Support NeoGAF

[boiled goose]

let me try to unpack at least part of this.

First, The public overwhelmingly supported the Iraq War when it started, so the argument that it wasn't representing the will of the people is simply wrong:

http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/

Second, yes, the bailout was necessary. Not maybe, not perhaps, it was, period. You are either being purposefully obtuse or are completely oblivious to the reality of what was happening.
No, it didn't socialize the losses and privatize the gains.

One example, since we all love talking about them:

Goldman's stock is still below the 10-year peak.

http://www.goldmansachs.com/investor-relations/stock-chart/

And the US closed TARP with $15.3Bi in profits:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news/companies/government-bailouts-end/


Finally, I've said enough about the misguided view that people have on free trade, and no one has actually tried to engage on the clear and overwhelming empirical evidence on the positive impact of free trade on the economy. Feel free to search past posts if someone is so inclined.

Public opinion on Iraq was a failure of the media. Media basically promoted the war. See CNN and NYT coverage at the time. Money in politics for sure here. This would be an interest discussion to have, but maybe too Off topic. If you disagree that the media is basically a mouthpiece of the current establishment (see who owns both government and the media), then we will just have to move on for now.

Again, I dont think free trade and the bailout where inherently bad ideas. They way they were and are done is skewed to benefit donors and those in power. If they benefit people that's good. If the system was not corrupt they would benefit people even more. Again, I see this as basically getting scraps. most of the gains still going to the wealthy.

The rich getting richer and the poor losing social mobility is not just an accident that will slowly be addressed. It is by design. If government represents the people, then it is failing miserably. Government should design the rules to benefit society. Right now the rules are rigged to benefit the wealthy.

 

[CDiggity]

Seriously, Sanders really said that problem with racism is white people don't know what it's like to be poor and live in ghettos?

Oh...so that's why my social feed blew up. That's really not good.

 

[boiled goose]

Oh...so that's why my social feed blew up. That's really not good.

Honestly, it was a bad answer. But just that. In terms of his actual policies and views it doesnt really mean much.

It is fair to say that because it was a bad answer it shows lack of preparation.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Seriously, Sanders really said that problem with racism is white people don't know what it's like to be poor and live in ghettos?

Pretty bad. Yeah perhaps white people on the aggregate don't know how to truly empathize with poverty, but that's not a good response.

But he did continue to say some good things after that. White people do not know what it's like to be harassed by the police. So when we hear about a black person who was arrested, detained, or injured by the police, white people naturally have a tendency to assume that the minority had to have done something wrong.

All too often have I seen people say, "If you just treat the officer with respect, you won't have an issue". And while to many of us here we know that's some grade A BS, it's not so obvious to everyone else. They know some white people who have had some bad encounters with police after mouthing off or not complying. But they don't know anyone that had a bad experience through virtually no fault of their own.

Bernie made a bad example for racial blind spots by mentioning ghettos, but the second half of his answer was better.

 

[Hige]

He caught heat because of his switch from Bernie to Trump.

I think that heat was expected.

I mean if that's what you want to deduce from the conversation. I could care less if he doesn't vote for her. But why would someone who's against EVERYTHING Trumps stands for vote for him?

It's literally someone made his far left candidate didn't win so let me throw a tantrum to try and help screw over minorities, women, and vote for someone the rest of the world openly doesn't want to deal with. All the while most likely nominating a conservative to the SC.

When someone says they want to burn it down, they are talking about real people's lives and livelihoods, not just an abstract idea.

You may consider bringing that up a guilt trip, but I'm going to continue to think such displays are mostly petulant and unproductive. It does nothing to progress any of the causes these individuals claim to care about.

I bring it up because this comes up in every thread; people start piling on posters who dare not vote for Hillary, as if their vote makes a difference in the end. People should be encouraged to participate in local races where their vote carries more weight - the presidential election is meaningless in most states. The moral indignation people work themselves into over some person on the Internet voting for someone other than their candidate is just bizarre. Will him voting for Trump actually do anything? I understand the moral outrage people feel about someone that would vote for Trump, but I think you have to account for the fact that our electoral system is about as useful as tossing votes into the void in most places. Would he still vote for Trump if we didn't have an electoral system?

Obviously they're free to do what they want with their vote, but people who understand the real impact the election has can voice their displeasure without being accused of participating in the hivemind.

