elayman
-
Posts
449 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by elayman
-
-
It's not as though Cruz or Rubio would be any better than Trump in terms of gay rights, a woman's right to choose, gun violence or the environment. They just would have more self control and not blow their tops at every turn.
I loved at the second to last debate when all of them tried to explain why they don't think Obama should nominate a justice. "It's called delay, delay, delay."
He just has a bigger brain to kick over the table with, or as Newt put it speaking of Trump's policies regarding immigration:
"First of all, we have no idea what the effect of Trump will be over six months or a year and how dramatically the messages will change. He’s now met with the head of the Mexican Chamber of Commerce; he’s about to meet with their board… I think he’s modulating; I think he is learning. The one thing I’ve always found to be true with Trump is: I think he learns faster than any other political figure I’ve known except Bill Clinton. And I think it’s a big mistake to assume that the Donald Trump who you saw yesterday is the Donald Trump you’re going to see a month from now."
-
Just to reiterate what Trump meant when he disavowed Duke fifteen years ago and again three days earlier at the Christie press conference. Another reason to not watch CNN. At least Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan has also hit out at the Donald as he warns that he's exacerbating the race situation in the country and would take us into the 'abyss of hell' except when he agrees with his refugee policy and is praising limits on Muslim immigration.
-
Warren never said he liked his tax plan. She mentioned that she liked his proposal of raising taxes on the rich, which he probably already backtracked from. This man flip flops so many times its hard to remember where the hell he stands on anything.
At 7:00 in this clip from '91 he is saying taxes should go up on the rich to encourage investment in real estate and other important national industries. There are a lot of places where he gets out and talks about important things," Warren said of the celebrity real estate tycoon on ABC's "The View. "Donald Trump and I both agree that there ought to be more taxation of the billionaires, the people who are making their money on Wall Street," she said. I believe Sanders has also been complementary on parts of his immigration and trade policies.
-
If it comes down to Trump VS Hillary, hope Hillary destroys him. Can you imagine Trump dealing with worldwide issues? Rushing about like a bull in a china shop
I cannot imagine what an educated American would see in Trump. You don't rule with jokes and much less by fostering divisionTrump can obviously be total business when he has to be, even Elizabeth Warren likes his tax plan, so calling him a one dimensional buffoon and all the other repeated half-truth talking points that have no why or reason says more about the people making the charges than the candidate himself.
-
I think you're missing that lower turnout on Dem side can be attributed to the fact that a majority of Dems don't mind either candidate. Whereas on Republican side, there's more candidates with supporters of them have strong opinions about their favourite's competition.
South Carolina isn't going to be contested in the Fall, I'm just making the point that Obama also beat Hillary in 2008 by about 30% but with 150,000 more voters turning out on the Democratic side.
-
She CRUSHED him. Bigger turn out than when Obama was running. More black turn out too. Pretty great for Hillary.
Clinton vs Trump.
Bigger turnout than 2012 when Obama ran uncontested and was renominated ?? I will give you that.
Not that you would ever know it from here but if this trend continues you will see panic set in with the Dems, Republican 2016 Democrat 2016 Republican 2008 Democrat 2008
South Carolina 737,917 370,000 431196 532227
Just south of 370,000
In GOP primary 740,000
GOP total like 350,000 votes ahead.
-
trump will win.
Love him or hate him, Trump is certainly changing the political landscape. The following spreadsheet is very revealing and makes it clear that Donald Trump’s impact on voter turnout exceeds what Barack Obama achieved. Almost a quarter of a million fewer Democrats getting out to vote this year than 2008 and close to half a million more on the Republican side.
Republican 2016 Democrat 2016 Republican 2008 Democrat 2008
Iowa 186,874 171,109 119,200 239,872
New Hampshire 284,120 250,983 238979 287542
South Carolina 737,917 431196 532227
Nevada Caucus 75,216 12,002 44,315 10649
-
A greater turnout among other ethnic groups, yes. Increasing turnout by a few points by white voters won't cut it.
What this tells me is that turnout will be less important for Democratic victory as demography changes in their favor, though they must maintain their strong voting margins among blacks, Hispanics and Asians. For Republicans, the latter projections show that they cannot count primarily on white support to take the White House. Even assuming high 2004 turnout rates and 2012 Republican voting margins for whites, they cannot win unless they also peel off more votes among minorities. In this regard, demography indeed becomes destiny.
