Support NeoGAF

[Gruco]

Rubio can't string 3rd and 5th place victories in March and still have a path to the nomination, not with how few delegates he'd be earning. If Cruz falters and Trump dominates March it will be over because Trump will be racking up so many delegates that Rubio won't be able to stop him.

But I wouldn't expect the GOP race to narrow to 2 contestants for a long time (maybe never), neither Cruz nor Rubio will be dropping out lightly.

I mean, I think the most likely outcome is a Trump plurality and no majority. But Rubio could win Ohio and maybe 2-3 more states in March and still be in a decent position. Cruz basically needs to win the day on March 1 and March 5, hard, or he has no chance left.

 

[ivysaur12]

TBH I'm stunned he jumped out the window like that initially. It doesn't fit his character. I had assumed that Obama could sit down with him and Hatch to come up with some type of compromise. Whether the person is approved by the senate is another issue.

I still don't think that's out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm disturbed that anyone is happy that another person died. I see it more as a reaction to the unexpected shock that the balance of the Court is now in play. Democrats in Washington did not see this coming. It is the first time in more than 40 years that they have an opportunity to flip the Court to a more activist Court, and they are now seeing it slip through their fingers. It is enraging, and so the rhetoric is intense. There's absolutely nothing they can do but yell and hope for a Democratic President and Senate next year.

To Republican constituents, Congress is showing strength. They are stopping Obama, which is what they campaigned on. From my perspective, if any Senator supported a pick that tilted the Court left, they would lose my vote. This is the safest course, instead of worrying their (Republican) voters that they may capitulate again.

"Activist" lol

Because a conservative majority undercutting the Bush v. Gore recount, crippling the Voting Rights Act and McCain-Feingold, stopping the EPA from regulating carbon emissions and nearly throwing out Obamacare wholesale - twice! - is a shining example of judicial restraint.

 

[Chichikov]

Cruz's tax plan is basically insane:
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/11019986/ted-cruz-tax-policy-center

This is truly the greatest gif ever.

p.s.

Many economists think taxing consumption is better for economic growth than taxing income, as it encourages savings and investment. But this view isn't universal. The recent research finding that tax incentives to save don't promote savings particularly well and the fact that the 2003 tax cut in dividends didn't really boost the economy have also cast doubt on the general case for consumption taxation.

LOL empiricism.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I have no problem with individual people, students, activists, whatever, being as ideological, hard line, unrealistic or demanding as they like. Thats how you get change, by asking for 200% so that maybe you get 100 instead of asking for 100 and getting 50

But that changes when you are a politician, especially a politician on the national stage. When you're shooting for a position of responsibility you have to be honest with the abilities and limits of that responsibility. You do have to work with the opposition, or even with people who aren't completely aligned with you.

More or less what I was about to post. I dig the Overton window being pushed to the left; I don't dig it being pushed to the left accompanied by budgetary projections that are arguably just as unfounded in reality as the GOP's implication that 0% tax rates will produce infinite revenue.

Argue for free college using its actual cost, not your overly optimistic projection of its cost after an unspecified amount of time with an unspecified amount of cost control and unspecified public university enrollment.

 

[theprodigy]

"Activist" lol

Because a conservative majority undercutting the Bush v. Gore recount, crippling the Voting Rights Act and McCain-Feingold, stopping the EPA from regulating carbon emissions and nearly throwing out Obamacare wholesale - twice! - is a shining example of judicial restraint.

Remember it's only activist if you disagree with their decision!

 

[QuiteWhittle]

So, Grassley is hinting that he's not up for blind opposition.

Kirk, Ayotte, Toomey and Johnson will all probably feel a lot of election pressure, though Kirk may the the only one to crack.

Coates and Vitter are retiring, though I don't think that means either will do anything.

Any other wild cards? Murkowski and Collins maybe?

Orrin Hatch and maybe Thad Cochran if the nominee is black. Basically ancient senators from a different time who are either in very safe seats or probably won't run again.

