Great Society

Children of the Sun => Newsday => Political Junkies => Topic started by: nacho on March 24, 2015, 08:42:08 AM

Title: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 24, 2015, 08:42:08 AM
First out of the gate is Texan Republican Ted Cruz... I just watched him crash and burn rather amusingly on the Today show -- his first appearance after his announcement last night.

Paraphrasing from memory (when he was challenged for saying you needed compromise to make government work):

"You said that you won't ever compromise..."

"I never said that I won't compromise."

"I have it here. On (date) at (location) you said 'I will nevee compromise.'"

 iceprawn!


Stewart came out of his lame duck snooze to return to form:

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/jon-stewart-mocks-ted-cruzs-jump-gop-2016
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 24, 2015, 09:30:22 AM
First out of the gate is Texan Republican Ted Cruz...

 snorebot!

I have a feeling snorebot is going to get a workout this election cycle.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 03, 2015, 01:25:50 AM
There are days I hate the internet, then there are days like today.

Quote
If you're gonna run for president, you should maybe secure your own domain name.

http://www.tedcruz.com (http://www.tedcruz.com)
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 06, 2015, 02:39:55 PM
This is going to be a tough one for me. Why do I blindly hate Hillary so much? I don't know. I must be racist or something, but she just grates on my last nerve.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 06, 2015, 02:40:51 PM
I thought we were all for Elizabeth Warren!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 06, 2015, 02:43:30 PM
Is she running?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 06, 2015, 02:44:56 PM
Is she running?

She said no...in 2013.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 06, 2015, 02:51:28 PM
Is she running?

She said no...in 2013.

And she keeps saying "no"...which is why I find it hilarious that there are all these "What if she runs?" stories out there.

As far as Hilary hate goes, she certainly represents the old guard establishment, Democratic woman or no.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 06, 2015, 03:33:58 PM
Is she running?

She said no...in 2013.

And she keeps saying "no"...which is why I find it hilarious that there are all these "What if she runs?" stories out there.

As far as Hilary hate goes, she certainly represents the old guard establishment, Democratic woman or no.

It's not hilarious. It keeps coming up because the whole world knows that she's the only possible presidential person the nation can produce from either fucked up party.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 06, 2015, 03:38:08 PM
End of the empire, man. We have no leaders worth following? Haven't we been predicting this since the 90s?

Lord Humongous 2016!

Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on April 06, 2015, 04:13:02 PM
Elizabeth Warren should be running. She's great.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 06, 2015, 04:31:14 PM
See? Even Monkey knows it. And he steals babies for Parisian vampires that live in the catacombs.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on April 06, 2015, 04:36:20 PM
One can't steal what the vampires already own.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 07, 2015, 01:02:39 PM
Rand Paul's official.

And now back to  snorebot!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 07, 2015, 03:17:04 PM
Oh. Good, I'll vote for his crazy libertarian ideas! If he makes it out of the primary...unlikely.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 10, 2015, 06:04:43 PM
Maybe this guy is the answer...

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4533763/democratic-presidential-candidate-vermin-supreme-manchester-nh

Yes, he is wearing a boot on his head and at least 2 ties.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 10, 2015, 08:10:11 PM
Maybe this guy is the answer...

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4533763/democratic-presidential-candidate-vermin-supreme-manchester-nh

Yes, he is wearing a boot on his head and at least 2 ties.

You guys don't read any of the books I publish do you? He gets a major essay in the pagan Kennedy book.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 11, 2015, 12:49:56 PM
You publish books?!?!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on April 12, 2015, 11:09:16 AM
What's a book?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 16, 2015, 12:43:39 PM
So...back to Elizabeth Warren. Hillary kind of fell flat when she announced her candidacy...and now my news-aggregate method of catching up on shit has made me a bit curious.

Hillary endorsed Warren for the "Time Top 100" list, and write this fawning, glowing article about Warren (using the "champion" language that Hillary has just attempted and failed to pull off). On the WaPo blog, Hillary calls Warren "a leader" and implies that the nation needs her.

This is all very odd language and, of course, has fueled speculation that the Dems are more behind Warren than they are Hillary. (Which everyone's been saying anyway all along.)
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 16, 2015, 01:05:36 PM
Is she running?

She said no...in 2013.

And she keeps saying "no"...which is why I find it hilarious that there are all these "What if she runs?" stories out there.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 16, 2015, 01:24:55 PM
We're getting close to the point where she won't have a choice. She's being sort of de facto drafted by the media (and by Hillary).
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 16, 2015, 01:35:40 PM
"I Was Forced to Run for President" is the title of my next screenplay.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 16, 2015, 03:07:58 PM
Nah. "The Accidental President."
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 21, 2015, 04:44:36 PM
Isn't that kind of what happened with Obama?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 21, 2015, 04:50:20 PM
It is! Kinda.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 04, 2015, 01:14:59 PM
Your boy Ben is in. Nacho.

http://news.yahoo.com/ben-carson-famed-neurosurgeon-running-president-071906816--election.html (http://news.yahoo.com/ben-carson-famed-neurosurgeon-running-president-071906816--election.html)

Quote
Famed neurosurgeon Ben Carson announces White House campaign

DETROIT (AP) — Retired surgeon Ben Carson has made it official, telling a crowd in his hometown of Detroit that he's running for president.

The former head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins hospital has never run for public office. But he's a star among some conservatives and will try to parlay his success as an author and speaker into a competitive campaign.

He told his rally: "I'm Ben Carson and I'm a candidate for president."

Carson is also expected to be the only high-profile African-American to enter the GOP's presidential primary.

He is the second White House hopeful to get into the Republican race Monday. Former technology executive Carly Fiorina declared her intent to run earlier in the day.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 04, 2015, 03:42:43 PM
"Carson is also expected to be the only high-profile African-American to enter the GOP's presidential primary."

Ha! How many high-profile African-American's will be entering the Democrats' presidential primary?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 26, 2015, 10:16:22 PM
I know the election is over a year away. And while I should be concerned that the fate of this crumbling empire could be put in the hands of any one of the insane GOP candidates, I have to say that the pure chaos of it all makes me kind of excited about 2016. I mean let's face it, isn't this kind of gonzo madness what American politics is all about, at least historically? I'm steeped in Ken Burns "Prohibition" documentary right now, and the candidates of that era make Trump and Mike Huckabee look downright reasonable.

Oh, and Trump could be the GOP candidate. Make no mistake. People will acclimate to his abrasiveness. (And he'll tone it down.) There a lot of people out there who like it as well. He and Chris Christie both should do well. I think somewhere in this thread, I mentioned that Christie should be the front runner, and I'm going to stick to my guns on this. I don't believe the Tea Party is going to call the shots on this one. I think the GOP knows they need a moderate to compete with the Hilary Machine, and I think Christie is just right.

I like Bernie Sanders, but I think the rolling tanks of the Clinton advance are too much for any Dem to stop.

My prediction over a year out is Hilary vs. Christie, with Trump pulling a Ross Perot and running as a third candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 27, 2015, 08:24:17 AM
You think Hillary will survive that long? She's already on the ropes with the whole email fiasco. Her numbers have plummeted. She's shot herself in the foot.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 27, 2015, 09:28:30 AM
Half of the people in the U.S don't know that Benghazi isn't a spicy Indian dish that you have to ask for because they don't put it on the menu!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 27, 2015, 03:27:59 PM
Half of the people in the U.S don't know that Benghazi isn't a spicy Indian dish that you have to ask for because they don't put it on the menu!

I'm talking about the emails. What matters is her abuse of the system. If Reggie did what she did, he would be in handcuffs now. This will just keep snowballing.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on August 04, 2015, 05:31:39 PM
Hillary is still crushing everyone in the polling (like 50% to Sanders' 16).

Amazingly...Trump is on top with 26% for GOP (to 15% for Bush).
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 05, 2015, 07:35:36 AM
Yeah. It's going to be a weird season.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 05, 2015, 11:13:04 AM
It's still really early too. Let's keep that in mind. We're just paying attention now because it's so amazingly bizarre.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 05, 2015, 11:18:30 AM
It's still really early too. Let's keep that in mind. We're just paying attention now because it's so amazingly bizarre.

Indeed.

I predict that Hill-dawg will flame out and we'll get a dark horse, and that Trump will actually pull through and be the GOP nominee.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on August 05, 2015, 05:41:42 PM
Trump will actually pull through and be the GOP nominee.

You might as well say Paris Hilton will be a presidential nominee. That's what he feels like to me. That's how I would feel if that actually happened.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 06, 2015, 07:32:50 AM
Trump will actually pull through and be the GOP nominee.

You might as well say Paris Hilton will be a presidential nominee. That's what he feels like to me. That's how I would feel if that actually happened.

I should copy-paste from when you said this same thing about Reagan in 1976!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on August 13, 2015, 06:42:14 PM
Maybe that's how people felt at the time about him, but this feels completely different. I would vote for Reagan today. I can't imagine ever voting for Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 14, 2015, 01:23:54 AM
On one level, I feel like this is supposed to be a Horowitz/Onion typee article... all the same, I find it fascinating. Is Trump not the candidate we deserve?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/12/7-honest-to-goodness-arguments-for-supporting-donald-trump/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/12/7-honest-to-goodness-arguments-for-supporting-donald-trump/)

Quote
7 honest-to-goodness arguments for supporting Donald Trump

Try as we might, Donald Trump is a phenomenon in presidential politics that we just can't ignore.

About 27 percent of Americans think favorably of Trump, according to a recent national Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters. So before/if the Donald Trump circus comes crashing down -- today, tomorrow, November 2016, maybe never -- we fully expect more people to get on-board with his campaign.

Given all of that, it's high time we go a little deeper into why people like him.

On Monday, a Reddit user provided all of us a case study (warning: bad language at that link) when the user asked Trump supporters to share with the online world why they're fans of Trump. We broke down some of their responses into seven categories of semi-plausible arguments for supporting Donald Trump.

Here they are, in Trump supporters' own words (with profanity edited out when necessary -- Reddit is profane, y'all!):

1) Trump's success will shake up the political establishment

"I'm seriously thinking about voting for trump, and here is why. I firmly believe that our system of government is deeply flawed, if not completely broken. Yet we still keep voting for the same type of people. If trump wins, there's a good chance the whole thing will collapse from his absurdity. Then maybe we could start over and build something better that works. A vote for trump is a vote for full system breakdown, which I believe is exactly what we need."

"He's not the president we need, he's the president we deserve. I'm older than most of you. I remember when politicians worked together sometimes for the greater good. Now, with MSDMC and Faux News controlling the conversation, this country is so divided, nothing gets done. The whole system is what it wasn't supposed to become. The only way to fix it is if the entire system emplodes so we can start over. That's what Trump would do."

2) He's so rich, he can't be bought

"he's not a bought man ( or women ), he does the buying, not the other way roundhe's honest about his opinions, and agree or disagree with them, at least you actually know what he thinkshe's a survivor , he's had up's and downs, and he doesnt give up, he keeps on going, and he comes out on top in the end again and again."

"He's an Economist with a personal investment in the nation's economic health, who can't be bought out by mega corporations."

"Incidentally, Trump might possible be the least corrupt person running (sans the underdogs) due to a complex combination of his own stubbornness towards getting his way, his financial independence and, of course, the fact that almost every possible sponsor wouldn't touch him with the loader suit from Aliens.I laughed at the idea of him defeating ISIS, but I have to admit that his rough plan actually makes perfect sense."

3) Anything's better than another Bush or Clinton

"He's an [BLEEP], but at least he's honest, and isn't really into bull[BLEEP]ing people. Besides, I don't want a third Bush or a second Clinton in office anyway. The Presidency is not a hereditary monarchy."

"I don't like Trump as a person, but let's just remember his statement about illegal immigrants. Even when those comments made everyone throw [criticism] at him and everyone fired him, he wasn't afraid of reiterating them, multiple times. We need that kind of person as president: he doesn't [care] about other people's negative comments. Besides, look at the panorama: a third Bush, a second Clinton... the U.S. government is not a monarchy, the Oval Office is not a [BLEEPING] throne."

4) He'd be a good negotiator

"the Don may not be an expert in foreign affairs, but he doesnt have to be, because he has the business sense to listen to good advice. and just the fact that he is a non nonsense guy helps america on the world stage, and at home. Does anyone think that netanyahu would pull his [BLEEP] if the Don was in charge ? You think putin would laugh at the Don ? he is a strong leader, and thats precisely what america needs right now"

"He (my personal opinion) would make damn good business deals with wary foreign politicians like Putin. Can you imagine if the U.S. was on eye-to-eye business terms with Russia?He wants the U.S. military to modernize their outdated nuclear armaments and policies.He doesn't [care] about stepping on the toes of foreign allies when the U.S. has overwhelming leverage."

5) His past experiences are impressive

"He is an acclaimed pop culture icon. He is an unapologetic [BLEEP]. He is an expert at marketing. He doesn't pander to the offended PC culture. He is open to changing his mind on policies (abortion rights). He's forcing the republican hand by calling them out on their lax immigration policy. He's not bought or paid for, hell he admits he buys and pays for some of the politicians he's running against. He has a very small social filter."

6) It would be amusing

"A Trump, Rand, Clinton, Bernie - Election would be very interesting to see and would actually give people options that mattered."

