Rear Window
Neo Member
If I were a betting man I would say he'd use this as an excuse for nationwide voter id laws.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
If I were a betting man I would say he'd use this as an excuse for nationwide voter id laws.
Good luck trying to implement nationwide voter id laws because some states like CA may disagree with it and block it.
StopMakingSense
Member
That and it makes evangelicals all twitchy.
As in their fear of the mark of the beast stuff?
I don't think they necessarily coincide, it seems like something could be cobbled together to require ID to vote w/out requiring a national ID card or whatever.
Whether it would pass constitutional muster is another matter entirely, I guess.
Beer Monkey
Member
National ID isn't going to happen without an amendment and that isn't happening.
Obama needs to start a non profit to get poor people IDs in critical states. I would donate monthly.
Obama needs to start a non profit to get poor people IDs in critical states. I would donate monthly.
Do you want to say your social security number aloud in a crowded room to a volunteer?
Trying to ascribe these tactics to some name and give it an origin is so narrow-minded. It makes these think-pieces sound more knowledgeable and gives Trump/Bannon as masterminds. It's really simple and can be boiled down into:
There's a large anti-establishment wave throughout all of America
News cycles feed off latest controversies/stories
The opposing side never adapted and took states for granted.
Establishment queen went against a brash anti-establishment egomaniac
Trump manipulated entire masses of people that have felt wronged for years, be it anti-immigration folk, people in the labor sector with no jobs and feel left behind, people who don't like political correctness, people who don't like establishment types etc. etc. all pandered to the extreme
Trump has no will to enact the policies he proposed, but his cabinet will pressure him to go forward
Hillary/DNC's numerous incompetent actions/inaction.
etc. etc.
"Non-linear warfare must be stopped!"
"He got his tactics from the Russians!!1!1"
Is all useless empty talk. Take a look from the basic point-of-view and not people who get paid to write X number of #hottakes a week that rely on consistently feeding people's confirmation biases.
perfectchaos007
Member
Can something even be done, from a legal standpoint, in curbing the proliferation of fake news? Is fake news protected under the first amendment somehow?
Nah, just gotta play win.
Counteracting voter ID laws that target minority communities by funding initiatives to make ID's easier to get (and making sure they are registered to vote at the same time) plus funding separate groups that will use whatever tactics the GOP uses to suppress the vote against GOP voters.
If they want to start mailing non forwardable postcards and use that to cull voter rolls, then the same tactics should be used in rural area's that vote republican statewide. The only way to show how egregious these laws are is to use it against the GOP base.
Rear Window
Neo Member
On the other hand, how many times have you said it over the phone to a total stranger? You need it to apply for just about anything. Even getting a cell phone contract nowadays. Your SSN is no secret.
It would need to be some sort of picture identification. Drivers license, passport, etc. If Trump wanted to pass a voter id law it would probably have to go with free Voter Id cards to get past court challenges.
Well that's not really the purview of social and news media as was quoted, but that's certainly a facet of things. I'm less than optimistic about the ability to push back on all the necessary fronts when the mainstream media is already rolling over and baring their throats to the Trump administration.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Globalized libel laws.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Yup. And good luck attempting to pass a ban on fake news as people will associate it with freedom of speech and not have any of it.
Was watching this decade+ old video of Saint Bernard speaking to high school students and the part starting around minute 37 felt somehow even more applicable today than it was during the Bush years. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv7iflHYx_E
Also he drops "political revolution" around the 48 minute mark, lol
Also he drops "political revolution" around the 48 minute mark, lol
DONATIONS RAISES QUESTIONS.
Actually, what you're doing here is somewhat narrow-minded. Nobody absolves the Clinton campaign of the mistakes it made, but to say the outcome of this election and the conflict currently facing our media haa nothing to do with a Trump/Bannon strategy because "LOL guys they're just dumb!" when Bannon is out there flat out telling you, "Hey, yeah, so this is our strategy" is intentionally turning a blind eye to what's being forced in our faces.
The way I try to put it usually is that lying while not under oath is protected under the first amendment. Libel laws come into play a bit, but proving libel in a case involving a public figure is...difficult.
I have experience designing secure ID systems. SSNs are terrible. You want to keep identification (username) and authentication (password) separate. SSNs are used to both identify and authenticate you.