 

[ivysaur12]

I'm disturbed that anyone is happy that another person died.

I don't think you can actually mean this, even if it doesn't necessarily apply to Scalia.

However, Scalia did use my sexual orientation as a rhetorical device to compare myself to a murderer, so I guess I hold him in the same regards that he held people like me.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Raise of hands of how many will be sad or not celebrating when Sisi and Erdogan are dead.

 

[noshten]

Every time I see people bring up free tuition and universal healthcare as disastrous pie-in-the-sky policies because they're soooooo expensive, an angel loses its wings. Bush tax cuts and war alone will cost us trillions of dollars - things that passed so fucking easily with very few questioning their viability - but investing in the health, education, and well-being of citizens is now seen, even among liberals, as petty idealism and not something we should even pursue or talk about.

The republicans won. Even when they lose, they still win.

Yep, democratic leaning voters on this forum have taken the Republican talking points - while Bill compares anyone who wants national focus to be on campaign finance, healthcare, education a reverse Tea Party member. Not realizing how funny it sounds that those position are compared to the radical's right idea of grid locking government and vowing not to raise taxes or invest any additional money on federally backed programs(unless their donors had compiled a bill that might make such programs viable).

The whole narrative of naivety is absolutely entrenched in the maxim of Republicans are able to do whatever the hell they want without consequences while the Left needs to compromise with the Tea Party.

 

[pigeon]

I invite everybody to check out the high-energy content at this link: http://jebbush.com

 

[Yoda]

Sanders policies are good. A large portion of people in the united states are too easily misled by lies and fear by the republican party though, so he has no shot of winning the general. It doesn't help Fox News is the #1 news channel to help spread the lies and misinformation. The most important thing is keeping a democrat in the white house and the best choice to ensure that is Hilary.

On a side note on the Obama news conference. It is happening at 4:30pm est today.

MSNBC/CNN/FOX all have an AVERAGE viewer age of 60+; these voters will break Republican regardless of the candidate. The country is changing and thus the standard political calculus will become more and more inaccurate each election cycle. If you look at the Obama vs. Romney polls (other than Obama's internals which were very accurate) the race appeared as if it would be close... We all saw how that turned out. Passive-aggressive red-baiting and McCarthyism against Sanders won't inflict the level of damage that the pundits are telling you it will.

When 10s of millions of voters lives get worse every year, whether it be through income inequality, their jobs going overseas due to free-trade, institutional racism/sexism, etc... Saying if we just "tweak this part of the status quo, then it'll start working!" doesn't resonate with them. Instead it comes across as insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I invite everybody to check out the high-energy content at this link: http://jebbush.com

lol...

 

[Veritigo_X]

I invite everybody to check out the high-energy content at this link: http://jebbush.com

Woah, I like this new Jeb.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Sanders policies are good. A large portion of people in the united states are too easily misled by lies and fear by the republican party though, so he has no shot of winning the general. It doesn't help Fox News is the #1 news channel to help spread the lies and misinformation. The most important thing is keeping a democrat in the white house and the best choice to ensure that is Hilary.

On a side note on the Obama news conference. It is happening at 4:30pm est today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...s-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html

No, Sanders' policies are not good.

Every time I see people bring up free tuition and universal healthcare as disastrous pie-in-the-sky policies because they're soooooo expensive, an angel loses its wings. Bush tax cuts and war alone will cost us trillions of dollars - things that passed so fucking easily with very few questioning their viability - but investing in the health, education, and well-being of citizens is now seen, even among liberals, as petty idealism and not something we should even pursue or talk about.

The republicans won. Even when they lose, they still win.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...s-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html

First, the Iraq War cost 1.5 trillion over a decade, not trillions. Second, that was a temporary expenditure, not a permanent expansion of the role of government entitlement programs. Third, yes, it turns out that when you want to spend money, you need to make money, too. Saying that Bush was able to get his programs through and throw the country into a huge deficit does not help your argument.