I've stated that I will not be voting for Hillary (in my blue state) in other threads, and I've been called a spoiled child and condescended to about how I'm working against minority (of which I am one) interests, because obviously Trump will win if I vote for Jill Stein. If I lived in a swing state, sure I'd vote for Hillary. But I feel disenfranchised by a system where voting for Hillary is as helpful as me not voting for Hillary. She still wins my state either way, so what do I get out of voting for her? What is the "real impact"? That's why I don't see Wreav voting for Trump (even if he disagrees with Trump's policies) as a big deal; his presidential vote has as much impact as mine does (read: none) other than some sort of moral victory for Internet points on message boards.

 

[Square2015]

As someone following the campaign to me this was the first debate that Hillary clearly won TBH. This is in the context of Sanders needing to gain momentum.

To people seeing Sanders for the first time, they might have had a different impression.

He started strong but lost steam when playing terrible defense on guns and Auto bailout. He seemed unprepared unfortunately.

Ugh

 

[boiled goose]

Ugh

yea.. sorry.
But as a positive he had a big win in Maine.
Michigan primary will be telling...

 

[MThanded]

I bring it up because this comes up in every thread; people start piling on posters who dare not vote for Hillary, as if their vote makes a difference in the end. People should be encouraged to participate in local races where their vote carries more weight - the presidential election is meaningless in most states. The moral indignation people work themselves into over some person on the Internet voting for someone other than their candidate is just bizarre. Will him voting for Trump actually do anything? I understand the moral outrage people feel about someone that would vote for Trump, but I think you have to account for the fact that our electoral system is about as useful as tossing votes into the void in most places. Would he still vote for Trump if we didn't have an electoral system?


I've stated that I will not be voting for Hillary (in my blue state) in other threads, and I've been called a spoiled child and condescended to about how I'm working against minority (of which I am one) interests, because obviously Trump will win if I vote for Jill Stein. If I lived in a swing state, sure I'd vote for Hillary. But I feel disenfranchised by a system where voting for Hillary is as helpful as me not voting for Hillary. She still wins my state either way, so what do I get out of voting for her? What is the "real impact"? That's why I don't see Wreav voting for Trump (even if he disagrees with Trump's policies) as a big deal; his presidential vote has as much impact as mine does (read: none) other than some sort of moral victory for Internet points on message boards.

I think the more interesting thing is you will probably be hard pressed to find a Hillary supporter who won't vote for Bernie in the general. I think both candidates are great and would be great presidents. They both seem to have policies that I agree with on the issues that matter to me.

I think the discourse during the primaries may lose the election for the dems though. GOP turnout is extremely high.

It's worrying that some Bernie supporters already see Hillary as the enemy and some are willing to vote for trump to stick it to the party.

 

[hawk2025]

Public opinion on Iraq was a failure of the media. Media basically promoted the war. See CNN and NYT coverage at the time. Money in politics for sure here. This would be an interest discussion to have, but maybe too Off topic. If you disagree that the media is basically a mouthpiece of the current establishment (see who owns both government and the media), then we will just have to move on for now.

Again, I dont think free trade and the bailout where inherently bad ideas. They way they were and are done is skewed to benefit donors and those in power. If they benefit people that's good. If the system was not corrupt they would benefit people even more. Again, I see this as basically getting scraps. most of the gains still going to the wealthy.

The rich getting richer and the poor losing social mobility is not just an accident that will slowly be addressed. It is by design. If government represents the people, then it is failing miserably. Government should design the rules to benefit society. Right now the rules are rigged to benefit the wealthy.

You've pivoted masterfully away from the points I made, didn't address any of the actual data, and reverted back to a stump speech, but I'll go one over and talk about media, since you brought it up.

Yes, I disagree with the media pivot you tried, and I have the evidence to back it:

Gentzkow and Shapiro - What Drives Media Slant? (2010)
http://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/biasmeas.pdf

Beautiful paper. You assume media slant comes from the supply side. Gentzkow and Shapiro show it comes overwhelmingly from the demand.

 

[Square2015]

yea.. sorry.
But as a positive he had a big win in Maine.
Michigan primary will be telling...

He has to expand himself and broaden his message, is anyone telling him this?

 

[theshizzle]

My post had nothing to do with whether or not Clinton should release the videos/transcripts.

It was merely a response to someone saying that these videos could not be used against her if they were "clean"

Well who defines clean? And that's assuming that the footage would not be taken out of context in a deliberate attempt to make her look bad.