Sorry GOP, whitey can't save your ass anymore. You're gonna have to grow up and learn to treat everyone equally.
I don't know what kind of numbers Trump is pulling with nonwhites but even with a 3-4% increase in white votes which is very unlikely they are going to have to do better than Romney with minorities that is for sure. Assuming something like 9 or 10% of the black vote, 30+% of Hispanics, Asians and other ethnic groups a 2% increase in whites would be a huge victory. And I do hate racial politics by the way, just make the basic case of how your agenda is going to improve life for everyone and let the chips fall where they may.
-
No nominee will win without getting at least 40% of the Hispanic vote. Trump - or any other nominee on the GOP side - is going to have a REALLY hard time hitting that threshold. Dubya got that (barely) in 2004. No other GOP candidate has hit it since.
I'm not sure there is a magic number -- Romney wouldn't have won with even 40% of the Hispanic vote. What would make a real difference would be if Republicans increased their share of either all ethnic and racial groups or white voters by just a few percentage points.
-
I didn't post it because this guy is the gold standard, it just seemed an interesting read that was getting wide attention. Norpath himself acknowledged that results from Super Tuesday might alter the calculations and says he plans to factor those into future projections. New Hampshire probably is a better predictor of results in the average presidential election but the fact that Sanders did well in part because he was from a neighboring state is complicating. There are a ton of still unknown factors that could swing it one way or the other.
-
Chris Christie just endorsed Donald Trump saying he's the only guy who can defeat Hillary.
A professor of political science at Stony Brook University has forecasted that Donald Trump has a minimum 97 percent chance of winning the general election as the Republican nominee.
Professor Helmut Norpoth’s forecast presentation took place Monday evening in the SUNY Global Center in Manhattan, which was organized by the Stony Brook Alumni Association.
Norpoth created a statistical model of presidential elections that uses a candidate’s performance in their party’s primary and patterns in the electoral cycle as predictors of the presidential vote in the general election.
Donald Trump has a 97 percent chance of defeating Hillary Clinton and a 99 percent chance of defeating Bernie Sanders in the general election, according to Norpoth’s formula.
“The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president,” Norpoth said, “if he’s a nominee of the [Republican] party.”
Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.
Norpoth began the presentation with an introduction of the potential matchups in the general election, including a hypothetical Sanders vs. Trump general election.
“When I started out with this kind of display a few months ago, I thought it was sort of a joke.” Norpoth said referring to Trump and Sanders, as many alumni in the audience laughed. “Well, I’ll tell you right now, it ain’t a joke anymore.”
As the presentation continued, laughter turned to silence as Norpoth forecasted a 61 percent chance of a Republican win in the general election.
This forecast was made using the electoral cycle model, which studies a pattern of voting in the presidential election that makes it less likely for an incumbent party to hold the presidency after two terms in office. The model does not assume who would be the party nominees or the conditions of the country at the time.
“You think ‘This is crazy. How can anything come up with something like that?’ ” Norpoth said “But that’s exactly the kind of equation I used to predict Bill Clinton winning in ‘96, that I used to predict that George Bush would win in 2004, and, as you remember four years ago, that Obama would win in 2012.”
Norpoth then added data from the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries to narrow down the forecast to specific candidates. As he brought up the first slide with matchup results, the silence was broken by muttering from the audience.
“Trump beats Hillary 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent [of the popular vote]. This is almost too much to believe.” Norpoth said, with a few members of the audience laughing nervously. “The probability of that [outcome] is almost complete certainty, 97 percent. It’s almost ‘Take it to the bank.’ ”
The primary model predicts a Trump victory with such certainty due to Trump’s relatively high success in the Republican primaries, Norpoth said. Clinton, in comparison, is in an essential tie with Sanders in the Democratic primaries. As a result, Sanders would also lose to Trump in a similar landslide if Sanders were to be the Democratic nominee, Norpoth said.
In contrast, Norpoth forecasted that a hypothetical presidential race with Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio on the Republican ticket would be a much closer race. The results showed Clinton with a 55 percent chance of winning the race against Cruz or Rubio with a 0.3 percent lead in the popular vote. Norpoth’s model showed Sanders losing against Rubio or Cruz with a 0.6 percent gap in the popular vote, giving a Rubio or Cruz ticket a 60 percent chance of winning against the Vermont senator.
