted.

Now, if the stories are true, there will be a huge mess in the justice department and possibly the FBI if and when she skates. Career justice department people, non political types, are going to rebel and go public with exactly what she did and how she was let off the hook because of her political power. This is going to make her basically a lame duck president.

[Green Arrow]

How bout you worry about your GOP clowns and quit worrying about anything else? Deal?

Why are Democrats allowed to opine incessantly about the GOP race but Republicans aren't allowed to say one word about the Democratic primary? That's hardly fair.

[Green Arrow]

Clinton leads Bernie nationally in the Real Clear Politics poll of polls. She leads him in delegates to date. She leads him by double digits in the polls in the big three remaining states: CA, NY, and PA.

I can't WAIT to see the feminist, pro-choice, anti-gun SCOTUS nominee she picks to replace Scalia. With her loooooong coattails, 51 democrats in the senate in 2017 is certainly not a stretch, especially if the GOP succeeds in stepping on their collective dicks with track shoes by nominating the Donald.

Good times.... good times.

Drudge already had an article yesterday where the GOP has written 2016 off and is grooming Ryan for 2020 ALREADY!

Leave the predictions to the people that actually know about politics, please and thank you.

[maineman]

Long coat tails..... Lol.

you and a lot of others have stated you will not vote for Trump. Polls indicate that he will get whipped by either Hillary OR Bernie. The senate got pretty blue in 1964 after the GOP nominated an earlier nut job. This year, they have 24 seats to defend and with a lot of republicans staying home and refusing to hold their noses and vote for the Donald, your weak laughter sounds more like whistling past the graveyard to me.

[maineman]

Leave the predictions to the people that actually know about politics, please and thank you.

I was managing and winning state senate campaigns in Maine when you were still shitting yellow. I've forgotten more about politics since breakfast than you have ever known.

Here's a bit of advice: don't ever tell me what to do and expect anything other than laughter and derision as my response. punk.

[maineman]

This idea that Hillary Clinton will have "long coat tails" is interesting. Let's assume she gets elected. Let's assume that she doesn't get indicted.

Now, if the stories are true, there will be a huge mess in the justice department and possibly the FBI if and when she skates. Career justice department people, non political types, are going to rebel and go public with exactly what she did and how she was let off the hook because of her political power. This is going to make her basically a lame duck president.

what does that have to do with the length of her coattails in November?

[hanger4]

I was managing and winning state senate campaigns in Maine when you were still shitting yellow. I've forgotten more about politics since breakfast than you have ever known.

Here's a bit of advice: don't ever tell me what to do and expect anything other than laughter and derision as my response. punk.

Grow up maineman.

[maineman]

Grow up maineman.
:rofl:

[Tahuyaman]

I was managing and winning state senate campaigns in Maine when you were still $#@!ting yellow. I've forgotten more about politics since breakfast than you have ever known.

Here's a bit of advice: don't ever tell me what to do and expect anything other than laughter and derision as my response. punk.

oh brother......

[Tahuyaman]

what does that have to do with the length of her coattails in November?

she wont have coat tails if it's obvious that she used political power to avoid a felony conviction. She'll be the first lame duck first term president in history.

[Tahuyaman]

Grow up maineman.


No chance of that.

[maineman]

she wont have coat tails if it's obvious that she used political power to avoid a felony conviction. She'll be the first lame duck first term president in history.but yet, a majority of voters will vote for her, and not other democrats? Another raicilla night, I see.

[Tahuyaman]

but yet, a majority of voters will vote for her, and not other democrats? Another raicilla night, I see.

they won't if she gets indicted. They won't if she doesn't and people in the justice dept leak how she skated based on her name.

she just might not get past Bernie. He's got momentum going for him now.

[maineman]

they won't if she gets indicted. They won't if she doesn't and people in the justice dept leak how she skated based on her name.

she just might not get past Bernie. He's got momentum going for him now.
Keep your story straight. Either she's gonna win but the folks who vote FOR her will vote - inexplicably - for republican senate candidates.... Or Bernie's gonna take the nomination away from her. Those are your two theories and they are mutually exclusive. Raicilla can do that, I've heard.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm sure you hear a lot of things. Most go over your head.

[maineman]

I'm sure you hear a lot of things. Most go over your head.nice dodge. Which goofy,mutually exclusive prediction are you going with?

[Quicksilver]

she wont have coat tails if it's obvious that she used political power to avoid a felony conviction. She'll be the first lame duck first term president in history.

Hahahaha The Repugs said that about Obama... How'd that work out for ya?

[donttread]

Clinton leads Bernie nationally in the Real Clear Politics poll of polls. She leads him in delegates to date. She leads him by double digits in the polls in the big three remaining states: CA, NY, and PA.

I can't WAIT to see the feminist, pro-choice, anti-gun SCOTUS nominee she picks to replace Scalia. With her loooooong coattails, 51 democrats in the senate in 2017 is certainly not a stretch, especially if the GOP succeeds in stepping on their collective dicks with track shoes by nominating the Donald.

Good times.... good times.

Drudge already had an article yesterday where the GOP has written 2016 off and is grooming Ryan for 2020 ALREADY!

Careful now, if one of the parties actually gets the white house, the HOR and the Senate who will they blame for the fact that nothing will change?

[Quicksilver]

Careful now, if one of the parties actually gets the white house, the HOR and the Senate who will they blame for the fact that nothing will change?

Nothing is going to change.... The Repugs will obstruct everything a Democratic President will try to do... conversely.. as payback the Dems will filibuster every bill a Repug prez would want.. A Repug Prez can have the Repug control of both the House and the Senate and still be obstructed.. especially now that it requires 60 votes to pass anything with a filibuster.

[Cigar]

Nothing is going to change.... The Repugs will obstruct everything a Democratic President will try to do... conversely.. as payback the Dems will filibuster every bill a Repug prez would want.. A Repug Prez can have the Repug control of both the House and the Senate and still be obstructed.. especially now that it requires 60 votes to pass anything with a filibuster.


But But But The RePugs had a HUGE VICTORY in 2010 :laugh:

[Quicksilver]

But But But The RePugs had a HUGE VICTORY in 2010 :laugh:


Well... that 60 vote filibuster thing was their idea in the first place.. and they used it over and over when they were in the minority in the Senate.. They didn't change the rule when they became the majority because they KNEW they wouldn't be hanging on to it for long.. and it really did bite them in the ass..

