Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

American 2016 Presidential Election thread part three

Recommended Posts

bernie sucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Hillary was speaking Bernie's condescending remarks and laughs were irritating during their debate last night. He's a dick. Can't stand him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tumblr_o5izi3xVv01r83d7lo1_540.gif

tumblr_o5izi3xVv01r83d7lo2_500.gif

tumblr_o5izi3xVv01r83d7lo3_540.gif

tumblr_o5izi3xVv01r83d7lo4_540.gif

tumblr_o5izi3xVv01r83d7lo5_540.gif

wow, seriously, is racism like this allowed on US TV?

Fox news is disgusting. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White trash are also ill educated and are covered in tatoos. Wtf is he saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Fox News. There would probably be more of an uproar if most of us didn't already expect this crap from this right wing propaganda channel that has been dumbing down old white people since the mid 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Bernie in Rome? I mean I know it's to talk with The Pope, but why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Bernie in Rome? I mean I know it's to talk with The Pope, but why?

I think it's because the new Pope has made economic justice part of his central platform, and Bernie has that in common with him. Honestly, it's just a PR stunt on Bernie's part. I am not faulting him for doing it, but really, what usefulness is going to come from a 5 minute "Hello Pope" meet and greet? No major policy discussions or actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was invited by the Academy or council of something. They have a conference on poverty. The Pope didn't invite him. Bernie invited himself, so speak. Remember when that Kentucky clerk woman who was denying marriage licences to gays "met" the Pope? Very same situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How deep is your hole
Is it like an ocean?
Of cum devotion
Oh oh hh
How deep is your hole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders was granted a private audience with the Jesuit Mafia Pope. Which is a Papal endorsement pure and simple. I might be wrong but Clinton's presidential bid might as well be done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders was loitering outside of the Pope's breakfast room at 6 in the morning and shook his hand right before he left for Lesbos, nothing quite so conspiratorial. If he went back to the US without having "met" the man in some capacity and only having given his 10-minute speech at that economic conference it would have been a PR disaster vis-à-vis the hype surrounding his trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders was loitering outside of the Pope's breakfast room at 6 in the morning and shook his hand right before he left for Lesbos, nothing quite so conspiratorial. If he went back to the US without having "met" the man in some capacity and only having given his 10-minute speech at that economic conference it would have been a PR disaster vis-à-vis the hype surrounding his trip.

Don't underestimate how much pull the Vatican and the IHS Jesuit Order in particular (which is a secular order by the way, with a military ierarchy, not a strictly religious order at all) have over American politics. There's a history of constant interference, and not just with US politics of course. This was a pre arranged meeting

The PR facade of casualness/fake humility surrounding this Pope is just another ugly mask, PR counter damage to the awful mess made by the previous one, in an age where communication is fast and everything and everyone are interconnected, the latest stunt from an Institution/State that has been calling the shots, politically speaking for over 2000 years now, long before it was called The Vatican

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't underestimate how much pull the Vatican and the IHS Jesuit Order in particular (which is a secular order by the way, with a military ierarchy, not a strictly religious order at all) have over American politics. There's a history of constant interference, and not just with US politics of course. This was a pre arranged meeting

The PR facade of casualness/fake humility surrounding this Pope is just another ugly mask, PR counter damage to the awful mess made by the previous one, in an age where communication is fast and everything and everyone are interconnected, the latest stunt from an Institution/State that has been calling the shots, politically speaking for over 2000 years now, long before it was called The Vatican

Then there's nothing to be done about it really, if even Bernie Sanders is a pawn for the global banking elite, shilling for his shadowy masters while pounding the podium about the 1%. They control the entire chess board.

Occam's razor: struggling Presidential candidate in a precarious electoral position finagles the barest minimum of a meeting with the Pope as a last-ditch effort to make inroads with Hispanic Catholics as a voting bloc (particularly in New York), since his support base is so restrictingly white as to make his chances of victory nonexistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that in response to Hillary getting the nominee. You are correct that it isn't set in stone. Their actual vote totals are close (the superdelegates not so much).

Nothing is set in stone. You were right; I was wrong. I still think Hillary will get the nominee. I still hope that some of Bernie's ideas like single payer healthcare will influence any future Presidents and Congress Members.

However, nothing is set in stone (especially with superdelegates, who aren't bound to vote for the people they represent).

