Support NeoGAF

[Macho Madness]

If the best thing they had was "he's a socialist and his wife may have messed up the paperwork on a loan for a college" then Jesus Christ

20 goddamn seventeen we have president Donald trump and I have to read that Bernie sanders is unelectable

 

[VendettaRed07]

Unless I was mistaken, wasn't there an article once stating that Republicans preferred Bernie as the Democratic nominee because he was viewed as an easier target compared to Hillary?

Again, unless I was mistaken.

I remember people on here celebrating Trump's victory (some even voted for him in the GOP primary) because they thought it meant a sure GE victory. Whoops

 

[pigeon]

Would this be how Bernie and his followers are silenced? I seem to recall people in this thread basically saying "We've got to make peace with Bernie and his wing, because they'll be with us at least until 2020." But this doesn't seem like it's going to help him or his cause any.

(not trying to stir the pot, btw - genuinely curious if this, which pretty much is the only thing that could potentially silence him, will actually silence him).

Bernie is a Democrat. There's no reason to silence him. Just needs to learn the discipline appropriate to a national figure.

Also people need to stop speculating about whether Bernie would've won, what a masturbatory waste of other people's time.

 

[Tarydax]

Yeah the unelectable Bernie sanders would have lost the election unlike

Hillary losing against Trump doesn't automatically mean that Bernie would have done better. Bernie couldn't get out of the primary or even come close to beating Hillary's poorly-run campaign, so speculation on how he would have done against Trump is pointless anyway.

 

[Mizerman]

It was pretty common knowledge. They deliberately didn't attack him for a reason.

Hell, Kasich said it at one of the debates.

Maybe they would have been wrong, but if you turned back the clock to Jan 2016 they would have loooved it if Bernie was the nominee. Dude said outright he wanted to raise peoples' taxes.

I remember people on here celebrating Trump's victory (some even voted for him in the GOP primary) because they thought it meant a sure GE victory. Whoops

Guess it'll be one of those endless "what ifs." Eh, whatever. Would love to turn back time, but it happened unfortunately.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yeah the unelectable Bernie sanders would have lost the election unlike

Chill out, I voted for Bernie. But I don't think it's an unfair or inaccurate statement that the Republicans probably would have found him easier to attack on paper.

 

[Hellwarden]

Kang would have won.

 

[VendettaRed07]

The assumption that every person and corporation will ask for something that Dem voters will find bad is astonishingly naive.

Go ask Tim Cook if you think the Dem stance on LGBTQ rights is bad.

Go ask Warren Buffet if you think Hillary's stance on taxes was bad.

Not every single request that comes from a position of privilege is going to be bad. Trust that politicians and donors will actually match-up in some way - you're not going to have a Sheldon Adelson pushing money to a Dem campaign. As we noted during the 2016 election, the donors who don't "match" with the party or candidate will sit-out rather than give money to the ideological opponent.

Also, how is it two days ago? Why are we back to talking about Obama and Speeches? Trump presidential enough already?

Late edit: Not to labour my point, but all the money Hillary took from moneyed interests, and you know who Wall Street was afraid of winning in 2016? Hillary.

Not every single donor with money is bad or is expecting anything .. sure. but the current dynamic of money in politics has unquestionably created a gap between the interests of voters and politicians.

Yes we need to raise money especially as of now when the GOP is going to raise as much as they can. But raising a lot of money doesn't really help as much if half the time you are using it to defend yourself from your relationships with wealthy donors and sketchy companies/people.

I think the party needs to do what it can to constantly reassure people that this is a party that stands for civil rights and labour. That should be the bread and butter of the party but what union workers and consumers want more often than not runs in direct contrast to what people in charge of larg corporations want. Working families and ordinary people should come first but I think it's difficult to convince people that is who you represent when you are totally careless and just raising as much money as humanely possible not caring where from.

Hillary and Bill engaging in this sort of behaviour since they left the White House raising hundreds of millions of dollars unquestionably damaged her image. I mean good for her not hiding it and refusing to release her tax returns, but when it was brought up she really had no defense for it. I generally think it's a good idea for politicians to not do things they can't defend themselves for doing.