[Green Arrow]

I was managing and winning state senate campaigns in Maine when you were still shitting yellow. I've forgotten more about politics since breakfast than you have ever known.

Here's a bit of advice: don't ever tell me what to do and expect anything other than laughter and derision as my response. punk.

Yeah, and I'm a millionaire former model with a nine inch dick :rollseyes:

[Green Arrow]

Well... that 60 vote filibuster thing was their idea in the first place.. and they used it over and over when they were in the minority in the Senate.. They didn't change the rule when they became the majority because they KNEW they wouldn't be hanging on to it for long.. and it really did bite them in the ass..

The 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster was implemented in 1975 by a Democrat-controlled Senate.

[Tahuyaman]

Hahahaha The Repugs said that about Obama... How'd that work out for ya?

Obama wasn't facing the possibility of a felony conviction either.

[Tahuyaman]

but yet, a majority of voters will vote for her,....

You're certain of this?

[maineman]

Yeah, and I'm a millionaire former model with a nine inch dick :rollseyes:

no doubt. you still don't know shit from fat meat about politics, punk.

[maineman]

You're certain of this?

you were the guy predicting she'd win but have zero coattails..... not me.

[Tahuyaman]

you were the guy predicting she'd win but have zero coattails..... not me.


I predicted that that she will win the nomination. I predicted she will win the general election if she faces one particular candidate.

If she gets gets off on the email fiasco, the career non politicos in the justice department are going to be upset. There will basically be a rebellion. They will make it known that she was let off the hook because of political considerations. They will make it public knowledge that partisan politics compromised the legal system.

If she wins the general election, it will be common knowledge that the country elected a criminal. She will have no coat tails anyone but a couple of extreme left wing goof-balls will want to jump onto. Just as Democrats tried to distance themselves from Obama during the mid term elections, rational Democrats will distance themselves from her.

The Democrats are already not universally thrilled with the prospect of her representing their party in the general election because of her obvious honesty issues. It will get worse. What little trust people have in her will deteriorate further.

[Quicksilver]

Obama wasn't facing the possibility of a felony conviction either.

Neither is HRC

[Tahuyaman]

Neither is HRC


Really? She does have a partisan led justice department making the decision, but she is indeed facing the possibility of being charged with and convicted of a felony crime.

[Quicksilver]

Really? She does have a partisan led justice department making the decision, but she is indeed facing the possibility of being charged with and convicted of a felony crime.

No she isn't..... other than in the Wet dreams of Conservatives.

[Tahuyaman]

No she isn't..... other than in the Wet dreams of Conservatives.

The condition of denial can be corrected.

[hanger4]

The 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster was implemented in 1975 by a Democrat-controlled Senate.

Where do Q and C get their infomation ??

[nic34]

It would be awesome if she did, but I don't see it happening. Hillary is too egotistical and too ambitious to give up now when, being honest, she's winning.

It doesn't bode well for the future of the Democratic Party, however, that they've thrown everything behind Hillary when it's pretty clear that even the base barely wants her.

Her base is bigger than their base.

Don't underestimate the voters.

[nic34]

The 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster was implemented in 1975 by a Democrat-controlled Senate.

And as usual, republicans were first to pervert it.

[Green Arrow]

no doubt. you still don't know shit from fat meat about politics, punk.

Take some midol, you'll feel better in the morning.

[Green Arrow]

Her base is bigger than their base.

Don't underestimate the voters.

I'm not.

[Tahuyaman]

Take some midol, you'll feel better in the morning.

maineman can not tolerate disagreement. First he responds with general insults, then he goes into the sexually oriented insults. The dude has issues. It could be his form of self mutilation.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm not.

The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton does have the backing of the party establishment. Sanders does not. That's the primary reason I'm so impressed by Sanders recent victories. Don't take that to mean I support him, because I don't.

However, if he could somehow win the nomination that would actually provide the voters with a clear choice in which direction they want the country to take. Especially if Cruz took the nomination away from Trump.

[Tahuyaman]

I'd like to see a national election where we have true competing choices as to which path we will take in the future. The last ones I remeber were 1980 and 1984.

[Tahuyaman]

Hillary Clinton and the DNC has a big problem in how to handle Sanders. in New York, Hillary still has a lead, but that lead has been cut dramatically over the last couple of weeks. Sanders is closing the gap because voters in NY do not trust Hillary Clinton.

The big problem is that the word has been spread that even if Sanders wins the state, Clinton will still take all of the super delegates. This lack of respecting the will of the voters is going to be a huge issue and an albatross around her neck in the campaign when she wins the nomination.

[maineman]

nowhere in the rules of the DNC is there any obligation for super delegates to "respect the will of the voters" They are in existence first and foremost to ensure that irrational mob rule does not prevail at the convention. They are, by their very nature, voices of wisdom and reason who can, and do, take the long view.

[Green Arrow]

nowhere in the rules of the DNC is there any obligation for super delegates to "respect the will of the voters" They are in existence first and foremost to ensure that irrational mob rule does not prevail at the convention. They are, by their very nature, voices of wisdom and reason who can, and do, take the long view.

The word you are looking for is "democracy."

[domer76]

The word you are looking for is "democracy."

This is not a democracy

[Green Arrow]

This is not a democracy

No, it isn't, but the "Democratic Party" is so named to promote democracy. If you're not going to do that, you need to stop bitching about the will of the people and change your name.

[domer76]

No, it isn't, but the "Democratic Party" is so named to promote democracy. If you're not going to do that, you need to stop bitching about the will of the people and change your name.

The only people that seem to be bitching about the will of the people are the losers. And, most people can't get the name of the party right anyway.

[Tahuyaman]

nowhere in the rules of the DNC is there any obligation for super delegates to "respect the will of the voters" .....


You are 100% correct and that is a big problem.

[Tahuyaman]

No, it isn't, but the "Democratic Party" is so named to promote democracy. If you're not going to do that, you need to stop $#@!ing about the will of the people and change your name.

Absolutely. This is why Hillary Clinton is not going to automatically get the Sanders supporters to blindly support her. People don't like being swindled.

[maineman]

You are 100% correct and that is a big problem.

for whom? You're not a democrat. It's none of your fucking business.

[maineman]

No, it isn't, but the "Democratic Party" is so named to promote democracy. If you're not going to do that, you need to stop bitching about the will of the people and change your name.

