this is good posts
thank you i'm v proud of it
this is good posts
https://vine.co/v/iOTvvP1I110Jesus fuck, Jeb is a snake.
I mean, I'm glad Jeb is doing all this, but still, what a fucking weasel and traitor to his party, lol.
https://twitter.com/jwpetersNYT/status/690158073135038464
What did Ted Cruz do to 108 year old Orrin Hatch.
https://vine.co/v/iOTvvP1I110
Everything John Bush has done recently is mesmerizing.
https://vine.co/v/iOTvvP1I110
Everything John Bush has done recently is mesmerizing.
If you don't follow Vic Berger you're failing politics.https://vine.co/v/iOTvvP1I110
Everything John Bush has done recently is mesmerizing.
I'm not even sure that's the case anymore.
Trump likely wouldn't repeal the ACA without getting some kind of near-universal replacement program in place first. He probably wouldn't get us in a ground war in the Middle East in his first 90 days.
I'm coming around to the idea that he's just the best GOP candidate besides Kasich.
Daniel B·;192932162 said:Did you guys miss the possible significance of the following part of my recent [post=192907199]post[/post]?
That, Joe personally spoke to Trump, a week ago, and they agreed that Bernie would be a tougher candidate to go up against, in the GE? You may want review the associated video, to confirm.
Perhaps you did recognise the significance, and are thinking "Nope, I"m not having it", or, Trump has said as much before (my cursory Google search didn't turn up anything)?
P.S. I won't be replying soon, as I need to grab forty winks, so I can hopefully grab some of my Homestead Creamery 2% (comes in 1/2 gallon redeemable ($2) glass bottles) from Kroger, first thing tomorrow morning, as my foresight (shopping a day early, to avoid snow), didn't pay off, as they were totally out (semi-skimmed (water) doesn't count)...
Daniel B·;192932162 said:P.S. I won't be replying soon, as I need to grab forty winks, so I can hopefully grab some of my Homestead Creamery 2% (comes in 1/2 gallon redeemable ($2) glass bottles) from Kroger, first thing tomorrow morning, as my foresight (shopping a day early, to avoid snow), didn't pay off, as they were totally out (semi-skimmed (water) doesn't count)...
Trump is a total wildcard and while I have a feeling he'd be much more amenable to compromise and generally less toxic and hostile than he appears right now (in other words: I am inclined to buy the idea that this is mostly an act to feed his ego), but I don't have a lot of hard evidence to go on. I mean, on the face of it, he's exactly what you hate about angry partisan Republicans: he was a birther, after all.
As far as Republicans I wouldn't feel like garbage over calling my commander in chief, I've basically sort of liked both Pauls, first Ron and then Rand, since they first started gaining an internet following back in '08. Sure, their ideas on tax policy are gross, but I can at least respect that they're not coming from principles of greed or a desire to fuck the poor, but rather an overly naive or myopic belief in personal liberty that extends much farther into the financial realm than I'm comfortable with. But that's at least a philosophy I can get behind, and I actually rather admire and agree with their desire for less interventionist foreign policy and a smaller military-industrial complex and associated surveillance state.
Basically, those are the guys I have found myself occasionally nodding in agreement with while torturously subjecting myself to Republican debates these past few election cycles.
I don't understand where this idea that Trump would moderate if elected comes from. He's held these odious beliefs for over 20 years. It's not an act or a sham to get attention - this is what he thinks. He quite literally wants to withdraw the USA from the world order that it set up, and that delivered so much prosperity across the world (none more so than to the states themselves). I mean, some of his language is literally robber baron - pay us to keep the trade routes open, or we'll abandon you.
Trump isn't going to suddenly tack to the centre. He'll double down on the racism, the bombastic speeches and the utter idiocy of his proposals because this is what he believes.
In terms of the impact on the world stage it would be beyond disasterous. We gave Obama the Nobel prize simply because he wasn't Bush. If you guys elect Trump, whoever follows him is going to be crowned Emperor of the Moon!
If Trump gets the nomination and loses, the 2020 nominee is almost certainly Rubio.
If we're in shitty shape as a nation with Hillary at that point, her fault or no, Rubio probably wins that.
But they just tried to make Rubio happen again, and he will have been out of the Senate for four years by then. Would it work again?
You don't think he'll get reelected in the senate?
Rubio was pushed by the establishment because they hoped he could attract Hispanic voters. If the GOP would ever get serious about attracting minority voters they will find out that Hispanic is not really a thing and that Mexican Americans are not really likely to vote for someone only because their parents were born in Cuba.But they just tried to make Rubio happen again, and he will have been out of the Senate for four years by then. Would it work again?
Yeah, that's my feeling as well. I just don't think Republican primary voters have shown any appetite for Rubio, and he'll be even less of a factor in the Republican party in 2020.
It's not going to happen.What is she saying in this gif? Haven't watched Mean Girls in a few years.
He retired to run for president (as Florida law requires), so his seat is an open seat.
He could try to run against Nelson in 2018, but that doesn't seem like the best idea, since he'd be trying to unseat a three-term incumbent with generally good favorables in an increasingly blue state.
He retired to run for president (as Florida law requires), so his seat is an open seat.
He could try to run against Nelson in 2018, but that doesn't seem like the best idea, since he'd be trying to unseat a three-term incumbent with generally good favorables in an increasingly blue state.
Somehow I was unaware of Rubio's predicament; these are fair points.
So who are front-runners for the 2020 nomination if Hillary wins?
Rubio's going to succeed Scott as Governor, then try running again in 2024 with shiny executive experience.