Think about it this way: it's bad to use the same password everywhere, right? An SSN is a password that you're not only forced to keep the same everywhere, you can't even change it easily.
It's a complete joke that my Google account is better protected with 2 factor than my financial accounts.
This is a definite issue. People go "Ah, yeah, no, rural voters voted for economic reasons against Clinton", but given the rural counties relative lack of liberal ideals compared to urban areas, it's just as likely they thought "No, a woman can't deal with money, or big business deals".
The NYT Public Editor piece features this line:
I think that a lot of people lie to themselves, and that implicit sexism in rural areas was a big thing.
Now, the argument I've seen against this is "Oh, but they voted for Obama, so why didn't they vote for Clinton?". As though being an African American male and a white woman are somehow equal. I think that sexism is more ingrained in society, and that the perception of women needing to be perfect to get the job is far greater than the perception of an African American needing to be perfect. Certainly, racism still exists, and I think certain demographics within the country are angry that an African American President has occurred at all, especially when you think of the poorer and conervative end of society.
I think there's a difference between saying "a woman shouldn't run", and saying that "this is what is needed for a woman to run". As Shinra says, people need to go into this with eyes wide open, and that implies (to me) that a candidate who is a woman needs to be so amazing, she very well may not exist for the next 10 years.
People can say that Clinton had baggage and wasn't very charismatic, and both are true (to an extent), but she was literally the most experienced candidate in recent history. In a post-truth society, people need to realise that 60 million cracks in the glass ceiling doesn't mean anything when people still question women's right to choose what to do with their own body, or that woman are still paid less than their male counterparts, even in the liberal States (the tech industry, for instance).
Just the fact that she was a woman played against Clinton's chances, and this is even more bizarre when you watch footage of her being motherly, or talking about relatives (the town hall where a girl asked about bullying, another town hall with a girl afraid of her parents being deported, Hillary talking about her mom). All three showed her in a positive, caring light. And I can bet that all three had (some) men in conservative areas thinking "Why ain't she home cookin' dinner for Bill?"
I would absolutely donate to this, too. Fuck my Patreon donations to glamour models and photographers, this would be more important.
But there's a difference between tactics and results. It's important to understand both. None of the reasons you gave provide insight to why their campaign was run so chaotically during election and now during the transition. I think you're feeding into your own biases here too much. You'd rather believe that they are dumb and won by coincidence than they have some semblance of a game plan.
Plus Trump's messages, no matter how ridiculous they were, actually hit the right points and resonated with a lot of white folks. I don't think that was mere coincidence.
The simple thing that convinces me sexism is a harder barrier to overcome than racism is the number of videos that were shown where white women were saying the presidents job is a mans job. How many videos of black people (indeed any people) were there where they said his skin color meant he was unable to do the job?
Obviously lots thought it, but the fact that one is open and the other has to be clouded under birtherism says a lot.
Obviously lots thought it, but the fact that one is open and the other has to be clouded under birtherism says a lot.
It's harder to tell what's satire nowadays.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/an-apology-to-donald-trump-from-mitt-romney.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/an-apology-to-donald-trump-from-mitt-romney.html
Yeah, anyone who says gender stereotypes are dead has to have their head examined.
I think there's also a true failing of Hillary herself, and her campaign. The concept of people voting for her "because she's a woman" is derisory short-hand. She was a woman who was eminently capable of doing a man's job, and I think that she and her campaign relied on this too heavily for women's votes. She assumed that many women felt like she did - stuck in the pigeon-hole of "just a woman", like many professional women who had been stopped because of the glass-ceiling, passed over for promotion because of possibility of pregnancy or being too attractive/ugly/outspoken.
Unfortunately, neither Hillary nor her campaign factored-in gender stereotyping for both men and women from a young age: The President is a role for Men, capital "M", and Manly Men at that. See also: Trump's "Locker Room Talk" not dropping his vote (even though it dropped his polling numbers). Because Manly Men know what they want and take it.
Late unrelated edit:
Not sure if this has been posted? It's over two weeks old, so I may have missed it in the immediate post-election blues.
Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Some Soul-Searching
Found via Nate Silver's Twitter:
I'm still in my free offer period with the NYT, though I did take advantage of a paid subscription offer a little before the election. You can bet I'm cancelling my subscription when it gets close to the payment period. The New Yorker does some good in-depth work, and I think it deserves to be paid for.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
No. At the end of the day Democrats ran a candidate who considers their primary constituency to be Wall Street and megamillionaires. You can talk about sexism this and the FBI that. But at the end of the day had the Democrats run an otherwise similar candidate who was also a white male like Tim Kaine (Big Daddy Kaine as Hill-Gaf love call him) or Andrew Cuomo, we still would have lost this election.
You can talk about "most qualified" but you're completely missing the point. When you're running for president, you aren't just describing how fit you are for the job or how closely you've studied others who have held the mantle, you are defining what the job will be when you become president. When your message is "status quo" and everyone is struggling of course you're going to lose. When your message is "Multinational Corporations and megamillionaires can do no wrong and are the most important people in the world" you will lose. I live in an inner city that is extremely liberal. People here are all liberal, and in general like Obama as a personality, but do no like how he has governed. They don't like the policies his pushed. They don't like how he never prosecuted a single banker responsible for the 2008 crash. They feel disheartened by how little he's fought for things like Social Security and now the DAPL. And they feel like he's abandoned them and sided with wealthy donors. If your message towards your base and America is more of that, of course you're going to have a depressed turn out and lose the election.
But go ahead. Keep pushing anti-worker pro-megamillionaire politicians like Tim Kaine, Andrew Cuomo, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer. It's not like me and millions of other people in America and around the world are going to suffer from it. Oh wait...!
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Trump is going to be president for four years. That's an eternity in political terms.
If your goal is "non-normalization" of Trump, you are going to be sorely disappointed. He's GOING to be normalized, whether you like it or not. The vast majority of people do not give enough of a shit about politics to be up in arms about everything Donnie does and says, and his lies and BS will sink into the background like Bush's malapropisms and general stupidity did.
What's going to sink Trump is his failing to deliver on the shit he said he was going to do, good and bad, not some idealized scenario wherein lazy dummies somehow get woke.
Re: Feingold losing in WI, mob behavior is not rational, and pointing to that as proof that Bernie would have lost doesn't scan. Sanders at the top of the ticket actually exciting people about economic populism, and giving an alternative boogeyman for middle class discontent to unleash itself upon, likely would have altered voting patterns downticket, as well. Hillary being at the top of the ticket put a bad taste in voters' mouths re: liberalism altogether, because of what she was perceived as representing, so someone even FARTHER left than her doing worse is not all that surprising.
If your goal is "non-normalization" of Trump, you are going to be sorely disappointed. He's GOING to be normalized, whether you like it or not. The vast majority of people do not give enough of a shit about politics to be up in arms about everything Donnie does and says, and his lies and BS will sink into the background like Bush's malapropisms and general stupidity did.
What's going to sink Trump is his failing to deliver on the shit he said he was going to do, good and bad, not some idealized scenario wherein lazy dummies somehow get woke.
Re: Feingold losing in WI, mob behavior is not rational, and pointing to that as proof that Bernie would have lost doesn't scan. Sanders at the top of the ticket actually exciting people about economic populism, and giving an alternative boogeyman for middle class discontent to unleash itself upon, likely would have altered voting patterns downticket, as well. Hillary being at the top of the ticket put a bad taste in voters' mouths re: liberalism altogether, because of what she was perceived as representing, so someone even FARTHER left than her doing worse is not all that surprising.
I'm having trouble squaring what you say there with this:
( https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/ )
And this:
( https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/ )
Certainly, Obama's stumping for her could be a double-edged sword, and certainly Wall Street is a factor still due to campaign funding. But I fail to see how the Dems fronting someone less "mega-millionaire" would've changed the result.
Unless, of course, you're talking about the perception of "mega-millionaire" candidates. In which case, you're talking about messaging and perception, not policy. And most here have already acknowledged that Hillary and her campaign could've done a far better job of messaging. Though how is difficult to explain.
The media are now (and have been throughout the campaign) seeing the same kind of issues as Hillary did - it's hard to push a message when the PEOTUS/GOP candidate burrows so deep into insane fuckery and lying that you have to play defense and fact-checker over half the time. People say Trump is some wise tactician because his tweets are so insane the news has to report on them, which buries Trump's bad news problems. And this is exactly what happened to Hillary during the campaign - it's hard to fight on policy when your opponent admits to sexual assault, and then says in a debate it's locker room talk, and debunked.