It's our party, not yours. Make your own fucking party. Call it whatever the fuck you want to call it. That'd be YOUR business. MY party's name is not.

[maineman]

The word you are looking for is "democracy."

whenever I read your posts, the only words that come to MY mind are punk and twerp. I chose my words carefully. I don't need YOUR advice on those choices. You ain't my fucking thesaurus.

[Green Arrow]

It's our party, not yours. Make your own fucking party. Call it whatever the fuck you want to call it. That'd be YOUR business. MY party's name is not.

If your party is none of my business, then I guess there's no reason to vote for your party's candidates from here on out.

[Green Arrow]

whenever I read your posts, the only words that come to MY mind are punk and twerp. I chose my words carefully. I don't need YOUR advice on those choices. You ain't my fucking thesaurus.

Are you always this violently nasty on your period?

Take some midol and STFU.

[Tahuyaman]

for whom? You're not a democrat. It's none of your $#@!ing business.

maineman clearly demonstrates the problem. He believes that if you disagree with the party establishment, you have nothing to say. In order to have a voice, he believes one must be a partisan hack.

Thats the way to attract new supporters, huh?

[Tahuyaman]

Are you always this violently nasty on your period?

Take some midol and STFU.

He just doesn't have the intellectual ability or the confidence in his views to handle disagreement. When challenged, he automatically falls into his default position of insult mode. He can't help it. It's who he is.

[maineman]

maineman clearly demonstrates the problem. He believes that if you disagree with the party establishment, you have nothing to say. In order to have a voice, he believes one must be a partisan hack.

Thats the way to attract new supporters, huh?

I know that if you want to have a voice in how a political party does business, you need to be a member of that party. If you chose not to, you have no reason to complain. Vote for the other party, or write in the candidate of your choice. That's how our system works. If you don't LIKE our system, you can work within the system to change it, or you can turn in your passport and go be a citizen of some other country.

[Tahuyaman]

If your party is none of my business, then I guess there's no reason to vote for your party's candidates from here on out.

His attitude does not motivate anyone to join his side.

[maineman]

Are you always this violently nasty on your period?

Take some midol and STFU.

I have no need of midol and I will never be quiet because you tell me to.

[maineman]

If your party is none of my business, then I guess there's no reason to vote for your party's candidates from here on out.

the only reason you should ever vote for any candidate is because you believe they are the best choice of the options available to you. Hey.... vote for the Donald if you'd prefer him or write in Justin Beiber... I don't give a shit.

[maineman]

His attitude does not motivate anyone to join his side.

I have no desire to have you join my side. We'll win Washington without your vote.

[Peter1469]

Warning: stop attacking each other. Discuss the topic. TB's are fast and hard after this warning.

[Tahuyaman]

I know that if you want to have a voice in how a political party does business, you need to be a member of that party. If you chose not to, you have no reason to complain. Vote for the other party, or write in the candidate of your choice. That's how our system works. If you don't LIKE our system, you can work within the system to change it, or you can turn in your passport and go be a citizen of some other country.


Keep on insulting people and regeting other views and see how many new members you attract.


Unchecked liberalism has ruined a once great political party. You celebrate that.

[maineman]

Keep on insulting people and regeting other views and see how many new members you attract.


Unchecked liberalism has ruined a once great political party. You celebrate that.

I regete [sic] nothing. (Quite frankly, I have no idea what it even means!)
In case you haven't seen the news, Bernie is attracting lots of young new members to MY party..... and most of them would chose Elmer Fudd over Donald Trump. They'll have no problem holding their idealistic noses and voting for Hillary. All three of my kids are Bernie supporters and all three will vote for Hillary in the general if Bernie does not get the nomination. They tell me that most all of their friends feel the same way. The Donald makes them wanna puke.

[Tahuyaman]

I regete [sic] nothing. (Quite frankly, I have no idea what it even means!)
In case you haven't seen the news, Bernie is attracting lots of young new members to MY party..... and most of them would chose Elmer Fudd over Donald Trump. They'll have no problem holding their idealistic noses and voting for Hillary. All three of my kids are Bernie supporters and all three will vote for Hillary in the general if Bernie does not get the nomination. They tell me that most all of their friends feel the same way. The Donald makes them wanna puke.oh.... You got me.

No wonder no one takes you seriously. But then, you believe otherwise.

[Tahuyaman]

There once were two very different political parties consisting of serious people who had valid competing ideas. Now we have been reduced to two parties guided by uniformed hacks who have no ideas other than shouting insults to one another.

They don't even have the ability to accurately recognize and understand recorded history.

[maineman]

oh.... You got me.

No wonder no one takes you seriously. But then, you believe otherwise.

actually... I still have no idea what regeting [sic] means. Do tell!

[Tahuyaman]

actually... I still have no idea what regeting [sic] means. Do tell!

That's actually an ineffective way to dodge addressing the comment. You're not good at this.

[Ethereal]

I know that if you want to have a voice in how a political party does business, you need to be a member of that party. If you chose not to, you have no reason to complain. Vote for the other party, or write in the candidate of your choice. That's how our system works. If you don't LIKE our system, you can work within the system to change it, or you can turn in your passport and go be a citizen of some other country.

The "system" is crap and it's purposely designed to keep other options marginalized.

[Tahuyaman]

If you can't address the substance of my comment, don't bother commenting further.

[maineman]

That's actually an ineffective way to dodge addressing the comment. You're not good at this.

I am serious. I understand that you think I insult people. I do not understand what REGETING other views means.

Perhaps you yourself are not quite sure what you meant to type in your raicilla fueled daze?

[maineman]

The "system" is crap and it's purposely designed to keep other options marginalized.

run for office and, when you win, work to change it.

good luck!

[Tahuyaman]

The "system" is crap and it's purposely designed to keep other options marginalized.

There's a reason the system became crap.

[maineman]

while you're at it... try addressing this, which YOU avoided:

In case you haven't seen the news, Bernie is attracting lots of young new members to MY party..... and most of them would chose Elmer Fudd over Donald Trump. They'll have no problem holding their idealistic noses and voting for Hillary. All three of my kids are Bernie supporters and all three will vote for Hillary in the general if Bernie does not get the nomination. They tell me that most all of their friends feel the same way. The Donald makes them wanna puke.

[Ethereal]

I have no desire to have you join my side. We'll win Washington without your vote.