I see, thx

Well reading this thread in regards to the delegates/superdelegates I always got the impression that Hillary was a sealed deal, numerically speaking. Now I have been hearing/reading Sanders has prevailed in 7 out of the 8 States? What other external factors could influence an eventual party's choice that's against the mathematics of it? Papal meddling etc aside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there's nothing to be done about it really, if even Bernie Sanders is a pawn for the global banking elite, shilling for his shadowy masters while pounding the podium about the 1%. They control the entire chess board.

Absolutely

They always did, and in the year 2016 more than ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Occam's razor: struggling Presidential candidate in a precarious electoral position finagles the barest minimum of a meeting with the Pope as a last-ditch effort to make inroads with Hispanic Catholics as a voting bloc (particularly in New York), since his support base is so restrictingly white as to make his chances of victory nonexistent.

I think the Vatican's influence on US politics has got little to do with influencing the vote of Catholic minorities there. The Vatican is an entity that at its core has so much more than the word Catholicism. And in any case, "Catholicism" and the Jesuit movement have de facto infiltrated huge portions of "WASP" elites all over the world, they have for many decades now. They own them.

That's why you see so many Jesuit educated people on Wall Street who don't come from Catholic backgrounds and that keep doing the rounds between banking roles and political roles. Just like you see with other sectors of society and other blatant conflict of interest type of situations. World Health Organisation being a renowned cove of ex Big Pharma executives, among many other tangible examples. Amid this scenario, Sanders meeting the Pope is nothing casual in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tumblr_o5izi3xVv01r83d7lo1_540.gif

tumblr_o5izi3xVv01r83d7lo2_500.gif

tumblr_o5izi3xVv01r83d7lo3_540.gif

tumblr_o5izi3xVv01r83d7lo4_540.gif

tumblr_o5izi3xVv01r83d7lo5_540.gif

wow, seriously, is racism like this allowed on US TV?

HIGH- LEVEL debate in what is supposed to be THE world-leading nation. And blatant racism aside (that's a given there it seems) what a dumb exchange. If the American government and all its various agencies spent for instance on education as much as they spend on the military, the medical industrial complex and the GM Food scam cancerous industry (which thanks to that TTIP deal will get a free pass in European countries where there's been more resistance to it) they would be able to solve their debt problem with China within a year.

Astonishing that the bar of the discussion is still set so low in the face of what's happening in the world right now because of that very same level of manipulation, ignorance and arrogance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Vatican's influence on US politics has got little to do with influencing the vote of Catholic minorities there. The Vatican is an entity that at its core has so much more than the word Catholicism. And in any case, the Jesuit movement has de facto infiltrated huge portions of "WASP" elites all over the world, they have for many decades now. They own them.

That's why you see so many Jesuit educated people on Wall Street who don't come from Catholic backgrounds and that keep doing the rounds between banking roles and political roles. Just like you see with other sectors of society and other blatant conflict of interest type of situations. World Health Organisation being a renowned cove of ex Big Pharma executives, among many other tangible examples. Amid this scenario, Sanders meeting the Pope is nothing casual in my view.

Even so, from the perspective of the Sanders campaign the political optics of "Papal meeting" might have been seen as a move worth trying purely looking at the Catholic demographics of upcoming primary contests (even if it wasn't realistic to think that it would have much effect/influence on the voters; possibly an actual, clear endorsement by the Pope would accomplish this, but not what actually transpired). The initial outreach to become involved in the Vatican's economic conference came from his campaign, the invitation to come followed that, and these people are for the most part the small-state Vermont political types brought with him from earlier in his career. A campaign with enough of a provincial approach might very well brainstorm something like that as a last-minute miracle.

Opinions will vary as to the Pope's motivations here (and in general), but anyway here's his own response to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkdRTIPqo7Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even so, from the perspective of the Sanders campaign the political optics of "Papal meeting" might have been seen as a move worth trying purely looking at the Catholic demographics of upcoming primary contests (even if it wasn't realistic to think that it would have much effect/influence on the voters; possibly an actual, clear endorsement by the Pope would accomplish this, but not what actually transpired). The initial outreach to become involved in the Vatican's economic conference came from his campaign, the invitation to come followed that, and these people are for the most part the small-state Vermont political types brought with him from earlier in his career. A campaign with enough of a provincial approach might very well brainstorm something like that as a last-minute miracle.