Unrelated:
‘End of History’ Author Says Donald Trump Could Signal a Shift From the Liberal World Order
Short Q&A with Francis Fukuyama. It's WSJ, so currently not paywalled, but I C&P'd the entire thing into a txt doc, so if it becomes paywalled later, give me a shout and I'll paste the whole lot.
First question plus partial answer:
Isaac Otherworld
Member
Stop pretending like burying policy positions you only took because of Bernie Sanders in the bowels of your campaign website is the same having it be a key position of your message and platform. No one believes your going to stand up for Social Security when your'e literally best friends with Goldman Sachs and Lloyd Blankfein, the life goals of both of which are to privatize social security. No one believes your going to stand up for Social Security when Obama spent 6 years of his presidency begging Republicans to agree to cut it with him. I got news for you. Americans hate the elite cocktail parties. And they hate everyone in them.
Clinton had to have her arm twisted to adopt Bernie Sanders' most popular positions and after the convention never mentioned them again. We live in the digital age. Everyone saw that. Everyone knows that at her core, Clinton is more allied with Wall Street and Mega-millionaires than Bernie Sanders. It's impossible to change that image when you're giving Goldman Sachs private speeches for $200,000. That's more than I'll make in 15 years of my life in an hour.
If you think candidates like Tim Kaine and Andrew Cuomo and Ram Emanuel would have won the presidency vs Trump you are actively holding the democratic party back from winning elections. If you don't see how Bernie Sanders or a similar leftist populist would have won in place of Clinton you are actively holding the democratic party back from winning elections.
There is absolutely no way Tim Kain, Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emanuel, and Chuck Schumer and any of Wall Street democrats could have done better against Trump than Hillary Clinton. For 25 years we've tried it the Hillary way. We've aligned the party with mega-millionaires, Wall Street, and multinational corporations. We've run almost nothing but candidates thoroughly vetted and approved by those people. And it's destroyed the democratic party as an institution.
I never claimed they were "just dumb" but painting out rather obvious tactics as elaborate and implicitly claiming they are sourced from Russia is ludicrous.
Rather than believe that Trump's every action has been dictated by Putin through decades of Russian tactics, it's quite simple to just say his actions for what they are. He manipulated people by pandering to demographics that are plentiful and have lots of unrest. He acted brashly and purposefully broke status quo to attract attention and convey his anti-establishment campaign. He took advantage of modern America's discontent at establishment figures and inaction red tape. The type of article I quoted is empty, inane thinkpieces that just regurgitate the same information with useless additions. Ascribing Trump/Bannon's tactics as a "'darkness' strategy" and tying its origin with Putin/Surkov, implying Trump's strategies were derived directly from Putin himself. Adding in more useless terms like "non-linear warfare".
The call-to-arms is probably the most laughable part. It's like a weekly update on impossible ways to "fix" the election.
Take the first call-to-arms for example: "Social media companies need to be held accountable for facilitating the spread of misinformation." They need to change.
-There is no action suggested on how to fix this at all, it's just an empty suggestion. Should the government step in? Will a mass boycott of Facebook fix this? Nothing is suggested and no action will reasonably take place.
-"Theyve since taken some small steps to rectify their errors, but for now, at least, its too little too late." The author acknowledges that Facebook is working toward the author's goal independently but... it's too late? Isn't the whole point to take action now in preparation for the next election and to change the current climate?
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I agree. I think if a person wants to internalize, for themselves, the lack of normalcy his presidency represents then that's fine, but it would make for terrible political strategy. Anything, given enough time, will just become the way things are. And frankly, the sooner the left accepts that this is reality now and turns their shock into action, the better.
I think it would be wise for the left to be loud and clear about every failure Trump makes along the way the next few years (which is hopefully common sense). This is a guy who said he alone can "fix" the country, which I think is highly susceptible to being one-termed by anyone who is relentless in pointing out how bold a lie that turned out to be (assuming he doesn't do well in his first term, which I'd imagine is the safe bet). We also have to accept that Trump, in every circumstance, will have some reason that every failure along the way isn't his fault, and it would be in the democrats' best interest to have a plan to counteract his scapegoating.