 

[ivysaur12]

legit lol

https://twitter.com/OnionPolitics/status/699645806496903169

@OnionPolitics
Female Presidential Candidate Who Was United States Senator, Secretary Of State Told To Be More Inspiring http://onion.com/1Qjc7oN

 

[B-Dubs]

legit lol

https://twitter.com/OnionPolitics/status/699645806496903169

The Onion just can't stop being amazing :lol

 

[HylianTom]

I get it now. Politico is competing with The Onion!

 

[Veritigo_X]

Speaking of the Onion, this one had me laughing yesterday: Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia

 

[ivysaur12]

The Onion just can't stop being amazing :lol

I bet this is only because Haim Saban is the corporate owner of The Onion. Any pro-Clinton messaging must be from the top and censorship of The Onion writers' true beliefs and signs of the oligarchy. Thank you The Intercept for this eye-opening information.

 

[Aaron Strife]

MSNBC/CNN/FOX all have an AVERAGE viewer age of 60+; these voters will break Republican regardless of the candidate. The country is changing and thus the standard political calculus will become more and more inaccurate each election cycle. If you look at the Obama vs. Romney polls (other than Obama's internals which were very accurate) the race appeared as if it would be close... We all saw how that turned out. Passive-aggressive red-baiting and McCarthyism against Sanders won't inflict the level of damage that the pundits are telling you it will.

When 10s of millions of voters lives get worse every year, whether it be through income inequality, their jobs going overseas due to free-trade, institutional racism/sexism, etc... Saying if we just "tweak this part of the status quo, then it'll start working!" doesn't resonate with them. Instead it comes across as insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.



lol...

i think Sanders would have lost to Romney.

He's nowhere near as good a candidate as Obama was, or as good as some Sanders supporters have apparently deluded themselves to believe in.

I don't believe Hillary is either, but she's an easier sell and will have the full backing and support of her predecessor. For all the talk about Bernie's revolution his support so far seems to be pretty limited.

 

[Gruco]

I have no problem with individual people, students, activists, whatever, being as ideological, hard line, unrealistic or demanding as they like. Thats how you get change, by asking for 200% so that maybe you get 100 instead of asking for 100 and getting 50

But that changes when you are a politician, especially a politician on the national stage. When you're shooting for a position of responsibility you have to be honest with the abilities and limits of that responsibility. You do have to work with the opposition, or even with people who aren't completely aligned with you.

You also have a responsibility to step outside of your bubble and get informed. As president, you can't just go around saying you'll do things because they're the things that make you feel good. Bernie's complete lack of serious foreign policy and economic advisors should be deeply disturbing to his supporters. For all of the criticism Obama got for being too fresh and inexperienced or whatever, the guy cared about the details of policy a lot. He had a team. He worked at it.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Yep, democratic leaning voters on this forum have taken the Republican talking points - while Bill compares anyone who wants national focus to be on campaign finance, healthcare, education a reverse Tea Party member. Not realizing how funny it sounds that those position are compared to the radical's right idea of grid locking government and vowing not to raise taxes or invest any additional money on federally backed programs(unless their donors had compiled a bill that might make such programs viable).

The whole narrative of naivety is absolutely entrenched in the maxim of Republicans are able to do whatever the hell they want without consequences while the Left needs to compromise with the Tea Party.

The concept of single payer health care or free education isn't the problem - the problem is Sander's paper thin policies to pay for them because he either wants to pay for it all by "soaking the rich" or hide the fact that yes, you'll need to increase taxes on middle class people and not everybody in the middle class will be better off as a result.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Asking "are you glad the North won the war" in the South is a little like asking "are you glad Vietnam won the war" anywhere in America; there's going to be a large contingent of people who don't want to be on the losing side of a war regardless of whether they think it was right or wrong. My understanding is that there's a widely held belief in the South that slavery was going to end, but they wanted to end it on their own terms, not with the North telling them what to do. That might seem ludicrous, but there's a reason the phrase "war of Northern aggression" is still used without irony in some places, and it's not because those people still wish they could own slaves. The "believe whites are a superior race" question is more indicative of racist attitudes, and it didn't have nearly the support of the "I wish my ancestors had won this war 150 years ago" question.