As far as whether or not I think the videos should be released. Yes probably. Do I care? Eh not all that much.

The people are the ones who decide whether or not what she says is "clean".

In general, and this isn't directed particularly to you, I think it's a ridiculous argument to suggest that she shouldn't release them because they would be at risk for misinterpretation and taken out of context. That logic could be applied to anything she says.

 

[boiled goose]

You've pivoted masterfully away from the points I made, didn't address any of the actual data, and reverted back to a stump speech, but I'll go one over and talk about media, since you brought it up.

Yes, I disagree with the media pivot you tried, and I have the evidence to back it:

Gentzkow and Shapiro - What Drives Media Slant? (2010)
http://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/biasmeas.pdf

Beautiful paper. You assume media slant comes from the supply side. Gentzkow and Shapiro show it comes overwhelmingly from the demand.

Was that paper about Iraq war specifically or in general?
Sorry I dont have time rn to read the paper or these articles, but perhaps some perspective specifically on Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/opinion/kurtz-iraq-media-failure/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/iraq-media-failure-10-year-anniversary_n_2902177.html

I will try to read the paper tomorrow as it sounds interesting for sure. My one concern is that conclusions about the media slant in general might miss slant in specific issues.

"You've pivoted masterfully away from the points I made, didn't address any of the actual data, and reverted back to a stump speech, but I'll go one over and talk about media, since you brought it up."

This I dont understand. My entire argument is that money in politics skews legislation towards the wealthy in aggregate.
This is not just my opinion, it is a fact.
https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/

On iraq you said people were in favor. I gave a reason why that might have been skewed and that has nothing to do with who actually benefited from the war.
On financial regulation. You said well, something was done. I said clearly not enough.

I dont understand the "pivot". The second point could be seen as "moving the goalposts" but my position has not been that nothing has been done. My position is this "money in politics skews legislation towards the wealthy in aggregate". Data supports this.

 

[Hige]

I think the more interesting thing is you will probably be hard pressed to find a Hillary supporter who won't vote for Bernie in the general.

I don't think it's that surprising. There's probably more Bernie-Trump overlap than Hillary-Trump overlap for people who like the idea of an "outsider" candidate w/r/t how their campaign is financed, their seemingly outside-the-Beltway rhetoric, or what have you.

 

[MThanded]

I don't think it's that surprising. There's probably more Bernie-Trump overlap than Hillary-Trump overlap for people who like the idea of an "outsider" candidate w/r/t how their campaign is financed, their seemingly outside-the-Beltway rhetoric, or what have you.

But the concept the trump is taking money out of politics is false. He himself is the money in politics. He's essentially removing the middle man. Not sure why so many people are falling for this falsehood.

I still don't understand how someone who was willing to vote for Bernie Sanders can then just think that Trump is the second best choice. I guess if you care nothing about social issues.

 

[boiled goose]

I don't think it's that surprising. There's probably more Bernie-Trump overlap than Hillary-Trump overlap for people who like the idea of an "outsider" candidate w/r/t how their campaign is financed, their seemingly outside-the-Beltway rhetoric, or what have you.

Yup. Trump has mentioned a few times that the establishment is not working for the average american. They are both running a populist campaign. Bernie's is a progressive inclusive version, Trump is a right wing authoritarian racist one.

But the concept the trump is taking money out of politics is false. He himself is the money in politics. He's essentially removing the middle man. Not sure why so many people are falling for this falsehood.

I still don't understand how someone who was willing to vote for Bernie Sanders can then just think that Trump is the second best choice. I guess if you care nothing about social issues.

A fair concern haha. Taking him at his word is a bit optimistic to say the least.

For some reason though I do trust the briber more than the bribee. He at least says the system is broken.
Saying: "yeah I influenced politicians with money" is more honest than "I have not been influenced"

 

[metalslimer]

Dear lord at that white people dint know what it's like to be poor line.

 

[Hige]

But the concept the trump is taking money out of politics is false. He himself is the money in politics. He's essentially removing the middle man. Not sure why so many people are falling for this falsehood.

Oh, for sure. I saw John Oliver too.

But the truth doesn't matter if you believe something enough! Trump can say anything and his bravado is enough to win people over even if it's total bullshit.

 

[MThanded]

Yup. Trump has mentioned a few times that the establishment is not working for the average american. They are both running a populist campaign. Bernie's is a progressive inclusive version, Trump is a right wing authoritarian racist one.

