• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shryke

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Canada -> Montreal/Toronto
  • Interests Games: Video, Sport and Board.

    Also, Women.

Previous Fields

  • Name David

Recent Profile Visitors

11,979 profile views
  1. He's not. Basically any information we have on his wealth and income suggests he's ALOT less rich then he boasts about.
  2. It's actually even funnier then this afaik. Because let's say something gets out into the public. It's published front page of the NYT. But that information is then labeled classified. Now an email discussing a front-page news story is labelled as containing classified information and has to be handled as such. There's also the fact that some of this stuff was things that weren't classified at the time they were sent but were classified afterwards. Really the whole question of that part of the email issue seems like a clusterfuck of bad policies.
  3. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    The Democratic Party it appears is not prepared to bend that far for Sanders:
  4. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Eh. I mean, yes on the one hand a large part of this behaviour can potentially be attributed to Sanders not giving a shit about the party itself because he's not a part of it and feels no loyalty to it. But at the same time it's a good thing for outside voices to try and come in and shift the party if they can get the support for it. That's how a party works. That's how you bring new people and new ideas into a party. And, quite frankly, I don't think the idea that he's not a party member is really the main issue here. Whether or not you identify as a Democrat, just being someone vaguely near the centre or to the left of it or just being someone sane with a brain in your head, you do not want Trump anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders himself expressed this opinion not long ago, although before his recent escalation. But that is straight up what Sanders is threatening hear. That's his leverage. A lack of party unity or whatever is not the core threat here, it's the idea that Trump could win. And that's something that goes beyond party politics and being invested in the Democratic party itself.
  5. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    He's threatening to drive the whole thing off a cliff if he doesn't get his way. Which also fits your first sentence actually.
  6. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Sanders now doubling down on his Trump-esque "gimme what I want or we riot in Philly: Full letter is there as well if you want to read it yourself and see what is specifically said. But yeah, this is apparently a thing now.
  7. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Yeah, no. Trump controls half the debate and can make 50% of it about whatever the fuck he feels like. And that would be shitting on Clinton and the Democrats while inviting Sanders to agree with him. The only way Sanders can not play along is to either completely ignore him or go back on his recent campaign stances and defend Clinton and the DNC and the like. So the best outcome here is only half the debate is an attack ad in Trump's favour. Of course the reality is Trump was probably never gonna go along with it because just accepting and then turning down the invitation gets him more then enough out of this. He gets his name in the headlines again for a few days and gets the news to again report on him shitting all over Clinton and the Democrats and rile up Sanders' supporters by pushing the idea that he was robbed of the nomination. It's almost the same outcome as the debate, but at no risk or downside. The idea that he "got trolled" here is farcical. Sanders just served him up an opportunity to shit all over all his opponents. And Sanders got ... nothing out of this. Except pissing off the Democratic Party even more since reports so far from other Senators and such are that they are pissed off at his bullshit over this. He tried to make a play to show that he was the one that could beat Trump, not Clinton, and all he got out of it was giving Trump a chance to call him a loser and attack Clinton and the Democrats. Like, look at his press statement. He doesn't say "I refuse to debate Sanders", he says "I will debate the real winner of the Democratic Primary, not some second-place loser who got his nomination stolen from him by crooked politicians". He backs out by saying Sanders is too pathetic to debate and gets to take a swipe at Clinton et all on the way.
  8. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Bashing Clinton is exactly what a Trump/Sanders debate would be about. That's the only reason Trump would do one. That's why his campaign considered it. Trump couldn't give a shit about Sanders except as a way to go after Clinton. He's taken the low-risk option though and just used the opportunity to do what he'd do on stage in a press release instead.
  9. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    As I said earlier, a debate would probably be an easy win for Trump because all he has to do is what he does in that statement above and just keep talking about how Clinton robbed Sanders of the nomination through dirty tricks and prompting Sanders to agree with him because he would be repeating what Sanders' campaign has already been saying for awhile now. This serves as an easy and very well publicised attack on Clinton and also as a way to weaken her and the Democratic Party by continuing to rile up Sanders' supporters against Clinton. The only real risk involved was either the debate ends up actually being about policy or Sanders doesn't play along and straight up scuttles his own campaign on live national television.
  10. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Trump has officially turned down the debate: So basically a lesser version of what he could have gotten out of the debate itself, but with no risk involved. Sanders gave him an easy opening to take a swipe at Clinton while trying to keep the angry Sanders supporter narrative going.
  11. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    I find this rather dubious considering the entire conclusion is based on polling data that they assume is caused by Sanders when the fact that Trump just won the nomination and got a bump from it is the more likely, or at least as likely, explanation.
  12. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    The crazy thing is how Trump lies, like, reflexively. He says something then a day later denies he said it, even though it's like on film. He just says whatever is on his mind at the time, at any time, regardless of what he's said before.
  13. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Aye. Part of the issue back then was Dean vs Rahm and Obama and others, sadly, sided with Rahm. A bad move as Rahm's subsequent actions have shown.
  14. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Why would she bother debating Sanders? It's over. She won. That's why she's already basically ignoring him. There's nothing to gain for her except giving Sanders more publicity and more chances to attack her on national television and give herself more chances to make an actual unforced error.
  15. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Seriously. Sanders has been handled with baby gloves this whole time because Clinton isn't interested in burning those bridges and the GOP doesn't want him to stop since they are mostly interested in his ability to weaken Clinton, who they've always seen as the actual opponent they will face. Sanders gives the GOP tons of easy angles to attack him from and many that both play well with their base and also allow them to frame themselves as defenders of the american way of life.