Norpoth added that while the non-Trump Republican ticket would be much more unlikely to win the general election due to differences in the popular vote and the electoral college vote, there is almost no chance that Trump would lose the electoral college vote with his forecasted lead in the popular vote.“If you win by 54 percent [of the popular vote], you have a big majority in the electoral college,” Norpoth said. “Nobody who has ever gotten 54 percent has lost.”
-
He is corrupt as the day is long IMO but has all the right friends to never to get seriously punished, pro-Wall Street mega millionaires and Silicon Valley billionaires because they have the same elite credentials and own much of the media and most of the political system.
-
Trump is an American Berlusconi in many ways, though.
Except in a very real sense I think Trump does seem conceited and arrogant enough to avoid failing in front of the world at all cost. He has said himself that he will need to start acting more presidential at some point....to use a baseball analogy he is winning now with fast curve balls and balls in the dirt that hit the mark...the general election will require a change to a straight up fast ball. Still too many balls still in the air so to speak.
-
There was also a poll that said 20% of Trump's supporters think the slaves should not have been freed. I"m not against blue collar working people or "elitist"as you imply, but Trump is drawing a lot of ignorant and less educated people and appealing to their worst fears instead of informing them and raising them to a higher level as the best leaders do.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ctucuikdsj/econToplines.pdf)
How did they get Trump supporters out of the survey? It could have been Kasich voters for all we know. Could have been dingbats, or some folks just answer no to anything. Maybe half of those that answered the question thought Obama freed the slaves or something I don’t know, but the headline and story is worse than dishonest. The percentages also don't add up, the respondent profiles are contradictory....and in any case 40% self identified as Democrats. It's one thing to spin, like Trump and illegal immigrants, but its another for the media to pull stuff out of their arses! And they wonder why no one trusts them.
-
Nothing
Trump won Nevada, but there were all kinds of allegations of voting irregularities and fraud. People allegedly were voting twice, id's were not checked by poll workers and poll workers were seen wearing Trump t shirts and hats.
Trump also said in a speech he loves the poorly educated people! Of course he does, they're his biggest supporters!
Nothing wrong with hard working blue collar folks. Those are the voters (white) that Hillary desperately courted and went for her in 2008 over Obama. Trump actually won Nevada with more votes in 2016 than voted in the entire Nevada GOP caucus in 2012....so if these were less educated Democrats they would be rejected for what, supporting supporting an entitled, elitist and inevitable candidate ??
GOP contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have drawn more than 1.2 million voters, up 24 percent over 2012.In sharp contrast, the showdown between Hillary and Bernie has drawn just 510,000 voters, down 21 percent from the last contested Democratic primaries in 2008. Nevada alone was up 2X the GOP voters in 2012.
OK, one more:
-
Oh please. This is a cockamamie story. Huma is nothing short of a consummate professional and a very kind person. They're grasping at straws. And the continuous claims that she somehow "must be tied to the Muslim brotherhood" are xenophobic and I'm sick and tired of it and of the lies and falsehoods and Republican-manufactured propaganda people continually spew about Hillary and her camp. The email thing is SUCH bullshit at this point that it's unbelievable that people are STILL talking about it. It's sad. Get a fucking life.
Is it a cockamamie story when Trump is being deposed ?
Bringing new meaning to being a country of laws. Both front-runners now facing legal problems:
-
Please leave Huma OUT of this. Outrageous. I'm offended.
I don't even know what to say anymore....get used to it ???
U.S. judge orders discovery to go forward over Clinton’s private email system
The decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington came in a lawsuit over public records brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, regarding its May 2013 request for information about the employment arrangement of Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide.
-
i think us democrats are backstabbing themselves with this Sanders shit...hes old as fuck and totally unsuitable for president and would lose even for Trump.
If Bernie's campaign isn't fraudulent, then it certainly is foolish. No one who is serious about successfully bringing about a revolution of honesty and ethics would be rolling over for Hillary as he is doing on an almost daily basis. It's one thing to dredge up the ancient past, as he has even down with Bill Clinton's philandering charges, it's quite another to excuse an extremely serious ongoing corruption probe in your opponent and her aides.