"Same thing why people love/hate Howard Stern:I want to see what he does next"

"I like him because here in the UK, trump is another word for a fart. It would make my day if the news had to report on President Fart whenever America is in the news. He's also a bit like an American version of Boris Johnson. I don't particularly like him or his policies, but I like to laugh at him. Other than that, I'm not really that bothered who wins the US election."

7) America deserves/needs Trump

"He's not the president America needs, he's the president America deserves."

"I think we probably deserve it as a people. I think maybe we have to hit rock bottom."
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on August 14, 2015, 04:40:46 AM
That makes sense.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 15, 2015, 12:24:22 PM
I want one.

http://boingboing.net/2015/10/15/lovely-trump-they-live-mashu.html (http://boingboing.net/2015/10/15/lovely-trump-they-live-mashu.html)

(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.boingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2Ftrump.jpg&hash=34c37dcb28ddd8557d65e10b7e0bc115)
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 15, 2015, 01:21:55 PM
At a group dinner last night, I realized that I don't know who's running, who's in the lead, or what anyone's platforms are.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 15, 2015, 05:56:18 PM
At a group dinner last night, I realized that I don't know who's running, who's in the lead, or what anyone's platforms are.

That...really doesn't matter at all!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 30, 2015, 09:31:57 AM
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 30, 2015, 10:04:55 AM
We're doomed.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on November 03, 2015, 11:27:23 PM
Donald Trump for president, right?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 04, 2015, 08:22:31 AM
Donald Trump for president, right?

Last I heard, Carson pulled ahead.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on November 04, 2015, 03:59:01 PM
I've seen zero polling with Carson ahead of Trump.

I did see one poll yesterday with Carson topping Hillary head-to-head.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on November 04, 2015, 11:20:28 PM
Trump 2016!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 10, 2015, 12:00:30 PM
You know what I'm fucking sick of? Trump. I'm sick of the people who love him. I'm sick of the people who think he's Hitler.

Here's the truth about Trump. You ready? It's not that exciting.

He can't win.

He'll be lucky to get a majority of delegate votes at the GOP convention, much less actually compete in a general election. Even if he wins every primary in every state, I think it's doubtful the GOP allows him to be the candidate. He's a third party candidate. The GOP will go with Marco Rubio to appeal to Latinos, maybe Ted Cruz to appeal to mediocrity. Trump will run as a third party candidate and split the GOP vote handing the election to Hillary.

There you have it. He's not Hitler. He's not Jesus. He's Ross Perot.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 10, 2015, 12:30:59 PM
I'm sick of people who underestimate Trump!

Right now, it's all for show. The real impact comes once we hit the primaries. If Trump does start winning primaries, then the GOP blocking his nomination is not possible. That's not how the electoral college works. There's not some cabal that says, okay, the college wants to vote for you, but you're exiled.

If Trump manages (and real big if here) to develop a precinct-based machine that wins him states, the only option is for any dissenters in those ranks to split the state vote.

But you have to wonder...will there be dissenters?

Right now, yes, Trump is very much parallel to Ross Perot. He's mastered the showmanship aspect. Where Perot failed is that he didn't know how to create the precinct-level machine that he could bring to the convention. I think we'll all be quite surprised by Trump's ability to understand and manipulate that machine. 
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 10, 2015, 01:07:58 PM
I think the GOP machine regards Trump with the same distaste as they do the Tea Party at this point. They've sullied the brand, by going too far in one direction. If they had their choice of maniac, they'd take Carson over Trump.

As a student of politics, do you really think Trump can win the long game? In order to do so, he has to moderate his message and I absolutely can't see him doing that. His ego is too huge. Ultimately, we don't want our president to be a loose cannon. We want somebody measured who is calm in a shit storm. Even Teddy Roosevelt's bluster was mostly for show.

Also, 2015 America is not 1933 Germany no matter what the insane memes say. Are people stupid enough to vote for Trump? Without a doubt. But I don't see it happening. I find the Nazi parallel ridiculous even with his stupid Muslim registration plan. (Besides, we're already a fascist police state.)

Trump can't win for the same reason Bernie can't win: the general public finds them too "extreme." Both really play to a small base. (Though Bernie isn't actually extreme at all. He's just fighting a system of corruption that's entrenched.) The media loves him because he gets eyes tuning in. He's a reality star.

I'm just sick of Trump invading every aspect of my internet experience.  It's not even 2016 yet.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 10, 2015, 01:44:26 PM
Oh my, god... And you're overestimating America!

"the general public finds them too "extreme.""

Oh? And you're basing that on...? Your liberal DC friends and followers? When you head to WVA, ask the people in the gas station, at the bar... Hell, Sirharles? You reading this? As our resident Republican, if it's Trump v. Hillary, what are you going to do?

I certainly don't agree with the Nazi parallel (again, it's made by people who don't understand how we're governed -- a president Trump wouldn't have the authority to do much of anything, because the GOP will ultimately block him at that stage).

But I do think Trump has the gumption and wherewithal to manipulate (and fucking buy) the precinct-level machine. I think he will carry states. I think he will bring the states to the convention. I think he's more a George Wallace than a Ross Perot. and I think we should be more concerned this time around because he does not have viable competition, as Wallace did (as Perot did).   

I also think we should be concerned because, outside of the cities, we have the people who decide our elections and they're an uneducated rabble easily amused by Trump. Unless the GOP actively steps in now to sideline him -- and they haven't, they won't, they can't -- he's going to get the ball. It'll be his race to lose, and hell only lose it if he fails to negotiate the machine. But remember that that machine is not comprised of the GOPers you know and love and drink with at the Fox & Hounds.

You dismiss him as a reality star. In 2015 America, do you honestly believe that the mass of middle America wouldn't cheerfully vote for a reality star?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 10, 2015, 02:50:11 PM
I think my pinko lib-lab buddies all up in Bernie's junk don't get it either. I like Bernie. Politically, I agree with Bernie. However Bernie is running *against* the machine. Not just the Clinton machine, but the Dems corporate political machine. Bernie isn't going to sway too many folks in the middle. (Though I could make a argument he's less polarizing than Hillary. The irony is that Hillary's camp are the ones making Bernie look like a socialist so she looks like a moderate.)

Now you could argue that Trump, a businessman at his core, has the GOP corporate political machine on his side. But that machine still wants to consolidate it's power. While a populist voice like Trump is what they need, Trump the candidate has disenfranchised too many constituents to be viable. The political machine sees this, which is why the entire moderate GOP base is panicking over Trump. They're looking at the long game. I assume (naively perhaps) that the GOPs understand they are going to need minority constituencies in order to win elections in 21st century America. They know the can't just count on the old white guy vote even with all the district gerrymandering in the world.

You talk about precincts. You think majority Latino precincts are going to vote for Trump? He'll have to back off his hardline immigration reform. He'll have to moderate, and I don't think the people who like Trump will like him if he softens. I think the Muslim registration thing will hurt him outside of middle redneck America. Though maybe he just needs to win VA, Ohio, and Florida and none of it matters.

I do agree that the GOP has no other candidate out there who seems viable so the GOP supporters will vote Trump before they vote Hillary. If it's Trump vs. Hillary, I think a lot of people will simply stay home. I think it'll be the lowest voter turnout for a presidential election in recent history. My belief (again, perhaps naive) is that ultimately, we all swing in the middle somewhere.

And ultimately, I think the GOP machine that wants to consolidate power would like to stop him. They just don't know how.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 10, 2015, 03:37:36 PM
Quote
Though maybe he just needs to win VA, Ohio, and Florida and none of it matters.

Um...yes.

I don't put much stock in the Latino thing. The Latino vote, supposedly, puts so many states into play (of which FLA is the only one that really matters). So when we go back to the precinct-level thing (i.e., the electoral college), FLA is the only player. Maybe GA this time around. But the real face of the electoral college is Ohio, PA, IL, TX... These are places where Trump plays well because they're fucking rubes, or they think it's funny.

The electoral machine is a strange beast. Trump wouldn't have them in his pocket because he's a corporate wonk. All he has to do is convince them that it's time for a change, and that he's that change.

See, since 1968, elections have been about two little cookie cutters running against each other. Cookie Cutter #1 always says this, Cookie Cutter #2 always says that, and everyone toes the line and the small percentage of people who actually vote do what their daddies did.

Despite the over-saturation, we're actually living in interesting times. One party has shattered, the other party is too crippled from their near-permanent defensive crouch that they can't take advantage of the vacuum. This is a protest election. It's a statement election. It's a big, noisy, New Era for The Empire election.

And who better to play that up? The old guard party machine gal, or the enormously amusing orangutan?

I always compare America to the dying days of the Roman Republic, right? Our slow shift into empire. So if that history is accurate, this is Trump's election.

And, you know this. "They know they can't just count on the old white guy vote" -- while I take it out of context to do so, that phase applies to Hillary, and it's what we're all thinking. It's what I'm thinking!

So our only saving grace is -- who will she be up against? And, if Trump actually manages to get that far, could she stand her ground? No.

All conjecture here. We can argue all day. The proof will be in the pudding. If trump starts winning actual primaries and can establish a real base in addition to his reality king status, then the ballgame is over, man. No matter what you wish for. But I bet the chances are pretty even that he'll get there and implode (which is what happened to Perot -- he talked the talked but failed to walk the walk).




   



Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 10, 2015, 03:53:44 PM
We'll see here in a couple months.

I think somebody emerges. Maybe Carson clarifies his message. Despite the fact that he says crazier shit than Trump half the time, Carson seems to me the GOPs best bet. He walks the party line, but step off it much. (Except when he plays to the deep tea party base and sounds like Dave Chappelle's black Klan member.) Sure the white supremacists stay home, but they're not going to carry the election anyway. He'll dip into the back vote.

Rubio is young and charismatic, but gets no traction. Cruz is as crazy as Trump, and 75% less interesting. Fiorina would get absolutely whacked by Hilary. Jeb Bush? Nobody is talking about him anymore.

Also, can't the delegates change their vote at the convention? I know they don't typically, but in the old days wasn't there actual backroom deals that decided the candidate or have I seen Citizen Kane too many times?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 10, 2015, 04:06:05 PM

Also, can't the delegates change their vote at the convention? I know they don't typically, but in the old days wasn't there actual backroom deals that decided the candidate or have I seen Citizen Kane too many times?

"Faithless electors." They are allowed to vote for someone other than the candidate they pledged to vote for. It's never had an impact on an election and it usually spells the end of the elector's career.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 10, 2015, 08:26:02 PM

I certainly don't agree with the Nazi parallel (again, it's made by people who don't understand how we're governed -- a president Trump wouldn't have the authority to do much of anything, because the GOP will ultimately block him at that stage).

Oh really?!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 11, 2015, 09:46:58 AM
That convinces me!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Sirharles on December 11, 2015, 10:41:25 AM
I've been following this thread, and as the "resident Republican" let me say this.  First, I'm not that type of Republican.  I lean more towards a Libertarian stance.  But as that's not an option in our current two party system, I'm labeled a Republican.  If Trump gets the nomination then I'll continue to do what I've been doing for the past year.  Shake my head, and get really really upset about something I can't control.  Maryland will go Dem...no matter what.  So it really doesn't matter on the Presidential ticket who I vote for.  It's the more local elections that have a true effect on my life.  Trumps a ridiculous clown, Hillary is old guard, and I don't agree with her politics.  She's running simply because she thinks it's owed to her.  She doesn't really want it, she's like a child who sees another kid playing with a toy and then wants that toy.  Usually in an election there is at least one candidate who wants the job simply because they think they can fix the country.  I may not agree with their ideas (Obama) or their methods (Bush) but I understand and appreciate their desire to do what they feel is best for the country.  I get that...and I don't see it in a single candidate this year.  Trump wants it because he's bored, rich, and doesn't know what else to do.  Hillary wants it because Bill had it, Carson...he wants it for the same reason Trump does.  He's rich, egotistical, and bored.  Worse is that he doesn't know jack shit about governing.  Trump doesn't either but at least he's got some business sense behind him.  Jeb wants it for the same reason Hillary does (he thinks it's owed to him).   All the others will fade away in time.   

All this being said, my one hope (and I know it won't happen) is Trump gets the nomination.  Turns to the camera and says "you all nominated me...you're fools, you're all fools"  "Did you hear what I said, did you listen to the shit spewing out of my mouth?  This is what needs to be fixed...stop electing people through fear mongering"  **drops mic****
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 11, 2015, 10:58:15 AM
So Trump for you, because MD is a blue state and the president doesn't matter?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 11, 2015, 11:09:11 AM
If the GOP had an honest to god viable moderate candidate, I'm not sure Hilary is electable. She's so divisive. But running against Trump? Or Cruz? I think Carson by the very nature that he's  black shakes up the demographics even as he does spew nonsense.

Sirharles kind of makes my point: Tump makes good TV, but no one really takes him seriously. I guess that's what's scary because this "clown" could be president if we all keep going along with the joke.

All that said, I think it's Hilary's election to lose.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Sirharles on December 11, 2015, 11:21:50 AM
So Trump for you, because MD is a blue state and the president doesn't matter?