But yes, there's still a shitload of racism in this country, across the board. It's not confined to Southerners who are salty about the outcome of the Civil War, and it seems unfair to paint it as such. Because every article I've seen about these poll results has the air of a New York pundit looking down his nose at "those silly backwards hicks down South" while ignoring that Stop and Frisk and Eric Garner are happening outside their window. Those who live in glass houses, you know.

Yeah I tend to get really annoyed at these sorts of "well it's just Southerners being the backward hicks" conclusions. It's a smug way to write off our country's ills as just backwards thinkers and not something we have to consciously work to address.

(Also: if you go to New York and say you're from Northern Virginia, people treat you like you're from the backwoods. If you go to Appomattox, VA and say you're from Northern Virginia you're basically a Yankee to them. It's really weird.)

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Yep, democratic leaning voters on this forum have taken the Republican talking points - while Bill compares anyone who wants national focus to be on campaign finance, healthcare, education a reverse Tea Party member. Not realizing how funny it sounds that those position are compared to the radical's right idea of grid locking government and vowing not to raise taxes or invest any additional money on federally backed programs(unless their donors had compiled a bill that might make such programs viable).

The whole narrative of naivety is absolutely entrenched in the maxim of Republicans are able to do whatever the hell they want without consequences while the Left needs to compromise with the Tea Party.

You just missed 3 or 4 pages of myself and some other gaffers doing some simple fact checking on a single Sanders proposal and finding it deep in the red. As Bill said, "It's arithmetic."

 

[Macho Madness]

ohmygodohmygod

 

[RustyNails]

ohmygodohmygod

This was discussed a day or two ago. Apparently most of poligaf likes to sleep with pillow over their face to block out the sun, so we deemed the story as nonstarter.

 

[ugaboga232]

You just missed 3 or 4 pages of myself and some other gaffers doing some simple fact checking on a single Sanders proposal and finding it deep in the red. As Bill said, "It's arithmetic."

Can you summarize because Thorpe's analysis is not very good (it does highlight some really egregious errors on sander's side) and super pessimistic.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Yep, democratic leaning voters on this forum have taken the Republican talking points - while Bill compares anyone who wants national focus to be on campaign finance, healthcare, education a reverse Tea Party member. Not realizing how funny it sounds that those position are compared to the radical's right idea of grid locking government and vowing not to raise taxes or invest any additional money on federally backed programs(unless their donors had compiled a bill that might make such programs viable).

The whole narrative of naivety is absolutely entrenched in the maxim of Republicans are able to do whatever the hell they want without consequences while the Left needs to compromise with the Tea Party.

I'd argue that this cuts both ways. The Sanders camp is hugely invested in Republican talking points stretching back to the 90s, re: the character of the Clintons.

It's pretty disappointing to see so many people taken in by that stuff. Lie repeated often enough and all that.

 

[kirblar]

Can you summarize because Thorpe's analysis is not very good (it does highlight some really egregious errors on sander's side) and super pessimistic.

You do see the problem with being upset about that, right?

 

[And_Gignac]

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/16/single-issue-candidate-bernie-sanders-touches-on-20-issues-during-a-michigan-campaign-stop/"]‘Single-issue’ candidate Bernie Sanders touches on 20 issues during a Michigan campaign stop[/URL]


DAMN. Drag.

Time to find a new line of attack, Clinton.