It is also difficult to attack republicans for obviously being bought out and only denying climate change because their donors tell them to when you are engaging in similar behavior


But anyways yeah we've been over this so much and I think I'll just leave it at that until there's actually an election again when we are without question going to be talking about this to death soon enough

 

[Pixieking]

Bernie is a Democrat. There's no reason to silence him. Just needs to learn the discipline appropriate to a national figure.

Yeah, actually, true. Stop running his mouth and be more thoughtful isn't the same as silence.

Also people need to stop speculating about whether Bernie would've won, what a masturbatory waste of other people's time.

It really is. I mean, if Trump was actually doing some good I could see the reasoning, but he isn't, so wtf guys?

Meanwhile...

Kentucky coal company announces plans to build the state's largest solar farm
The company says the farm will give jobs to displaced coal miners.

A Kentucky coal company announced Tuesday that it is planning to build a solar farm on a reclaimed mountaintop removal coal mine and that the project would bring both jobs and energy to the area.

Berkeley Energy Group, the coal company behind the project, billed it as the first large-scale solar farm in the Appalachian region, which has been hit hard by the decades-long decline in the U.S. coal industry. The company, in partnership with EDF Renewable Energy, is currently conducting feasibility studies for the project on two reclaimed strip mines, both located in the eastern part of the state. Berkeley Energy Group estimates that the solar farm could produce as much as 50 or 100 megawatts of electricity, which would be five to ten times the size of Kentucky's largest solar farm.

Edit:

Hillary and Bill engaging in this sort of behaviour since they left the White House raising hundreds of millions of dollars unquestionably damaged her image. I mean good for her not hiding it and refusing to release her tax returns, but when it was brought up she really had no defense for it. I generally think it's a good idea for politicians to not do things they can't defend themselves for doing.

I think this may be what happens when the Left believes the Right's lies. *shrugs*

 

[thepotatoman]

He thought having a real job would be easier than a pretend job that he inherited and others have been doing for him since day one while he lived it up? At least he's finding out what real work is for once. His hands might even finally go into puberty from all that pen handling and grow to real man size.

Best case scenario for him was losing the electoral vote while winning the popular vote. Losing the popular vote while winning the electoral vote was probably the worst case scenario for him.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Well, there'd be no need to defend from insinuation and innuendo if the willingness to make concessions out of supposed necessity extended beyond accepting racism and assaults on women's rights.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Best case scenario for him was losing the electoral vote while winning the popular vote. Losing the popular vote while winning the electoral vote was probably the worst case scenario for him.

Seriously. If all you care about is winning, winning by technicality is a hollow victory.

 

[thepotatoman]

Well, there'd be no need to defend from insinuation and innuendo if the willingness to make concessions out of supposed necessity extended beyond accepting racism and assaults on women's rights.

You mean like voting for the Lieberman/Landrieu compromised Obamacare bill?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Needs elaboration on relevance.

As I was clearly being snarky about how we all have to be nice to white racist rural men now and abortion bans.

But donations that fund electoral operations though. Get rid of them.

Unless you're saying Obama watered down the ACA at the behest of his donor masters.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Well that's just honky dory

I tried to bring this up during the Primaries, but no one was particularly interested.

If the best thing they had was "he's a socialist and his wife may have messed up the paperwork on a loan for a college" then Jesus Christ

20 goddamn seventeen we have president Donald trump and I have to read that Bernie sanders is unelectable

This isn't about her messing up paperwork. This was fraud. She should have never gotten that loan. It's insane that she got that loan. If she's not the wife of a senator, she doesn't get that loan.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Needs elaboration on relevance.

As I was clearly being snarky about how we all have to be nice to white racist rural men now and abortion bans.

But donations that fund electoral operations though. Get rid of them.

If we want to talk about insinuation and innuendo why is it always insinuated that apparently believing it would be good for the party to move away from big money interests in the long run as a way of leading by example is nothing more than a hidden agenda to dismiss racism and sexism. Me, Pigeon and several others have not made any sort of argument that suggests that yet consistently it always comes back to that somehow

 

[shinra-bansho]

I didn't say anything about a hidden agenda.
There's been nothing hidden about a lot of people who are seemingly very prepared to throw abortion rights under the pure class economic issues bus.