No...I wouldn't vote because it doesn't matter.  I'd only vote in the local stuff.  And yes the president matters, but my vote in my state for president doesn't.  And yes, if everyone felt the same as I did then blah blah blah...but I don't care.  Maybe I'm just pissy because this is nothing more than who can shout into the microphone the loudest, or maybe because I'm having a bad day, or maybe I'm a dick.  Don't know...don't care.  I'm so fucking disenfranchised by our government that I've stopped caring.  They won.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 11, 2015, 11:36:25 AM
It's sad that it's come to that. (I feel the same.)
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 11, 2015, 11:44:44 AM
The government hasn't won. The corporations are the ones who have their fingers in everything.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 11, 2015, 12:08:40 PM
The government hasn't won. The corporations are the ones who have their fingers in everything.

One and the same these days.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on December 15, 2015, 09:09:52 AM
If the 'youth' of America get out to vote then Sanders will almost certainly win... *if*.

However, if Sanders did win, I'm pretty sure his 'age' will see his heart attack within a few months from 'stress' - just like Pope John-Paul I.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 15, 2015, 10:02:02 AM
Here's the problem with Sanders: Politically, my views are most in line with him. However, I likely won't vote for him because I don't think he has the political capital to win and even if he does, he's too "fringe" to create a coalition in Congress and the Senate to get anything accomplished. (I feel a Trump or a Cruz would have the same problem. When's the last time we've really had an anything but a moderate in the Presidential office? FDR? Hell, Coolidge?

There are many, many people who think this way about the Bern, by the way. Though the news wants it to be Hillary versus somebody so he's also running against the media conglomerate as well as the other candidates.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on December 15, 2015, 10:07:08 AM
So... a politician with whom you agree on many issues isn't the guy you'd vote for because [enter excuses] and thus he won't get elected, subsequently you would vote for somebody with whom you don't agree because [enter excuses]?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 15, 2015, 10:12:43 AM
Yeah, RC. What Monkey said.

Oh, and who isn't fringe in this election? Even Hillary will be locked in the usual forever war with Congress which will lead to the same results. When was the last time the president had a functional coalition in Congress? Clinton, for a few months. Reagan, for a few years. Nixon, for a few months...
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 15, 2015, 12:01:58 PM
If it's Bernie vs. Trump, of course I'm going to vote for Bernie. I just don't think he's capable of beating the Clinton machine in the primaries.

I live in Virginia, so my primary never matters in the overall scheme of things. The general election however does, and by that point it's be Lenin vs. Hitler, so I'll vote the party line.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 15, 2015, 12:43:58 PM
So the general mood of the voting public is:

"X doesn't matter because of Y, and A and B are going to get it so I'll just do as I'm told."

Man, there's more emotional investment in voting people off Big Brother... We really are in trouble, aren't we?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 15, 2015, 12:50:26 PM
We've been brainwashed. I say this to people and they look at me like I'm insane, but to me it isn't even debatable.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 15, 2015, 01:02:40 PM
Of course we have been! And in that non-linear way, they even tell us they're brainwashing us. Which makes it odd that people have the reaction that you describe. After all, it's the theme of just about show on TV at the moment.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 15, 2015, 01:05:56 PM
They say "I'm not brainwashed. Everyone else is, but I'm not."

And I roll my eyes, knowing they're totally brainwashed. I'm not, but they are.

 mind-is-blown
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 15, 2015, 01:06:46 PM
"Oh dear..."
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 29, 2015, 03:11:06 PM
Really interesting article at 538 on endorsements.

Pretty predictable on the Dem side. But GOP...guess who's leading? Guess who has none?!?!

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 30, 2015, 10:11:50 AM
Not surprising on the GOP side, either, is it? That's what I would expect.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 30, 2015, 12:06:15 PM
I was surprised that 0% polling Bush had the most.
I was surprised that infinity% polling Trump had none.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on December 30, 2015, 12:16:38 PM
Trump's a populist. I don't see him getting Reps and Senators and Governors endorsing him. They're going to endorse the bog standard party line people (AKA Bush and Clinton). They sort of have to to keep their jobs. If Senator so and so suddenly comes out for Trump, he'll be stoned to death on the Senate floor.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 30, 2015, 01:38:56 PM
You're probably right on that. Getting kind of excited for the primaries to start!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 16, 2016, 05:04:42 PM
Trump's Hitler Youth program begins...

Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 01, 2016, 03:03:10 PM
This site is great:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

I refresh every day and get data.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 01, 2016, 04:08:32 PM
Sanders v. Trump is basically my dream fight. It'll be like being at a dinner party with Larry David and Sam Kinison.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 01, 2016, 05:03:28 PM
For maximum insanity, I have to agree. We'd basically be guaranteed 4 years of insanity...possibly a revolution and/or civil war!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 01, 2016, 05:25:41 PM
I'm all for either one... Let's face it, Hillary is the boring choice. I don't know what's worse -- four years of insanity and a civil war or four more years of Easy Cheese on Wonder Bread.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 02, 2016, 07:12:02 AM
Woke up too early (for a gig) to the results that seem far more normal than the media has been telling me this election is going be.

I'll you this: Cruz can't beat Hillary if that's the way it rolls in a general election. That guy couldn't be more unlikable.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 02, 2016, 07:20:35 AM
This was the big test -- back to our convo earlier in this thread. If Trump had pulled off this win then it proved he wasn't all talk and could actually work the machine.

However, I'm not ready to clap just yet. He got awful close. 24% vs Cruz's 27%. That's odd to me... We'll see what new Hampshire brings.

The Sanders/Clinton dead heat is fascinating, isn't it? 49.9 vs 49.5 with 99.9% reporting. A Pyrrhic victory for Clinton. Her center is not holding. 

Also, literally nobody voted for your former governor, RC. He's among this morning's hashtag LOLs.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on February 02, 2016, 11:44:15 AM
A tie should be considered a loss for Hillycunterary who supposed herself the favourite.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 02, 2016, 12:21:01 PM
Oh, yes. This is bad news for her.

But...we knew that. We're only assuming it's a Hillary race because she's the only Old Guard on the Dem side.

But maybe the days of the Old Guards are finally over?

It's that thought that kind of makes me want to see Trump make a run here. Yes, he's bad for all of us. But he does represent a big change in politics. If we end up Trump v. Sanders, it'll break the machine. Then, if we survive the next four years, we may have a new political attitude in place to fill the vacuum and...

...wait...


Are those air raid sirens?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 02, 2016, 06:37:14 PM
Fascinating watch on CNN last night. Bernie's polling very well in NH (as he should) and should win by a lot. Then we'll see what happens next.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 03, 2016, 10:57:35 AM
And now we start the body count! Rand Paul joins Graham, Huckabee, Jindal, Pataki, Perry, and Walker.

On the Dems side, O'Malley and Guy We Haven't Heard Of are out. So I guess that'll be a Clinton/Sanders ticket, or vice versa. We can stop paying attention to that side now.

Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 03, 2016, 01:32:42 PM
I'm so yellow dog Dem at this point that I can just stop paying attention until November right?

I'm okay with either Hillary or Bernie at this point.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 03, 2016, 01:37:13 PM
But now is when it gets fun! Until Trump self-destructs, then it'll be  snorebot!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 03, 2016, 01:38:28 PM
It is getting a little fun, especially with no dog in the hunt. I can simply sit up in my tower and eat popcorn while the future of this dying republic crumbles and dies.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 03, 2016, 04:02:27 PM
Santorum is out!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on February 09, 2016, 04:37:06 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Fimages%2Fg%2FWv0AAOSw%7EbFWHnwN%2Fs-l300.jpg&hash=c05d9e7b72c522312ef1d6cb081cda1b)
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2016, 10:02:35 AM
So, then. Trump takes NH by a landslide. Cruz is a distant third.

Meanwhile, Sanders crushes Hilldawg.

I think the game is afoot.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2016, 11:42:59 AM
Monkey just reminded me that we have to explain our weird, medieval system to him.

So Feb 20th is South Carolina (and a couple inconsequential states) for the Republicans. "Super Tuesday" is March 1st, where a whole bunch of states go at once. Whoever emerges from that is probably the person who'll survive the whole run. The whole thing is over in mid-June, but we'll have a clear picture by then. Conventions (and nominations) are in July. Then the two nominees fill up our news cycles until November.

Basically, the nomination is tied up when the candidates win a certain number of delegates from the states. There are thousands of delegates up for grabs. Committed delegates supposedly have their votes locked in, but I'm now expecting July to be about breaking the system in fun and exciting ways.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 10, 2016, 03:11:32 PM
South Carolina, New York and Michigan are interesting ones to watch on the Dems side. Hillary has huge polling leads in these states. I think that's where the Sanders wheels come off.

Trump continues to poll as the front runner in every single race by wide margins. And NH came in right on the poll numbers for him.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2016, 03:41:36 PM
I hate how the internet is freaking out about Trump. Getting him into office would be the best thing ever for American politics -- it would unite Congress, force people to think twice about staunchly sticking to their party lines, and he won't be able to do anything of consequence. Nor, do I think, does he want to!

All of the other Republican potentials would lead us to war and destruction. I get a Dead Zone feeling for all of them.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 10, 2016, 04:00:34 PM
Also, if you want to be sad about what the primaries actually mean... Google "democratic delegate count" Note Hillary's "super delegate padded" lead of hundreds after losing or almost losing in the first two primaries.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2016, 04:09:50 PM
The superdelegate thing pisses me off to no end.

Though Hilldawg tried to use her superdelegate support to oust Obama, to no avail. This is how it looked in 08. If she continues to crash and burn, then the supers could easily shift over to Sanders. There's no historical precedent where the superdelegates have "stolen" the election. Ultimately, they'll follow the masses.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2016, 04:28:30 PM
The Republican death toll continues. Fiorina is out.

Unconfirmed: Christie is also out. He's making an announcement sometime today.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 10, 2016, 05:52:29 PM
The superdelegate thing pisses me off to no end.

Though Hilldawg tried to use her superdelegate support to oust Obama, to no avail. This is how it looked in 08. If she continues to crash and burn, then the supers could easily shift over to Sanders. There's no historical precedent where the superdelegates have "stolen" the election. Ultimately, they'll follow the masses.

Here's what Reggie is talking about:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hillary-earns-more-new-hampshire-delegates-than-sanders-after-loss/ (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hillary-earns-more-new-hampshire-delegates-than-sanders-after-loss/)

Quote
After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders

Though Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary in a landslide over Hillary Clinton, he will likely receive fewer delegates than she will.
Sanders won 60 percent of the vote, but thanks to the Democratic Party’s nominating system, he leaves the Granite State with at least 13 delegates while she leaves with at least 15 delegates.

New Hampshire has 24 “pledged” delegates, which are allotted based on the popular vote. Sanders has 13, and Clinton has 9, with 2 currently allotted to neither.

But under Democratic National Committee rules, New Hampshire also has 8 “superdelegates,” party officials who are free to commit to whomever they like, regardless of how their state votes. Their votes count the same as delegates won through the primary.

New Hampshire has 8 superdelegates, 6 of which are committed to Hillary Clinton, giving her a total of 15 delegates from New Hampshire as of Wednesday at 9 a.m.

The state’s 2 remaining superdelegates remain uncommitted.

In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 10, 2016, 05:55:21 PM
Exactly. Though if Nacho is right (I did not pay as close attention to this in 2012), "pledged" super delegates can simply unpledge themselves.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 10, 2016, 06:03:49 PM
Super delegates could actually decide this one. (Which I think is what Nacho means by "expecting July to be about breaking the system.") I think it'll be that close.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2016, 07:38:53 PM
I'm saying that they aren't pledged and have switched in the past. In fact, a superdelegate is officially an "unpledged delegate." That's the definition. They can support anyone they want (including people who aren't running). They can switch whenever they want. If a candidate drops out and endorses someone else, it's up to the superdelegates whether or not the'll obey.

Hillary is the establishment person, so they're mostly with her...for now. This is just the starting position. This happens everytime.

They all sided with Hillary in 2008 and Obama was beating her with the majority popular votes. We saw this exact same pattern. Hillary had the superdelegates, Obama was the front runner. So she caved and gave her delegates to Obama. Viola!

I'm also saying that the superdelegates have never been used to decide a nomination that's contrary to the popular vote. Nor will they ever be. I mean, think about it. That would be the definition of a coup attempt and would hand the White House to the opposition. It would be political suicide if they went rogue the way you all are thinking they will. How in the world would they expect to run a nominee that the people have rejected? Even the morons would be pissed if a group of robber barons elevated someone in spite of what the voters asked for. Further, there aren't enough superdelegates to give a majority. Even if they all stick with Hillary to the bitter end, she'll have to win a super majority of the primaries.

So, if Hillary keeps crashing out, then she'll just give up and ask her delegates to switch to Sanders. Most of them will.

July will break the system if it sees the nomination of non traditional people like Trump and Sanders. That's what I meant with that statement. The system has been made with Hillary and people like her in mind. We now have the very real possibility of seeing a populist and a progressive socialist in pole position. The system will be forced to embrace them. That changes the game.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2016, 08:15:34 PM
PS: Thread is now about how you need a degree to understand the US electoral system.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 11, 2016, 12:55:56 AM
What I'm proposing is that the Dems get to the convention and Bernie has 1,300 delegates and Hilary has 1,250. (Or however fucking many there are.)  In this hypothetical situation, the 700+ Super-delegates could decide who gets the election in what's basically an even split. As a citizen, I wouldn't view this as a coup, though it would controversial to say the least.