 

[thehypocrite]

Every time I see people bring up free tuition and universal healthcare as disastrous pie-in-the-sky policies because they're soooooo expensive, an angel loses its wings. Bush tax cuts and war alone will cost us trillions of dollars - things that passed so fucking easily with very few questioning their viability - but investing in the health, education, and well-being of citizens is now seen, even among liberals, as petty idealism and not something we should even pursue or talk about.

The republicans won. Even when they lose, they still win.

Yep. The GOP sets agenda. Even liberals are afraid to be liberals, in their minds they're already dead if they embrace the principles they should uphold. The Clinton's really did a number on the party. The issue isn't about what Sanders is fighting for, is why him, not a "real Democrat", has the will to push for the things the entire party should uphold, no matter the cost, it's just money that you print tons of when you decide to topple interest & other governments around the world.

I guess that this can be explained as a by-product of the push to the right by the GOP, the Democrats embraced the center and made their CORE values unrealistic, idealistic & radical by comparison. The true Democrat is Sanders not Clinton.

 

[Mr.Mike]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...s-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html

No, Sanders' policies are not good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...s-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html

First, the Iraq War cost 1.5 trillion over a decade, not trillions. Second, that was a temporary expenditure, not a permanent expansion of the role of government entitlement programs. Third, yes, it turns out that when you want to spend money, you need to make money, too. Saying that Bush was able to get his programs through and throw the country into a huge deficit does not help your argument.

Bernie Sanders is definitely a favourite of my new favourite series of subreddits, the badX subreddits (specifically the bad economics subreddit.) I'd imagine the Republican field would be more popular on there too if Reddit weren't so heavily leaning towards one side.

 

[ivysaur12]

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/16/single-issue-candidate-bernie-sanders-touches-on-20-issues-during-a-michigan-campaign-stop/"]‘Single-issue’ candidate Bernie Sanders touches on 20 issues during a Michigan campaign stop[/URL]


DAMN. Drag.

Time to find a new line of attack, Clinton.

1. Universal health care. Sanders backs a single-payer, “Medicare-for-all” system, saying that “America must join the rest of the industrialized world and provide health care for all."

3. Minimum wage. Sanders calls the current federal rate of $7.25 “a starvation wage” and says it should be raised to $15 an hour.

4. Wealth inequality. Sanders decries the disparity between families like the Waltons, who own Walmart, and most Americans. He has offered several changes to the tax code to address the gap.

8. Paid family and medical leave. Sanders wants to guarantee three months of paid leave after the birth of a child.

9. Federal jobs program. Sanders wants to spend $1 trillion to create 13 million jobs to “rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.”

12. Prosecute Wall Street offenders. Sanders bemoans how financial giants like Goldman Sachs could pay a $5 billion settlement for fraudulent behavior without any of its executives going to jail.

16. Campaign finance reform. Sanders wants the Supreme Court to overturn the Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited campaign contributions. He says that would be a litmus test for any new justice he appoints.

17. Free college tuition. Sanders calls for making tuition free at public universities and colleges and says lower interest rates should be available for those who currently have debt for “the crime of getting a college education.”

18. Tax on Wall Street speculation. Sanders proposes a tax on Wall Street trades, saying it’s the financial sector’s turn to help out the middle class after being bailed out by taxpayers after the 2008 meltdown.

Melkr, stop.

 

[Skiptastic]

BushGAF is not giving up. Never give up!!! Never surrender!!!!!!!

Sad as it may be, I'm part of BushGAF. At least Jeb!GAF.

 

[ugaboga232]

You do see the problem with being upset about that, right?

Im not too upset about it being pessimistic, more that it is overly pessimistic (aka not really accurate). You can read the scribd article and judge for yourself. I'm saying actual savings are almost certainly closer to bernie's plan than thorpe's.

 

[Gruco]

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/16/single-issue-candidate-bernie-sanders-touches-on-20-issues-during-a-michigan-campaign-stop/"]‘Single-issue’ candidate Bernie Sanders touches on 20 issues during a Michigan campaign stop[/URL]


DAMN. Drag.

