Shryke

Members
  • Content count

    43,890
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shryke

  • Rank
    The Wood of the Morning

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

11,726 profile views
  1. Uh no. Clinton agreed to do the debate and so did O'Malley. All they said was that they'd come if everyone else did. Sanders refused unless his conditions were met. And those conditions were not just "It must be sanctioned", but also included a bunch of other shit. And then when the other candidates agreed to that, he demanded more conditions. Your attempt to say they took the same stance is just flat out wrong. Even your own post shows it. Clinton's condition is that the candidates all agree to come. That's what her statement actually says. If everyone comes, the debate will get sanctioned one way or the other. Sanders' condition was that the debate be sanctioned and even more on top of that. And then when Clinton agreed to 3 more, he added even more conditions after that. Sanders has been dicking around on this issue for over a week now. He was the only one holding out and demanding multiple sets of conditions be met or he walks. He's the only one who turned this into a negotiation. The other two were more then happy to show up as long as everyone came. Sanders fear that he would be punished for attending the debate is horseshit. Cause all the candidates were going already. The DNC is not going to sanction all the candidates. (this, fyi, is what Clinton's statement actually says which you are completely misreading).
  2. There's so many layers between the actual voters and the final delegates at the Democratic Party convention that these numbers only matter for the narrative now and the end results are who the fuck knows.  In 2012 Ron Paul's people "stole" almost all the GOP delegates by gaming the system. Was kinda funny and utterly meaningless.
  3. Because he's been hammering the DNC about more debates for like 6 months now. He's been bitching that they are totally trying to bury the debates to coronate Clinton. Literally like a week before this he was all "I'll show up to any debate" on Maddow. So along comes an independant group, they make a debate time, they get a moderator, they ask the candidates to come. Clinton says sure. O'Malley says sure. Sanders immediately starts hedging and making conditions. Then, when the other candidates agree to his conditions, he demands even MORE conditions. He's dicking around like crazy over this all of a sudden. It's like he only wants to use the lack of debates as a fundraising pitch these days.
  4. That appears not to be true since Trump's entire twitter presence is based on childishness.
  5. Sanders finally stopped dicking around about it. I think he did agree to Clinton's request to hold one of them in Flint, which is good.
  6. Is that what it indicates though? That's sorta my point, I'm not sure that's what it says.
  7. There's some interesting exit polling on the Iowa Caucus re: Trump. He was, for instance, getting a more then 50% of new voters who turned up. I gotta look into it more, but there's definitely something there. I think Trump may do alot better in the coming primaries.
  8. I would wait for a few more states before thinking Trump's grassroots support is weak.
  9. You are contradicting yourself again. He's not depending on it and yet he's saying in his speech he's depending on it? Honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You said Sanders believes none of his agenda will be accomplished unless people follow through on the revolution that he's talking about. And since, as I've said, his revolution is a pipe-dream, then his agenda ain't gonna happen. According to you he's said his agenda depends on that revolution, which is why I said he is not the pragmatic politician that you contested he was in your original reply.   Also, enacting liberal reforms is not a pipe-dream and I never said that. Sanders idea of a political revolution is. But you don't need that kind of thing for liberal reforms.
  10. Also, this happened in Iowa on the GOP side: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/ted-cruz-ben-carson-apology/index.html I'd heard about this monday night and yes, it appears that it was true. Cruz's people told people Carson had dropped out and endorsed Cruz or something to that effect.
  11. Democrats didn't show up at midterms is what happened. And the Democratic Party is shit at running in local races. I don't even know what you are talking about with the WH "carefully try to protect their re-election". The president isn't up on the block in midterms.
  12. Asked and answered Sanders' idea of revolution in the 2016 election is a pipedream and if his agenda depends on it his agenda is gonna fail.
  13. Ha, yeah, this is actually the best example of the limits of the "power of the pulpit". There's a reason he's using executive action now. He's given up and admitted that it's the only way he can get anything done. And the next President ain't gonna change the truth of that.
  14. Uh, no. He didn't allow them to change the rules. Because 1) the rules didn't change at all, those rules had been there since the 70s and 2) Obama can't actually stop them cause he's not King of the Senate and can't actually make them do anything and thus can't actually allow something to happen. He could have tried more to engage public support but it wouldn't work for the same reason it hasn't worked any time between then and now. Because the public doesn't understand how Congress works and doesn't care about the minutia of political bureaucracy and because the Senate is an intransigent body that will not go letting the executive fuck with their power. Your entire characterization here is a really fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works.
  15. Yeah. Obama, imo, obviously really believed in the idea of changing the political climate in DC. Before he was even inaugurated, the GOP had decided to give him nothing. No cooperation would be allowed. His own party members fucked him on closing GITMO and specific provisions of his key legislation (Obamacare). Shit, even the stimulus was watered down before it was even proposed because they thought (correctly) they wouldn't be able pass anything much more ambitious then that. Clinton knew what she was talking about and it's still correct today. Obama spent years trying to get shit done, to mobilize public support and it just ain't gonna happen. The problem is the same one every time with guys like Sanders or Reich: trying to frame this as the people vs big money. As an issue of class. They never seem to consider that maybe alot of the people just don't agree with them. That these people have different priorities, different views of what america should be. That they don't think "I may disagree with Bernie Sanders on the abortion issue or the gay rights issue, but I know he’s fighting for me and my kids" but instead "Abortion is murder and Sanders is a murderer".