Is there a historical precedent for this? Have I had too many Sweetwater 420s tonight?

If we end up with the outliers getting both nominations, i.e. Trump vs. Sanders in the general election, I think most moderates will just stay home. And I think there are more of these moderates/independents/undecideds than people think. We're intellectual pinko-liberal snobs, so of course all our friends are talking about the election, but I still think America at large gives two shits.

This is where Hilary may be the better "liberal" candidate. I think Sanders folks would vote for Hillary rather than turn the White House over to a Trump or Cruz. However, I don't think Hilary supporters feel the same. Moderates will simply say "Cruz or Sanders?! Fuck that. Have fun, Amerika!"
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 11, 2016, 08:07:05 AM
Where the fuck are you finding Sweetwater?! Are they in VA? I demand that you bring some!

So, okay, delegates. There are 794 superdelegates. The States hand out 3253. (My numbers might be slightly off, but that's the proportion).

You need 2,382 to get the nomination.

So, here's what happened in 2008: Hillary had all the superdelegates but Obama was sweeping the primaries. So Hillary has a zillion superdelegates and Obama, despite doing what Sanders did at NH, had a little eensy amount.

But Obama kept doing what he did and kept sweeping. So...the majority speaks. Hillary just wasn't getting the popular vote and she gave up (as any politician who is not trying to become Emperor would do). But she waited a long time.

Now in your scenario -- Sanders and Hillary are in a dead heat -- that's hard to do. A front-runner for the Democrats should be clear by Super Tuesday. If Hillary can tie up a bunch of primaries AND Super Tuesday, then she's back on track. If Sanders grabs a few more states and unbalances Super Tuesday, then maybe we'll see your scenario. If Sanders keeps sweeping... Well, that's the end for Hillary.  The electoral system is sort of built in a way to avoid the neck and neck battle to the finish. The whole purpose is to weed out the losers. The last loser to go is, of course, the strongest one. But...that last loser can be tough. This conversation was a major point in the news during 2008. We're repeating shit to the point where it makes me wonder if I stroked out. Hillary hung on as long as she could and the media was in an uproar because she was keeping her superdelegates. Up until June, it looked like neither she nor Obama would get a majority. Obama pulled ahead on a technicality -- Michigan and Florida held their elections too early and Hillary lost those delegates. (Do we really not remember this? It was in the news cycle for six months!) Obama had the popular vote, but the supers said they were sticking with Hillary. Both were below the threshold, and Hillary said that she was going to go to convention regardless and it would be she and Obama on the stage. The results would be:

1) She'd win in a Vatican-style vote
2) There would be no presumptive nominee

If scenario #2 happens, then they just keep running. The convention declares no nominee and Hillary and Sanders duke it out till November.

That's what's called a brokered convention, by the way. We did get there in 1976, Reagan v Ford, and 84, Mondale v. Hart. And almost got there a few other times. But only for a few hours!

Here's what happens at a brokered convention:

Everyone is freed from their pledge and allowed to vote as they wish. They vote...and vote...and vote....and vote...until a winner is decided. Vatican style! If they fail after a set amount of time, then it's scenario #2. No one wins.

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008
http://www.bustle.com/articles/140694-how-do-superdelegates-work-the-primaries-are-dwarfed-by-this-antiquated-system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Sirharles on February 11, 2016, 10:18:36 AM
PS: Thread is now about how you need a degree to understand the US electoral system.

Mrs. Sirharles teaches this every year.  She starts the lesson with "We are gonna go over something today that will make your head spin"
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 11, 2016, 10:27:40 AM
Yeah, no shit.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on February 11, 2016, 11:30:36 AM
What about needing to pass a basic IQ test before assignment of voting rights?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 11, 2016, 11:35:58 AM
What about needing to pass a basic IQ test before assignment of voting rights?

So...yeah...we did that until the 1960s. But just for black people, ha ha.

(And the Irish, by the way.)
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on February 11, 2016, 11:37:08 AM
It should be for everybody.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 11, 2016, 11:44:12 AM
Dumb people don't actually vote anyway. Our highest voter turnout ever was 80%. That was in 1840. In the last 100 years, the highest has been 62%. In the past 20 years, the highest has been 57%. And that was the Obama! groundswell. On average, only half the registered voters actually cast their vote.

Of the 218 million Americans eligible to vote, only 146 million are registered. Which means, on average, 73 million are actually voting at any given election.

Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on February 11, 2016, 11:47:02 AM
'Dumb people don't vote.' George W. Bush was president for 8 years.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 11, 2016, 12:37:49 PM
'Dumb people don't vote.' George W. Bush was president for 8 years.

He won the first time on a technicality (and actually did not win the popular vote).

He won the second time because Kerry was dumber than he was.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 11, 2016, 01:34:15 PM
'Dumb people don't vote.' George W. Bush was president for 8 years.

I'm with monkey on this one. dumb people do vote because they side with someone like Trump (or Bernie) because they're too lazy to pay attention to the world around them. They're the ones who respond emotionally to simpleton slogans.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 11, 2016, 01:50:57 PM
I would argue that the majority of our population is dumb.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 11, 2016, 04:05:34 PM
I would argue that disagreement with another person does not make them dumb.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 11, 2016, 04:13:00 PM
Unless they're disagreeing with me.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 11, 2016, 04:24:57 PM
'Dumb people don't vote.' George W. Bush was president for 8 years.

I'm with monkey on this one. dumb people do vote because they side with someone like Trump (or Bernie) because they're too lazy to pay attention to the world around them. They're the ones who respond emotionally to simpleton slogans.

In defense of my statement, I'm saying that many people don't pay attention so they respond to broad "Wall Street/Immigrants are evil" type slogans and vote with their gut rather than looking deep at the issues and candidates and making a nuanced and informed decision. *That* is what I mean by dumb.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 11, 2016, 04:38:28 PM
I'd suggest that it's impossible to make a nuanced and well-informed decision because the issues are all the equivalent of the stuff on the back of a cereal box compared to what should really be on our minds and the candidates are so white-washed they make Teddy Ruxpin look like a radical.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 12, 2016, 12:02:08 PM
Ruxpin 2016.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 12, 2016, 12:18:33 PM
Ruxpin 2016.

That blonde neighbor of mine you all have met is the niece of the creator of Teddy Ruxpin.

His story is suitably fucked up, of course.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 12, 2016, 12:37:37 PM
Always wanted to play around with one of those things, but alas...childhood dreams did not come true.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 12, 2016, 12:46:28 PM
I wasn't allowed one because mom said the FBI was using them to spy on households all across America.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 12, 2016, 02:00:26 PM
I wasn't allowed one because mom said the FBI was using them to spy on households all across America.

Wait, Tedy Ruxpin was radioing back in to the FBI? Like he was some sort of secret agent? You're cassette radio could just have easily been a two-way radio too.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 12, 2016, 02:14:16 PM
I wasn't allowed one because mom said the FBI was using them to spy on households all across America.

Wait, Tedy Ruxpin was radioing back in to the FBI? Like he was some sort of secret agent? You're cassette radio could just have easily been a two-way radio too.

It was an actual transmitter that could see you. She actually did buy one and make me watch as she dissected it to prove this.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 12, 2016, 03:56:34 PM
I wasn't allowed one because mom said the FBI was using them to spy on households all across America.

Wait, Tedy Ruxpin was radioing back in to the FBI? Like he was some sort of secret agent? You're cassette radio could just have easily been a two-way radio too.

It was an actual transmitter that could see you. She actually did buy one and make me watch as she dissected it to prove this.

Wait, really?

I would call BS, but this is your family here...
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 12, 2016, 04:23:45 PM
Yep. Mom was a little paranoid sometimes.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on February 14, 2016, 02:13:54 PM
Ruxpin 2016.

I guffawed.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 21, 2016, 08:30:28 AM
Holy nutballs. What a show.

So Jeb is gone, hiding in shame. Trump crushes the opposition, Hillary and Bernie remain pretty much neck-and-neck.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 21, 2016, 10:23:38 AM
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 23, 2016, 03:22:57 PM
So who will die tonight? I think Carson is going to stick with it, since he's spent all day saying Obama is really white. Kasich has been very quiet... Will he surrender before Super Tuesday?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 23, 2016, 06:43:43 PM
Well, tonight is kind of a weird night to quit, with next week being a large number of primaries. However, my money would be on Carson based on him trailing everyone in delegates and Nevada being so white.

However, I could see everyone rolling the dice on pulling one state out next week to stay legitimate. Probably depends on how much money is left more than anything else.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 24, 2016, 08:18:02 AM
Man...Rubio should not have done the Today show. He acted like he was about to burst into tears and start crying, and was downright aggressive to the hosts, shouting them down Kanye West style.

So...when the hosts then talked to a calm, collected, cool, friendly Trump... Wheee....

Meanwhile, Sam Bee's second episode of her show was downright pro-Trump, even couched in comedy. Though she pretty much admitted to wanting a Trump presidency just so she can have material for her show.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 24, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
And how is Rubio a "disciple of Reagan"? He's our age. Does he mean he collected Cabbage Patch Dolls and watched MASK?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on February 24, 2016, 09:08:49 AM
Trump wins again....
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 02, 2016, 08:30:54 PM
So passes Carson.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on March 02, 2016, 11:32:30 PM
Trump wins Super Tuesday.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 03, 2016, 07:37:41 AM
Trump wins Super Tuesday.

The big winner is Cruz, actually. Trump suffered the same fate as Hillary on Super Tuesday -- he had some big wins, but not a solid front. Cruz and Sanders now have the chance to chip away at their opponents. We're on the screaming down side of the rollercoaster at this point. Cruz is less than 100 delegates behind and it'll be an all out war on Trump. 
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on March 03, 2016, 10:09:59 AM
Would not Trump be preferable to Cruz... Mister Dead Eyes Crazy man?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 03, 2016, 10:38:27 AM
Would not Trump be preferable to Cruz... Mister Dead Eyes Crazy man?

YES! Because Trump will get nothing done. The parties will unite against him and he'll be a virtual prisoner in the White House.

Cruz will make Bush look like a My Little Pony... And all the things the idiots are afraid Trump will do, Cruz not only will do as well...but he'll be allowed to do them by our fucking idiot Congress which the same people who complain about Trump allowed to exist because they don't turn out for the midterm election.

Trump's our only hope, really.

Or Hilldawg or Sanders, but I don't know what the fuck is going on there. I' afraid it'll be a Republican win this time around.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on March 03, 2016, 05:03:21 PM
Thought this was interesting:

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton    CNN/ORC   Clinton 52, Trump 44    Clinton +8
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders    CNN/ORC      Sanders 55, Trump 43    Sanders +12
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton            CNN/ORC   Cruz 49, Clinton 48    Cruz +1
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders            CNN/ORC      Sanders 57, Cruz 40    Sanders +17
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton            CNN/ORC   Rubio 50, Clinton 47    Rubio +3
General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders    CNN/ORC      Sanders 53, Rubio 45    Sanders +8

Sanders beats everyone. Clinton only beats Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 04, 2016, 09:53:55 AM
This made me howl
.
http://newsthump.com/2016/03/03/psychiatric-hospitals-filling-up-with-time-travellers-sent-back-to-kill-donald-trump/ (http://newsthump.com/2016/03/03/psychiatric-hospitals-filling-up-with-time-travellers-sent-back-to-kill-donald-trump/)

Quote
Psychiatric hospitals filling up with time travellers sent back to kill Donald Trump

Psychiatric facilities across the United States are at breaking point after the number of people claiming to be sent from the future to stop Donald Trump reached epidemic proportions.

New research has shown that every ten minutes someone claiming to the from the future sent back to save humanity is admitted to a hospital somewhere in the US.

Dr Simon Williams told us, “We’re struggling to cope to be honest. We’re constantly booking people in who’ve been arrested before telling police they are on a secret mission from the future, and have to save the world.

“It used to be ‘I’m Napoleon’ – but not any more.

“To say you’ve been sent from the future to stop Donald Trump is a very unusual psychological delusion, especially to be suffered by so many people, with such a similar stated aim.

“They all say the same thing, they come from a future of riots, war, famine, the collapse of civilised society, and then being sent back to ‘make it all right’.

“I mean, it’s almost like they’re telling the truth and for some unknown reason the future is getting increasingly desperate to stop the rise of Donald Trump and the end of the world he will inevitably bring about.

“He can’t be that bad, can he?”
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 16, 2016, 08:26:14 AM
And Rubio quits!

Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 16, 2016, 09:39:18 AM
Trump or Cruz, eh? God help us.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 16, 2016, 10:12:55 AM
Trump or Cruz, eh? God help us.

Rubio's demise is the end of the Republican Party. We really are being short-sighted in our fear of Trump.

Um...but Cruz. We should fear him.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on March 16, 2016, 12:09:02 PM
Looks like Bernie is going to fade out. He really needed to take Ohio.

 snorebot!