I commented on the general discourse over the past week or two. Or really months when it comes to the racism.

 

[thepotatoman]

By the way, it still royally pisses me off that literally all of the moderates that forced Obamacare to become the piece of crap that it is never ever won another election. Both on the killing public option front, and the budget reconciliation front setting terrible subsidy rates.

Like what the hell is the point of that centrism if you're not going to win reelection?

It's the biggest reason I have absolutely no belief in centrism, outside the 2016 presidential election.

 

[Aaron Strife]

By the way, it still royally pisses me off that literally all of the moderates that forced Obamacare to become the piece of crap that it is never ever won another election. Both on the killing public option front, and the budget reconciliation front setting terrible subsidy rates.

Like what the hell is the point of that centrism if you're not going to win reelection?

It's the biggest reason I have absolutely no belief in centrism, outside the 2016 presidential election.

I understand the thinking at the time, but hopefully Democrats don't go into their next presidency thinking they need to water everything down to win approval. It's not like Republicans would have hated ACA more if it was single-payer.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I didn't say anything about a hidden agenda.
There's been nothing hidden about a lot of people who are seemingly very prepared to throw abortion rights under the pure class economic issues bus.

I commented on the general discourse over the past week or two. Or really months when it comes to the racism.

And people who argue that are wrong.

Not everyone who dislikes the current dynamic of money in politics or thinking that approaching this differently would be a good thing wants to pave the road to get there with the rights of women and minorities.

The attempt to group everyone into two camps of "not racist but what's wrong with presidential profiteering tours?" And "money in politics is wrong but get identity politics out of here #alllivesmatter", should probably stop

 

[VendettaRed07]

By the way, it still royally pisses me off that literally all of the moderates that forced Obamacare to become the piece of crap that it is never ever won another election. Both on the killing public option front, and the budget reconciliation front setting terrible subsidy rates.

Like what the hell is the point of that centrism if you're not going to win reelection?

It's the biggest reason I have absolutely no belief in centrism, outside the 2016 presidential election.

Nobody expected the losses to be as significant as they were I think. Also a lot of it has less to do with "voting on a bill that was too liberal will be bad for me" and more like guys like Lieberman worrying "voting for a public option will piss off my private insurance companies friends"

 

[jWILL253]

I went through a range of emotions today.

I spent the entire day ripping and running, fulfilling obligations, and went to work to do some temp manual labor while my body didn't want any part of it, and I ended up missing the first round of the NFL Draft (the Seahawks traded out of the first round anyways, so I didn't miss a whole lot). I then come home at 11pm, only to realize I lost my keys. I had to ask my roommate to jig the door open so I can get into my room. And once I get into my room, and finally sit my sore ass down on my bed, I then realize that I need to do laundry, and I endure more complaining from the muscles in my body as I head to the laundry room.

So, first thing I do once I'm finally settled and eating, is log onto Twitter and read my group chat's backchat, and I come across two shared tweets. The first: Trump admitting he has no idea what he's doing and he's whining about the job being too hard. The second, Sean Spicer blaming Michael Flynn's vetting... on Barack Obama, the man who F I R E D Flynn halfway into his second term. Then, I come in here to catch up on any political news that didn't make the front page of the Off-Topic forum, and I see we, collectively, are still discussing Obama, who is no longer a public official in any capacity btw, taking money for doing things.

Out of all the things I could be mad and annoyed about, it's the last one that actually got me feeling this pissed off.

Why? Because of how dumb it is. And I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. This controversy is d u m b as fuck. And it's dumb because it has nothing to do with actual corruption. Obama is taking money to speak about healthcare in front of rich people. Obama, who is no longer the head of the executive branch and is now a member of the private sector, is taking a paycheck to provide a service. A simple transaction for a simple act that someone wants to pay him for. And people are apparently upset at Obama because the mere appearance... appearance of corruption that could affect policy positions in the future. You know, because Obama could run for office again and be lenient on Wall St- oh, wait.