If someone is truly concerned about special interests then they should be smart enough to understand who trump pals around with and what his real motives are.

Edit:
It's been good talking with everyone even if we disagree on some or all of this stuff. Independent of our viewpoints we can all agree this has been one of the wildest election seasons in a long time.

 

[boiled goose]

If someone is truly concerned about special interests then they should be smart enough to understand who trump pals around with and what his real motives are.

My response to your other post addresses this more directly.

To be fair. I actually have no idea what his actual motives are... i think his bid started as a publicity stunt but now that he has a shot he really wants to win. What he wants to actually do I have no idea... Thoughts on what you meant here? im curious

 

[Mr. RPG]

Could you guys please stop generalizing Bernie supporters?

We aren't voting for Trump.

 

[boiled goose]

Could you guys please stop generalizing Bernie supporters?

We aren't voting for Trump.

To be fair I havent seen that in the thread so far. Folks were addressing a very specific poster.
I usually push back on this.

Tired and going to bed. Nice chatting GAF!
Sorry if I couldnt continue some fun discussions. PM me if you think I am bailing! Happy to discuss anything further.
Goodnight!

 

[DR2K]

He has to expand himself and broaden his message, is anyone telling him this?

Nope, not after tonight's performance. Bernie is a great cheerleader, but not fit to lead this country.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Could you guys please stop generalizing Bernie supporters?

We aren't voting for Trump.

Don't lump us together!

Our hivemind isn't voting for Trump.

Spoiler

Kidding. Your wording just struck me as funny. But on a serious note, there is a vocal and growing "Bernie or Bust" movement going on in America right now. It's scary how many people claim to be about Liberalism (a key tenet of which is caring for everyone, especially the less fortunate) but are willing to burn it all down if Sanders loses the primary.

If you have any friends who feel that way, please try to talk some sense into them. The lives and well being of countless people depends on them not taking their ball and going home.

Spoiler

http://www.inquisitr.com/2815521/why-are-so-many-people-bernie-or-bust/

http://observer.com/2016/02/if-sanders-loses-bernie-believers-will-take-the-dnc-down/

 

[Flying Toaster]

Could you guys please stop generalizing Bernie supporters?

We aren't voting for Trump.

We aren't?

/s

 

[Silvard]

Someone, who purportedly upholds the progressive and liberal ideals that Bernie Sanders represents, voting for Trump out of spite if Bernie doesn't get the nomination is nothing but a petulant child. The next president will get to appoint at least one SC Justice; the stakes are higher than their petty feelings.

 

[ant_]

Don't lump us together!

Our hivemind isn't voting for Trump.

Spoiler

Kidding. Your wording just struck me as funny. But on a serious note, there is a vocal and growing "Bernie or Bust" movement going on in America right now. It's scary how many people claim to be about Liberalism (a key tenet of which is caring for everyone, especially the less fortunate) but are willing to burn it all down if Sanders loses the primary.

If you have any friends who feel that way, please try to talk some sense into them. The lives and well being of countless people depends on them not taking their ball and going home.

Spoiler

http://www.inquisitr.com/2815521/why-are-so-many-people-bernie-or-bust/

http://observer.com/2016/02/if-sanders-loses-bernie-believers-will-take-the-dnc-down/

Your proof that there is a large "Bernie or Bust" movement growing in America is 2 opinion articles, whereas the only concrete evidence is a single tweet. I think its unfair to take the extreme stances of some people on the internet as the consensus opinion of Bernie Sanders supporters.

 

[border]

I think that at worst, most of the "I'm voting for Trump" Bernie supporters won't show up at the polls in November. It's already questionable whether many of them would have actually turned up for Bernie -- I seriously doubt that they would turn out in favor of the monster that is Trump.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Your proof that there is a large "Bernie or Bust" movement growing in America is 2 opinion articles, whereas the only concrete evidence is a single tweet. I think its unfair to take the extreme stances of some people on the internet as the consensus opinion of Bernie Sanders supporters.

I didn't say they were large. I said they were vocal and growing. I didn't give any estimate on size.

But check any debate thread here on NeoGAF. Check Reddit. Talk to Sanders supporters (hell, you'll see people in these threads who often say things like "I'm a Sanders supporter who will vote Clinton if I have to, but my friends refuse to vote for her").