Trump vs. Cruz may provide slight entertainment, but I really don't see anyone but Trump with a path to nomination.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 16, 2016, 12:10:47 PM
Are you watching The Circus on Showtime? It's fascinating...
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 17, 2016, 06:00:22 PM
Anonymous throws down the gauntlet on Trump.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/03/17/anonymous-just-leaked-trumps-social-security-number-private-personal-info/

Quote
It’s On: Anonymous Just Leaked Trump’s Social Security Number, Private Personal Info

The online “hacktivist” group known as Anonymous has set their sights on Republican front-runner Donald Trump. The notorious racist and darling of white supremacists has been targeted by the campaigns #OpTrump and #OpWhiteRose, a reference to the German resistance movement against Nazism in the Third Reich. Their first salvo was fired today when they released private information about Trump to the internet, including his Social Security number and private cellphone number, to the delight of teenage pranksters nationwide.

They released a video in which the group declares their intentions to oppose the candidate at every turn to punish him for his descent into ethnonationalist demagoguery.

One candidate in particular, Donald Trump, has set his ambitions on the White House, in order to promote an agenda of fascism and xenophobia, as well as the religious persecution of Muslims through totalitarian policies. This candidate has openly promoted violence against peaceful protesters, and his words have even been considered as possibly illegal incitement to violence and rioting by law enforcement,” the statement in the video continues.  ‘Members of the military and law enforcement – even Secret Service – must remember their oaths to defend the Constitution itself, and the nation, against enemies “both foreign and domestic.”


Donald Trump is an enemy of the Constitution and the natural rights it enshrines.

To show that we are very serious about stopping any proposed Fourth Reich by the fascist Donald Trump, we have attached a “gift” of sorts: Trump’s social security number, cell phone number and other details that might be able to assist you all in independently investigating this would-be dictator. These are provided for informational purposes only. Do with them what you will, bearing in mind that you alone are responsible for your actions.

Donald Trump, you should have expected us.

The group is planning a massive distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on Trump’s websites, launching on April 1st, targeting target the websites TrumpChicago.com, donaldjtrump.com, trump.com, trumphotelcollection.com, donaldtrump2016online.com, and citizensfortrump.com.

While we don’t condone the releasing of private information to the hive of villainy that is the internet, it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy.

Watch their announcement here:

Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on March 18, 2016, 04:53:00 PM
Hillary would be worse than Cruz or Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on March 18, 2016, 04:55:55 PM
It sucks to be on the bad side of terrorists.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on March 18, 2016, 04:58:50 PM
And war criminals.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2016, 09:25:53 AM
Wow...so all the shit that happened in the two weeks GS was down...I don't know where to begin! Bloody protests against trump, Bernie shutting down his staff. GS went to sleep and, when it woke up, it was Hilldawg Nation.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 29, 2016, 02:52:35 PM
I became a Democrat to vote for Bernie.
Now I will unbecome one.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2016, 02:53:12 PM
The Unbecoming!!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 04, 2016, 11:41:37 AM
Cruz drops out! How do I return this mail order rifle?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on May 04, 2016, 01:23:24 PM
Cruz drops out! How do I return this mail order rifle?

And Kasich! So Trump is it.

How exciting. Remember earlier in this thread when I was the lone voice saying we'd be at this pass?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 05, 2016, 07:51:37 AM
Trump will actually pull through and be the GOP nominee.

You might as well say Paris Hilton will be a presidential nominee. That's what he feels like to me. That's how I would feel if that actually happened.

I feel like Paris Hilton might be a better choice.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on May 05, 2016, 08:52:26 AM
Trump will actually pull through and be the GOP nominee.

You might as well say Paris Hilton will be a presidential nominee. That's what he feels like to me. That's how I would feel if that actually happened.

I feel like Paris Hilton might be a better choice.

I've always liked Paris Hilton.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2016, 12:24:45 PM
I don't think Trump will beat Hillary unless she's indicted.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 05, 2016, 12:27:11 PM
I think you're right. But, I don't know; I've seen more pro-Trump rhetoric on my facebook feed in the last couple days than in the last 6 months.

And of course there's... ‪#‎DropOutHillary‬
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2016, 12:29:44 PM
The hardcore Bernie folks will need a few months to calm down after the convention, but I can't imagine most of them will just sit by idly and watch Trump get elected.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 05, 2016, 12:45:13 PM
I dunno, he energized and attracted a lot of independent voters (like me) who are No (Hell NO) to Hillary (like me).
I'll pick 3rd party and let the chips fall where they may. For the first time since Perot I think there is a big mainstream independent vibe...would love to see Bernie go that route.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2016, 12:52:45 PM
Bernie as a third party candidate will hand the election to Trump. Though the Green Party has already offered him their spot on the ballots if Hill-Dawg is the democratic nominee.

The key for the Dems is to unify the Bernie and the Hillary people at the end of it all, no matter who ends up the candidate. I think Hill-Dawg will get the nomination because she has all the old party machinery on her side and despite what Twitter and Facebook wants to tell us, that shit is still in charge.

I also think either Bernie or Hillary can beat Trump, so I have no dog in the hunt. I'm an "anybody but Trump" voter.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on May 05, 2016, 01:50:03 PM
I have a problem voting for HillDawg (though I will, of course, if given no choice). But I like to think I'm pretty liberal and I feel like I won't be 100% surprised or worried if Trump gets in. Hillary rubs me the wrong way. She seems like she's really just a different sort of Trump, you know? At least you can hear Trump coming.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2016, 01:52:09 PM
I'm with you. She in some ways *is* more evil.

It's not necessarily Trump himself that bothers or scares me. It's the people who support Trump that make me fear for humanity.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on May 05, 2016, 01:55:20 PM
I'm with you. She in some ways *is* more evil.

It's not necessarily Trump himself that bothers or scares me. It's the people who support Trump that make me fear for humanity.

They don't matter because none of them are elected officials. We've always been surrounded by those people, RC. Trump has just given them a voice. But, unlike in Weimar Germany (where those people weren't quite sure where their next meal was coming from, or if they even could get a next meal), the voice of those people will be short lived.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2016, 02:07:20 PM
I get that. Some poeple just want to bus heads.Though we live in an age of "mob rule" that makes me uncomfortable. I feel like a Trump victory will give a legitimacy to that.

Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2016, 03:12:35 PM
Clickbait headline that hides a really thoughtful and historical perspective on Trump supporters... even if it does get a little "Rah Rah Bernie" at the end.

http://www.stirjournal.com/2016/04/01/i-know-why-poor-whites-chant-trump-trump-trump/ (http://www.stirjournal.com/2016/04/01/i-know-why-poor-whites-chant-trump-trump-trump/)
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 06, 2016, 07:37:28 AM
Very interesting article on the (still raging) battle between Bernie & Hillary. Focuses on her probable inability to win nomination outright without superdelegates.

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on May 11, 2016, 11:02:16 AM
Two more to go. So Hilldawg is probably going to come in just under the amount needed. Sanders is showing all the usual signs of someone about to step out of the race but he's not actually doing so... That should be interesting.

Trump's kind of in the same boat, but his competition has all imploded so less fun exciting on that side of the fence.

We're almost ready to spend all summer watching two terrible candidates duke it out!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 11, 2016, 11:52:40 AM
Seriously, the GOP is completely missing the boat on a great opportunity.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on May 11, 2016, 12:06:26 PM
Seriously, the GOP is completely missing the boat on a great opportunity.

Making a 24/7 reality show documenting their soap opera-style explosive decline?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 11, 2016, 12:14:19 PM
Yes, that.

Also, when presented with a wildly disliked candidate, deciding to run... an even more wildly disliked candidate!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on May 24, 2016, 10:00:44 AM
I hope you guys are ready for your new God Emperor Donald Trump because he'll destroy the crooked, flip-flop establishmentarian also known as Bill Clinton's wife and pre-purchased Saudi puppet now that Shillary's best friends helped her cheat Sanders out of the nomination with lies of 'popular vote' - which isn't true - and favouritism in delegate counts - Sanders wins 55% but he gets 7/14 delegates whilst Hillary wins 51% and gets 15/20 delegates.

Most polls show Donald Trumps Hillary but Sanders has the Trump card over Donald.

And, no - it wasn't at all pun-ishing to write such a pun-chy line.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on May 24, 2016, 10:02:01 AM
Man, I think I overhear those same exact words every time I sit down at a bar.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on May 24, 2016, 10:02:50 AM
I'm not surprised - this is the present zeitgeist.

Nobody wants Hillary. Everybody wants Sanders. The mad want Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 24, 2016, 10:34:39 AM
Unfortunately, some people wanted Hillary before they wanted Sanders and now it's too late.

Except for the mad.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on May 30, 2016, 12:46:24 PM
Present rumour seems to be that of Hillary's pending indictment via FBI for both RICO and official secrets acts.

LOLz.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on May 30, 2016, 01:21:06 PM
Present rumour seems to be that of Hillary's pending indictment via FBI for both RICO and official secrets acts.

LOLz.

It started with a Republican Trumper from Texas saying he had "friends" at the FBI who told him this was happening soon. It's bullshit.

That said... The general feeling on both sides is that she should be indicted.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on June 04, 2016, 11:52:56 AM
There is so little chance of her being indicted. Worst that happens, some of her aides are sent to trial.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on June 06, 2016, 09:48:23 AM
The FBI has really pussied out since Nixon.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on June 29, 2016, 12:13:34 PM
So...is it time to start talking about Cleveland?

We're three weeks to go. The riot mobs are readying themselves. So are the police. The courts have outlawed all official protest proposals. Nobody has signed up to speak and all major corporate sponsors have pulled out.

The Bushes, Romney, and many GOP bigwigs are not going. Those who are going, like Ryan, are going because they have to, and will probably talk more about GOP unity than Trump.

It all begins on July 18th, with Trump expected to accept the nomination (it sounds like he'll have to crown himself) on the 21st.

Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 29, 2016, 12:59:17 PM
Summer of '68 anyone? Anyone?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on June 29, 2016, 01:33:32 PM
Summer of '68 anyone? Anyone?

Except with Nazis and stabbings and trigger happy cops.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 29, 2016, 04:48:49 PM
So Summer of '69 then?

Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 12, 2016, 12:55:13 PM
The Bern stings no longer. He just endorsed Clinton at a joint rally.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 12, 2016, 02:17:24 PM
Bernie who?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on July 12, 2016, 10:03:25 PM
Bernie peepee.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 14, 2016, 02:42:54 PM
So ends Mike Pence's already nonexistent political career.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 14, 2016, 03:03:36 PM
Maybe he'll get caught having sex with a male prostitute before all is said and done.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 14, 2016, 03:05:56 PM
Come on, RC, this isn't a race for Congress!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 14, 2016, 04:05:39 PM
*BOOM*


Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 19, 2016, 07:28:19 AM
Today's highlight is that Melanie Trump's speech last night was mostly Michelle Obama's speech from 2008.

CNN's side-by-side comparison is fun:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/melania-trump-michelle-obama-speech/index.html
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 21, 2016, 01:34:06 PM
So...Ted Cruz. I guess my only real question is: Why was he scheduled to talk in the first place? I mean, duh.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 22, 2016, 09:54:10 AM
The broadcast from Nuremberg was lovely last night. All those soldiers in all those squares. I think great things are ahead!

Oh, wait, sorry. 
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 22, 2016, 04:49:30 PM
I'm trying desperately to ignore the RNC, but it's impossible.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 23, 2016, 09:13:07 AM
Tim Kaine will heal us!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on July 26, 2016, 12:44:08 PM
All hail God Emperor Trump!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 26, 2016, 01:24:24 PM
WORM SIGN!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on July 26, 2016, 01:51:17 PM
Praise the spices!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 26, 2016, 02:09:45 PM
Praise the spices!

That made me laugh.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 26, 2016, 04:16:37 PM
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 26, 2016, 07:57:32 PM
Hillary is officially the first female candidate for president in the country's history. Pretty cool.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 27, 2016, 07:35:12 AM
Hillary is officially the first female candidate for president in the country's history. Pretty cool.

I don't understand all the freaking out about this. It's been the inevitable conclusion for a year. What did everyone think was going to happen? The delegates would all inexplicably switch their vote for Bernie?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on July 27, 2016, 10:49:54 AM
Hillary is officially the first female candidate for president in the country's history. Pretty cool.

I don't understand all the freaking out about this. It's been the inevitable conclusion for a year. What did everyone think was going to happen? The delegates would all inexplicably switch their vote for Bernie?

Is it cool?

There appears to be a greater perception that Hillary is only there because she's a woman. Statistical certitude of electoral fraud before the email leaks gave proof from the horse's mouth that she'd set up the DNC to make sure she wins because the DNC wants to tick their 'First [blank]' box regardless of candidate suitability.

Hillary is a weak candidate who avoids all public speaking because she's slipping into dimensia and cannot formulate cogent argument without a TelePrompTer. Her aides frequently mention her 'confusion' and inability to process information. This doesn't sound cool.

Nor is Hillary a role model for women - she behaves like a man in the worst conceivable manner. What is the role model, behave like a horrible man-woman to free women? Also, her supposed 'women's lib' policies are little more than hypocrisy. 'All women victims of sexual assault should be heard' except for those 20 or so women who accused her husband, nor that 12 year old rape victim whose attacker Hillary got free in full knowledge he was guilty. Her 'pro gay' policies are also hypocrisy.