I don't know where this new belief that no liberal politician should never take benign, legally-vetted, and progressively-beneficial money to speak anywhere, for anyone, for any reason, came from... but it's garbage. Because it not only implies that you want these people with services to provide to do shit for free just to boost your fucking frail ego, but it also implies that anyone who earns a paycheck for doing something you don't agree with, for people you personally don't like without any context as to why, automatically lose all credibility.

Someone please explain to me why Obama, WHO IS NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE AND WON'T BE PRESIDENT EVER AGAIN, deserves to have his credibility called into question, for simply taking a $400,000 paycheck from people who probably consider that a tax write-off, for a topic that has little to do with Wall St directly. I need an explanation, seriously. Because I'm about one step away from calling it racism, because all these other former presidents and public officials can take money for speeches and appearances, or raise money for philanthropic endeavors, but Obama can't because of fucking reasons.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Nobody expected the losses to be as significant as they were I think. Also a lot of it has less to do with "voting on a bill that was too liberal will be bad for me" and more like guys like Lieberman worrying "voting for a public option will piss off my private insurance companies friends"

This is true too.

Lieberman was great on healthcare until push came to shove. Only then did he turn into a flailing dickhead about the whole thing.

Just look at the Republicans fake repealing Obamacare a gajillion times. Now there's actual consequences if such a bill made it to the president's desk and suddenly they're less keen on the idea.

 

[pigeon]

I went through a range of emotions today.

I spent the entire day ripping and running, fulfilling obligations, and went to work to do some temp manual labor while my body didn't want any part of it, and I ended up missing the first round of the NFL Draft (the Seahawks traded out of the first round anyways, so I didn't miss a whole lot). I then come home at 11pm, only to realize I lost my keys. I had to ask my roommate to jig the door open so I can get into my room. And once I get into my room, and finally sit my sore ass down on my bed, I then realize that I need to do laundry, and I endure more complaining from the muscles in my body as I head to the laundry room.

So, first thing I do once I'm finally settled and eating, is log onto Twitter and read my group chat's backchat, and I come across two shared tweets. The first: Trump admitting he has no idea what he's doing and he's whining about the job being too hard. The second, Sean Spicer blaming Michael Flynn's vetting... on Barack Obama, the man who F I R E D Flynn halfway into his second term. Then, I come in here to catch up on any political news that didn't make the front page of the Off-Topic forum, and I see we, collectively, are still discussing Obama, who is no longer a public official in any capacity btw, taking money for doing things.

Out of all the things I could be mad and annoyed about, it's the last one that actually got me feeling this pissed off.

Why? Because of how dumb it is. And I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. This controversy is d u m b as fuck. And it's dumb because it has nothing to do with actual corruption. Obama is taking money to speak about healthcare in front of rich people. Obama, who is no longer the head of the executive branch and is now a member of the private sector, is taking a paycheck to provide a service. A simple transaction for a simple act that someone wants to pay him for. And people are apparently upset at Obama because the mere appearance... appearance of corruption that could affect policy positions in the future. You know, because Obama could run for office again and be lenient on Wall St- oh, wait.

I don't know where this new belief that no liberal politician should never take benign, legally-vetted, and progressively-beneficial money to speak anywhere, for anyone, for any reason, came from... but it's garbage. Because it not only implies that you want these people with services to provide to do shit for free just to boost your fucking frail ego, but it also implies that anyone who earns a paycheck for doing something you don't agree with, for people you personally don't like without any context as to why, automatically lose all credibility.

Someone please explain to me why Obama, WHO IS NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE AND WON'T BE PRESIDENT EVER AGAIN, deserves to have his credibility called into question, for simply taking a $400,000 paycheck from people who probably consider that a tax write-off, for a topic that has little to do with Wall St directly. I need an explanation, seriously. Because I'm about one step away from calling it racism, because all these other former presidents and public officials can take money for speeches and appearances, or raise money for philanthropic endeavors, but Obama can't because of fucking reasons.

Read the thread

 

[broz0rs]

I thought all ex-POTUS are supposed to do speaking engagements, write a book, and become multi-millionaires? This has been going on since forever. Speaking engagements for ex-Presidents and top CEO's are easily six figures a pop. Obama who is arguably the greatest president of our lifetime will fetch the highest amount in history. It's so bizarre to me that people want to see him confined socially and economically. It's as if people are hoping one day, the day after he dies, that he'll rise as the next messiah or something.