Have you read the last few pages of discussions about how Feinstein lost, even though he was running to the left of Hillary on economics? Not black and white, but that goes both ways.
Have you looked at the Primary results which saw Bernie lose?
Have you read about Hillary's plans to regulate Wall Street (specifically sub-prime mortgage regulations) in 2007? Has Bernie even done this much in his time as Senator?
Perhaps you might have a more persuasive argument if you were less hyperbolic and ignorant of the many many reasons why Hillary lost. No doubt some will not have voted for her due to Wall Street ties. But arguing that Bernie (or one like him) would've won is... Not the right lesson to be learned here. Or, at least, not the sole lesson to be learned here.
If the Democratic Party had any political nous, this would all be a done deal. Staffers and researchers would be hired full time to collate and précis how Trump has lied, and how badly his term is going.
But that's a big "if". So... Don't hold your breath. :/
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm assuming good quality ones, in some fairness - that means you don't have the cluster effect and shouldn't have absentee exclusion. You still get non-response bias, but you get that in all polling. And yes, I did work in the industry, which is why I feel pretty comfortable saying exit polls are more accurate than ordinary polls - not perfect, but certainly more accurate. (I might actually tweet Cohn about that article - I think it is poorly written). That's why we do them. If they weren't more accurate, why would we bother with something which is significantly more expensive and time-consuming to conduct? It's much cheaper to do 17,000 random cold-calls or get 1,000 people to participate in an internet survey than it is to get 250 staff to stand outside ballot booths properly distributed throughout the country throughout the day. I think most companies would love not to have to do them!
Voter registration files are an even better source, yes, but they only allow us to assess certain sorts of information. You can run correlations between e.g. the Trump vote and registered voter demographics, but you can't tell from how someone registered whether they think that Trump or Clinton is honest or dishonest; or what they think of NAFTA; or their stance on gay marriage. So they provide a very accurate look at a smaller set of data; exit polls provide a less accurate look at a larger set of data; and ordinary polls provide the least accurate look at the largest set of data. Each has their uses.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
Of course down party tickets are going to suffer in an election were the top of the ticket is so weak. That's the nature of elections. Your golden boy Patrick Murphy lost too, lest you forget.
Politifact is a joke, is absolutely atrocious as a fact checking website, and I can't believe you linked them.
There are a number of reasons why Bernie Sanders lost the primary I've gone through them over and over on this forum and don't care to rewrite all the reasons why. The fact of the matter is that he was the better candidate in the general election. Because he's a populist in a populist era. He sides with the general populace and not with the mega-millionaire donor-class. I can't believe you seriously think Tim Kaine, Rahm Emanuel and Andrew Cuomo are going to carry the democrats to victory in 2020. This party and this nation are doomed if you get your way. If Hillary couldn't win against Trump all your golden boys you keep pushing are even more doomed.
I added this after you responded to my post. I think it stands repeating.
You can't be party of the people when your aligned with organizations fundamentally opposed to those workers obtaining a decent living.
I think this is the most egregious statement I've seen on NeoGAF (at least since I saw someone say Life Is Strange was good.
)And I say that not because you don't like Politifact (you have that right), but because it shows you didn't even click on the link.
If you had, you would've seen this:
Clicking on "sponsored a bill" would've taken you here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/2114
Note:
That you couldn't even be bothered to look in-depth at what I said is pretty telling.
Don't bother responding. you're on ignore now.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
You're right.I didn't click the link. Politifact have spent years giving arbitrarily rating things with no rhyme or reason. They will look at statements, state that the statements are true, but will still list statements are "Half-true" or "mostly-false" or even "Pants on fire" for absolutely arbitrary reasons and I have decided half a decade ago to not given them traffic or recognition because they are absolutely abysmal at their job. It's a trash website. Absolutely terrible at it's job. Do you really want me to get bogged down posting dozens of absolutely bullshit politifact ratings? It's no fault of mine you linked an irreputable website.I think this is the most egregious statement I've seen on NeoGAF (at least since I saw someone say Life Is Strange was good.
And I say that not because you don't like Politifact (you have that right), but because it shows you didn't even click on the link.
If you had, you would've seen this:
Clinking on "sponsored a bill" would've taken you here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/2114
Note:
That you couldn't even be bothered to look in-depth at what I said is pretty telling.