Why?

She takes tens of millions of dollars from rulers of countries where being gay will see execution, where being a woman outside alone will see her beaten, if she's raped she will be stoned to death for adultery, countries in which women are not allowed education beyond 12 years old, not allowed to vote or drive. How does one reconcile this?

So, yeah - I guess it's pretty cool you guys have the first female presidential candidate who is a horrible monster and is there just because she's a woman and for no other reason.

*slow clap*
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 27, 2016, 11:02:54 AM
Hillary's "dementia" is an interesting topic, actually. Surprised that's not more in the news. She was the only candidate who refused to speak to the folks who made The Circus (the way underwatched and underrated show that followed all of the candidates from start to finish). The way she refused to talk to them is simply bizarre... At the end of every event, Hillary is surrounded by secret service and whisked away. The Circus folks -- always kept at a safe distance by armed guards -- filmed her exits from events repeatedly. They'd back up a SUV to the exit and literally roll her in. You couldn't even get a glimpse of her.

She even cooled the heels of the Broad City gals when she did an awkward and weird cameo on their show. She's apparently not capable of memorizing more than a few lines and can barely interact with people on any meaningful level.

I find her disgusting. It's going to be very hard voting in November... I think I may, for the first time, go third party. We do have the great Gary Johnson on our ballots this year.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 27, 2016, 11:05:48 AM
Reagan got by just fine forgetting what he had for breakfast. Hillary will too.

Unless Herr Trump wins which I think its all but inevitable after Brexit.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 27, 2016, 11:12:15 AM
And my feelings these days on Third parties walk with Dan Savage. I italicized the important shit.

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/19/24362128/dan-savage-on-jill-stein-just-no (http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/19/24362128/dan-savage-on-jill-stein-just-no)

Quote
Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No.

How do we build a viable third party to the left of shitty Democrats in the United States? "You run people not just for fucking president every four fucking years," says Dan Savage. (You also lower the bar on getting third party candidates into debates.)

This exchange happened back in May at the 20 minute mark on the 500th episode of the Savage Lovecast, but a listener named Ray Everett began sharing transcript on Facebook on this week. We reproduce it here for your edification:

CALLER: Hi my name is Pheasant and I live in Kansas. My question is, why — you guys talk a lot about politics — I would love to hear you guys talk about third party politics: Independent Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party.

I’m a huge Green Party supporter; I’m voting for Jill Stein. And I realize that people say that if you vote for these, it’s just a wasted vote, it’s a vote for Republicans.

But I also feel we need to start sending a message to Washington and to our political leaders that we’re sick and tired of this two party system and candidates who are controlled by corporations and special interest groups. And they can’t piss off their donors, you know, because they buy the votes.

So I’m just wondering why you guys never talk about it because I think Jill Stein — she’s a member of the Green Party — she’s amazing. And for the people that bitch and moan about… Hillary didn’t always support gay rights, and Bernie didn’t always support this… I agree with you Dan, I think it's ridiculous how — that people can change. That’s what we want, we try to get people — hey, stop being a homophobic asshole, hey stop being a racist prick. But you know the Green Party has never changed. They’ve always supported gay rights, equality for all, the environment…

DAN SAVAGE: Alright, blah blah blah. Sorry I had to stop you. Yeah, let’s talk about the Green Party for just a moment, or third parties, getting a third party movement off the ground here in this country. Because we are sick of the two party system!

Here’s how you fucking do that: you run people not just for fucking president every four fucking years.

I have a problem with the Greens, I have a problem with the Libertarians. I have a problem with these fake, attention seeking, grandstanding Green/Libertarian party candidates who pop up every four years, like mushrooms in shit, saying that they're building a third party. And those of us who don't have a home in the Republican Party, don't have a home in the Democratic Party, can't get behind every Democratic position or Republican position, should gravitate toward these third parties. And help build a third party movement by every four fucking years voting for one of these assholes like Jill fucking Stein, who I'm sure is a lovely person, she's only an asshole in this aspect.

If you're interested in building a third party, a viable third party, you don’t start with president. You don't start by running someone for fucking president.

Where are the Green Party candidates for city councils? For county councils? For state legislatures? For state assessor? For state insurance commissioner? For governor? For fucking dogcatcher? I would be SO willing to vote for Green Party candidates who are starting at the bottom, grassroots, bottom up, building a third party, a viable third party.

You don't do that by trotting out the reanimated corpse of Ralph fucking Nader every four fucking years. Or his doppelgänger, whoever it is now, Jill Stein and some asshole-to-be-named four years from now. You start by running grassroots, local campaigns. And there've been — and I'm sure we're going hear from lots of people out there listening — there have been a couple of Green Party candidates who’ve run in other races here and there across the country. But no sustained effort to build a Green Party nationally. Just this griping, bullshitty, grandstanding, fault-finding, purity-testing, holier than thou-ing, that we are all subjected to every four fucking years by the Green Party candidate.


And the folks, including you caller — and I love you and I respect you and we’re having this debate and I'm not treating you with kid gloves because I respect you — who are fooled by them, who are sucked into this bullshit, who are tricked by these grandstanding, attention-seeking, bullshit-spewing charlatans, into wasting your vote.

Which is what you are going to do, I'm sorry to say, to circle back to the top of your call. You are essentially, if you're voting for Jill Stein, helping to potentially elect Donald J. Trump president of these United States. Which would be a catastrophe.

Which is what some people say that they want. People supported Ralph Nader in 2000 and said there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush, therefore we could all afford to throw our votes away, protest-style, on Ralph Nader, who had no hope of getting elected, because there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

These same people, at the same time, said that George Bush was so manifestly obviously terrible that he would bring the revolution if he got himself elected somehow. They didn’t say this about Gore, he wouldn’t bring the revolution. They’re exactly the same, exactly as awful, but one would bring the revolution and one wouldn’t. Which means they weren't exactly the same and they weren't equally awful.

And we're hearing the same thing now about Hillary and Donald. That they’re both equally awful. They're both equally terrible, corrupt two party system, fuck it, fuck it, fuck it. Fuck them both, fuck both their houses! Vote for Jill Stein!

And if Donald should get elected, oh he’s so terrible, so much worse than the equally awful Hillary Clinton, that his election will bring the revolution.

It's bullshit.

The revolution did not come in 2000 when George W. Bush got close enough to winning to steal the White House. It will not come if Donald J. Trump gets his ass elected.

Disaster will come. And the people who’ll suffer are not going to be the pasty white Green Party supporters — pasty white Jill Stein and her pasty white supporters. The people who’ll suffer are going to be people of color. People of minority faiths. Queer people. Women.

Don’t do it. Don't throw your vote away on Jill Stein/vote for, bankshot-style, Donald Trump.

And if you want to build a viable third party, more power to you. I could see myself voting for a Green Party candidate for president in 25 years, after I've seen Green Party candidates getting elected to state legislatures, getting elected to governorships, getting elected to Congress. Then you can run some legitimate motherfucker for president.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on July 27, 2016, 11:15:30 AM
Disgusting crooked Hillary versus Narcissus Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 27, 2016, 11:22:11 AM
Reagan got by just fine forgetting what he had for breakfast. Hillary will too.

Um... No. He didn't. He was catastrophic for the nation on almost every level. He tripled the deficit and the only thing that kept us from collapsing economically was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Essentially, Reagan played a bluff with...everything. The fact that he won doesn't change the fact that we could have seen the collapse of the United States instead, and it took us 15 years to bail out of the debt he created. Our rocky economic ground today is thanks to that insanity.

Unemployment soared and the income gap became wider than ever before. That income gap, by the way (the birth of the Yuppie) is what we're now struggling against today. The one percenters wouldn't be one percenters if not for Reagan's misguided economic policies. The class-related social strife we're now struggling with roots back to the 80s.

Reggie, if he wasn't in Secretville, would chime in about the bloating of the government. Reagan essentially subsidized his expensive bluff with the Soviets by creating Potemkin Village government positions.

Then we have the Iran-Contra Affair.  The veto of the anti-Apartheid Act. The creation of the Taliban.

His wife took orders from a mystic, and, well, the video below isn't him joking. He was adamant that an invasion was imminent and claimed to have seen UFOs many times.

Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on July 27, 2016, 11:25:30 AM
Yeah - in your face, RC!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 27, 2016, 11:30:32 AM
Quote
If you're interested in building a third party, a viable third party, you don’t start with president. You don't start by running someone for fucking president.

Where are the Green Party candidates for city councils? For county councils? For state legislatures? For state assessor? For state insurance commissioner? For governor? For fucking dogcatcher? I would be SO willing to vote for Green Party candidates who are starting at the bottom, grassroots, bottom up, building a third party, a viable third party.

You don't do that by trotting out the reanimated corpse of Ralph fucking Nader every four fucking years. Or his doppelgänger, whoever it is now, Jill Stein and some asshole-to-be-named four years from now. You start by running grassroots, local campaigns. And there've been — and I'm sure we're going hear from lots of people out there listening — there have been a couple of Green Party candidates who’ve run in other races here and there across the country. But no sustained effort to build a Green Party nationally. Just this griping, bullshitty, grandstanding, fault-finding, purity-testing, holier than thou-ing, that we are all subjected to every four fucking years by the Green Party candidate.

Savage needs to check his facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_members_of_state_legislatures_of_the_United_States

Additionally, we have three third party senators (two if you don't count Bernie), one Representative and one governor.

At the very local level there are four city mayors and:

http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials

And, since he's so hot n the Green Party: http://www.gp.org/officeholders
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 27, 2016, 11:40:03 AM
Yeah - in your face, RC!

UHN!!

And yet we're still all here.

(And I would argue it was Bill Clinton's deregulation rather than Reagan's that created the 2008 mess.)

Never mind, though. You've convinced me. I'll vote for Trump. Bring on the Panzer Division. That's my other option right? That or don't vote. Or vote for a third party with no chance of winning on "principle." (And don't give me that "if we get the vote out" crap. Less people will vote in this election than any since the 70s.)

I'm okay with Hillary. It's not popular to say, but she's fine. I don't find her nearly as offensive (or divine) as everybody else does. She'll be no worse than say Gerald Ford, or Obama, or Johnson. In fact, LBJ is probably the most apt comparison. She'll keep her lefty base happy while propping up the economy with sneaky little deregulations. Status quo is fine for a little longer before the water runs out.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 27, 2016, 11:44:04 AM
Savage responded to the "check your facts" counter.

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/22/24376309/how-green-is-her-bullshit-an-uncharacteristically-brief-response-to-the-green-partys-spokespersons-dishonest-response-to-my-podcast-rant (http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/22/24376309/how-green-is-her-bullshit-an-uncharacteristically-brief-response-to-the-green-partys-spokespersons-dishonest-response-to-my-podcast-rant)

Quote
How Green Is Her Bullshit: An Uncharacteristically Brief Response to the Green Party Spokesperson's Dishonest Response to My Podcast Rant

So a non-pasty-faced Green Party spokesperson/hack had this to say yesterday in response to something pasty-faced me said on my podcast months ago:

    First, the Green Party actually does run candidates from dog catcher on up. Here are just a few of our currently seated elected officials around the country.... Your readers can find even more at our database, here. These names and offices may not impress Dan Savage, but we each have way more skin in the electoral game than he has shown to date. We’re running candidates for all levels of state and federal government too, and some of our featured candidates are here, the list of which include Dr. Margaret Flowers, who activists will recognize as a fighter for single-payer healthcare, against the TPP and the editor of PopularResistance.org. In my home state of Colorado, we are proud to support our U.S. Senate candidate, Arn Menconi, a former elected county commissioner from the area around Vail. So, you see, Savage’s assertion that we only run presidential candidates is incorrect...

You got me, Andrea Mérida Cuéllar: I haven't run for office. My own pasty skin isn't in the electoral game and never will be. But can't the same could be said for, oh, almost all of the members of the Green Party? The overwhelming majority of whom haven't run for office and will never will? If people who haven't run for office aren't allowed to hold or share political opinions, then perhaps Cuéllar would be so kind as to tell the Green Party stooges littering up my Twitter feed to delete their accounts.

And it's true, as Cuéllar points out, that not everyone in the Green Party is pasty-faced. But I'd like to see a breakdown of Green Party membership by race. I suspect that the Green Party, like the GOP, is overwhelmingly white. The African American delegate from Texas in the cowboy hat at the Republican National Convention—he spent more time on national television this week than Mike Pence—is probably annoyed when people describe the GOP "overwhelmingly white." The GOP likes to point to the small number of Republican elected officials who are Black or Hispanic to refute the overwhelmingly-white/pasty-faced/previously-covertly-but-now-overtly-racist charge. We don't take that argument seriously when apologists/hustlers for the GOP make it and we don't have to take it seriously when the Greens do. (Your party isn't overwhelmingly white? Data, please.)

Now back to this:

    First, the Green Party actually does run candidates from dog catcher on up. Here are just a few of our currently seated elected officials around the country...

At the Green Party's database—which is a mess—you have to count the number of candidates by hand. My count came to 116; there will be 117 Greens running in this cycle after the party hosts formally nominates proud anti-vaxxer quack and sexist shitbag Dr. Jill Stein.