 

[pigeon]

I thought all ex-POTUS are supposed to do speaking engagements, write a book, and become multi-millionaires? This has been going on since forever.

It's been going on for thirty years.

The norm of former presidents taking large speaking fees is approximately as old as The Simpsons.

Just because most of the posters on this board began in the 90s doesn't mean the United States of America began then.

 

[shinra-bansho]

And people who argue that are wrong.

Not everyone who dislikes the current dynamic of money in politics or thinking that approaching this differently would be a good thing wants to pave the road to get there with the rights of women and minorities.

The attempt to group everyone into two camps of "not racist but what's wrong with presidential profiteering tours?" And "money in politics is wrong but get identity politics out of here #alllivesmatter", should probably stop

I'm not attempting to group anything.

Just making comment based on observation of the relative acceptability towards certain electoral issues.

You state that those people are wrong so surely you've noted their prevalence too.

When it comes more traditional economic issues the debate seems to generally be how far "left" to go.

$12 or $15. $12? Neoliberal corporatist.
Single payer or other means of improving affordability?
Glass Steagall Break Up The Banks or a regulations that aren't from the Depression era and will actually reduce risk?
Free tertiary education or bust.

But...

When it comes to issues of particular importance to minorities, to women.

You don't even have to be on "the left" of an issue. You don't even need to be a Tim Kaine or Joe Biden who states religious personal opposition to something like abortion but toes the party line. You can actually actively work to dismantle those rights.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Meanwhile...

Kentucky coal company announces plans to build the state’s largest solar farm
The company says the farm will give jobs to displaced coal miners.

Hey look! It's that thing clinton wanted to do

 

[Aaron Strife]

Hey look! It's that thing clinton wanted to do

SOSHULIZM

Wait that's what people attacked Obama over

ESTABLISHMENT NEOCON SHILL!

 

[Vixdean]

I mean, Obama was already rich y'all. This is honestly the most confusing criticism ever. Have you people heard Hillary Clinton speak? And she was getting 200k! Obama is giving it away for only 400k.

 

[sazzy]

why isn't Obama having people sign NDA's wherever he's speaking?

 

[royalan]

Jane Sanders just fudged some paperwork, y'all.

Sorry, nobody in that camp deserves that kind of pass after last year.

 

[Blader]

I mean, Obama was already rich y'all. This is honestly the most confusing criticism ever. Have you people heard Hillary Clinton speak? And she was getting 200k! Obama is giving it away for only 400k.

I think Hillary is actually a more effective speaker in those smaller, more intimate settings. It's the big rah-rah rallies where she has to inspire you into believing all your dreams will come true tomorrow where she suffers.

Speaking of speaking -- do we expect Hillary (and Bill for that matter) to speak at the convention in 2020? Gore and Kerry never gave convention addresses after their losses did they?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

I think Hillary is actually a more effective speaker in those smaller, more intimate settings. It's the big rah-rah rallies where she has to inspire you into believing all your dreams will come true tomorrow where she suffers.

Speaking of speaking -- do we expect Hillary (and Bill for that matter) to speak at the convention in 2020? Gore and Kerry never gave convention addresses after their losses did they?

Bill absolutely will be there until he dies.

I suspect Hillary will have some role, but obviously not a keynote speech.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I don't think either Clinton will be there giving speeches, but they'll be there

Obama, Biden and Bernie will be the major speakers (who aren't the candidate and VP)

 

[tbm24]

I don't think either Clinton will be there giving speeches, but they'll be there

Obama, Biden and Bernie will be the major speakers (who aren't the candidate and VP)

I'd be disappointed if Hillary was present but didn't give a speech honestly.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

I don't think either Clinton will be there giving speeches, but they'll be there

Obama, Biden and Bernie will be the major speakers (who aren't the candidate and VP)

They can give speeches without giving keynote speeches

I think the late afternoon/early evening slots make the most sense for them

 

[DonShula]

I went through a range of emotions today.