Time to find a new line of attack, Clinton.

Speech-checking an issue doesn't make that a core issue for a candidate. If that were true, the "single issue" attack already would have failed because Bernie clearly established in the last debate that he has a strong stance on the "Winston Churchill stood up to Hitler, that was awesome" issue.

I do think Bernie is a single issue candidate, but in his defense "income inequality" is a pretty broad topic. Lots of things can fall under that umbrella. I don't think it's big enough to be all encompassing for a presidency, but it is really big. He talks about other things but I think even his biggest supporters know that this is where his passion is and he's much weaker and less engaged when the topic doesn't hit there.

 

[Dixon's Jet]

Is there really any chance of Hillary Clinton withdrawing from the race? It seems unlikely. But a former defence chief to President Obama says she ought to suspend the campaign due to concerns. And considering what we have seen in the past few days regarding her emails classification, you have to openly question how she can be trusted with any sensitive material at all until this matter is laid to rest. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...should-drop-out-of-presidential-race-n2118063

 

[dabig2]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...s-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html

No, Sanders' policies are not good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...s-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html

First, the Iraq War cost 1.5 trillion over a decade, not trillions.

Do you think the costs of that war is going to stop growing? That it caps out at $1.7 trillion? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

Second, that was a temporary expenditure, not a permanent expansion of the role of government entitlement programs. Third, yes, it turns out that when you want to spend money, you need to make money, too. Saying that Bush was able to get his programs through and throw the country into a huge deficit does not help your argument.

Here's where we just disagree. A permanent expansion of the role in entitlement programs is a great investment for this country. Education and healthcare alone will give great savings to this country over their costs given time. Empower the people and you empower the country going forward.

 

[kirblar]

Im not too upset about it being pessimistic, more that it is overly pessimistic (aka not really accurate). You can read the scribd article and judge for yourself. I'm saying actual savings are almost certainly closer to bernie's plan than thorpe's.

Pessimism has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy.

When estimating, you go with the worst case scenario in uncharted waters.

Otherwise, you're just doing the GOP tax cut math.

 

[Holmes]

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/16/single-issue-candidate-bernie-sanders-touches-on-20-issues-during-a-michigan-campaign-stop/"]‘Single-issue’ candidate Bernie Sanders touches on 20 issues during a Michigan campaign stop[/URL]


DAMN. Drag.

Time to find a new line of attack, Clinton.

Kween Hillary pushing old man Sanders to talk about more than one thing <3

 

[pigeon]

Yeah I tend to get really annoyed at these sorts of "well it's just Southerners being the backward hicks" conclusions. It's a smug way to write off our country's ills as just backwards thinkers and not something we have to consciously work to address.

I mean, sure, but disproportionately it's the South that needs to work to address it. If lots of people in the South believe in the Lost Cause, that's not like a weird coincidence of fate. White supremacists in the south deliberately created and propagated that historical theory in order to make it more acceptable to be white supremacists! So responding to it like "well, you have to understand the South" seems kind of facile. I think understanding the South might just make it worse, because instead of thinking that it's accidental dumb racism you might realize that it's carefully calculated and insidious intentional racism.

 

[ugaboga232]

Pessimism has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy.

When estimating, you go with the worst case scenario in uncharted waters.

Otherwise, you're just doing the GOP tax cut math.

Did you read the scribd? Only 4.7% saved on administrative costs based on a one state model? Tons of assumptions and no math on the increase in costs? The pdf is even worse than sanders.

There is worst case and, im gonna cherry pick and distort.

 

[B-Dubs]

Is there really any chance of Hillary Clinton withdrawing from the race? It seems unlikely. But a former defence chief to President Obama says she ought to suspend the campaign due to concerns. And considering what we have seen in the past few days regarding her emails classification, you have to openly question how she can be trusted with any sensitive material at all until this matter is laid to rest. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...should-drop-out-of-presidential-race-n2118063

Unless something has drastically changed that we haven't noticed, she still hasn't done anything wrong.