Opinions will vary as to the Pope's motivations here (and in general), but anyway here's his own response to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkdRTIPqo7Q

Well it's obvious he would downplay the speculation on the nature of that meeting and regardless of the dynamics of how the meeting itself came about, it's hard to imagine that the Head of the most powerful State in the world, a State/Institution who has agents in organisations of very dubious nature such as Goldman Sachs etc etc, all things that have got nothing to do with "administering or representing God's will on Earth", is meeting a potential future US President because he just "happened to be there"

This Pope said/says many things. He often says how The Vatican doesn't want to interfere with Italian law-making on civil and human rights issues but unfortunately historically and factually speaking it doesn't correspond at all to the reality of things. I wouldn't take his word as proof of anything, as much as anyone else based on their role/"ranking" in society per se. The fake humanitarian edulcorated PR facade is quite disturbing, when you look at the facts beyond the talk.

Cue, very condescending, extremely poor rethoric talk about " who is The Church to judge "the gays? "(I mean, thanks, how generous of them! considering how most of its members are gay anyway :rotfl: comedy gold). And then when the Italian parliament tries for the umpteenth time in over a decade to pass a law not even for gay marriage but for simple civil union pacts which 80% of EU countries have now regulated and recognised, there's always some last minute untimely (oh so timely) intervention (meddling) from the CEI, The Vatican's direct arm in all Italian political affairs.

All of this amid a well known scenario of utter corruption, sexual crimes that systematically go unpunished (because the perpetrators cannot be tried in a lay tribunal, they simply get "relocated") and a declared unwillingness from the Vatican to cooperate with the most basic anti money laundering regulations that international treaties impose on any country on Earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Damage Bernie’s Hillary Bashing May Do


Damage from attacks is starting to matter, especially in Clinton’s standing with independent voters



Cattura_zpsw9fvjlbx.jpg









As the big New York primary election arrives, it would be a mistake to say the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination is dragging on with no end in sight. Despite tightening poll numbers, it’s dragging on with a likely end still in sight: Hillary Clinton prevailing, both in New York and nationwide, because the delegate math works inexorably in her favor.


So the question increasingly is this: How much damage is she absorbing at the hands of Sen. Bernie Sanders in the meantime?


The answer: The damage is hardly fatal but it is starting to matter, especially in Mrs. Clinton’s standing with crucial independent voters. The specific problem isn’t merely that Mr. Sanders's tone has turned more harsh in attacking her. The particular problem is that his critique increasingly focuses on declaring she can’t be trusted because she takes campaign contributions from big banks and big business. That is a line of attack that seems almost designed to hit Mrs. Clinton in her area of greatest vulnerability, which is voter doubts about her honesty and trustworthiness.


Of course, this is the stage of a tough election race when it’s common for partisans in either party—or this year, in both parties—to lament that a bruising primary season is hurting their chances for victory in the general election. And frequently those concerns turn out to be overblown. Certainly Democrats lamented the length and tone of the long Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton fight in 2008, and that fight turned out to be, if anything, helpful in tuning up Mr. Obama for a big November win.



“I think Sanders is hurting Clinton with Republicans—but they wouldn’t have voted for her anyway,” says Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. “With Democrats and independents the effect is minimal. So real impact is marginal at best.”


Still, there is impact, as suggested by some readings inside a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. In that survey, the share of voters who hold a negative view of Mrs. Clinton continues to grow.


Perhaps of most concern to Democrats are the signs of souring views among independent voters. In January, the share of independent voters who had positive views of Mrs. Clinton stood at 35%, while 54% had negative views. In the new survey, just 20% of independent voters had positive views, while 62% had negative views.


There even is evidence of damage among soft Democrats—that is, people who lean Democratic but aren’t core partisans. Among that group, the share holding negative views of Mrs. Clinton grew to 32% this month from 21% in January.


Celinda Lake, a longtime Democratic pollster, thinks the “aggressive” Sanders tone is likely to backfire with Democratic women, who make up 59% of the party’s primary voters. But she also worries it is eroding one of the party’s key advantages this year.


“Originally I think Sanders played an important role mobilizing voters and articulating an important economic and change message,” she says. “I think voters found refreshing the contrast with the Republicans of two candidates engaged in serious conversation about our country’s future and offering a real platform. Now with ridiculous, overstated attacks like Hillary isn’t qualified it makes us look as bad as the Republicans and turns off voters.”



The tone problem for the party was on full display at a big Sanders rally in New York City last week, where one speaker, health-care activist Dr. Paul Song, said liberals’ goal of achieving Medicare for all won’t happen “if we continue to elect corporate Democratic whores who are beholden to big pharma and the private insurance industry.”