There is no "we" in this equation. Like George Carlin said, it's a big club and you ain't in it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0

But have fun casting your meaningless vote for a corporate puppet and shouting with glee as the establishment rams its metaphorical dick up your ass.

[Tahuyaman]

I am serious. I understand that you think I insult people. I do not understand what REGETING other views means.

Perhaps you yourself are not quite sure what you meant to type in your raicilla fueled daze?

I'm finished with this one. A substantive discussion is beyond your ability.

[Ethereal]

run for office and, when you win, work to change it.

good luck!

The system is rigged against real choices. If you don't realize that by now, you probably never will.

[Ethereal]

There's a reason the system became crap.

It began as crap. The "anti-federalists" predicted this would happen.

[maineman]

I'm finished with this one. A substantive discussion is beyond your ability.

run away. it seems, rather than huff and puff for five posts, you could just tell me what REGETING means. Regretting??? denigrating???? I honestly do not know. If you cannot use the English language in a coherent manner, how in the hell do you expect ANYBODY to have a substantive discussion with you?

[maineman]

The system is rigged against real choices. If you don't realize that by now, you probably never will.

you don't think that Truman-Dewey was a real choice? You don't think that Carter-Reagan was a real choice? You don't think that LBJ-Goldwater was a real choice?

[maineman]

There is no "we" in this equation. Like George Carlin said, it's a big club and you ain't in it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0

But have fun casting your meaningless vote for a corporate puppet and shouting with glee as the establishment rams its metaphorical dick up your ass.

we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree.

[Tahuyaman]

run away. it seems, rather than huff and puff for five posts, you could just tell me what REGETING means. Regretting??? denigrating???? I honestly do not know. If you cannot use the English language in a coherent manner, how in the hell do you expect ANYBODY to have a substantive discussion with you?

I'm just not going follow into the gutter like every discussion you participate in.

[Ethereal]

you don't think that Truman-Dewey was a real choice? You don't think that Carter-Reagan was a real choice? You don't think that LBJ-Goldwater was a real choice?

When you go to the store, are your only choices Coke or Pepsi? No, there are a wealth of choices because there typically aren't massive, systemic obstacles trying to keep them away from you. The two party duopoly is not what real choice looks like. And even the Democrat party's own rhetoric proves this, because they are constantly complaining about the "one percent". Those are the plutocrats who OWN the system and designed it purposely to keep democracy bottled up and impotent. Your support for this system only perpetuates your own exploitation and oppression by the plutocracy.

[Ethereal]

we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree.

What do you disagree with, exactly? Do you disagree that ultra wealthy people basically own the political system? Do you disagree that they use their corporate media as propaganda outlets to condition the population into going along with their agenda?

[maineman]

When you go to the store, are your only choices Coke or Pepsi? No, there are a wealth of choices because there typically aren't massive, systemic obstacles trying to keep them away from you. The two party duopoly is not what real choice looks like. And even the Democrat party's own rhetoric proves this, because they are constantly complaining about the "one percent". Those are the plutocrats who OWN the system and designed it purposely to keep democracy bottled up and impotent. Your support for this system only perpetuates your own exploitation and oppression by the plutocracy.

speak for yourself. I am not "exploited" or "oppressed" by anyone.

[maineman]

I'm just not going follow into the gutter like every discussion you participate in.

be honest. you don't even know what you were trying to type when you typed "regeting" do you?

I don't. that's for sure.

Use our language so others can understand you... is that really so much to ask?

[Ethereal]

speak for yourself. I am not "exploited" or "oppressed" by anyone.

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it will come true.

[Tahuyaman]

be honest. you don't even know what you were trying to type when you typed "regeting" do you?

I don't. that's for sure.

Use our language so others can understand you... is that really so much to ask?

Prove to me you arent a gutter rat and I'll respond to your comments in a respecful manner.

[maineman]

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it will come true.

you know nothing about me or my circumstances. keep thinking otherwise, and stay a fool. I could care less.

[maineman]

Prove to me you arent a gutter rat and I'll respond to your comments in a respecful manner.

prove to me that you understand the English language well enough to carry on an intelligent conversation. I STILL do not know what you were trying to say. The sentence makes no sense.... I cannot respond to something I cannot comprehend. REGETING is not a word. Which word did you mean to use instead?

[Ethereal]

you know nothing about me or my circumstances. keep thinking otherwise, and stay a fool. I could care less.

If you're not one of the plutocrats who basically own every government and corporation in the western world, then you are undoubtedly being exploited and oppressed, whether you know it or not.

[maineman]

If you're not one of the plutocrats who basically own every government and corporation in the western world, then you are undoubtedly being exploited and oppressed, whether you know it or not.

how would you possibly know what my socioeconomic situation was?

[Ethereal]

how would you possibly know what my socioeconomic situation was?

I don't. Perhaps you are a billionaire plutocrat. But I doubt it.

[maineman]

I don't. Perhaps you are a billionaire plutocrat. But I doubt it.

and you believe that it's as simple as that. billionaires - BILLIONAIRES - and then EVERYBODY else??

[Ethereal]

and you believe that it's as simple as that. billionaires - BILLIONAIRES - and they EVERYBODY else??

More or less. And that's the way it's been for thousands of years.

[maineman]

More or less. And that's the way it's been for thousands of years.

so...people with tens of millions of dollars are just as oppressed and exploited as the fry cook at Burger King? If you can't measure your wealth in 10 figures, you're a peon?

[Tahuyaman]

Prove to me you arent a gutter rat and I'll respond to your comments in a respecful manner.


prove to me that you understand the English language well enough to carry on an intelligent conversation. I STILL do not know what you were trying to say. The sentence makes no sense.... I cannot respond to something I cannot comprehend. REGETING is not a word. Which word did you mean to use instead?

That's not the way....

[Ethereal]

so...people with tens of millions of dollars are just as oppressed and exploited as the fry cook at Burger King?

There are degrees of oppression and exploitation that depend on your status within society, and it typically correlates with how much wealth and/or power you possess. But if you're not one of the ruling elite, then you're definitely being oppressed and exploited to some extent.


If you can't measure your wealth in 10 figures, you're a peon?

A servant or a subject would be a better description.

[maineman]

That's not the way....

I would gladly respond respectfully to your posting if I had an inkling as to what it meant.

Why can't you just tell me what word you mistyped so that I can respond?