I spent the entire day ripping and running, fulfilling obligations, and went to work to do some temp manual labor while my body didn't want any part of it, and I ended up missing the first round of the NFL Draft (the Seahawks traded out of the first round anyways, so I didn't miss a whole lot). I then come home at 11pm, only to realize I lost my keys. I had to ask my roommate to jig the door open so I can get into my room. And once I get into my room, and finally sit my sore ass down on my bed, I then realize that I need to do laundry, and I endure more complaining from the muscles in my body as I head to the laundry room.

So, first thing I do once I'm finally settled and eating, is log onto Twitter and read my group chat's backchat, and I come across two shared tweets. The first: Trump admitting he has no idea what he's doing and he's whining about the job being too hard. The second, Sean Spicer blaming Michael Flynn's vetting... on Barack Obama, the man who F I R E D Flynn halfway into his second term. Then, I come in here to catch up on any political news that didn't make the front page of the Off-Topic forum, and I see we, collectively, are still discussing Obama, who is no longer a public official in any capacity btw, taking money for doing things.

Out of all the things I could be mad and annoyed about, it's the last one that actually got me feeling this pissed off.

Why? Because of how dumb it is. And I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. This controversy is d u m b as fuck. And it's dumb because it has nothing to do with actual corruption. Obama is taking money to speak about healthcare in front of rich people. Obama, who is no longer the head of the executive branch and is now a member of the private sector, is taking a paycheck to provide a service. A simple transaction for a simple act that someone wants to pay him for. And people are apparently upset at Obama because the mere appearance... appearance of corruption that could affect policy positions in the future. You know, because Obama could run for office again and be lenient on Wall St- oh, wait.

I don't know where this new belief that no liberal politician should never take benign, legally-vetted, and progressively-beneficial money to speak anywhere, for anyone, for any reason, came from... but it's garbage. Because it not only implies that you want these people with services to provide to do shit for free just to boost your fucking frail ego, but it also implies that anyone who earns a paycheck for doing something you don't agree with, for people you personally don't like without any context as to why, automatically lose all credibility.

Someone please explain to me why Obama, WHO IS NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE AND WON'T BE PRESIDENT EVER AGAIN, deserves to have his credibility called into question, for simply taking a $400,000 paycheck from people who probably consider that a tax write-off, for a topic that has little to do with Wall St directly. I need an explanation, seriously. Because I'm about one step away from calling it racism, because all these other former presidents and public officials can take money for speeches and appearances, or raise money for philanthropic endeavors, but Obama can't because of fucking reasons.

I'm with you. And I read the thread.

 

[Blader]

I don't think either Clinton will be there giving speeches, but they'll be there

Obama, Biden and Bernie will be the major speakers (who aren't the candidate and VP)

Michelle? And probably Warren assuming she isn't the nominee or running mate.

They can give speeches without giving keynote speeches

I think the late afternoon/early evening slots make the most sense for them

Seems like a pretty downgrade for a former president and former nominee/secretary of state/first lady. I'd think that if they aren't giving keynote addresses, may as well not speak at all. Or maybe do a short video address, a la Carter.

I guess it depends on how things shake out with the party over the next three years, but if the next nominee wants to make it clear they're charting a new course for Democrats, it might be better for The Optics if the Clintons didn't show at all.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I'd be disappointed if Hillary was present but didn't give a speech honestly.

She suffered a humiliated defeat

And even though, come four years it might be seen as actually being better for the Democrats that she lost, it was still a loss, a surprising loss that gave us Donald Trump as president.

Generally, those that suffer losses like that more or less fade into obscurity. It took Gore awhile to get back into the public, and even then, it's not really often. Kerry never went public again. I can't think of a single event or any public thing he did after losing. Even Carter, who won once and is a former president, generally lives a non-public life.

She's also not really that great of a big speech speaker, so what does she offer speaking at the convention by doing a speech at some random off hour where 100 people are watching?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Seems like a pretty downgrade for a former president and former nominee/secretary of state/first lady. I'd think that if they aren't giving keynote addresses, may as well not speak at all. Or maybe do a short video address, a la Carter.