There are, according to the best calculations, 520,000 elected offices in the United States. The Greens, again, are running 117 candidates in this cycle. I'm gonna fire up my vintage Casio FX-4000P calculator and do a little math. Divide 117 by 520,000 and you get... .0002. So the Green Party, which wants to be taken seriously and is so running candidates all over the place and wants our votes (and will fall down on the floor crying about how you aren't a real progressive if you don't vote for their odious presidential candidate and help the Greens put a toxic Republican in the White House AGAIN), a party whose Twitter brigades routinely lie about running “hundreds of candidates” all over the country this cycle, that party is competing for .02% of the elected offices in the United States. (In fairness, elections aren't being held for every office this year or in any other year. But these numbers are fucking pathetic regardless)

In my original rant—which, again, is months old but somehow went viral just as I'm about to leave for vacation (thank you, Ansel)—I acknowledged that the Greens do, in fact, field candidates:

    And there've been—and I'm sure we're going hear from lots of people out there listening—there have been a couple of Green Party candidates who’ve run in other races here and there across the country. But no sustained effort to build a Green Party nationally. Just this griping, bullshitty, grandstanding, fault-finding, purity-testing, holier than thou-ing, that we are all subjected to every four fucking years by the Green Party candidate [for president].

When you're talking about 520,000 offices, 117 candidates = "a couple."

I had a hard time tracking down the number of Greens who actually hold office right now—interesting that the Green Party spokesperson, who most likely knows that number (and the number of Green candidates running), doesn't share it—but the best I could find was 100, give or take. That means the Greens hold .019% of elected offices. Again: fucking pathetic.

Cuéllar accuses me of being one of those "people who believe that the Democratic Party is entitled to votes without actually doing the work." That's rich coming from the Green Party, which thinks its entitled to the votes of Democrats—and others—without doing the actual work of building a viable third party and actually recruiting candidates to run for more than .02% of elected positions. Instead what we get from the Greens are guilt trips and you-are-not-a-real-progressive shit fitting that reaches a feces-flinging crescendo every four years.

So, yeah, I stand by this:

    If you want to build a viable third party, more power to you. I could see myself voting for a Green Party candidate for president in 25 years, after I've seen Green Party candidates getting elected to state legislatures, getting elected to governorships, getting elected to Congress. Then you can run some legitimate motherfucker for president.

Dr. Zaius said it better than I did in the comment thread yesterday:

    This "rebuttal" by the Greens totally misses Savage's point. Having a handful of people in five states is not a stable political base to then launch a presidential bid. 90% of America has no fucking clue who the Greens even are. I'll tell you when they are ready. When there are Green state reps in in at least 30 state legislatures and when they have at least 5-10 congress people. Until then running presidential candidates like Stein is merely a delusional vanity.

Finally...

    We Greens are also well acquainted with Savage’s own rhetoric of entitlement regarding Democratic candidacies, for example his violent remarks aimed at Green Pennsylvania congressional candidate Carl Romanelli in 2006, also challenging Rick Santorum. At that time, Savage said about Romanelli, “The idiot Green? ... Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there's nothing left but the rope." He apparently knew about our non-presidential candidates even in 2006. Perhaps he forgot in May 2016.

Two things.

First, I'm not hostile to third parties. Honest! I was proud to be a vocal supporter of Kshama Sawant, the Socialist Alternative candidate who won a seat on the Seattle City Council. I even managed to talk some of my panicked neighbors into supporting her when she ran for reelection last year. I was thrilled to see Sawant turf out (in her first race) a corporate-hack-o Dem and turn back (in her second race) a swarm of corporate-hack-o Dems. If the Greens were putting forward credible candidates in Seattle, I'd support them. But they're not.

As for that drag-behind-a-truck thing. Yeah, I said that—and, yeah, it wasn't nice, and I apologized at the time. (An edited video is being circulated by Greens claiming I said that this week about Stein. How little gray there is in my hair is the giveaway that the tape is at least 10 years old.) But Cuéllar, Green Party spokes-hack, conveniently omits the context: Rick Santorum seems like a joke now—you're welcome, America—but at the time Rick Santorum was the third most powerful member of the US Senate and widely touted as a credible presidential prospect. He was also the mortal enemy of the LGBT community. Republican funders, in an effort to keep Santorum in the Senate, were raising money for Carl Romanelli. So the Green candidate—the "real progressive" in that race—was working with Republicans to keep the Senate in Republican hands and working to keep the most vicious enemy of LGBT civil equality in the Senate. People were pissed, myself included, and rightly so.

A vote for Carl Romanelli in 2006 was a vote for Rick Santorum. Romanelli knew it, the Republican donors backing him knew it, and the Green Party knew it and didn't care.

A vote for Jill Stein in 2016 is a vote for Donald Trump. Stein knows it, Andrea Mérida Cuéllar knows it, and the Green Party knows it and doesn't care.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 27, 2016, 11:52:29 AM
Quote
I'm okay with Hillary. It's not popular to say, but she's fine. I don't find her nearly as offensive (or divine) as everybody else does. She'll be no worse than say Gerald Ford, or Obama, or Johnson. In fact, LBJ is probably the most apt comparison. She'll keep her lefty base happy while propping up the economy with sneaky little deregulations. Status quo is fine for a little longer before the water runs out.

Well... I'd argue the LBJ comparison, actually.

But! In the end... It doesn't matter because, yes, we don't have a choice. I would actually compare Hillary to people like Andropov and Chernenko. The USSR leaders between Breshnev and Gorbachev. The joke and general opinion (in the west) was that these two were just straw men. They'd been propped up by the party (and each would be dead within 1-2 years of taking over because they were in their late 80s) because the party couldn't find anyone to fill the massive vacuum left by Breshnev. So, from late 1982-early 1985 there was, basically, nobody in charge of the USSR except for the communist party. (Which, by the way, was probably why Reagan felt he could gamble.)

Hillary is a half-dead political royal who's being propped up by the DNC.

But...we all know that. Everyone knows it, really. What I find troubling isn't really that fact, it's the aspect of "We've elected a [XXX]!" that bugs me. This hero worship could easily backfire, as it sort of did for Obama (though his saving grace is that he's personable and functional and capable).
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 27, 2016, 12:04:09 PM
Quote
Savage responded to the "check your facts" counter.

Parsing through his defensive vehemence  is a bit tough there!

Savage is attacking the victim and not the perpetrator here. Local third parties have just as hard a time getting on the ballot and getting support and coverage. It's not as simple as walking the walk you talk. Which is sort of what the Green was telling him, to which he replies with his weird racial version of Godwin's Law. The fact that there are (actually about 300) third party members in local office is astounding because they all had to essentially run a door-to-door write-in campaign.

If Savage wants to see a viable third party develop, he needs to turn his considerable following against the county and state party systems that are crippling third parties. Instead, in that rant, he turns his followers against third parties and ends up committing the damage to their viability himself!

Which...he has to do because he answers to a media monster that embraces the two party system.

Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 27, 2016, 12:11:25 PM
Quote
I'm okay with Hillary. It's not popular to say, but she's fine. I don't find her nearly as offensive (or divine) as everybody else does. She'll be no worse than say Gerald Ford, or Obama, or Johnson. In fact, LBJ is probably the most apt comparison. She'll keep her lefty base happy while propping up the economy with sneaky little deregulations. Status quo is fine for a little longer before the water runs out.

Well... I'd argue the LBJ comparison, actually.

I should clarify that my deregulation comment was aimed at Hillary and not at Johnson. Johnson walked an insane tightrope of liberalism and hawkishness in a time when America was sometimes literally on fire. The fact that he held the country together enough that after his term someone as insane as Nixon couldn't *totally* fuck it up says somethings about how secretly great he was. Bill Clinton has a similar greatness for similar reasons. It took Bush II almost eight years and a senseless war to fuck up the economy he had fixed.

I'm saying (which I guess is high praise) that Hillary could be like LBJ, walking that tightrope in tumultuous times.

Hillary is a half-dead political royal who's being propped up by the DNC.

That I think everybody agrees on.

The essential problem is that the U.S. political system has not kept up with the changing world.  And why should it have? We've spent a hundred years being the fastest gun in the west. It's been done through a weird mix of "liberal isolationism" and the knowledge that the rest of world had a ways to go to catch up. But as the world *has* caught up, we didn't adjust, particular our message to our citizens didn't adjust. Now maybe that's because we've been fighting the same internal battles for almost 300 years. (Individualism vs social responsibility/capitalism vs. socialism/white vs. black.) But a lot of it was getting to fat too fast, and forgetting that great empires fall.

I'm getting off point, but *if* Hillary wins (still a big if), she'll be the last of the old system. One last gasp of oligarachy. What comes next is anybody's guess.

Which...he has to do because he answers to a media monster that embraces the two party system.


And *THAT* is the real crux of the U.S. political problem, no?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 27, 2016, 12:20:38 PM
Quote
The essential problem is that the U.S. political system has not kept up with the changing world. 

If this were true Trump wouldn't have been nominated and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Sadly, and no one over there will dare admit it, but Trump represents a right-wing shift in western politics. He's in line with other authoritarian demagogues that are on the rise in the UK, Austria, Hungary, France, Poland, and Switzerland.

Watch "Meet the UKIPpers" and then watch any news footage of Trump supporters and tell me we're not keeping up with the changing world.

Hell, we have a scary fascist demagogue in Putin currently changing the face of Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, the world outside the First World is almost universally commanded by authoritarians (many of whom are subsidized by our current party, which Hillary will continue).

Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on July 28, 2016, 10:10:58 AM
Vote Ted Cruz!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 28, 2016, 10:31:57 AM
That's for 2020.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on July 28, 2016, 10:36:33 AM
2016 will see a) Narcissus guide the country into isolationism, or b) an incompetent, possibly senile scumbag hand over state secrets to Russia and China, and favour Saudi and Qatari interests in federal policy for donations t' Clinton Foundation.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on July 28, 2016, 02:12:35 PM
Yay!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 01, 2016, 03:32:49 PM
First calling on Putin for help and now this Khan family thing. Trump's self-destruction seems strangely timed to me. Is it just because it all finally seems real as opposed to a weird dream?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 03, 2016, 12:24:22 PM
I feel like we're going find out Andy Kaufman is alive and has been Trump for the past fifteen years.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 03, 2016, 12:44:34 PM
I feel like we're going find out Andy Kaufman is alive and has been Trump for the past fifteen years.

Actually, that wouldn't surprise me. I think we'd all just say "of course!" and he'd get a standing ovation on Jimmy Fallon.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 03, 2016, 04:51:12 PM
Man, the Trump campaign just goes from bizarre to bonkers and back again willy nilly. Now Pence and Trump are fighting publicly!

I'm stunned that he got all this way just to implode within a matter of days. We're getting to the point where all Hillary has to do is sit and wait it out and she'll end up being unopposed by September.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 04, 2016, 08:30:35 AM
Forget Kaufman. How about Trump is a shill for Hilldawg? He implodes in late September/early October so the GOP can't get enough shit together to put up a new candidate and Hillary coasts in as our third unopposed president.

(Can you name the other two without looking it up? The first is very obvious.)
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 04, 2016, 11:55:33 AM
George Washington is the obvious one... No clue on the other.

And the Hilldawg shill has been Missus RC's theory since Trump starting putzing around with running.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 04, 2016, 01:15:35 PM
James Monroe! Interestingly, he ran unopposed because the opposing party was in a state of collapse not dissimilar to what we're seeing now. Except there was no insane demagogue to take the nomination. The Hamilton-inspired Federalists had shattered and couldn't reach an agreement during the nomination process.

Monroe won every vote except for one electoral vote, cast by a loony-bird from New Hampshire who spent his political career advocating for the secession of New England.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on August 10, 2016, 07:20:22 AM
And now we have direct evidence for Shillary's funding of ISIS and further purgary but still nobody takes notice or cares....

Assange made it pretty clearly the murdered ex-DNC staffer was the leak before he was found shot twice in the back with his iPhone, wallet, and house keys still in his pockets.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 10, 2016, 09:01:21 AM
I can feel the end days coming!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on August 11, 2016, 09:18:30 AM
I can feel my 'end days' coming.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 11, 2016, 04:47:11 PM
Sexy.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 16, 2016, 02:10:06 AM
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 23, 2016, 11:32:09 AM
The whole "is Hillary Clinton dying" thing is really bizarre. Even her comical reply to all that on Jimmy Kimmel is coming under fire. A set up! A scam! Kimmel's in on it!

Amazing.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 24, 2016, 04:16:29 PM
Man... PickleGate has sort of convinced me that Trump's going to win.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 25, 2016, 11:08:28 AM
I'm in politics-blackout. What's picklegate?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 25, 2016, 01:57:25 PM
I'm in politics-blackout. What's picklegate?

Pure insanity. Hillary proved she wasn't dying by opening a jar of pickles for Jimmy Kimmel. Because there wasn't an audible pop, it's now believed that the whole thing was a set up and there's a massive JFK-level conspiracy freakout about it.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 25, 2016, 03:57:42 PM
I've heard about the "Hillary is dying" rumor.