[del]

while you're at it... try addressing this, which YOU avoided:

In case you haven't seen the news, Bernie is attracting lots of young new members to MY party..... and most of them would chose Elmer Fudd over Donald Trump. They'll have no problem holding their idealistic noses and voting for Hillary. All three of my kids are Bernie supporters and all three will vote for Hillary in the general if Bernie does not get the nomination. They tell me that most all of their friends feel the same way. The Donald makes them wanna puke.

yeah, they will. she's untrustworthy, unlikeable and an obvious careerist who doesn't give a flying fuck about the country, its people or their needs.

p.s.- your kids are probably lying to you.

[maineman]

There are degrees of oppression and exploitation that depend on your status within society, and it typically correlates with how much wealth and/or power you possess. But if you're not one of the ruling elite, then you're definitely being oppressed and exploited to some extent.



A servant or a subject would be a better description.

so.... the CEO of, let's say.... Deere & Co.... a Fortune 500 firm..... world's largest manufacturer of farm equipment.... because his net worth is less than ten figures, he is a servant or a subject?

[maineman]

yeah, they will. she's untrustworthy, unlikeable and an obvious careerist who doesn't give a flying fuck about the country, its people or their needs.

p.s.- your kids are probably lying to you.

we talk politics all the time. my children don't lie to me.... especially now that they are adults.

[del]

we talk politics all the time. my children don't lie to me.... especially now that they are adults.

perhaps they do in this instance, seeing how irrational you become when anyone has the effrontery to challenge the party line.

[Ethereal]

so.... the CEO of, let's say.... Deere & Co.... a Fortune 500 firm..... world's largest manufacturer of farm equipment.... because his net worth is less than ten figures, he is a servant or a subject?

No, he's part of the master class. I didn't mean to make it seem like only a billionaire could be part of that class.

[maineman]

perhaps they do in this instance, seeing how irrational you become when anyone has the effrontery to challenge the party line.

you are free to challenge whatever party line you chose. As am I. As are my offspring. You know that. I know that. They know that. They grew up in politics... they know how the game is played.

[maineman]

No, he's part of the master class. I didn't mean to make it seem like only a billionaire could be part of that class.

I used your words. If you meant "millionaire" instead of "billionaire", you should have said so.

[del]

you are free to challenge whatever party line you chose. As am I. As are my offspring. You know that. I know that. They know that. They grew up in politics... they know how the game is played.

yes, i do, and i'll give myself a vasectomy with a grapefruit spoon before i'll vote for the dishonest harpy that you support.

no offense

[Ethereal]

I used your words. If you meant "millionaire" instead of "billionaire", you should have said so.

I admit that my language was imprecise. But I feel like you are trying to evade the point by fixating on semantics. Discussions of the "one percent" and the undue influence they exercise over the political system are not exactly controversial at this point, especially within your own political party.

[Ethereal]

Hillary Clinton Calls For ‘Toppling’ The 1 Percent (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/hillary-clinton-calls-for_0_n_7108026.html)

See, even the candidate you support talks about these people. Of course, she's a member of their club, so she's probably not a good choice to take them (herself) down.

[Green Arrow]

I regete [sic] nothing. (Quite frankly, I have no idea what it even means!)
In case you haven't seen the news, Bernie is attracting lots of young new members to MY party..... and most of them would chose Elmer Fudd over Donald Trump. They'll have no problem holding their idealistic noses and voting for Hillary. All three of my kids are Bernie supporters and all three will vote for Hillary in the general if Bernie does not get the nomination. They tell me that most all of their friends feel the same way. The Donald makes them wanna puke.

Your anecdote is worthless. Every Bernie supporter I know - myself included - will not vote for Hillary in November and most of them made that determination very recently, once the soulless corruption of Hillary and the DNC became impossible to ignore.

Considering I work with the campaign and my regional pro-Bernie outfit (CABS - Chattanooga Area for Bernie Sanders), I might easily know more Bernie supporters than your kids, but my anecdote is just as meaningless as yours.

[Tahuyaman]

You need to understand that many people get very flustered and become frantic and irrational when a party line and or party establishment is challenged.

[maineman]

Your anecdote is worthless. Every Bernie supporter I know - myself included - will not vote for Hillary in November and most of them made that determination very recently, once the soulless corruption of Hillary and the DNC became impossible to ignore.

Considering I work with the campaign and my regional pro-Bernie outfit (CABS - Chattanooga Area for Bernie Sanders), I might easily know more Bernie supporters than your kids, but my anecdote is just as meaningless as yours.


anecdotes are just that... anecdotes. If you know Bernie supporters who would rather see Trump elected, then I doubt their true dedication to the ideals that Bernie stands for.... but hey.... you go, punk. whatever blows your skirt up.

[maineman]

I admit that my language was imprecise. But I feel like you are trying to evade the point by fixating on semantics. Discussions of the "one percent" and the undue influence they exercise over the political system are not exactly controversial at this point, especially within your own political party.

Well... I fit the former category, but not, obviously, the latter. I have offspring who will inherit enough to put them in the former category as well, but they are not there now. They are a teacher, and a software developer and an assistant district attorney. They ALL support Bernie, but they will ALL support Hillary, if she wins the nomination, because they are smart enough to know that the journey of progressive liberalism cannot be accomplished in giant leaps, but in small steps.... just like the small steps that our nation has taken to give women the right to vote, and unions the right to organize, and given workers a minimum wage, and given every American social security and medicare, and given blacks the ability to vote, and gays the right to marry, and ALL the other wacky crazy far out super left wing ideas that have become part of American life. Either you stand with us, or you stand against us. Take your pick.

[del]

too bad they're not smart enough to know that hillary is a giant step backwards.

[maineman]

too bad they're not smart enough to know that hillary is a giant step backwards.

and the Donald is a step forward???

and fuck YOU for disparaging the intelligence of my very smart, very successful children. Have your kids learned to walk and chew gum simultaneously?

Discuss the intelligence of children and members in PM's, thanks

[Tahuyaman]

Lol.... Some people can't play well with anyone.

[maineman]

I regete [sic] that I don't understand why you, who can't even use the English language effectively, would laugh at that.

[maineman]

and Tahuyaman..... why not grow a set and respond to #164.... let alone try to explain what REGETE means!

[Tahuyaman]

Some people just don't have the ability to learn from their mistakes.

[maineman]

have you learned what REGETE means?