Dr. Song later apologized and said he was referring to Democrats in Congress, not to Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Sanders said the remarks were “inappropriate.”


Still, the tone is the sort of thing that could give moderate Republicans who might otherwise never vote for businessman Donald Trump a reason to think about doing exactly that.​


It’s also rhetoric consistent with Mr. Sanders's broader critique—she’s a captive of special interests who will abandon average folks, on their behalf—which threatens to exacerbate Mrs. Clinton’s biggest problem, which is that many voters suspect she isn’t to be trusted. In the new Journal/NBC News poll, just 19% gave her good marks for being “honest and straightforward.”


Mrs. Clinton appears to have the upper hand in a general-election matchup against either Mr. Trump or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. But in either case, she’ll need Sanders voters to show up for her in the fall. And it appears that in a matchup against Mr. Trump, a fair share of her vote would come from people embracing her as the lesser of two evils.


The problem with the Sanders attacks is he is close to portraying her as at least representing a kind of evil in the system, which threatens to erode that particular advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hillary Clinton’s missing theme





Cattura98_zps0nvtzg7d.jpg




It ought to be easier than this. Having lost eight of the past nine primaries to an elderly socialist from Vermont, Hillary Clinton is finally expected to win in New York on Tuesday. Had she faced a stronger rival than Bernie Sanders, the Democratic nomination might once again be slipping from her grasp. Ditto for the general election.


Mrs Clinton’s weaknesses pale against the gargantuan flaws of her likely Republican rivals. So far she has been lucky in her opponents. But her lack of message could still prove her undoing. Reciting wish lists is not the same as offering an economic vision. As Winston Churchill said: “This pudding lacks a theme.”


Whatever else can be said of Mr Sanders, his dessert has form. He calls it the “moral economy”. To underline his message he even flew across the Atlantic on Friday to recite it to Pope Francis.



Its key ingredients are a promise to break up Wall Street’s biggest banks, introduce a UK-style single-payer healthcare system, abolish student debt and impose steep taxes on the rich



Donald Trump has a theme too, which is himself. The Republican frontrunner can negotiate better deals with China, Mexico and others than those losers in Washington. His recipe is also simple. Slap big tariffs on America’s largest trading partners and kick out America’s illegal immigrants. Likewise, Ted Cruz repeats a familiar shtick about shrinking the federal government and abolishing the Internal Revenue Service.


There may be a hermit in the Rockies who is unaware of what the other candidates are saying. Everyone else is clear. The opposite is true of Mrs Clinton. Indeed, the longer her campaign goes on, the more nebulous it becomes.


She launched it with a slick video in which she pronounced herself ready. It was unclear whether she meant she was ready for a gruelling campaign or whether America should prepare for a female president. The video showcased all sorts of people saying they were ready for this and that, but they did not converge on a single theme. Ready for what? A year later, the question still lacks an answer. The closest Mrs Clinton has come is promising “to build on the progress Barack Obama has made”. She needs to come up with something better.


Apologists for Mrs Clinton’s campaign make two defences. First, her mediocre retail skills have no bearing on the kind of president she would be. They have a point. George HW Bush was useless at the “vision thing” and yet was arguably America’s most effective foreign policy president of the last generation. Mr Obama’s soaring oratory only diverted attention from his lack of experience.


Among postwar US presidents, only Mr Bush’s qualifications could rival Mrs Clinton’s. He had been vice-president and director of the Central Intelligence Agency. She has been secretary of state and a US senator. The comparison is apt. But governing credentials do not help you to win the White House.




Second, Mrs Clinton’s apologists say she has an unrivalled grasp of the issues. Again, they have a point. Mrs Clinton can out-wonk the wonks on any of her chosen policies. The list of these is long. They include measures to check the excesses of quarterly capitalism, boosting federal investment in scientific research, regulating “shadow banks” rather than breaking up actual ones and investing in clean energy, infrastructure and other public goods.


The contrast between Mrs Clinton and her rivals is acute. Mr Sanders appears to have no clue how he would break up the banks or what would happen next. Mr Trump simply asserts that America would win with him in charge. Neither conveys a handle on the underlying complexities.


Nor, apparently, do they need to. Speaking to electorates is different to addressing courtrooms or McKinsey consultants. In politics it is not what you say but what people hear. Mrs Clinton’s problem is that half the voters fail to retain much of what she says. All those details start to crowd each other out. The other half are deaf to whatever she says since they believe she is a congenital liar. In an ordinary election this would pose a big problem for Mrs Clinton’s chances. It still may do so. So where does it go from here?