 

[Plinko]

"He is, without a doubt, one of the most dishonest people in DC."
@TomCoburn on Ted Cruz

LOL. Everyone in Washington aside from King hates Cruz.

 

[Dixon's Jet]

Unless something has drastically changed that we haven't noticed, she still hasn't done anything wrong.

Considering that US intelligence services will have to spend many years trying to figure out which country has which of her emails, yes she did at least make a mistake.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

I invite everybody to check out the high-energy content at this link: http://jebbush.com

This is new thread worthy.

 

[noshten]

You just missed 3 or 4 pages of myself and some other gaffers doing some simple fact checking on a single Sanders proposal and finding it deep in the red. As Bill said, "It's arithmetic."

The concept of single payer health care or free education isn't the problem - the problem is Sander's paper thin policies to pay for them because he either wants to pay for it all by "soaking the rich" or hide the fact that yes, you'll need to increase taxes on middle class people and not everybody in the middle class will be better off as a result.

Obama&#8217;s Multi-Trillion Dollar Campaign Promises Unrealistic, Tax Expert Says

Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a division of the non-partisan Urban Institute, said of the projected cost of Obama&#8217;s campaign promises: &#8220;I don&#8217;t think we would have been able to afford it in the first place. The Obama plan would have added at least three-and-a-half trillion dollars to the national debt over the next several years, and that&#8217;s just the tax part. The health [insurance] part is another $1.6 trillion.&#8221;

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...campaign-promises-unrealistic-tax-expert-says

Anyhow my point has never been elect Bernie Sanders and 100% of the vague things on his website will become true. What I've always said is elect Bernie Sanders and have the conversations about these issues. Shift the national focus and marginalize elected officials who have decided it's their job to strong arm the system every time they or their donors don't get their way.

I'd argue that this cuts both ways. The Sanders camp is hugely invested in Republican talking points stretching back to the 90s, re: the character of the Clintons.

It's pretty disappointing to see so many people taken in by that stuff. Lie repeated often enough and all that.

If Clinton can't handle the "unprecedented" attacks from the Sanders campaign she should just give up right now.

 

[Holmes]

Obama’s Multi-Trillion Dollar Campaign Promises Unrealistic, Tax Expert Says



http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...campaign-promises-unrealistic-tax-expert-says

Anyhow my point has never been elect Bernie Sanders and 100% of the vague things on his website will become true. What I've always said is elect Bernie Sanders and have the conversations about these issues. Shift the national focus and marginalize elected officials who have decided it's their job to strong arm the system every time they or their donors don't get their way.

Obama couldn't even enact many of his trillion dollar campaign promises with Democratic majorities in Congress tho......

 

[GuyKazama]

"Activist" lol

Because a conservative majority undercutting the Bush v. Gore recount, crippling the Voting Rights Act and McCain-Feingold, stopping the EPA from regulating carbon emissions and nearly throwing out Obamacare wholesale - twice! - is a shining example of judicial restraint.

Activist doesn't refer to the results. I'm referring to their interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Is there really any chance of Hillary Clinton withdrawing from the race? It seems unlikely. But a former defence chief to President Obama says she ought to suspend the campaign due to concerns. And considering what we have seen in the past few days regarding her emails classification, you have to openly question how she can be trusted with any sensitive material at all until this matter is laid to rest. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...should-drop-out-of-presidential-race-n2118063

Yup, she's going to drop out any day now.

Activist doesn't refer to the results. I'm referring to their interpretation of the Constitution.

Both sides have interpreted the Constitution in different ways to support their desired results. Scalia was notably hypocritical in this regard.

Not to turn this into a "both sides" thing but the attempt to paint the liberal side as activists while the conservative side is made up of strict constitutionalists is pretty laughable.