I sure haven't.

[del]

and the Donald is a step forward???

and fuck YOU for disparaging the intelligence of my very smart, very successful children. Have your kids learned to walk and chew gum simultaneously?


you seem a little tense there, cowboy

if the only reason you can come up with to vote for hillary is that she's not donald trump, you're fucked from jump street

carry on

[del]

and @Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365)..... why not grow a set and respond to #164.... let alone try to explain what REGETE means!

if your triumph of the day is a typo, you may want to rethink your life strategy, my dear nimitz

btw, how may ringknockers top out at O-5?

[Tahuyaman]

It's obvious that many people are not comfortable with the corruption that has overtaken both major parties, but especially the Democrats. The more the party demonstrates that they are shamefully in the tank for Hillary, the more momentum builds against the party.

The Sanders supporters are getting more and more ticked off. Its either foolish or naive to believe they will suddenly fall in line with the party establishment. Especially after the latest DNC stunt with the Washington DC ballot.

This same problem may be facing the Republicans if the RNC tries to insert Kaisich as the nominee over whoever legitimately wins the most delegates.

[Green Arrow]

anecdotes are just that... anecdotes. If you know Bernie supporters who would rather see Trump elected, then I doubt their true dedication to the ideals that Bernie stands for.... but hey.... you go, punk. whatever blows your skirt up.

Actually, it's precisely that strong dedication to Bernie's ideals that prohibit them from voting for someone that doesn't hold them.

Like Hillary Clinton.

[Tahuyaman]

Actually, it's precisely that strong dedication to Bernie's ideals that prohibit them from voting for someone that doesn't hold them.

Like Hillary Clinton.

I'm certain there will be some Sanders supporters who will hold their nose and go with Hillary, but I believe most would reject her. Enough that it will impact the general election.

[maineman]

if your triumph of the day is a typo, you may want to rethink your life strategy, my dear nimitz

btw, how may ringknockers top out at O-5?

pretty much all of them that leave after 21 years of commissioned service. promotion to O-6 usually comes later.

And I am not suggesting that his typo is a victory. I have always simply asked him to explain what word he was trying to use so that I could accurately respond to him.

[maineman]

Actually, it's precisely that strong dedication to Bernie's ideals that prohibit them from voting for someone that doesn't hold them.

Like Hillary Clinton.

My children do not agree with you. My smart, successful children.

[maineman]

you seem a little tense there, cowboy

if the only reason you can come up with to vote for hillary is that she's not donald trump, you're fucked from jump street

carry on

where did I EVER say that was my only reason?

[hanger4]

My children do not agree with you. My smart, successful children.

I have smart, successful children also and they don't agree with your children.

They also don't focus on typos.

[maineman]

I have smart, successful children also and they don't agree with your children.

They also don't focus on typos.

again... I am not focusing on a typo. I sincerely wanted to know what word he was trying to use so that I could accurately respond to his post.

and congratulations on your children.

[PolWatch]

I suspect this election will reach new lows in voter participation. People on both sides of the aisle are disgusted with the choices of both parties. (assuming the final match-up will be Trump/Clinton) The Sander's campaign has proved that candidates don't need huge corporate donors. Perhaps we will see the creation of other parties that will offer real choices. I can only hope.

[maineman]

Keep on insulting people and regeting other views and see how many new members you attract.



If anyone else can help me out here..... I honestly do not know what Tahuyaman could be going for here. Insulting I understand. If I knew what "regeting other views" meant, I could address his point.

[maineman]

I suspect this election will reach new lows in voter participation. People on both sides of the aisle are disgusted with the choices of both parties. (assuming the final match-up will be Trump/Clinton) The Sander's campaign has proved that candidates don't need huge corporate donors. Perhaps we will see the creation of other parties that will offer real choices. I can only hope.

I realize that wanting to vote AGAINST someone is not as powerful a motivator as wanting to vote for someone, but if one of the choices is truly horrific, from one's perspective, it could be powerful enough to get them off the La-Z-Boy and off to the polling place. For me, it wouldn't matter who the democrats nominated, I would hold my nose and vote for them to avoid a Trump residency.

[Tahuyaman]

It must be embarrassing to know that one is a blind partisan.

[Tahuyaman]

If anyone else can help me out here..... I honestly do not know what @Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365) could be going for here. Insulting I understand. If I knew what "regeting other views" meant, I could address his point.

Anyone with any sembelence of common sense can figure out the what the typo was all about.

[maineman]

Anyone with any sembelence of common sense can figure out the what the typo was all about.

you betcha sarge!

:rofl:

[maineman]

It must be embarrassing to know that one is a blind partisan.

partisan? yes

blind? certainly not

[Tahuyaman]

Anyone with any sembelence of common sense can figure out the what the typo was all about.


you betcha sarge!

:rofl:

well, obviousy that eliminates you from the equation.

[Tahuyaman]

partisan? yes

blind? certainly not

Isn't claimg that that you would vote for "anyone" who ran as a democrat the very definition of being a "blind partisan"?

[maineman]

Isn't claimg that that you would vote for "anyone" who ran as a democrat the very definition of being a "blind partisan"?

not when that vote is cast to help deny Trump the presidency.

[maineman]

For example, if the choices were John Huntsman for the GOP versus Rosie O'Donnell for the democrats, I'd vote for Huntsman in a heartbeat.

[Tahuyaman]

Lol.....

[Green Arrow]

My children do not agree with you. My smart, successful children.

That's nice. Good for them. That doesn't make them right about everything.

[maineman]

That's nice. Good for them. That doesn't make them right about everything.

right and wrong when talking politics is really pretty subjective, don't you think?

[Green Arrow]

I realize that wanting to vote AGAINST someone is not as powerful a motivator as wanting to vote for someone, but if one of the choices is truly horrific, from one's perspective, it could be powerful enough to get them off the La-Z-Boy and off to the polling place. For me, it wouldn't matter who the democrats nominated, I would hold my nose and vote for them to avoid a Trump residency.

Naturally. You, and others like you, are not leaders. You are followers. Not a criticism, there's nothing wrong with being a follower. We are all made for different purposes.

[Green Arrow]

right and wrong when talking politics is really pretty subjective, don't you think?

Not when you are attempting to state facts.