-
I basically agree with this analysis, although if he does end up winning Sanders will be seen as smart for waiting out the legal process in the meantime benefiting from Trump's attacks on Clinton without getting into the mud with either one.
Commentary:
Sanders is blowing it by refusing to attack Clinton over her scandals
His failure to do so cost him victory in Iowa. It cost him victory in Nevada. And ultimately, it could cost him the Democratic nomination.
In the one state where Sanders has won — New Hampshire — exit polls showed 34 percent of Democratic voters said that honesty was the most important factor in their decision about whom to support. These voters chose Sanders by a stunning margin of 92 percent to 6 percent, helping put him over the top in the Granite State. By contrast, Clinton won by a wide margin among those who said the ability to win in November was the most important factor. But these voters made up just 12 percent of the electorate, not enough to make up for Clinton's gaping honesty gap.
In Iowa and Nevada, however, a larger segment of Democratic voters put electability ahead of honesty. In Iowa, 20 percent said electability was their top priority and they chose Clinton by a margin of 77 percent to 17 percent. In Nevada, even more Democrats — 25 percent — said electability was most important, and Clinton won them by a whopping 82 percent to 12 percent. She still lost to Sanders among Democrats who put a premium on honesty, but there were not enough of these voters to give Sanders a victory.
The lesson of the first three Democratic contests, therefore, should be clear: Clinton's weakness is honesty, but her strength is her perceived advantage in electability. Knowing this, what must Sanders do to wrest the nomination from Clinton? Simple. He needs to exploit her weakness and undermine her strength — by putting a dent in Clinton's perceived electability. The only way to do that is by raising the specter that Clinton's legal woes could cost Democrats the White House in November.
Fox News recently reported that the FBI is investigating not just Clinton's use of a private email server, but also “whether the possible ‘intersection’ of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws.” And The Washington Post has reported that the State Department inspector general had issued a subpoena “seeking documents about the charity's projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton's term as secretary of state,” including records related to Clinton's top aide, Huma Abedin, who “was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton's personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.”
Sanders should make this an issue. The very raison d’etre of Sanders' campaign is to challenge the Wall Street special interests and the pay-to-play culture in Washington.
Sanders does not have to join the Republican critics and say Clinton did anything illegal. He simply has to explain to voters that she has a major legal problem that could come back to haunt Democrats in November. All he has to say is: “If Clinton is the Democratic nominee and she ends up under indictment, the result will be a right-wing extremist in the White House.”
Sanders has won the hearts of the Democratic base, but he has to win their minds, too. Democrats already believe that he shares their values and would be a more reliable liberal in office. But they think that Clinton has a better chance of winning. He needs to disabuse them of this notion, by raising the very real possibility that voting for Clinton might lead to a Democratic disaster in November.
Thus far, Sanders has refused to do so. Amazingly, the issue of Clinton's possible wrongdoing did not even come up in the last Democratic presidential debate. Can anyone imagine that if Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz or Sen. Marco Rubio were having their actions investigated by the FBI they could get through a two-hour debate without either the moderators or their opponents raising the subject?
Sanders has said he will not “politicize” the investigations. That is a mistake. If a majority of Democrats believe that Clinton is dishonest but electable, she will win. But if they can be convinced she is both dishonest and unelectable, she is toast.
-
Hillary's negatives aren't the best, but Trump's negatives are so bad amongst the general American population that if he got the nomination, it would be factually correct to say that he would be the most unpopular nominee to run in a general election in modern history.
It will be very interesting if that holds in a debate setting because most people judge politicians based on how they make them feel, likability and vibe and all that, rather than on their talking points. And if nonverbal communication is the crucial way to project a positive image Trump is a master communicator that we haven't seen probably since JFK while Hillary Clinton simply radiates negative body language, body language that conveys arrogance, insincerity or low confidence (think fidgeting, shrugging shoulders, nervous laughter, contemptuous expressions, etc). Something is going to have to give where there is a lack of congruency between high negatives based on what the candidate is saying and their charisma and energy and who makes voters feel "right" (gut feeling) on a very elemental level.
-
Yes, but that's not what they were fighting over. Donald Trump is against gay marriage, women's rights and is xenophobic in that he's against Muslims. So he is no more progressive than the pope on any of those issues so your comment really makes zero sense.