I guess it depends on how things shake out with the party over the next three years, but if the next nominee wants to make it clear they're charting a new course for Democrats, it might be better for The Optics if the Clintons didn't show at all.

Yeah, I don't really know. There's only a certain number of keynote addresses and Bill is no longer the most recent Democratic president. But even if he's not as popular as Obama, he's still well-liked in the party and so is Hillary. Maybe late afternoon/early evening is too much of a downgrade - maybe the speeches that are like right before the keynotes?

I guess there's a question if the Clintons would even accept a non-keynote speech.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

U.S. economy grew just 0.7% in the first quarter of 2017, weakest performance 3 years

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/28/first-estimate-of-2017-q1-gdp.html

Oh boy here comes that recession. Let's see how his followers like seeing things crumble, look for leadership and only see Trump at his golf course blaming Obama and talking about his electoral win.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

She suffered a humiliated defeat

And even though, come four years it might be seen as actually being better for the Democrats that she lost, it was still a loss, a surprising loss that gave us Donald Trump as president.

Generally, those that suffer losses like that more or less fade into obscurity. It took Gore awhile to get back into the public, and even then, it's not really often. Kerry never went public again. I can't think of a single event or any public thing he did after losing. Even Carter, who won once and is a former president, generally lives a non-public life.

She's also not really that great of a big speech speaker, so what does she offer speaking at the convention by doing a speech at some random off hour where 100 people are watching?

Kerry spoke at the 2008 and 2012 conventions and then, of course, became SoS. And even though we're basically at cosmic levels of national embarrassment these days, 2004 was not really an oh-well-good-show-chap election either. It spawned the sorryeverybody .com website, where a bunch of Kerry voters posted apology pics to the rest of the world.

 

[shinra-bansho]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/28/first-estimate-of-2017-q1-gdp.html

Oh boy here comes that recession. Let's see how his followers like seeing things crumble, look for leadership and only see Trump at his golf course blaming Obama and talking about his electoral win.

 

[numble]

Kerry spoke at the 2008 and 2012 conventions and then, of course, became SoS. And even though we're basically at cosmic levels of national embarrassment these days, 2004 was not really an oh-well-good-show-chap election either. It spawned the sorryeverybody .com website, where a bunch of Kerry voters posted apology pics to the rest of the world.

Kerry did not get a keynote at either conventions.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

What is this garbage doing on CNN's front page?

Trump has proven himself loyal to the voters who put him there. But more than that, he is showing himself to be one of America's few post-partisan presidents – putting people before party.

Trump putting people ahead of party???

Trump has a hierarchy

Trump > His Business > His Friend's Business > Other People's Business > The Republicans that Supported Him >>>>>>> Everyone else

 

[Widdle Puppy]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/28/first-estimate-of-2017-q1-gdp.html

Oh boy here comes that recession. Let's see how his followers like seeing things crumble, look for leadership and only see Trump at his golf course blaming Obama and talking about his electoral win.

I'm ready for a recession, but I don't think most Americans are.

I wonder what industry will go under this time around.

And I wonder how Trumpsters will find others to blame than their demigod

 

[sazzy]

What is this garbage doing on CNN's front page?



Trump putting people ahead of party???

Trump has a hierarchy

Trump > His Business > His Friend's Business > Other People's Business > The Republicans that Supported Him >>>>>>> Everyone else

"By Kayleigh McEnany"

stopped reading right there

 

[Blader]

"By Kayleigh McEnany"

stopped reading right there

I almost stopped at that picture, then stopped 2 seconds later when I got to the byline.

 

[dramatis]

Would this be how Bernie and his followers are silenced? I seem to recall people in this thread basically saying "We've got to make peace with Bernie and his wing, because they'll be with us at least until 2020." But this doesn't seem like it's going to help him or his cause any.

(not trying to stir the pot, btw - genuinely curious if this, which pretty much is the only thing that could potentially silence him, will actually silence him).

No. Because we keep this shit low and down in here, while others make threads for every positive thing about Sanders and every negative thing about HIllary and Obama.

The nature of Sanders diehards are that they are extremely loud when trumpeting the virtues of their idol, while everyone else just focuses on working hard.