It depends on how the electoral college shakes out. If Trump loses all but a few states, I think the crazier end of the party will realize "we didn't go far right enough" actually isn't the reason they lost in '08 and '12 and we'll see a semblance (emphasis on semblance) of normalcy from the party. I could see Tom Cotton doing pretty well.
If Trump does better than McCain/Romney did, I think all gloves are off and we'll end up with a frontrunner who is full fascist. Moreso than Trump. The "establishment" will almost definitely prop up their own candidate, assuming they don't go ahead with that this time around.
If Trump loses big, they'll blame it on his liberal stances on x, y, and z issue.
If Cruz loses big, they'll blame his liberal (for the Right, still right-wing to sensible human beings) immigration stances, ties to Goldman Sachs, and the Establishment screwing him over.
Either way, the prescription will be the same - a "true" conservative who has never said anything liberal in his life ever.
Eh, I've been lurking conservative forums a lot recently and I haven't seen anyone criticize Cruz for being liberal on stuff. Cruz losing might be the only scenario where the GOP base realizes they actually moderate candidates. But what's more likely is they'll think our elections are corrupt now/the American public has become hopelessly ignorant, stupid, immoral, etc.
I think I figured out where the disconnect is between Republicans and everyone else when it comes to the Hillary email thing.
Republicans essentially approach this like a prosecutor going after a known mob boss. They know he's guilty of serious crimes beyond counting, but they need to find one that can stick. Can't tie him to any murders? He's never been at the scene of any drug deals? Tax evasion. We can get him on tax evasion. Something, anything, just get this guy off the streets.
Whereas for the rest of the world it's kind of a big deal to file criminal charges against a former cabinet official for what seems like, at worst, some carelessness on the part of Clinton and her aides. I think to a sane person, if you were going to charge the Secretary of State who served under the sitting president with a felony, there would have to be something there to really warrant it, right? It's not just, "Do we have the bare minimum we need to charge under this statute?"
Partisan hatred of Hillary has turned this into a kind of derangement where the government declining to treat this like a huge criminal investigation is itself evidence of corruption.
It's called swiftboating. Not much to it friend.
I don't think that's swiftboating.
The goal is the same. The vessel in which it takes place doesn't really matter.
Kerry was a liar, a traitor, an unstrusworthy American unfit to be president. Swap with Hillary.
Clinton's support in Iowa seems to be shoring up enough that I'd bet on her holding it. If she does its difficult to see how Bernie can really get much momentum going.
What makes you say that? In regard to her support shoring up, I mean.
On another note, she apparently made a pretty odd appearance at an Iowa event yesterday. After Demi Lovato performed three songs, Clinton took the stage and spoke for literally less than five minutes. Maybe an issue came up immediately before the rally?
Clinton's support in Iowa seems to be shoring up enough that I'd bet on her holding it. If she does its difficult to see how Bernie can really get much momentum going.
While some polls are showing Sanders winning, the aggregators (538 for example: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/) suggest that she probably does still lead overall, and that her lead has been fairly stable at 3-4% the last couple of weeks. Couple that with a fact that due to how it works she would probably win if she loses the overall vote by 3% or less, and the fact that most of the polls that show Sanders winning have unusual turnout assumptions, and I think its fair to say she seems stable.
It's as close as it can reasonably be. It's good for Hillary's campaign. See how they react to some adversity in the campaign trail.
Shoring up? She's lost the lead. She may come out slightly ahead due to the caucus system and its allocation of delegates but she's not winning the popular vote according to the polls.
Hillary has responded horribly over the last 2 weeks. Very bad lines of attack. Many lies and distortion. She is floundering. She can't beat a self-proclaimed socialist because she has no new ideas to fix this country while the socialist does. The American people have awoken to the fact the government is not working for their interests in the short nor long term. There is a mutiny on the ship and there's nothing Hillary can do to save herself but to get in the escape pod and live the rest of her life as a multi millionaire abuela.
Only according to a couple of polls. Most aggregators still have her holding it.
FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver notes that the CNN methodology is based on the possibility of more than 300,000 people turning out to caucus. In 2012, the number was 121,503. The highest recent turnout for a caucus was the 2008 Democratic contest, which saw 40 percent turnout. If 40 percent of Iowa Republicans turn out this year, that's 245,000 caucus-goers.
Assuming higher turnout benefits both Trump and Sanders. In the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg polling in Iowa earlier this month, Trump trailed Cruz by five points among those who definitely planned to caucus. Among those who might go, though, they were tied. More maybe-voters showing up to vote means more support for Donald Trump.
The pattern has been similar for Sanders, who sees more support from younger voters than Clinton. In this CNN poll (the sample size of which is small enough that there aren't a lot of demographic breakouts), Sanders leads Clinton by eight points overall — but Clinton leads by 29 with the substantial over-65 population. Young people, who are less likely to own homes and more likely to work odd hours, vote less regularly. If more people turn out to vote, that means more young people — which means Sanders does better.
just read something interesting about the CNN poll, from washington post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/21/a-new-cnn-poll-shows-huge-shifts-in-iowa-but-there-may-be-an-obvious-reason-why/
The sanders and Donald "I beat China all the time" Trump spikes in Iowa for the CNN poll are based on hilariously flawed assumptions of record breaking turnout that surpass 08. Without that Donald "I beat China all the time" Trump and Sanders are still behind. it's BS.
I'm coming around to the idea that he's just the best GOP candidate besides Kasich.
It depends on how the electoral college shakes out. If Trump loses all but a few states, I think the crazier end of the party will realize "we didn't go far right enough" actually isn't the reason they lost in '08 and '12 and we'll see a semblance (emphasis on semblance) of normalcy from the party. I could see Tom Cotton doing pretty well.