I'm not saying it's a massive, sweeping sentiment. But it's definitely something that's out there in a enough numbers that at least one or two (usually several more) different people on NeoGAF alone will say they'll either not vote or vote Trump if Sanders loses the primary.

 

[Square2015]

Bernie doing well so far (watching the replay).

 

[Good Job Bob]

Didn't catch the debate, but lol @ that slip up from Bernie. That goes in such an opposite direction of his campaign that I cannot imagine anyone remotely familiar with him believes he actually meant that though.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Weren't most of those plans put into place at the tail end of Bush's reign?

For the most part, I thought Obama just went with what was already the plan.

You're right. Federal Reserve spending/lending/guarantees, tax cut stimulus, and automatic stabilizers ramped up prior to and in the early part of Obama's first term. Also, Federal Reserve's cumulative action was bigger than TARP by an exponential factor. Peak credit exposure was in excess of TARP as well. 1 trillion+ vs. whatever Dodd Frank authorized.

http://www.bloomberg.com/data-visualization/federal-reserve-emergency-lending/

TARP was also corrupt according to SIGTARP in addition to its small scale. Should be noted too that these special facilities were not expected to be used for years at a time and also exposed the Treasury politically to the CB. In any event, the episode suggests folks were/are cooking the books and refusing to do bare minimum due diligence on a massive scale. Blatant accounting fraud.

Also, I posted a speech available on the WH website where President Obama defends himself against Republican talking points about fiscal policy on his watch awhile back.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-gop-house-issues-conference

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

So if Clinton takes the nomination, who would be a good pick as VP that might help heal the divide between her and the Sanders crowd? I'm doubting Sanders would do it (or be asked) as he's so valuable in the Senate.

I'm thinking Elizabeth Warren, although that's a long shot. Anyone else?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So if Clinton takes the nomination, who would be a good pick as VP that might help heal the divide between her and the Sanders crowd? I'm doubting Sanders would do it (or be asked) as he's so valuable in the Senate.

I'm thinking Elizabeth Warren, although that's a long shot. Anyone else?

You don't pick a VP older than you. It won't be a women either.

 

[Condom]

So if Clinton takes the nomination, who would be a good pick as VP that might help heal the divide between her and the Sanders crowd? I'm doubting Sanders would do it (or be asked) as he's so valuable in the Senate.

I'm thinking Elizabeth Warren, although that's a long shot. Anyone else?

She will pick another establishment politician, at least that is for sure. She can't have one that really wants to change the financial sector for example but one that can fool people that something is being done.

 

[Good Job Bob]

So if Clinton takes the nomination, who would be a good pick as VP that might help heal the divide between her and the Sanders crowd? I'm doubting Sanders would do it (or be asked) as he's so valuable in the Senate.

I'm thinking Elizabeth Warren, although that's a long shot. Anyone else?

I don't think they care much about healing the divide between her and the Sanders crowd. I think they probably have had her VP choice locked in for a while now, everyone is saying Julian Castro.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

You don't pick a VP older than you. It won't be a women either.

Those are the reasons I figure it's a long shot lol.

 

[kame-sennin]

Go in depth with these policies. pls.

This is a bold accusation that should be supported by facts.

1994 Crime Bill.

 

[The Technomancer]

Do you believe Bernie Sanders is so naive as to not understand these issues? That he does not have as strong a grasp on them as you do?

I'm late to the party on this but

uhm

yes!

That's why I'm increasingly against him as a candidate as he increasingly demonstrates an incredibly linear pattern of thought

This is a better answer I guess:

Not really, but that doesn't make it better. That just means that Bernie thinks it's politically useful to tell people that complex problems are actually simple and have easy solutions, which strikes me as demagoguery.

It is certainly possible that Sanders understands fracking better than I do, but, I mean, I'm not running for President.

I 100% believe that Hillary Sander understands these issues way better than Bernie Sanders.

]

 

[johnsmith]

You don't pick a VP older than you.

But Dubya and Obama both did.

It's ok if you're a relatively young, Hillary definitely won't though.

 

[Damaniel]

This could be one of the more baffling post I've read in a while. What could possibly make you think Hillary wouldn't nominate a liberal justice?

They have to keep the 'Hillary = the devil' meme alive, even if it means epic levels of projection and speculation to get there. I have to say that I have no idea where a bunch of kids who were either toddlers or not alive during the Clinton administration managed to get all of their right wing talking points from. Is there an archive of old Rush Limbaugh episodes on Youtube somewhere?