[maineman]

Naturally. You, and others like you, are not leaders. You are followers. Not a criticism, there's nothing wrong with being a follower. We are all made for different purposes.

leaders are really not leaders at all if nobody is actually following them.

just sayin'

[maineman]

Not when you are attempting to state facts.

facts as to which politician has a better chance of moving our country in the right direction?

pretty subjective stuff.

[Green Arrow]

facts as to which politician has a better chance of moving our country in the right direction?

pretty subjective stuff.

In the "right" direction, sure, but that's not what I'm discussing. I want the country moved in a more progressive direction and that means supporting progressive candidates.

[Green Arrow]

leaders are really not leaders at all if nobody is actually following them.

just sayin'

Got anything else obvious to state, Captain?

[maineman]

Got anything else obvious to state, Captain?

how many people are you leading these days, major?

[maineman]

In the "right" direction, sure, but that's not what I'm discussing. I want the country moved in a more progressive direction and that means supporting progressive candidates.

I agree. and what if the most progressive candidate fails to be nominated? will you then abdicate your responsibility as a voter and stay home, or will you vote for the very least progressive candidate like some petulant child?

[Green Arrow]

how many people are you leading these days, major?

Plenty. I have a pretty extensive network in roughly half the states, and I'm expanding it every year.

[Green Arrow]

I agree. and what if the most progressive candidate fails to be nominated? will you then abdicate your responsibility as a voter and stay home, or will you vote for the very least progressive candidate like some petulant child?

I will vote for the most progressive candidate running, and if none of the candidates running are sufficiently progressive, I will write in my preference. Staying home has never and will never be an option for me.

[maineman]

Plenty. I have a pretty extensive network in roughly half the states, and I'm expanding it every year.facebook friends and linkdin buddies..... good for you. I bet you "lead" your extensive network in laughing at all sorts of adorable kitten video clips each evening!

[maineman]

I will vote for the most progressive candidate running, and if none of the candidates running are sufficiently progressive, I will write in my preference. Staying home has never and will never be an option for me.

write in candidates are nothing more than a demonstration of naivete and petulance. The real world laughs at such meaningless gestures.

[Green Arrow]

write in candidates are nothing more than a demonstration of naivete and petulance. The real world laughs at such meaningless gestures.

I'd rather cast a meaningless vote for who I believe is the best candidate for the job, than throw all my principles out the window to vote for someone I think is loathsome. I'm okay with the world thinking it's silly.

[maineman]

I'd rather cast a meaningless vote for who I believe is the best candidate for the job, than throw all my principles out the window to vote for someone I think is loathsome. I'm okay with the world thinking it's silly.

pick the less loathsome, or admit you may have a hand in electing the MOST loathsome.

[Green Arrow]

pick the less loathsome, or admit you may have a hand in electing the MOST loathsome.

I gave your party a chance to nominate a candidate I can vote for and earn my vote. You've refused.

So my vote, you will not get. You can't bully and rage enough to change my mind. Maybe next time, you'll learn this most valuable lesson.

[Tahuyaman]

we talk politics all the time. my children don't lie to me.... especially now that they are adults.

Im sure that you raised your children to always agree with you in all things. Complete agreement in all things is very important to you.

[maineman]

Im sure that you raised your children to always agree with you in all things. Complete agreement in all things is very important to you.

not at all. I raised my children to be independent thinkers. You really don't have a clue about what you are saying. All you do is insult. It's boring.

[maineman]

I gave your party a chance to nominate a candidate I can vote for and earn my vote. You've refused.

So my vote, you will not get. You can't bully and rage enough to change my mind. Maybe next time, you'll learn this most valuable lesson.

Vote or don't vote. What YOU do or think means nothing to me. If you are excited about a Trump presidency, that's your deal, not mine.

[Green Arrow]

not at all. I raised my children to be independent thinkers. You really don't have a clue about what you are saying. All you do is insult. It's boring.

I was going to say the same to you.

[Green Arrow]

Vote or don't vote. What YOU do or think means nothing to me. If you are excited about a Trump presidency, that's your deal, not mine.

That's a strawman. I find Trump and Clinton equally loathsome and don't want either one of them.

[maineman]

I was going to say the same to you.

why didn't you then?

[Green Arrow]

why didn't you then?

You beat me to it. Saving the keystrokes. Just look in a mirror.

[maineman]

That's a strawman. I find Trump and Clinton equally loathsome and don't want either one of them.

if I could discern no possible difference between a Trump presidency and a Clinton presidency, I probably wouldn't vote either.

and what is insulting about that comment?

[Tahuyaman]

not at all. I raised my children to be independent thinkers. You really don't have a clue about what you are saying. All you do is insult. It's boring.

All of a sudden you are bored bored with insults?

I just got the impression that you value complete agreement. It stands to reason that is a trai you instilled in your children.

[Peter1469]

This is an example of why None of the Above should be on every ballot. When large numbers vote NoA, the power of the lobbyists will diminish.

[Tahuyaman]

if I could discern no possible difference between a Trump presidency and a Clinton presidency, I probably wouldn't vote either.

and what is insulting about that comment?
He didn't say it was an insult. You seem to have a difficut time determining what is and is not an insult.

[Tahuyaman]

This is an example of why None of the Above should be on every ballot. When large numbers vote NoA, the power of the lobbyists will diminish.

What happens if a majority or even plurality tags NOTA? Re-do the campaign with new faces who are drafted?

[Peter1469]

What happens if a majority or even plurality tags NOTA? Re-do the campaign with new faces who are drafted?
Why not? If the majority can't vote for the people on the ballot why should they get elected? If there is a problem with a risk of a president leaving office without a successor there are different options to include following the continuity of operations plan in place.

Another option would be to make the term of the "winner" one year.

The current situation is corrupt and broken and is providing clowns as candidates.

[maineman]

All of a sudden you are bored bored with insults?

I just got the impression that you value complete agreement. It stands to reason that is a trai you instilled in your children.

I have never suggested or even implied that I "value complete agreement". I understand that there are wide ranging differences in political opinion and I have never attempted to stifle anyone's expression of their political philosophy. I have certainly tried to instill THAT in my children.

[maineman]

He didn't say it was an insult. You seem to have a difficut time determining what is and is not an insult.

I pointed out that all you do is insult. he said he thought the same about me.... ergo "all" that I write is an insult. Seriously, is English your second language?

[Green Arrow]

if I could discern no possible difference between a Trump presidency and a Clinton presidency, I probably wouldn't vote either.

and what is insulting about that comment?