This is really the most gonzo insane election in U.S. history, isn't it? Further proof the republic is crumbling?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 25, 2016, 04:01:11 PM
Further proof that we're all idiots.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 29, 2016, 11:06:33 AM
It's fascinating how the US media reports nothing but gains for Trump, whereas the international press is all about how Trump's in a dangerous slump and the Republicans have all but given hope of victory.

I'm sure there are endless battles in the archives of the forums about how the US media bias is actually right wing and not left wing.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 29, 2016, 12:01:26 PM
The U.S. media has an NFL mentality. In week 9 you have the undefeated New England Patriots playing the 2-7 Oakland Raiders who's staring QB just got arrested for beating up his wife. The outcome of this game is all but decided,  but you still want to create artificial dram in order make it *look* like it's a close game.

I guess what I'm saying is that the international media *seems* to still have respect for the ethics of journalism where as the corporate driven U.S. media juts cares about ratings. They want illusion of a tight race to keep eyes on the TV.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 08, 2016, 08:16:13 AM
So... Seriously, Putin is the most dangerous person out there (excepting rogue nations). He's working to destabilize us in every way.  And Trump sits there and spends five minutes praising him like he's a mythical hero. That was stunning.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 12, 2016, 08:00:36 AM
Jesus... Hillary is the worst candidate ever. You're constantly attacked for your health. So,  having been diagnosed with pneumonia, you go to a major event and get sick?

The only way Sunday's scenario makes sense is if she is directly employed by Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 12, 2016, 10:07:24 AM
I thought Trump was directly employed by her?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 12, 2016, 10:21:24 AM
I thought Trump was directly employed by her?

That was my operating theory until her campaign started to make Carter's Rose Garden campaign look smart.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 14, 2016, 11:51:56 AM
Quote
He was right about now-former British Prime Minister David Cameron (allegedly) engaging in intimate relations with a member of the Suidae family of even-toed ungulates, but let’s hope that Black Mirror series creator Charlie Brooker’s newest prediction is less prescient. In a new interview with The Daily Beast, Brooker was asked about his thoughts on the upcoming American presidential election. He is—perhaps unsurprisingly, given his resume—less than optimistic:

“I find it fucking terrifying, because I think Trump’s going to win. I’m working on whether I need to build a bunker or not,” he says. “Hello, we just went through Brexit! Of course Trump’s going to win. I’m having to imagine he’s already won and that he can’t quite achieve all of the fucking horrible things that he wants to do.”

He’s got reason to be worried, too, considering that he’s got some projects coming up in the U.S.—including an American version of Black Mirror—that will require him to spend more time here. Not that things are much better back at home in the U.K., where the recent Brexit vote has stirred up similar anti-immigration sentiments among disenfranchised conservatives as Trump’s campaign has in the U.S.

Lending further credence to the idea that “Black Mirror did it” is the new, dystopian “Simpsons did it,” Brooker further expresses his dismay at seeing the events of the Black Mirror episode ‘The Waldo Moment,” about a depressed comedian who mounts a crude campaign for office as a joke only to find his nihilistic viewpoints quite popular, seemingly unfolding before his very eyes. “At the time I thought that was one I didn’t nail, I didn’t get the stakes right,” he says. “ And then you look at it now and go, ‘Fuck me—that’s Trump.’”

At the time, The A.V. Club found the episode unrealistic, saying, “There’s just not enough there to suggest that Waldo’s moment would last much longer than 15 minutes.” Here’s hoping we were right, and Brooker is wrong—for once.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 14, 2016, 12:47:12 PM
He could win, you know? Especially since Hillary's dead and her body double/clone is now running.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 14, 2016, 12:59:38 PM
He could win, you know? Especially since Hillary's dead and her body double/clone is now running.

I think his chances are very good. Hillary has been self destructing since Labor Day. It's been shocking (and fascinating) to watch. In past elections and archival footage I've seen gaffes, I've seen stumbles, I've seen screams, tantrums, and fits of weeping... But I've never seen a candidate falling apart the way Hillary is.

Trying to figure out What Happened is going to be our topic of discussion for the next four years, I think.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 21, 2016, 09:57:04 AM
So...this Skittles thing. Brilliant marketing on the part of a candy company or specifically designed by aliens to destroy my mind?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 21, 2016, 11:47:35 PM
Man, am I in a serious news blackout or what? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 22, 2016, 07:17:57 AM
Man, am I in a serious news blackout or what? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't even know how to explain it. Trump Jr. made a retarded tweet comparing refugees to Skittles and it went mega-meme in seconds with hilarious results.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 27, 2016, 10:08:10 AM
That debate was awesome! That was like watching a tennis match. Trump was trouncing Clinton, but she was playing some crazy long game and just turned everything upside down. Watching him steadily melt down at the end while she shimmied and smiled and laughed kind of made my night. He was so good at calling her Secretary Clinton while she snidely called him Donald the whole time...until she got in his head and snapped him like a twig.

Amazing to watch, really. That was expert politicking shit from her.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 27, 2016, 12:11:29 PM
If he wins after that, he's what we deserve.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 27, 2016, 01:39:33 PM
If he wins after that, he's what we deserve.

We have two more debates until the election.  Back to the tennis analogy -- now he knows how she plays.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on September 28, 2016, 09:26:13 AM
Did anybody notice Trump was asked 15 exclusive questions and Hillary was asked only 2 exclusive questions?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 28, 2016, 12:06:02 PM
Did anybody notice Trump was asked 15 exclusive questions and Hillary was asked only 2 exclusive questions?

That's been standard operating procedure for this whole campaign. It's weird. I guess Trump puts on a better show.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on October 01, 2016, 11:03:29 AM
Or the moderators want to trip him up.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 03, 2016, 11:55:51 AM
While Trump continues to self-destruct rather dramatically, we had the big threat of a Tuesday bombshell from Wikileaks that would torpedo Clinton.

But... Now Assange says there won't be an announcement on Tuesday. So just trying to get attention, I guess.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 03, 2016, 12:03:19 PM
It's fucking madness that this is remotely a close race. We're doomed. News blackout is the only thing keeping me from ding this overtime Trump's name comes up:


Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 03, 2016, 12:27:31 PM
The human race loves a demagogue. We always have.

Though, historically speaking, our support of demagogues has more often been because we enjoyed the show. Only occasionally do we actually carry through with the election and then only because there's an army backing them or the populace in question is extraordinarily disenfranchised.

I think Trump is a queer mix of both. He is speaking for an uneducated community that has become somewhat disenfranchised overall (the polarization of America, etc), but I predict that the bulk of his supporters are really just here for the show.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 04, 2016, 12:42:41 PM
So Assange trolled the entire world. That was pretty awesome.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 09, 2016, 11:37:11 AM
So Trump enters debate #2 utterly disgraced. We're going to drinking game it again.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 10, 2016, 09:50:11 AM
I was going to watch it. I was all set. However, Missus RC is in total political blackout and utterly refused. I could have watched it alone, but that would have incurred retribution I think. We watched X-Men: Apocalypse instead. (Review coming soon!)

And you know what? I don't feel like I missed anything at all. It's like being hyped for a football game then when it's over, you're just like, "I'm spent."

This election has really become a weird anxious waiting game for November 8. Just get it over with so we can all talk about how much Rogue One is going to disappoint us all.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 10, 2016, 10:01:07 AM
It was a bit more refined. Whenever Hillary wanted to be smug, she started writing things down. Trump was calm and complained mostly about his time limits and how unfair he was being treated.

The highlight was when Trump swore his first act as president would be to arrest and imprison Hillary. Which, you know, is tantamount to saying he'll declare himself dictator for life...and no one has complained about that yet. They're all bust fact checking minute points about the sea of nothing both of them said.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on October 11, 2016, 01:07:38 PM
The second debate was bizarre. Trump would meander in the background like the spectre of Alzheimer's whilst Shillary rhymed off her spiel with solid coherence until Trump would mumble unrelated superlatives into the microphone.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 11, 2016, 05:56:09 PM
The second debate was bizarre. Trump would meander in the background like the spectre of Alzheimer's whilst Shillary rhymed off her spiel with solid coherence until Trump would mumble unrelated superlatives into the microphone.

That was fascinating wasn't it? His wandering. it made him seem generally unhinged.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 15, 2016, 10:35:37 AM
All of the women coming forward to accuse Trump of assault don't surprise me.

What surprises me is that Trump sees fit to (and gets away with) cruelly mocking them as they come forward. He really is like some sort of unstoppable playground bully. It's actually amazing.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 15, 2016, 10:50:33 AM
Also amazing is the astonishing rise of Ken Bone and his equally astonishing fall -- all within 6 days.

http://www.avclub.com/article/ken-bone-has-already-ken-bonered-his-way-out-ameri-244234
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on October 18, 2016, 02:09:53 AM
And now Assange has been cut off after he defied Goldman Sachs.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 18, 2016, 07:33:54 AM
And now Assange has been cut off after he defied Goldman Sachs.

Well, when you decide to live in the Ecuadorian embassy you sort of have to put up with internet data caps...and goats and chickens in the VIP guestrooms...
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 18, 2016, 07:42:23 AM
So my big question is how can the election be rigged when it hasn't happened yet? Isn't that a bit premature?

It's confusing, 21 days before the election, to have Man on the Street interviews asking the question "Do you think the election was rigged?" And they answer "YES!"

Why isn't the answer: "Wait...which election? What day is it? Where am I? Is Bush back in office?"

And now party offices are being firebombed, paperboys are getting hot water poured on them. You know, another time, another place, I'd say this is the beginning of Bad Things. A part of me is keen for revolution...but I know that it'll immediately boil off into the usual ennui a week after the election and we'll be back to our Prozac fueled commutes to 70 hour work weeks. 
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on October 18, 2016, 11:15:36 AM
We all voted for the Blue Necktie. We think we did. The inaugural speech of the Red Necktie took many by surprise - 'the Red Necktie won?'

Of course, they told us, because we all voted for the Red Necktie. I wasn't sure but it must be true if the Red Necktie won. All neckties shall now be red, they told us. No more blue or yellow or green neckties, only red. We are happy about this because red is the new blue.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: Sirharles on October 18, 2016, 01:46:52 PM
Thought this was interesting.  http://theweek.com/articles/655708/after-trump-loses-ominous-american-future-imagined
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 19, 2016, 06:05:48 PM
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 20, 2016, 11:33:11 AM
That third debate was awesome. Trump fully on the ropes. Hillary's clear anger. Chris Wallace actually being an amazing moderator. The audience laughing at Trump! That last blew me away.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 20, 2016, 11:43:11 AM
I missed it because I was at the tail end of a 15 hour shoot day. I'm not planning on watching it in "rerun" though if it's as entertaining as you say...
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 20, 2016, 11:45:29 AM
I missed it because I was at the tail end of a 15 hour shoot day. I'm not planning on watching it in "rerun" though if it's as entertaining as you say...

You should watch it because he basically outlined the plan for the civil war he's cheerfully planning to start on November 9th.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 20, 2016, 11:48:50 AM
Oh, information for life then! Good.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 20, 2016, 12:21:49 PM
Thought this was interesting.  http://theweek.com/articles/655708/after-trump-loses-ominous-american-future-imagined

Horrifyingly, probably not too far off the mark.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 27, 2016, 10:11:14 AM
Just went and voted. Was all alone at the early voting center in Chevy Chase.

For the record, every category had a Green candidate. Though the only ones I'd heard of were Stein and the chick running against Evil Van Hollen.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 05, 2016, 05:14:22 PM
Jesus Christ, Hillary, what's the matter with you?
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 06, 2016, 09:19:08 AM
Well...two days.

This election is pointless unless Hilldawg gets a mandate (more than 50% of the popular). If she gets less than 50%, we're doomed. Period.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on November 07, 2016, 01:00:16 PM
Two days until President Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 08, 2016, 08:19:14 AM
It's SHOW TIME!


Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 08, 2016, 08:23:05 AM
Our queer little NH towns are in. Though this is just a publicity stunt for resort hotels, analysts have always held them up as the sort of overall temperature of what the election will look like...


Quote
The first actual results of the 2016 presidential election are in: Voters in Dixville Notch, N.H., cast 4 votes for Democrat Hillary Clinton, 2 for Republican Donald Trump and one for the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson.

Mitt Romney, the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee, got a single write-in vote in the country’s “First in the Nation” balloting.

Two other New Hampshire towns claiming “First” status, Hart’s Location and Millsfield, cast and counted their ballots after midnight Tuesday as well. The grand total for all three gave Trump a 32-to-25 edge over Clinton.

Clinton got 4 votes in Dixville to Trump’s 2; 17 in Hart’s Location to Trump’s 14; and 4 in Millsfield to Trump’s 16.
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 08, 2016, 02:34:39 PM
My polling place had a line about 100-120 deep when the polls opened. Voting was easy.

I went Clinton/Kaine for the big ticket.

House Dem Gerry Connolly ran unchallenged so I gave him my vote.

Amendment one was right to work. I voted "yes" to prohibit collusion between employers and unions.

Amendment two was allowing counties to offer property tax relief (if so they choose) to the widows of first repsonders killed in the line of duty. I voted "yes" there too.

The apocalypse begins at 7pm!!
Title: Re: 2016 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 08, 2016, 05:55:06 PM
Off to the Dish for party time!