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

1994 Crime Bill.

But then couldn't you condemn Sanders even further since he actually voted for that bill, while Hillary didn't? She may have publicly supported it, but had played no legislative role in bringing to to fruition.

 

[davepoobond]

I don't think they care much about healing the divide between her and the Sanders crowd. I think they probably have had her VP choice locked in for a while now, everyone is saying Julian Castro.

i dont think its going to be that guy.


its going to be some sort of "outsider" to give the allure of shaking things up. and outsider minority male.

 

[VRMN]

But Dubya and Obama both did.

It's ok if you're a relatively young, Hillary definitely won't though.

Both of them went older because youth and inexperience were digs on them. You pick a VP that counters a weakness. In Clinton's case, charisma and youth are qualities she wants in a VP whereas Obama and Bush wanted experienced hands.

This is also why McCain picked Palin. Her youth and charisma to contrast against his age and insider status, with her being a woman a benefit to counter the historic nature of Obama's campaign. It's just he didn't do a proper job vetting her to find out that she was fucking insane and as such became a disqualifying offense...

 

[Big Baybee]

Seriously, Sanders really said that problem with racism is white people don't know what it's like to be poor and live in ghettos?

I was trying to get some sleep before work and didn't watch the debate.......that's bad on two fronts.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Both of them went older because youth and inexperience were digs on them. You pick a VP that counters a weakness. In Clinton's case, charisma and youth are qualities she wants in a VP whereas Obama and Bush wanted experienced hands.

If it weren't for the fact that far-right extremists would assassinate Hillary, I'd say she should publicly state she wants Marco Rubio to be her VP. Paint it up as wanting to "heal the divide between the parties."

He'd have almost zero real power, she'd draw in voters who are sick of "politics as usual," she'd look like she's actually trying to work with Republicans, and mostly, I'd just love to see the looks on the face of Republicans.

Or she'd just risk alienating the far-left even more, since they already see her as being too close to center. Plus neither of them would ever go for it.

Maybe I just have really stupid ideas when I'm exhausted.

 

[Omadahl]

So if Clinton takes the nomination, who would be a good pick as VP that might help heal the divide between her and the Sanders crowd? I'm doubting Sanders would do it (or be asked) as he's so valuable in the Senate.

I'm thinking Elizabeth Warren, although that's a long shot. Anyone else?

I'm almost certain it will be a younger man. Probably Julian Castro. He's Hispanic, young, and from the south. When he gave that keynote speech at the last DNC, I got a lot of flashbacks of when Obama gave his speech in 2004. You can see a ton of potential in the guy.

 

[kame-sennin]

But then couldn't you condemn Sanders even further since he actually voted for that bill, while Hillary didn't? She may have publicly supported it, but had played no legislative role in bringing to to fruition.

I do. However I'm not voting for Sanders either

Spoiler

or anyone for that matter

.

But the question was about Hillary, and I have no tolerance for her racist bullshit.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Both of them went older because youth and inexperience were digs on them. You pick a VP that counters a weakness. In Clinton's case, charisma and youth are qualities she wants in a VP whereas Obama and Bush wanted experienced hands.

This is also why McCain picked Palin. Her youth and charisma to contrast against his age and insider status, with her being a woman a benefit to counter the historic nature of Obama's campaign. It's just he didn't do a proper job vetting her to find out that she was fucking insane and as such became a disqualifying offense...

The lack of research they did on this woman before picking her is just astounding.

The fact that her husband was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party (a group supporting Alaska leaving the United States to become its own country) would have been a giant red flag that maybe these people aren't going to provide you with good optics in a national election.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

I do. However I'm not voting for Sanders either

Spoiler

or anyone for that matter

.

But the question was about Hillary, and I have no tolerance for her racist bullshit.

Okay, I see who I'm dealing with now. If you want to use one video where she said one thing (in reference to people in drug cartels) that she's since apologized for, I can't discuss this with you.

On one hand, you have her devoting her entire adult life to fighting for equality for African Americans, for the underprivileged, and for the oppressed, as an advocate and a lawyer. And on the other, she once said we need to bring super predators to heel.

Yeah, total KKK material.

Edit: Apologies for the double post.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

Bernie killed it that first half. His only big slip was the race question but I think people knew what he meant. He won Maine big too so great night for him.

I had to laugh when Clinton attacked him for the bailout. She was for it and then later talked about how no company was too big to fail. Which is it Hillary???