That's entirely irrelevant. I'm voting, just not for the two evil scumbags at the top of the tickets.

[maineman]

That's entirely irrelevant. I'm voting, just not for the two evil scumbags at the top of the tickets.

fruitless symbolic gestures are important to you, I see.

[maineman]

you see... I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that either the democrat or the republican candidate WILL be the next president of the United States. I am absolutely certain that will happen. Ergo.... I need to make sure that I cast my vote for the one (of those two) who stands a better chance of moving the country in a direction that is more palatable to me than the course their opponent is likely to take.

[Green Arrow]

fruitless symbolic gestures are important to you, I see.

Standing on principle is important to me.

[maineman]

Standing on principle is important to me.

to what practical end?

[Tahuyaman]

I pointed out that all you do is insult. he said he thought the same about me.... ergo "all" that I write is an insult. Seriously, is English your second language?


So, when you said that you were bored with insults, was that a lie?

[Tahuyaman]

Standing on principle is important to me.

And others can't understand how one can take such a position.

[Peter1469]

you see... I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that either the democrat or the republican candidate WILL be the next president of the United States. I am absolutely certain that will happen. Ergo.... I need to make sure that I cast my vote for the one (of those two) who stands a better chance of moving the country in a direction that is more palatable to me than the course their opponent is likely to take.

Either one will keep the country in its current direction- a bullet train heading for a fiscal cliff. That is why None of the Above is needed. We must break the Establishment's hold on the United States.

[Tahuyaman]

Why not? If the majority can't vote for the people on the ballot why should they get elected? If there is a problem with a risk of a president leaving office without a successor there are different options to include following the continuity of operations plan in place.

Another option would be to make the term of the "winner" one year.

The current situation is corrupt and broken and is providing clowns as candidates.

Interesting.

[maineman]

Either one will keep the country in its current direction- a bullet train heading for a fiscal cliff. That is why None of the Above is needed. We must break the Establishment's hold on the United States.

I disagree. sorry.

[maineman]

So, when you said that you were bored with insults, was that a lie?

When I said I was bored with YOUR insults, that was totally truthful.

[Tahuyaman]

Either one will keep the country in its current direction- a bullet train heading for a fiscal cliff. That is why None of the Above is needed. We must break the Establishment's hold on the United States.


The problem runs much deeper than just blaming it on the establishment's hold on the country.

When a candidate promotes fiscally responsible policy ideas, he or she is attacked as a slash and burn type.

While most people claim to stand for sane fiscal policy and a reduction in wasteful spending, they only support that in the abstract. Once the specifics are made public, they no longer support fiscal responsibility. People now expect government to do something for them individually which is measurable.

Even spending increases which are less than initially desired are attacked as "draconian cuts". You can't expect sanity from people who live by that code.

[Tahuyaman]

When I said I was bored with YOUR insults, that was totally truthful.

Then ignore me.

Thank you.

[maineman]

Then ignore me.

Thank you.

would that please you?

[Green Arrow]

to what practical end?

It certainly makes more rational sense to support people that share your ideals in order to get those ideals put into place, rather than supporting candidates that don't support your ideals in the name of baseless "incrementalism" that never actually works.

[Tahuyaman]

would that please you?

Honestly, I don't give a shit what you do.

[Peter1469]

I disagree. sorry.

Clearly. You made your position clear above.

The grand scheme doesn't change whichever main party wins.

[Peter1469]

The problem runs much deeper than just blaming it on the establishment's hold on the country.

When a candidate promotes fiscally responsible policy ideas, he or she is attacked as a slash and burn type.

While most people claim to stand for sane fiscal policy and a reduction in wasteful spending, they only support that in the abstract. Once the specifics are made public, they no longer support fiscal responsibility. People now expect government to do something for them individually which is measurable.

Even spending increases which are less than initially desired are attacked as "draconian cuts". You can't expect sanity from people who live by that code.

That is true. That is why I think a currency collapse cannot be avoided. It would be political suicide to attempt to prevent it.

[maineman]

Honestly, I don't give a shit what you do.

then why tell me otherwise?

[Tahuyaman]

That is true. That is why I think a currency collapse cannot be avoided. It would be political suicide to attempt to prevent it.

I agree. But then when the collapse occurs, the policies designed to prevent it which were rejected will be blamed. The real causes will never be addressed. Even when forced to address them.

[maineman]

It certainly makes more rational sense to support people that share your ideals in order to get those ideals put into place, rather than supporting candidates that don't support your ideals in the name of baseless "incrementalism" that never actually works.

but it does work. slowly and incrementally, but it works. Women's suffrage. Union rights to organize. child labor laws. minimum wage. social security. medicare. medicaid. civil rights. gay rights. the list goes on and on. all progressive ideas that were once far out on the wild left of the mainstream... now all part of the fabric of our country.

[Peter1469]

I agree. But then when the collapse occurs, the policies designed to prevent it which were rejected will be blamed. The real causes will never be addressed. Even when forced to address them.

We have not made any policies to prevent a currency collapse. Zero. Had the USD not been the major global currency we would have crashed a decade or longer ago.

[Tahuyaman]

We have not made any policies to prevent a currency collapse. Zero. Had the USD not been the major global currency we would have crashed a decade or longer ago.

Sane policy ideas have been proposed, but rejected. The people who propose those policy ideas are painted as kooks or worse.

My point is that when the debt bomb explodes, the rejected policies will be blamed. The clueless sheep will believe that line when it's fed to them.

No no is going to be able to be honest about the cause.

[Green Arrow]

but it does work. slowly and incrementally, but it works. Women's suffrage. Union rights to organize. child labor laws. minimum wage. social security. medicare. medicaid. civil rights. gay rights. the list goes on and on. all progressive ideas that were once far out on the wild left of the mainstream... now all part of the fabric of our country.

And all were achieved in one major act.

Supporting non-progressives like Clinton will never lead to progressive achievement, incrementally or otherwise.

[Peter1469]

Sane policy ideas have been proposed, but rejected. The people who propose those policy ideas are painted as kooks or worse.

My point is that when the debt bomb explodes, the rejected policies will be blamed. The clueless sheep will believe that line when it's fed to them.

No no is going to be able to be honest about the cause.

I agree that the real cause will likely not be blamed.

I am not sure if blaming policies that were never enacted will fool anyone. Well, anyone that matters.