Trump didn't criticize the pope's stance on gay issues. I don't agree with the pope on gay issues, but in this case he is right about being opposed to Trump's plan to build a wall to keep out Mexican immigrants.
Trump didn't bitch slap pope on any of the issues that you are referencing. In this case, the pope is totally right about Donald Trump and his opposition to immigration.
He is a hypocrite, though. There are hundreds of miles of fencing that have been mandated by law since 9/11 which means that most areas where the terrain will allow it and the land isn't privately owned are already barricaded in some way. Is Bush less of a Christian because the fencing is partially virtual, vehicular, broken, old or matted ?? Don't even get close to going there. Don't do it. Of course unlike at the much higher Vatican fortification even a border wall can be tunneled under or climbed or gotten around. There will always be gaps, and smugglers and migrants will seek out those gaps and go through.
-
Trump is bullshitting about him being against the war from the start as well. He only jumped on the bandwagon after the majority began to wake up to what a disaster it was. Its not like the man was in any way part of the millions upon millions marching in the streets or speaking out before we went in......Like Madonna.
I myself remember also because he was on Howard Stern long after the war began bashing the Bush's and the war, and I thought, wow, I guess we can add Donald to the list of people that finally opened their eyes. That being said at this point I don't think ANYTHING this man says is genuine. I don't believe he has a core at all. He will say anything and do anything as long as it benefits him and his ego.
Unlike Bernie who was right from the start....
Trump talked publicly before the war along the lines of perhaps waiting for the United Nations and the economy being much more important than Iraq so he was definitely skeptical but I would agree not to the extent of warning about destabilization or "loud and clear" opposition.
On the other hand, he did pronounce fighting a "mess" a week in to the conflict at Academy Award after parties which is still a fairly credible assessment depending on your definition of 'beginning' and 'warning.' :/
-
They both are good candidates, I completely agree. I worry about Bernie more in the general election, but you know, if he can outwit the Clinton machine he deserves that nomination - and I will support him if even I don't get my first choice.
The email thing is a PR mess. It really is, but it's also like a plate of cold spaghetti that is taking a lot of time to unravel. I feel like there are these new "revelations" every month that seem to indicate a Sword of Damocles is hanging over Clinton's head, but I am doubtful anything will come of them. Why?
- First of all, the State Dept. rules allowed her to use a private server to conduct government business over email - as long as the correspondences were archived (which she claims were and she submitted those emails already). She also claimed that when she sent responses via email to State Dept. employees the government servers would've captured those in their system so the burden is off of her to submit those. That's a pretty blurry defense, but again, you can't charge her for criminal intent with that as technically she's right.
- So, if we established that the State Dept. ALLOWED her to do this and knew about it (as they did with Sec. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice), she is somewhat safe and clear from being charged for doing it since she didn't break any laws in place at the time.
- Now, we get to the classified and top secret emails. She claims she never SENT any - meaning she never put classified material in an email and sent it from herself (as the point of origin). However, she CLEARLY received emails with secret info (which is why the CIA is going back and re-classifying emails in her archive). However, her escape here is that whoever sent them didn't put the proper markers on the emails that indicate they were classified or top secret so she can claim she didn't know it was intended to be secret. That absolves her somewhat. Now, clearly you and I both know that she had to see something in an unmarked email and know that it shouldn't be on a non-government, non-secured server (although knowing the ultra-secretive Clintons, their homebrew server was probably more secure than the government's, but I digress). However, the rules I've seen thus far are murky about how she'd be charged for not noticing someone else's error.
- Another point of note her is that the emails which are being retro-actively classified were NOT marked classified at the time. So if they truly weren't, they can't tell her to go back in time and report them if she truly did not know. This kind of eliminates the charge of criminal intent.
- Obama is rumored to want Clinton to succeed him, and not Sanders. I believe that he & other prominent Democrats have access to the email investigation and what the FBI is finding as they go. If a bomb was going to drop before the election, he'd be distancing himself (as would others), trying to recruit a stronger candidate into the race NOW, or encouraging her to (publicly) drop out. We aren't seeing any of that. In fact, he practically endorsed her right before the Iowa caucuses with lots of kind words and respect. Obama is super intelligent. I truly do not believe he'd back someone he thought was about to be indicted.