Don't bother responding. you're on ignore now.
Go ahead and ignore me. Ignoring warnings is all the democratic party is good at these days. It's easy for you to sit back and want the Democrats to keep running losing strategies when it's people like me that actually suffer the consequences of Democrats losing.
Tangentially related to US politics:
Measuring the Economic Spillover of OPECs Oil Output Decisions (WSJ again)
Measuring the Economic Spillover of OPECs Oil Output Decisions (WSJ again)
The Chosen One
Member
Joe on Morning Joe is having a freakout about Conway throwing shade on Mittens this weekend. :lol
QuiteWhittle
Member
I have not read a single a positive thing about Emmanuel, Schumer, or Cuomo since I've started reading these threads and I especially have not read anyone suggesting they be the standard-bearers of the party. For obvious reasons(Laquan McDonald, Iran deal opposition, being almost cartoonishly corrupt) and more. Why do they keep being brought up?
Straw Man arguments for why the Dems should go more left-wing, I guess.
Aaron Strife
Banned
They all have powerful positions because they run in safe states (city in Emanuel's case) with strong Democrat machines that reward the establishment. Policy-wise they're rubber stamps for local business interests and liberal social issues to keep the progressives quiet. Cuomo earned a lot of brownie points for passing gay marriage when he did, even though he's used the R State Senate as a convenient excuse to never go too far (although the Democrats in the NY Senate actually are cartoonishly corrupt, so pick your poison).
They're not going away until they're termed out, Schumer will be in office for life unless there's ever a massive R shift in NY.
DragonSworne
Banned
Why hasn't Comey been fired yet?
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I see NBC lost it's spine and changed its front page headline to give trump some creibility on his voter fraud claims.
‘I will give you everything.’ Here are 282 of Donald Trump’s campaign promises.
I'd forgotten how hilarious and/or ignorant some of these were... For instance,
Also from the (blessed? ) WaPo:
The mainstream media had the Worst Week in Washington
Late edit:
I'd forgotten how hilarious and/or ignorant some of these were... For instance,
Also from the (blessed?
) WaPo:The mainstream media had the Worst Week in Washington
Late edit:
Isaac Otherworld
Member
Because they're the standard bearers for the Hillary Clinton establishment wing of the party. These guys are all on the shortlist for being the Democratic nominee in 2020. Kaine, Cuomo, and Emanuel are all preparing for the 2020 democratic primary as we speak. Cuomo has been prepping since he became governor of New York. Either Kaine or Cuomo are going to be endorsed by Clinton / Obama during the next primary. These guys are the only people being mentioned by cable news as potential leaders of the democratic party. Anytime 2020 is brought up, all three of those guys are quickly mentioned as being the only possible options by the Democratic Establishment and mainstream news media. This should terrify you unless you want Trump to get 8 years as president.
Don't be angry at me for bringing them up if you aren't huge fans of them. Be angry at CNN, CBS, and NBC for constantly bringing them up the "phoenix rising" of the Democratic Party. Be angry at the donors for donating and pushing these candidates. They're the ones saying Hillary supporters love them.
Schumer at least seems to understand which way the wind is blowing based on his endorsement of Ellison as DNC chair and him bringing Bernie and Warren into the Democratic senate leadership. I think he's afraid of a serious primary challenger. He should be.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Cuomo isn't going to run lol
He'd never make it past the primary. Like, at all. No chance.
Pro-Tip: New York isn't as liberal as you think it is. It's more of an old-school Democrat state. Unless you actually believe someone can go out there and talk about the evils of Wall Street... and actually win Wall Street?
He'd never make it past the primary. Like, at all. No chance.
I can tell you're not from NY if you think Schumer is ever going to be afraid of losing an election.
Pro-Tip: New York isn't as liberal as you think it is. It's more of an old-school Democrat state. Unless you actually believe someone can go out there and talk about the evils of Wall Street... and actually win Wall Street?
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Joe said "obama was given a stable iraq"
Is joe applying for fox news?
Is joe applying for fox news?
Yikes. Saw a pro-Castro posts on my Facebook feed. Checked the comments.
Yikes. Revisionist history can be a bitch.
Maybe meant i-Rack?
Yikes. Revisionist history can be a bitch.
Maybe meant i-Rack?
- Status