There are only two possibilities: win or lose. This is how Mrs Clinton is likely to win. Having seen off Mr Sanders, she takes the nomination in July. To appease Mr Sanders’ supporters she adopts some of his themes and promises him a role in her administration. The Republicans, meanwhile, have embraced civil war by choosing Mr Cruz as their nominee.


Mr Trump refuses to back him. Whether or not Mr Trump runs on a spoiler third-party ticket is detail. The election is lost the moment Republicans make an enemy of Mr Trump’s supporters. For that matter, it would also be lost the moment they nominated Mr Trump. Either way, he blows up the party. Note, however, that Mrs Clinton does not win. Republicans lose.


The second is that Mrs Clinton somehow contrives to squander her probable victory in November. Granted, this is the less likely scenario. But Mrs Clinton is capable of pulling it off. To be clear, my own view is that she would make a far better president than the others. But Mrs Clinton seems paralysed by her innate sense of caution. Unless she takes the risk of spelling out why she wants the job the prize may yet slip away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's obvious he would downplay the speculation on the nature of that meeting and regardless of the dynamics of how the meeting itself came about, it's hard to imagine that the Head of the most powerful State in the world, a State/Institution who has agents in organisations of very dubious nature such as Goldman Sachs etc etc, all things that have got nothing to do with "administering or representing God's will on Earth", is meeting a potential future US President because he just "happened to be there"

This Pope said/says many things. He often says how The Vatican doesn't want to interfere with Italian law-making on civil and human rights issues but unfortunately historically and factually speaking it doesn't correspond at all to the reality of things. I wouldn't take his word as proof of anything, as much as anyone else based on their role/"ranking" in society per se. The fake humanitarian edulcorated PR facade is quite disturbing, when you look at the facts beyond the talk.

Cue, very condescending, extremely poor rethoric talk about " who is The Church to judge "the gays? "(I mean, thanks, how generous of them! considering how most of its members are gay anyway :rotfl: comedy gold). And then when the Italian parliament tries for the umpteenth time in over a decade to pass a law not even for gay marriage but for simple civil union pacts which 80% of EU countries have now regulated and recognised, there's always some last minute untimely (oh so timely) intervention (meddling) from the CEI, The Vatican's direct arm in all Italian political affairs.

All of this amid a well known scenario of utter corruption, sexual crimes that systematically go unpunished (because the perpetrators cannot be tried in a lay tribunal, they simply get "relocated") and a declared unwillingness from the Vatican to cooperate with the most basic anti money laundering regulations that international treaties impose on any country on Earth

Well I don't disagree with any of that, I guess the only thing to do is see what happens over the next week and a half of pivotal primaries.

New York polls open in 9 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't disagree with any of that, I guess the only thing to do is see what happens over the next week and a half of pivotal primaries. New York polls open in 9 hours.

:thumbsup:

I am just curious to understand one thing, as far as the rules go there, if Hillary gets the highest number of delegates she will automatically get that nomination right? Or the last word lays within the party anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:thumbsup:

I am just curious to understand one thing, as far as the rules there go, if Hillary gets the highest number of delegates she will automatically get that nomination right? Or the last word lays within the party anyway?

2 types of delegates, pledged delegates and superdelegates. Pledged delegates are bound by the results of the primary elections for their states, while superdelegates are party officials who can vote however they wish (Bill and Hillary Clinton are both superdelegates, Bernie Sanders also became a superdelegate once he changed his party affiliation from Independent to Democratic last year, being a sitting Senator).

Superdelegates usually back whoever leads in pledged delegates, as they did in 2008 when they switched from supporting Clinton to Obama after he pulled ahead of her in pledged delegates - even Bill and Hillary Clinton both ended up voting for Obama in their capacity as superdelegates in that election. Clinton currently leads Sanders by over 200 in pledged delegates (and then has over 400 superdelegates on her side) so he needs to make up that pledged delegate difference in order to make the case for superdelegate support to switch over to him. They don't have to, but it would essentially be conceding the election for them to give her the nomination if he actually manages to make up that difference, due to the turmoil it would cause within the party.

They could theoretically switch over to Sanders even if he doesn't make up that difference, but the superdelegates are the kind of political figures that would be loyal to Clinton and the party machine, and unlikely to switch this time without her explicitly directing them to (the difference between Obama and Sanders, since Obama had a lot of support within the establishment of the Democratic party which didn't have much problem backing him).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...