I realize that is a very convoluted list of points, but I hope it explains it from a birds-eye view. I realize in politics anything can happen and there could be surprise evidence or perhaps the Republicans will be able to spin the story along further to hurt her, but the truth is that after Benghazi, they look inept. If you have charges to file then file them. Indict her. A single indictment would probably end her Presidential campaign - and you just know the GOP is itching to do just that...so why haven't they? If the issue is so clear cut and she broke the law then file the charges and convene a grand jury.
Is any of that happening? No. And we've gotten thousands of emails released. Supposedly even ones that were top secret. Still....no charges from the FBI or a GOP-controlled House. Maybe they are waiting until closer to the election but I really doubt that kind of weapon would remain under wraps.
Personally, I think she made a stupid decision to use private email to conduct government business, and yes I believe she resists being transparent. However, I don't believe her to be a spy or funneling top secret info to the Chinese. Ludicrous.
Just a few quick points and then I am done with this as well, at least for now. First of all, my understanding is that the use of retroactive classification has been tested and approved by the courts, and employees are regularly held accountable for releasing info that was unclassified when they released it but classed retroactively. Clinton has run through any number of excuses, explanations, etc none of which have held water, but the bottom line is that anyone holding a top security clearance is trained and obligated to recognize and protect the sensitivity of the material itself, marked or unmarked, and treat it as classified as soon as it was produced. She was fully briefed on classification procedures, and if there were ANY questions it was her legal responsibility to seek further clarification. Because as the nation's chief diplomat, the Secretary of State is responsible for ascertaining information that needs to be protected and then ensuring that all classified information under their control is properly handled.
Of four former secretaries asked about personal email accounts, two have said they rarely used email (Rice and Albright), the third used personal email but had no records to turn over but is now cooperating to recover them if possible (Powell) and the fourth was Clinton.Clinton used a private email account for her entire tenure as secretary -- and did not even have a government-issued email. Under rules in place while Clinton was SoS employees could only use private email accounts for official business (non classified) if they turned those emails over to be entered into government computers before leaving office, which she did not do until a year later and only after Congressional requests for documents related to the Benghazi attacks.
So Clinton suddenly finds reason to support an audit of the Inspector General on Rice and Powell whose appointment she blocked while at State for an unprecedented 5 1/2 years. lol These previous secretaries may have had a few (10-12) inappropriate emails on private servers. Hillary has been found to have had thousands, which makes sense in context since multiple personal accounts were the only accounts she was using. She cannot do her job without classified, top secret information, that may seem obvious but has also been finally clarified in an interview with a former Inspector General. Information that can only be manually transmitted from ultra secretive government top secret servers was somehow getting from those secured systems to her private secret system. The question is how, in a technical sense, cut and paste or a thumb drive ?? and by whom ? The FBI is most likely questioning her top aides under oath as we speak. Whether investigators are coming under political pressure to drag out the case is another issue but this is still a massive problems for the Clinton campaign. If the investigation is being slowed down deep into the primary season it could well be because the emails are so threaded with top secret info that reviewing them and redacting the portions that could harm national security is simply proving more complicated than anticipated.She even signed that Nondisclosure agreement which says something like classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of your training prepares you to treat all of that sensitively and that you are required to know the difference.
- First of all, the State Dept. rules allowed her to use a private server to conduct government business over email - as long as the correspondences were archived (which she claims were and she submitted those emails already). She also claimed that when she sent responses via email to State Dept. employees the government servers would've captured those in their system so the burden is off of her to submit those. That's a pretty blurry defense, but again, you can't charge her for criminal intent with that as technically she's right.
-
And yes Bernie is too old to be president and making promises that are politically impossible.
That is my argument in a nutshell but we will see if he wins ill congratulate all of you Sander supporters
Have you seen Bill Clinton lately ?
Slow speaking, frail-looking, befuddled, frustrated, hesitant, like a man who has just had a stroke which honestly he probably has. Sanders is going to come off like a positively Spring Chicken in comparison especially if he goes with an energetic establishment type for VP. that compliments his weaknesses but doesn't make the age comparison too obvious.
2016 Presidential Election Thread Part 2
in Politics and World Events
Posted
Yeah, but Nader got 10x (roughly) the popular vote of Jill Stein when she ran in 2012. If it didn't come close to jeopardizing an Obama victory I highly doubt the Green party will be bigger and better this year (although I am glad they exist).